Re: [Vo]:Magnet Motor Video..Hmmmmm????? 267,500 hits- goes Viral.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: If theory predicted that it should run for x hours but instead ran much longer would it qualify as a true FE device? If it runs far longer ...then it merely supplies a more precise method for measuring the actual energy provided by your magnets! :) Experimenter's Regress, where experiments force alteration in theory, but where theory forces alteration in interpretation of experiments. Anyhow, I wonder how difficult it would be to *engineer* a magnet motor which drives itself against friction and runs for awhile before weakening its own magnets? Something with low friction so it could operate for significant time? What would such a device look like? (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Magnet Motor Video..Hmmmmm????? 267,500 hits- goes Viral.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:54 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: If theory predicted that it should run for x hours but instead ran much longer would it qualify as a true FE device? If it runs far longer ...then it merely supplies a more precise method for measuring the actual energy provided by your magnets! :) Experimenter's Regress, where experiments force alteration in theory, but where theory forces alteration in interpretation of experiments. Anyhow, I wonder how difficult it would be to *engineer* a magnet motor which drives itself against friction and runs for awhile before weakening its own magnets? Something with low friction so it could operate for significant time? What would such a device look like? Probably like the Takahashi Motor: http://www.world-enlightenment.com/OCR/Takahashi-Motor-Article/Takahashi-Motor-Article.htm Which was installed in the Sciex Motor Scooter that our own Chris Tinsley used to jaunt about London. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6954019.html T
RE: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
Mark, Thanks for remembering this thread. It is definitely worth revisiting in the context of a number of issues related to finding the proper and ultimate source of gain in Ni-H. I had actually delayed moving on to a Part 2 of this premise for a number of reasons including apparent lack of interest in the hypothesis: that hypothesis being that the proton alone has a modicum of excess mass to spare (to provide to a reaction). This would be in the sense of conversion of a bit of the non-quantized internal bosonic mass into energy - over and above whatever the average value of the proton turns out to be (or the minimum in that range). I was kind of picking on on the a.m.u. as a culprit in this earlier posting, knowing full well that long ago the definition of a.m.u. was effectively carved into stone (based on carbon mass and an average of fermions) and no longer related to real results in real experiments. I think it is time for me to go back to this old thread and try to glean and reword the relevant issues into a Part 2. Again, the major hypothesis, is that the net proton mass is not quantized, but is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention). At best, this value becomes what is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before recalibration. That average can vary a fractional percent or more, as either overage or deficit. The overage is in play as the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. Of course, some of that mass overage, when in play would be convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. That is where all of the mysteries of QCD, QM and QED comes into play. The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV but the quark component of protons is the only component which is relatively fixed with a fixed value; and at least one hundred MeV is in play. That is massive, but most of it must be retained since quarks are not mutually attractive without it. There is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton maintains its identity. Can this mass loss, if depleted (leading to quiescence) then can be replenished by exposure to a heavy nucleus (bringing the average mass of the proton back up)? That is the gist of our speculation relating to the major problem in moving forward. Jones _ From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Jones: You might want to follow this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg35942.html The quote from the PhysOrg article which starts the thread is this: So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture doesn't work and another that tells you the density-dependence picture doesn't work, Arrington explained. So, if both of these pictures are wrong, what's really going on? I know this doesn't speak directly to your point of the variability of the 'constant' referred to as the a.m.u., but I see that you did not participate in that thread and thought you might have missed it; it may have some relevance to the a.m.u. issue Clearly, there is still much to learn... ANYONE who says that LENR/CF is impossible is not a scientist... regardless of whether its 'real' fusion, or some variant. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene Here is a non-trolling shocker: The so called unit at the base of everything we know as stuff (matter) which is the atomic mass unit (a.m.u.) is a lie. That's right - at least it is a small lie in the sense that after all these years, it has no firm value when you look close enough. No one at CERN knows exactly what it is, or how variable it can be, after it is pumped down, so to speak. It is also a true lie since we now use an assigned value to define itself (by convention) but it is a lie nevertheless. We give it a value that is used to calibrate the instruments that detect it so it CANNOT vary by much. This is partly due to the inconvenient truth that the atomic mass unit is not exactly equivalent to an average between the mass of a proton (1.673 10-27 kg) and a neutron(1.675 10-27 kg). Essentially it is a variable within a close range, so that we overlook the problem of not having a true value. Plus most of the known universe is hydrogen, with no neutron - so one must ask - why should it be an average anyway? Plus (HUGE) when you start looking at raw data - the mass of proton is NOT always the value we suspect without recalibration - and in practice, the detectors of whatever variety - are essentially calibrated back to give what is suspected to be the known value. How convenient. Sometimes they are way-off without calibration. This all gets back to verisimilitude, as a philosophical matter, but it has a lot of
[Vo]:Cross-over technology
It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
I have been wondering about this as well. Experiments using such films with different dimensions of etched squares would be a good way of quantifying the way that the process depends on dimensions, which would in turn help us understand what exatcly is going on. Trying to get repeatable data from powders was always going to be difficult. Nigel On 03/02/2012 17:02, Jones Beene wrote: It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones
[Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
PESN had the following to say concerning the latest info on Rossi's attempt to get adequate patent protection: http://pesn.com/2012/02/02/9602025_E-Cat_Weekly_February2/ * * Patents - On January 17, 2012, T.O. wrote: I have a very good friend, that is high ranking, in the patent office and he said he would check where the application is in the process. - On January 31, 2012, T.O. wrote: I found out today that the E-Cat patent is through the security section and now is in a cue to be assigned to a Patent Examiner. My friend thought that at current workflow that it should be done by the end of the year. Of course things could change. He could not say if it would be approved or denied. When this was forwarded to Andrea Rossi on Feb. 2, he responded: Dear Sterling, we know. Warm Regards, A. * I assume Rossi is referring to his attempts to get adequate USA patent protection. At first glance what Rossi seems to be saying here does not strike me as terribly encouraging news. It's sounds so iffy to me. What would stop the USPO from denying Rossi's patent application as just another one of those infernal CF contraptions for which patent researchers were presumably told to discard? Or worse, what's to stop them from simply placing Rossi's application on-hold, perhaps because a new memo just came down the pipeline instructing that all new CF related applications be placed in a special folder where someone higher up in the food chain will deal with the matter - later. Much later. Comments? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Magnet Motor Video..Hmmmmm????? 267,500 hits- goes Viral.
Perhaps, someone could devise a long-running magnetic energy extractor building on the simple approach in: A Magnetic Linear Accelerator http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/lin_accel.pdf If so, I bet it would be popular in toy stores. William Beaty wrote: On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: If theory predicted that it should run for x hours but instead ran much longer would it qualify as a true FE device? If it runs far longer ...then it merely supplies a more precise method for measuring the actual energy provided by your magnets! :) Experimenter's Regress, where experiments force alteration in theory, but where theory forces alteration in interpretation of experiments. Anyhow, I wonder how difficult it would be to *engineer* a magnet motor which drives itself against friction and runs for awhile before weakening its own magnets? Something with low friction so it could operate for significant time? What would such a device look like? (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
Rossi is being a victim of himself, and only himself, by not making a clear patent. That's all I have to say. 2012/2/3 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com PESN had the following to say concerning the latest info on Rossi's attempt to get adequate patent protection: http://pesn.com/2012/02/02/9602025_E-Cat_Weekly_February2/ * * Patents - On January 17, 2012, T.O. wrote: I have a very good friend, that is high ranking, in the patent office and he said he would check where the application is in the process. - On January 31, 2012, T.O. wrote: I found out today that the E-Cat patent is through the security section and now is in a cue to be assigned to a Patent Examiner. My friend thought that at current workflow that it should be done by the end of the year. Of course things could change. He could not say if it would be approved or denied. When this was forwarded to Andrea Rossi on Feb. 2, he responded: Dear Sterling, we know. Warm Regards, A. * I assume Rossi is referring to his attempts to get adequate USA patent protection. At first glance what Rossi seems to be saying here does not strike me as terribly encouraging news. It's sounds so iffy to me. What would stop the USPO from denying Rossi's patent application as just another one of those infernal CF contraptions for which patent researchers were presumably told to discard? Or worse, what's to stop them from simply placing Rossi's application on-hold, perhaps because a new memo just came down the pipeline instructing that all new CF related applications be placed in a special folder where someone higher up in the food chain will deal with the matter - later. Much later. Comments? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
W-L theory is already dead in the water for Ni-H for two reasons: 1)There is no neutron activation, which could not be avoided if the theory was valid 2)The technology of ultra low temperature neutrons is well know and bears no resemblance to the invented species: ultra low momentum neutrons Note: SPAWAR claimed to see neutrons with deuterium - therefore W-L may apply to deuterium- not to Ni-H since no neutron is seen. They relatively are easy to detect when present. From: James Bowery The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? Jones Beene wrote: It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabr i%0d%0acation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
CERN has spent $ten billion and counting to verify how particles get their mass from the Higgs field. As I understand the Higgs theory (whose implications about the acquisition of mass by particles I might not fully comprehend) the Higgs mechanism is a process that is *universal and constant * throughout the universe for all matter contained therein. If mass depletion happens on *a per particle basis* as a process that underpins the quiescence conjecture in cold fusion, the decision makers who spent all those euros on proton smashing hardware are derelict in their lack of attention to the possibility of quiescence. Higgs theory and quiescence are not compatible or at least is very hard to be made compatible. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Mark, Thanks for remembering this thread. It is definitely worth revisiting in the context of a number of issues related to finding the proper and ultimate source of gain in Ni-H. I had actually delayed moving on to a Part 2 of this premise for a number of reasons including apparent lack of interest in the hypothesis: that hypothesis being that the proton alone has a modicum of excess mass to spare (to provide to a reaction). This would be in the sense of conversion of a bit of the non-quantized internal bosonic mass into energy - over and above whatever the average value of the proton turns out to be (or the minimum in that range). I was kind of picking on on the a.m.u. as a culprit in this earlier posting, knowing full well that long ago the definition of a.m.u. was effectively carved into stone (based on carbon mass and an average of fermions) and no longer related to real results in real experiments. I think it is time for me to go back to this old thread and try to glean and reword the relevant issues into a Part 2. Again, the major hypothesis, is that the net proton mass is not quantized, but is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention). At best, this value becomes what is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before recalibration. That average can vary a fractional percent or more, as either overage or deficit. The overage is in play as the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. Of course, some of that mass overage, when in play would be convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. That is where all of the mysteries of QCD, QM and QED comes into play. The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV but the quark component of protons is the only component which is relatively fixed with a fixed value; and at least one hundred MeV is in play. That is massive, but most of it must be retained since quarks are not mutually attractive without it. There is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton maintains its identity. Can this mass loss, if depleted (leading to quiescence) then can be replenished by exposure to a heavy nucleus (bringing the average mass of the proton back up)? That is the gist of our speculation relating to the major problem in moving forward. Jones _ From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Jones: You might want to follow this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg35942.html The quote from the PhysOrg article which starts the thread is this: So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture doesn't work and another that tells you the density-dependence picture doesn't work, Arrington explained. So, if both of these pictures are wrong, what's really going on? I know this doesn't speak directly to your point of the variability of the 'constant' referred to as the a.m.u., but I see that you did not participate in that thread and thought you might have missed it; it may have some relevance to the a.m.u. issue Clearly, there is still much to learn... ANYONE who says that LENR/CF is impossible is not a scientist... regardless of whether its 'real' fusion, or some variant. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene Here is a non-trolling shocker: The so called unit at the base of everything we know as stuff (matter) which is the atomic mass unit (a.m.u.) is a lie. That's right - at least it is a small lie in the sense that after all these years, it has no firm value when you look close enough. No one at CERN knows exactly what it is, or how variable it can be, after it is pumped down, so to speak. It is also a true lie since we now use an assigned value to define itself (by convention) but it is a lie nevertheless. We give it a value that is used to calibrate the instruments
Re: FW: [Vo]:ET - fly home?
Aside from all the speculation, ideas, notions, concepts and/or so-called technology being proposed, considered, persued, etc etc, I am convinced there is indeed ONE true system that will enable the vastness of interstellar space to be traveled, and/or ETI's AC's to exist among the stars in a whole complete 'other'capacity. THE system operates on a fairly simple principle, that will generate the very dynamic force that will enable a highly specified vehicle/craft to perform not only extrordinary maneuvers, but an altogether inconceivable speed as well. While it is this thing we tend to strive for, due to the simplicity and/or complexity, it therefore will tend to be regarded as unlikely or impossible. A athematical formulae can be used to determine the amount of force generated, and depending on variables in the dimensions, the amount will be significant. Basically, an imbalance of 1-lb would be applied to an SRC (spinning rotor center), which would spin at a very fast rate of at least 60,000 rpm's (1,000 Rps). This SRC would then be configured to spin very closely within a SHOE (stationary housing of electromagnetics (in-sections). The attraction-properties are induced by the SHOE into the SRC, thus compensating the imbalance, as the SRC spins.In doing-so will result in several tons of Centrifugal-force being generated. This is feasible or achievable because electromagnetic-properties have the potential to attract/pull at least a thousand X's their own weight (and altho that may be based-on direct-contact, a large percentage should be obtainable). Description of the SRC/SystemIn an hour-glass configuration (sideview only) configured within a dimension of (approx) the size of a larger-sized wheel/tire of an SUV. One part of the hour-glass would consist of a weight of 14-lbs w/ magnetic induced properties, and be referred to as the LW (live weight). The other part opposite the LW, would be the DW (dead weight), consisting of a weight of 15-lbs w/ 'no' properties. The SHOE would consist of 12-ea equal-portion sections, with any 2-ea side-by-side being equal in-size to the LW part of the SRC. To achieve propulsion, a significant amount of the TVW (total vehicle weight) would have to be generated, in-terms of the amount of C-force produced. If powerfully efficient materials are utilized, and/or new ones RD'd, this should be achievable.Simply by regulating energy via an RTOS (rapid timing order sequence) to any of the 2 (side-by-side) sections of the total 12- ea (so as to turn off on rapidly) movement or propulsion will result. Example A System would be situated to operate/spin in a vertical position, and an RTOS regulated to the bottom 2-ea sections of the SHOE, resulting in movement or propulsion in the opposite or 'up' direction. A powerful energy-source of course would be required (nuclear?) for the systems and vehicle they're used-in to operate in a powerfully efficient manner. Motorization could be directly-applied within each of the systems in-order for them to function efficiently, or peak performance. An appartus of some such would serve as platform for a working 1/4 scale prototype, to observe and/or establish data in the behavior, inputs, outputs. In a operational full-scale vehicle, 4-ea systems would be required, and/or evenly distributed, to carry a percentage of the TVW (total vehicle weight). 1-ea main larger system would be equal in-power to the 3-ea smaller systems. All systems would operate in a parallel position, with the 1-ea larger in the center of the vehicle/craft, to carry the main load. The 3-ea smaller would be located toward the outside at key-points of the main load or weight, which are used in the maneuvering. All of the systems are instrumental in propulsion maneuvers, but performance will ultimately depend on the use and/or development of 'Powerfully Efficient Materials'. Using this as a guide,
Re: FW: [Vo]:ET - fly home?
Aside from all the speculation, ideas, notions, concepts and/or so-called technology being proposed, considered, persued, etc etc, I am convinced there is indeed ONE true system that will enable the vastness of interstellar space to be traveled, and/or ETI's AC's to exist among the stars in a whole complete 'other'capacity. THE system operates on a fairly simple principle, that will generate the very dynamic force that will enable a highly specified vehicle/craft to perform not only extrordinary maneuvers, but an altogether inconceivable speed as well. While it is this thing we tend to strive for, due to the simplicity and/or complexity, it therefore will tend to be regarded as unlikely or impossible. A athematical formulae can be used to determine the amount of force generated, and depending on variables in the dimensions, the amount will be significant. Basically, an imbalance of 1-lb would be applied to an SRC (spinning rotor center), which would spin at a very fast rate of at least 60,000 rpm's (1,000 Rps). This SRC would then be configured to spin very closely within a SHOE (stationary housing of electromagnetics (in-sections). The attraction-properties are induced by the SHOE into the SRC, thus compensating the imbalance, as the SRC spins.In doing-so will result in several tons of Centrifugal-force being generated. This is feasible or achievable because electromagnetic-properties have the potential to attract/pull at least a thousand X's their own weight (and altho that may be based-on direct-contact, a large percentage should be obtainable). Description of the SRC/SystemIn an hour-glass configuration (sideview only) configured within a dimension of (approx) the size of a larger-sized wheel/tire of an SUV. One part of the hour-glass would consist of a weight of 14-lbs w/ magnetic induced properties, and be referred to as the LW (live weight). The other part opposite the LW, would be the DW (dead weight), consisting of a weight of 15-lbs w/ 'no' properties. The SHOE would consist of 12-ea equal-portion sections, with any 2-ea side-by-side being equal in-size to the LW part of the SRC. To achieve propulsion, a significant amount of the TVW (total vehicle weight) would have to be generated, in-terms of the amount of C-force produced. If powerfully efficient materials are utilized, and/or new ones RD'd, this should be achievable.Simply by regulating energy via an RTOS (rapid timing order sequence) to any of the 2 (side-by-side) sections of the total 12- ea (so as to turn off on rapidly) movement or propulsion will result. Example A System would be situated to operate/spin in a vertical position, and an RTOS regulated to the bottom 2-ea sections of the SHOE, resulting in movement or propulsion in the opposite or 'up' direction. A powerful energy-source of course would be required (nuclear?) for the systems and vehicle they're used-in to operate in a powerfully efficient manner. Motorization could be directly-applied within each of the systems in-order for them to function efficiently, or peak performance. An appartus of some such would serve as platform for a working 1/4 scale prototype, to observe and/or establish data in the behavior, inputs, outputs. In a operational full-scale vehicle, 4-ea systems would be required, and/or evenly distributed, to carry a percentage of the TVW (total vehicle weight). 1-ea main larger system would be equal in-power to the 3-ea smaller systems. All systems would operate in a parallel position, with the 1-ea larger in the center of the vehicle/craft, to carry the main load. The 3-ea smaller would be located toward the outside at key-points of the main load or weight, which are used in the maneuvering. All of the systems are instrumental in propulsion maneuvers, but performance will ultimately depend on the use and/or development of 'Powerfully Efficient Materials'. Using this as a guide,
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Aside from all the speculation, ideas, notions, concepts and/or so-called technology being proposed, considered, persued, etc etc, I am convinced there is indeed ONE true system that will enable the vastness of interstellar space to be traveled, and/or ETI's AC's to exist among the stars in a whole complete 'other'capacity. THE system operates on a fairly simple principle, that will generate the very dynamic force that will enable a highly specified vehicle/craft to perform not only extrordinary maneuvers, but an altogether inconceivable speed as well. While it is this thing we tend to strive for, due to the simplicity and/or complexity, it therefore will tend to be regarded as unlikely or impossible. A athematical formulae can be used to determine the amount of force generated, and depending on variables in the dimensions, the amount will be significant. Basically, an imbalance of 1-lb would be applied to an SRC (spinning rotor center), which would spin at a very fast rate of at least 60,000 rpm's (1,000 Rps). This SRC would then be configured to spin very closely within a SHOE (stationary housing of electromagnetics (in-sections). The attraction-properties are induced by the SHOE into the SRC, thus compensating the imbalance, as the SRC spins.In doing-so will result in several tons of Centrifugal-force being generated. This is feasible or achievable because electromagnetic-properties have the potential to attract/pull at least a thousand X's their own weight (and altho that may be based-on direct-contact, a large percentage should be obtainable). Description of the SRC/SystemIn an hour-glass configuration (sideview only) configured within a dimension of (approx) the size of a larger-sized wheel/tire of an SUV. One part of the hour-glass would consist of a weight of 14-lbs w/ magnetic induced properties, and be referred to as the LW (live weight). The other part opposite the LW, would be the DW (dead weight), consisting of a weight of 15-lbs w/ 'no' properties. The SHOE would consist of 12-ea equal-portion sections, with any 2-ea side-by-side being equal in-size to the LW part of the SRC. To achieve propulsion, a significant amount of the TVW (total vehicle weight) would have to be generated, in-terms of the amount of C-force produced. If powerfully efficient materials are utilized, and/or new ones RD'd, this should be achievable.Simply by regulating energy via an RTOS (rapid timing order sequence) to any of the 2 (side-by-side) sections of the total 12- ea (so as to turn off on rapidly) movement or propulsion will result. Example A System would be situated to operate/spin in a vertical position, and an RTOS regulated to the bottom 2-ea sections of the SHOE, resulting in movement or propulsion in the opposite or 'up' direction. A powerful energy-source of course would be required (nuclear?) for the systems and vehicle they're used-in to operate in a powerfully efficient manner. Motorization could be directly-applied within each of the systems in-order for them to function efficiently, or peak performance. An appartus of some such would serve as platform for a working 1/4 scale prototype, to observe and/or establish data in the behavior, inputs, outputs. In a operational full-scale vehicle, 4-ea systems would be required, and/or evenly distributed, to carry a percentage of the TVW (total vehicle weight). 1-ea main larger system would be equal in-power to the 3-ea smaller systems. All systems would operate in a parallel position, with the 1-ea larger in the center of the vehicle/craft, to carry the main load. The 3-ea smaller would be located toward the outside at key-points of the main load or weight, which are used in the maneuvering. All of the systems are instrumental in propulsion maneuvers, but performance will ultimately depend on the use and/or development of 'Powerfully Efficient Materials'. Using this as a guide,
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Aside from all the speculation, ideas, notions, concepts and/or so-called technology being proposed, considered, persued, etc etc, I am convinced there is indeed ONE true system that will enable the vastness of interstellar space to be traveled, and/or ETI's AC's to exist among the stars in a whole complete 'other'capacity. THE system operates on a fairly simple principle, that will generate the very dynamic force that will enable a highly specified vehicle/craft to perform not only extrordinary maneuvers, but an altogether inconceivable speed as well. While it is this thing we tend to strive for, due to the simplicity and/or complexity, it therefore will tend to be regarded as unlikely or impossible. A athematical formulae can be used to determine the amount of force generated, and depending on variables in the dimensions, the amount will be significant. Basically, an imbalance of 1-lb would be applied to an SRC (spinning rotor center), which would spin at a very fast rate of at least 60,000 rpm's (1,000 Rps). This SRC would then be configured to spin very closely within a SHOE (stationary housing of electromagnetics (in-sections). The attraction-properties are induced by the SHOE into the SRC, thus compensating the imbalance, as the SRC spins.In doing-so will result in several tons of Centrifugal-force being generated. This is feasible or achievable because electromagnetic-properties have the potential to attract/pull at least a thousand X's their own weight (and altho that may be based-on direct-contact, a large percentage should be obtainable). Description of the SRC/SystemIn an hour-glass configuration (sideview only) configured within a dimension of (approx) the size of a larger-sized wheel/tire of an SUV. One part of the hour-glass would consist of a weight of 14-lbs w/ magnetic induced properties, and be referred to as the LW (live weight). The other part opposite the LW, would be the DW (dead weight), consisting of a weight of 15-lbs w/ 'no' properties. The SHOE would consist of 12-ea equal-portion sections, with any 2-ea side-by-side being equal in-size to the LW part of the SRC. To achieve propulsion, a significant amount of the TVW (total vehicle weight) would have to be generated, in-terms of the amount of C-force produced. If powerfully efficient materials are utilized, and/or new ones RD'd, this should be achievable.Simply by regulating energy via an RTOS (rapid timing order sequence) to any of the 2 (side-by-side) sections of the total 12- ea (so as to turn off on rapidly) movement or propulsion will result. Example A System would be situated to operate/spin in a vertical position, and an RTOS regulated to the bottom 2-ea sections of the SHOE, resulting in movement or propulsion in the opposite or 'up' direction. A powerful energy-source of course would be required (nuclear?) for the systems and vehicle they're used-in to operate in a powerfully efficient manner. Motorization could be directly-applied within each of the systems in-order for them to function efficiently, or peak performance. An appartus of some such would serve as platform for a working 1/4 scale prototype, to observe and/or establish data in the behavior, inputs, outputs. In a operational full-scale vehicle, 4-ea systems would be required, and/or evenly distributed, to carry a percentage of the TVW (total vehicle weight). 1-ea main larger system would be equal in-power to the 3-ea smaller systems. All systems would operate in a parallel position, with the 1-ea larger in the center of the vehicle/craft, to carry the main load. The 3-ea smaller would be located toward the outside at key-points of the main load or weight, which are used in the maneuvering. All of the systems are instrumental in propulsion maneuvers, but performance will ultimately depend on the use and/or development of 'Powerfully Efficient Materials'. Using this as a guide,
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
It might well be that there are multiple reactions possible in the very broad concept of cold fusion. It is my current humble opinion that it is a mistake to try to cover all the instances of cold fusion with only one theory. One theory that might explain what is causing transmutation of elements in an electric arc of a Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reactor or in an exploding metal foil experiment might not fit what is happening inside a Rossi reactor or the ovaries of a chicken. The W-L theory might well apply to reactions involving high energy electrons; but I can’t see its application in a system involving the NiH reaction. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: W-L theory is already dead in the water for Ni-H for two reasons: ** ** **1)**There is no neutron activation, which could not be avoided if the theory was valid **2)**The technology of “ultra low temperature” neutrons is well know and bears no resemblance to the invented species: “ultra low momentum” neutrons ** ** Note: SPAWAR claimed to see neutrons with deuterium - therefore W-L may apply to deuterium– not to Ni-H since no neutron is seen. They relatively are easy to detect when present. ** ** ** ** *From:* James Bowery ** ** The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. ** ** However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. ** ** Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? ** ** Jones Beene wrote: ** ** It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri%0d%0acation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones ** **
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
I think ET is using an auto-dialler. Where's the intergalactic call blocker?
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One theory that might explain what is causing transmutation of elements in an electric arc of a Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reactor There is no electric arc in this reactor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
IMO, the quest to explain origin of inertia (mass) in terms of an energy field (higgs field) is topsy-turvy, because historically and logically the concept of inertia is more basic than than the concept energy. Energy is a derived concept. It is like trying to explain the origin of Judaism in terms of Christianity or Islam. Harry On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: CERN has spent $ten billion and counting to verify how particles get their mass from the Higgs field. As I understand the Higgs theory (whose implications about the acquisition of mass by particles I might not fully comprehend) the Higgs mechanism is a process that is universal and constant throughout the universe for all matter contained therein. If mass depletion happens on a per particle basis as a process that underpins the quiescence conjecture in cold fusion, the decision makers who spent all those euros on proton smashing hardware are derelict in their lack of attention to the possibility of quiescence. Higgs theory and quiescence are not compatible or at least is very hard to be made compatible. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Mark, Thanks for remembering this thread. It is definitely worth revisiting in the context of a number of issues related to finding the proper and ultimate source of gain in Ni-H. I had actually delayed moving on to a Part 2 of this premise for a number of reasons including apparent lack of interest in the hypothesis: that hypothesis being that the proton alone has a modicum of excess mass to spare (to provide to a reaction). This would be in the sense of conversion of a bit of the non-quantized internal bosonic mass into energy - over and above whatever the average value of the proton turns out to be (or the minimum in that range). I was kind of picking on on the a.m.u. as a culprit in this earlier posting, knowing full well that long ago the definition of a.m.u. was effectively carved into stone (based on carbon mass and an average of fermions) and no longer related to real results in real experiments. I think it is time for me to go back to this old thread and try to glean and reword the relevant issues into a Part 2. Again, the major hypothesis, is that the net proton mass is not quantized, but is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention). At best, this value becomes what is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before recalibration. That average can vary a fractional percent or more, as either overage or deficit. The overage is in play as the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. Of course, some of that mass overage, when in play would be convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. That is where all of the mysteries of QCD, QM and QED comes into play. The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV but the quark component of protons is the only component which is relatively fixed with a fixed value; and at least one hundred MeV is in play. That is massive, but most of it must be retained since quarks are not mutually attractive without it. There is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton maintains its identity. Can this mass loss, if depleted (leading to quiescence) then can be replenished by exposure to a heavy nucleus (bringing the average mass of the proton back up)? That is the gist of our speculation relating to the major problem in moving forward. Jones _ From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Jones: You might want to follow this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg35942.html The quote from the PhysOrg article which starts the thread is this: So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture doesn't work and another that tells you the density-dependence picture doesn't work, Arrington explained. So, if both of these pictures are wrong, what's really going on? I know this doesn't speak directly to your point of the variability of the 'constant' referred to as the a.m.u., but I see that you did not participate in that thread and thought you might have missed it; it may have some relevance to the a.m.u. issue Clearly, there is still much to learn... ANYONE who says that LENR/CF is impossible is not a scientist... regardless of whether its 'real' fusion, or some variant. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene Here is a non-trolling shocker: The so called unit at the base of everything we know as stuff (matter) which is the atomic mass unit (a.m.u.) is a lie. That's
Re: [Vo]:Magnet Motor Video..Hmmmmm????? 267,500 hits- goes Viral.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:54 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: If theory predicted that it should run for x hours but instead ran much longer would it qualify as a true FE device? If it runs far longer ...then it merely supplies a more precise method for measuring the actual energy provided by your magnets! :) Experimenter's Regress, where experiments force alteration in theory, but where theory forces alteration in interpretation of experiments. I am assuming one already knows how much energy was required to imbue the magnets with magnetism. This energy would be used to predict how long the device should run. If the device ran considerably longer then wouldn't that be considered evidence of FE? Anyhow, I wonder how difficult it would be to *engineer* a magnet motor which drives itself against friction and runs for awhile before weakening its own magnets? Something with low friction so it could operate for significant time? What would such a device look like? harry
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: I assume Rossi is referring to his attempts to get adequate USA patent protection. INAL, and maybe Beene or Ransom will interject here but, does not Rossi already have patent protection having filed his patent? He can build eCats and start shipping with a patent pending label. He's gonna need a gaggle of lawyers to enforce this patent anyway after he starts rolling in the megabucks. (Or is that a murder of lawyers?) T
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
INAL = me no lawyer. I meant IANAL but, geeze, I'm not anally retentive either. T On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: I assume Rossi is referring to his attempts to get adequate USA patent protection. INAL, and maybe Beene or Ransom will interject here but, does not Rossi already have patent protection having filed his patent? He can build eCats and start shipping with a patent pending label. He's gonna need a gaggle of lawyers to enforce this patent anyway after he starts rolling in the megabucks. (Or is that a murder of lawyers?) T
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
Terry sez: INAL = me no lawyer. I meant IANAL but, geeze, I'm not anally retentive either. When I first saw INAL I immediately went to an online acronym finder to decipher what Terry was saying cuz I really didn't have a clue. See: http://www.acronymfinder.com/INAL.html INAL stands for I'm not a lawyer Rest assured, Terry. You were never INAL retentive on this particular topic. I'm not so sure about other topics however! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
PS: INAL could also stand for I need a life. Try substituting that for interpreting what Terry really meant to say Just trying to give Terry a hard time. ;-b Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
An executive has fiduciary responsibility to his stockholders. This means he must pursue due diligence regarding the protection of the assets of the company. Since the USPTO has made the patentability status of cold fusion claims unclear, for Rossi to expose his trade secret in a patent disclosure could be viewed as a breach of fiduciary responsibility. Snipers who aren't under this sort of responsibility who demand that Rossi trust the USPTO to act in a rational manner are not to be taken seriously. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi is being a victim of himself, and only himself, by not making a clear patent. That's all I have to say. 2012/2/3 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com PESN had the following to say concerning the latest info on Rossi's attempt to get adequate patent protection: http://pesn.com/2012/02/02/9602025_E-Cat_Weekly_February2/ * * Patents - On January 17, 2012, T.O. wrote: I have a very good friend, that is high ranking, in the patent office and he said he would check where the application is in the process. - On January 31, 2012, T.O. wrote: I found out today that the E-Cat patent is through the security section and now is in a cue to be assigned to a Patent Examiner. My friend thought that at current workflow that it should be done by the end of the year. Of course things could change. He could not say if it would be approved or denied. When this was forwarded to Andrea Rossi on Feb. 2, he responded: Dear Sterling, we know. Warm Regards, A. * I assume Rossi is referring to his attempts to get adequate USA patent protection. At first glance what Rossi seems to be saying here does not strike me as terribly encouraging news. It's sounds so iffy to me. What would stop the USPO from denying Rossi's patent application as just another one of those infernal CF contraptions for which patent researchers were presumably told to discard? Or worse, what's to stop them from simply placing Rossi's application on-hold, perhaps because a new memo just came down the pipeline instructing that all new CF related applications be placed in a special folder where someone higher up in the food chain will deal with the matter - later. Much later. Comments? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:47:43 -0600: Hi, [snip] The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? [snip] Not sure about W-L, but Mills' Hydrinos would be pretty much confirmed if heat output peaked around a quantized set of dimensions, namely:- 45.589 nm divided by a whole number, thus 45.589nm, 22.795nm, 15.196nm etc. 45.589 is the wavelength of a photon with an energy of 27.2 eV, and the others are harmonics thereof. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
From James, An executive has fiduciary responsibility to his stockholders. This means he must pursue due diligence regarding the protection of the assets of the company. Since the USPTO has made the patentability status of cold fusion claims unclear, for Rossi to expose his trade secret in a patent disclosure could be viewed as a breach of fiduciary responsibility. Snipers who aren't under this sort of responsibility who demand that Rossi trust the USPTO to act in a rational manner are not to be taken seriously. Daniel, I know you've already said that you've said everything you want to say on this topic, but do you have anything more you might like to add to Jame's commentary? I seem to recall that you have some first-hand knowledge of how a patent office works. As for me, INAL either, but I would speculate that Rossi's current patent would be defined by a gaggle of lawyers as having been written so badly that it would offer little or no protection against all forms of illegal attempts to reverse engineer the Andrea's work. James, you seem to be saying that under the current climate Rossi is in a catch-22 situation. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't. Did I miss something here? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
...what is happening inside ...the ovaries of a chicken. http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm ?? - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology It might well be that there are multiple reactions possible in the very broad concept of cold fusion. It is my current humble opinion that it is a mistake to try to cover all the instances of cold fusion with only one theory. One theory that might explain what is causing transmutation of elements in an electric arc of a Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reactor or in an exploding metal foil experiment might not fit what is happening inside a Rossi reactor or the ovaries of a chicken. The W-L theory might well apply to reactions involving high energy electrons; but I can’t see its application in a system involving the NiH reaction. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: W-L theory is already dead in the water for Ni-H for two reasons: 1)There is no neutron activation, which could not be avoided if the theory was valid 2)The technology of “ultra low temperature” neutrons is well know and bears no resemblance to the invented species: “ultra low momentum” neutrons Note: SPAWAR claimed to see neutrons with deuterium - therefore W-L may apply to deuterium– not to Ni-H since no neutron is seen. They relatively are easy to detect when present. From: James Bowery The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? Jones Beene wrote: It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:47:47 -0800: Hi, [snip] There is nothing to be gained from a logical perspective by being there in person, as we may find out in our collective future, Newt notwithstanding. Especially not if you hold the less controversial view that so-called remote viewing is not only possible, but can be made robust using technology. Combine that with directed meme influence and this explains everything about UFOs and ETs. Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV) is a hot topic these days, and I'm sure you know more about it than I do, but Puthoff could be correct on many issues we follow here, and this is yet another one. I am beginning to suspect that there is a Heisenberg uncertainty aspect to remote viewing. The more clearly something is seen, the less is known about where or when it is. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:47:47 -0800: Hi, [snip] The proof could be found a special kind of data processor designed for one thing - ostensibly - but which will document the nature of remote information transfer directly. In effect, it will allow ET to call on a dedicated line. [snip] See http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/arecibo.html . Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:ET - Call home
RV stuff is too tricky and approximate to be reliable. They made over 100K on silver futures but could never do it again. Russell Targ's daughter did predictive viewing of roulette at the top of the hour and got asked to leave casinos but could only specify red or black. The big thing to consider about aliens is how deeply different their thinking must be. We live in a world of scarcity and necessity and they (likely) don't - having access to all the raw materials and energy they could possibly want. I don't see cost of travel or whatever coming up. According to some, ETs are interested in our world because of our extreme diversity of species or because they have some interest in 'souls' and our afterlife (Linda Moulton Howe, are greys time travellers?) or because we need to be controlled as to nuclear weapons ( Roswell, Manstein Air Base, interference with antimissile tests and more)
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
IAAL, does that stand for I am a lawyer, anyway, I am not a patent lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with Rossi is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers will likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a product. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 3, 2012, at 3:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From James, An executive has fiduciary responsibility to his stockholders. This means he must pursue due diligence regarding the protection of the assets of the company. Since the USPTO has made the patentability status of cold fusion claims unclear, for Rossi to expose his trade secret in a patent disclosure could be viewed as a breach of fiduciary responsibility. Snipers who aren't under this sort of responsibility who demand that Rossi trust the USPTO to act in a rational manner are not to be taken seriously. Daniel, I know you've already said that you've said everything you want to say on this topic, but do you have anything more you might like to add to Jame's commentary? I seem to recall that you have some first-hand knowledge of how a patent office works. As for me, INAL either, but I would speculate that Rossi's current patent would be defined by a gaggle of lawyers as having been written so badly that it would offer little or no protection against all forms of illegal attempts to reverse engineer the Andrea's work. James, you seem to be saying that under the current climate Rossi is in a catch-22 situation. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't. Did I miss something here? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Name that tune
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:34:59 -0800: Hi, [snip] Especially since the implication of this is that the triggering is via resistance heating (what else could it be operating at 24 VDC?) ... and You need at least 20 V to ionize most atoms to create free electrons which can then form a negative ion. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Robin comments on Heisenberg Uncertainty applied to remote viewing: I am beginning to suspect that there is a Heisenberg uncertainty aspect to remote viewing. The more clearly something is seen, the less is known about where or when it is. :) I think this could also apply to Rossi's progress toward commercialization! :-) -mark
RE: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
I am jumping the gun a bit by posting some older background information on the interplay between particle size and another variable ... one that can be called roughness, structure, or specifically fractal structure. The gentleman who brought this to my attention is not yet a vortex subscriber, but hopefully he will be soon. (if Bill has reopened the forum by now). Anyway, the background of why all of this could be important to Ni-H should be explained for those who missed prior postings relating to a DCE (dynamical Casimir effect) ... or to FRET (Forster Radiant Energy Transfer) which is turn could be the predecessor event(s) for secondary reactions, including nuclear or suprachemical. Just a few months ago, a proposed metamaterial structure (to test for a predicted large Casimir effect) - drew some interest. There is a paper on ArXiv - Huge Casimir effect at finite temperature in electromagnetic Rindler space. Here is the story on a blog: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/proposed-metamaterial-structure-to-test.htm l And before that Fractal antenna arrays proposed as energy source appeared a couple of years ago. If it ever went anywhere towards experimental proof, the news has not leaked out. http://pesn.com/2009/10/31/9501584_Fractal_antenna_arrays_as_energy_source/ Anyway - there are several novel connection between fractals, anomalous energy gain and active geometry, which keep coming up in the literature. The geometry somehow alters spacetime - and it is more than the actual spatial dimensions in nm, but also the layout. Fran Roarty has covered similar ideas on his blog. These have a common thread in that there is a known dynamic Casimir effect (DCE) which can supply tiny excess energy due to spatial constraints (i.e. altered spacetime). Consider also: 'Minkowski Space' is related to 'Rindler Space' and also to 'De Sitter Space.' It is possible that all three of these terms relate to a unique fractal of space-time (using 'fractal' in the original sense of a fractional dimension) which becomes accessible at the Forster radius of 2-12 nm. This is NOT normal 3-space, nor is it 2-space but somewhere in between. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space Look at the image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_spacetime in the context of this article http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.1919v1.pdf This all fits together in a way that is not easy to verbalize, but it seems to involve 1) Double vortex 2) Vortex flipping and self-oscillation 3) Spatial geometry that relates to the Forster radius 4) Exaggerated vibrational modes 5) Is not always a gain in temperature - sometimes a loss is evident. The problem is that this analysis is an early attempt to merge mathematical-space with real space. I am hoping that verbalize these issues is less of a problem for someone who understands all of this, especially fractal space and time - better than I do. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: in the context of this article http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.1919v1.pdf It's very annoying when they don't give the titles of their references. It helps determine why they pursue the idea they are writing. It sure looks like they are pursuing FE with a passion. T
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
At 05:21 PM 2/3/2012, Randy Wuller wrote: IAAL, does that stand for I am a lawyer, anyway, I am not a patent lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with Rossi is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers will likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a product. This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based on an assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a patent that claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that patents for perpetual motion machines are impossible. However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many failed cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available. My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears to be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but if there is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion should not be claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not important, if the device clearly has the major claimed use. It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still impossible, but the conditions would have been set up for a legal challenge to the USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been granted for electrodes used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, where the primary claim did not mention excess energy. But subsidiary claims did. It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means I'm not a lawyer. But I do have some idea of the legal issues. The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or protection. If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the technology, the inventor may still be able to claim the protection of patent law, in court. But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, which is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many times. Maybe he thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, maybe, maybe. I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well know things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions based on less knowledge
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
I think the assumption must be that Rossi has a device which will work, otherwise there is not much point in this speculation. If Rossi's device works, I think he will get his patent if the application is properly written and complies with the application requirements. However, that doesn't mean litigation wouldn't follow, but it would likely be Rossi instituting the action to protect his intellectual property. In other words, IF this happens it will likely follow this sequence: 1) Rossi will start selling a product based on Cold Fusion/LENR based on a patent application. 2) His device works and everyone and their uncle researches it/ reverse engineers it or developments a revised slightly different alternative. 3) Rossi brings suit against the competition to enforce his patent, and the lawyers have some fun. I think this all happens without a grant of patent from the patent office, but even with one the same thing happens. Ransom This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based on an assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a patent that claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that patents for perpetual motion machines are impossible. However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many failed cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available. My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears to be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but if there is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion should not be claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not important, if the device clearly has the major claimed use. It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still impossible, but the conditions would have been set up for a legal challenge to the USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been granted for electrodes used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, where the primary claim did not mention excess energy. But subsidiary claims did. It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means I'm not a lawyer. But I do have some idea of the legal issues. The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or protection. If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the technology, the inventor may still be able to claim the protection of patent law, in court. But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, which is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many times. Maybe he thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, maybe, maybe. I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well know things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions based on less knowledge
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
Sure, Rossi is basically cornering himself. He could license and protect right now his invention, given that patents, unlike trademarks, are granted provisional protection from the day it was filed. 2012/2/3 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 05:21 PM 2/3/2012, Randy Wuller wrote: IAAL, does that stand for I am a lawyer, anyway, I am not a patent lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with Rossi is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers will likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a product. This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based on an assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a patent that claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that patents for perpetual motion machines are impossible. However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many failed cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available. My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears to be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but if there is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion should not be claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not important, if the device clearly has the major claimed use. It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still impossible, but the conditions would have been set up for a legal challenge to the USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been granted for electrodes used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, where the primary claim did not mention excess energy. But subsidiary claims did. It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means I'm not a lawyer. But I do have some idea of the legal issues. The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or protection. If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the technology, the inventor may still be able to claim the protection of patent law, in court. But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, which is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many times. Maybe he thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, maybe, maybe. I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well know things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions based on less knowledge -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
Jones: Just adding to the 'clues'... this from my posting Dec.17, 2011. Look for phi-ratios in the numbers... -Mark = Golden ratio hints at hidden atomic symmetry Jan. 7, 2010 Courtesy Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres and World Science By tuning the system the researchers found that the chain of atoms acts like a guitar string whose tension comes from interaction between the spins of the constituent particles. For these interactions we found a series, or scale, of resonant notes, said Radu Coldea of Oxford University, who led the research. The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other, added Coldea, principle author of a paper on the findings to appear in the Jan. 8 issue of the research journal Science. The pitch of these notes, or their frequencies of vibration, are in a ratio of about 1.618, the same as the golden ratio famous from art and architecture, he continued. If two numbers are related by the golden ratio, their sum is also related to the larger of them by the golden ratio. In other words, if A divided by B is that special number, then A+B divided by A is the same number. = attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
There are real problems with his patent. Not only is there a host of un-cited prior art, patent and public domain, but his existing patent application has limited application to even his current product line. IANAL, but his patent application centers on the physical construction of his early tube reactor construction, and seems to only gloss over the underlying process. He cannot patent the Ni-H by itself, because it's prior art. He refused to divulge the catalyst, so he's unprotected. It's messy, but it is what it is. Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, Rossi is basically cornering himself. He could license and protect right now his invention, given that patents, unlike trademarks, are granted provisional protection from the day it was filed. 2012/2/3 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 05:21 PM 2/3/2012, Randy Wuller wrote: IAAL, does that stand for I am a lawyer, anyway, I am not a patent lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with Rossi is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers will likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a product. This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based on an assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a patent that claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that patents for perpetual motion machines are impossible. However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many failed cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available. My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears to be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but if there is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion should not be claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not important, if the device clearly has the major claimed use. It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still impossible, but the conditions would have been set up for a legal challenge to the USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been granted for electrodes used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, where the primary claim did not mention excess energy. But subsidiary claims did. It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means I'm not a lawyer. But I do have some idea of the legal issues. The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or protection. If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the technology, the inventor may still be able to claim the protection of patent law, in court. But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, which is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many times. Maybe he thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, maybe, maybe. I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well know things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions based on less knowledge -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
We don't know yet if his catalyst is unprotected. There is a secret period of 18months after filing. 2012/2/3 Robert robert.leguil...@hotmail.com There are real problems with his patent. Not only is there a host of un-cited prior art, patent and public domain, but his existing patent application has limited application to even his current product line. IANAL, but his patent application centers on the physical construction of his early tube reactor construction, and seems to only gloss over the underlying process. He cannot patent the Ni-H by itself, because it's prior art. He refused to divulge the catalyst, so he's unprotected. It's messy, but it is what it is. Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, Rossi is basically cornering himself. He could license and protect right now his invention, given that patents, unlike trademarks, are granted provisional protection from the day it was filed. 2012/2/3 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 05:21 PM 2/3/2012, Randy Wuller wrote: IAAL, does that stand for I am a lawyer, anyway, I am not a patent lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with Rossi is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers will likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a product. This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based on an assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a patent that claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that patents for perpetual motion machines are impossible. However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many failed cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available. My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears to be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but if there is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion should not be claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not important, if the device clearly has the major claimed use. It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still impossible, but the conditions would have been set up for a legal challenge to the USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been granted for electrodes used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, where the primary claim did not mention excess energy. But subsidiary claims did. It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means I'm not a lawyer. But I do have some idea of the legal issues. The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or protection. If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the technology, the inventor may still be able to claim the protection of patent law, in court. But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, which is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many times. Maybe he thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, maybe, maybe. I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well know things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions based on less knowledge -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
From the Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54964-2004Nov16_2.html : Research money has dried up. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to grant a patent on any invention claiming cold fusion. According to Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents, this is for the same reason it wouldn't give one for a perpetual motion machine: It doesn't work. No one has yet countered my argument. Merely asserting what you think the USPTO will do under various circumstances and merely asserting what you think the relative risks are to the net present value of the intellectual property of keeping it a trade secret is to skirt the issue. You aren't the one responsible for the loss of value if it occurs. You can offer an opinion of what you would do in Rossi's shoes but that is all you are doing. You aren't there. He is. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know yet if his catalyst is unprotected. There is a secret period of 18months after filing. 2012/2/3 Robert robert.leguil...@hotmail.com There are real problems with his patent. Not only is there a host of un-cited prior art, patent and public domain, but his existing patent application has limited application to even his current product line. IANAL, but his patent application centers on the physical construction of his early tube reactor construction, and seems to only gloss over the underlying process. He cannot patent the Ni-H by itself, because it's prior art. He refused to divulge the catalyst, so he's unprotected. It's messy, but it is what it is. Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, Rossi is basically cornering himself. He could license and protect right now his invention, given that patents, unlike trademarks, are granted provisional protection from the day it was filed. 2012/2/3 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 05:21 PM 2/3/2012, Randy Wuller wrote: IAAL, does that stand for I am a lawyer, anyway, I am not a patent lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with Rossi is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers will likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a product. This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based on an assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a patent that claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that patents for perpetual motion machines are impossible. However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many failed cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available. My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears to be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but if there is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion should not be claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not important, if the device clearly has the major claimed use. It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still impossible, but the conditions would have been set up for a legal challenge to the USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been granted for electrodes used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, where the primary claim did not mention excess energy. But subsidiary claims did. It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means I'm not a lawyer. But I do have some idea of the legal issues. The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or protection. If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the technology, the inventor may still be able to claim the protection of patent law, in court. But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, which is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many times. Maybe he thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, maybe, maybe. I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well know things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions based on less knowledge -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Google insights shows a burst of interest in LENR
Michele Comitini sent me this link: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=lenrcmpt=q Neat, eh? LENR-CANR.org traffic has also increase, but not to this extent. The map shows that most of the interest is in the U.S. and Italy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Google insights shows a burst of interest in LENR
Most of it is from Italy! Haha :) 2012/2/3 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Michele Comitini sent me this link: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=lenrcmpt=q Neat, eh? LENR-CANR.org traffic has also increase, but not to this extent. The map shows that most of the interest is in the U.S. and Italy. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
In reply to Robert Lynn's message of Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:56:00 +: Hi, [snip] I believe Rossi operates at about 25bar (350psi). Doesn't his patent app. say 2-20 bar? If so then one could probably get something to work (for demonstration purposes) near the lower end of the scale. It may not be as efficient, but you aren't trying to out compete him, just to see if it works at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection
I don't understand your point, of course Rossi is faced with a difficult choice, and of course it is easy for us to say what we would do in his shoes, since we aren't, but ultimately, Rossi has no real choice. If he is ever going to make the fortune he obviously desires, he needs to risk no patent and prove and sell his product. His only other choice he seems to have passed up, prove cold fusion and live off the lecture tour. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: From the Washington Post: Research money has dried up. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to grant a patent on any invention claiming cold fusion. According to Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents, this is for the same reason it wouldn't give one for a perpetual motion machine: It doesn't work. No one has yet countered my argument. Merely asserting what you think the USPTO will do under various circumstances and merely asserting what you think the relative risks are to the net present value of the intellectual property of keeping it a trade secret is to skirt the issue. You aren't the one responsible for the loss of value if it occurs. You can offer an opinion of what you would do in Rossi's shoes but that is all you are doing. You aren't there. He is. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know yet if his catalyst is unprotected. There is a secret period of 18months after filing. 2012/2/3 Robert robert.leguil...@hotmail.com There are real problems with his patent. Not only is there a host of un-cited prior art, patent and public domain, but his existing patent application has limited application to even his current product line. IANAL, but his patent application centers on the physical construction of his early tube reactor construction, and seems to only gloss over the underlying process. He cannot patent the Ni-H by itself, because it's prior art. He refused to divulge the catalyst, so he's unprotected. It's messy, but it is what it is. Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, Rossi is basically cornering himself. He could license and protect right now his invention, given that patents, unlike trademarks, are granted provisional protection from the day it was filed. 2012/2/3 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 05:21 PM 2/3/2012, Randy Wuller wrote: IAAL, does that stand for I am a lawyer, anyway, I am not a patent lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with Rossi is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers will likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a product. This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based on an assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a patent that claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that patents for perpetual motion machines are impossible. However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many failed cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available. My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears to be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but if there is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion should not be claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not important, if the device clearly has the major claimed use. It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still impossible, but the conditions would have been set up for a legal challenge to the USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been granted for electrodes used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, where the primary claim did not mention excess energy. But subsidiary claims did. It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means I'm not a lawyer. But I do have some idea of the legal issues. The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or protection. If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the technology, the inventor may still be able to claim the protection of patent law, in court. But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, which is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many times. Maybe he thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, maybe, maybe. I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well know things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions based on less knowledge -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Clues...
Food for thought... I'm looking at wikipedia's List of elementary particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles and all Quarks and Leptons have an opposite (antiwhatever)... and the three charged leptons (i.e., electron, muon and tau) each have integer spin. I would argue, and this fits perfectly with my qualitative physical model, that as far as the leptons as concerned, the elementary 'particles' (e.g., electron and antielectron (positron)) are simply the two opposites of a dipolar oscillation; and likewise for the muon and tau leptons and their anti-particles... The oscillations are occurring so fast that we cannot, as of this date, distinguish the frequency of the oscillation, and thus, we PERCIEVE them to be separate entities. The more I delve into the details, the more I see agreement with the physical model which has been built up over the years... Enjoy the SuperBowl commercials! They're not nearly as good as they used to be... -Mark attachment: winmail.dat
