date:20140928

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

The patent examiner will want a solid believable theory for LENR operation
 before a patent is granted.


That is incorrect. The Patent Office never demands a theory. It is a big
mistake to present a theory. Read the papers by David French explaining why.

The Patent Office normally demands only one thing:

A complete description with the best of the inventor's knowledge about how
to make the machine. The description must be good enough a that a person
having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) can replicate.

In a few cases, such as this one, the Patent Office also demands
experimental proof that the device works. In my opinion, this is entirely
reasonable in Rossi's case, and in the Swartz's case, which Rossi cites.
The first and second ELFORSK tests are proof that the device works. I do
not know if they are good enough proof for the Patent Office. In my
opinion, the first test would not be good enough. Obviously I have not seen
the second test.

Theory is NEVER a consideration, unless the inventor makes it a
consideration by including it. This weakens the patent because even if the
device works, if the theory turns out to be wrong, the patent may be
invalid.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

From: Eric Walker 

 

Just a wild, uninformed guess, but I wonder if this request is a moonshot by 
the patent attorneys to keep the 2010 patent application in play.  Rossi 
probably needs to file a new patent application.  I'm guessing that a new 
application would look pretty different in its details.

 

Eric

 

This is exactly right but Rossi has already admitted to having other patent 
applications in the filing stage - which have not been published. The “noise” 
at USPTO on Rossi’s behalf could be designed to both to keep “something” in 
play, but additionally to also provide a high level of disinformation to patent 
trolls who have already tried to “claim jump” Rossi. 

 

It is clear that Rossi has never understood what is going on in this reaction, 
which is only slightly different from the earlier devices of Thermacore (1992) 
and Mills (2003). Boron had been included in the original filing 5 years ago 
because Focardi probably thought neutrons were to be found. There were none - 
but nevertheless, keeping this detail in the filing can only be classified as 
disinformation.

 

As for the patent trolls who may be trying to claim jump Rossi, as we speak, 
see:

https://www.google.com/patents/US20140099252?dq=E-Cat 
https://www.google.com/patents/US20140099252?dq=E-Cathl=ensa=Xei=Mh8oVJWsKMiTyAT2yoK4Bgved=0CGoQ6AEwCQ
 hl=ensa=Xei=Mh8oVJWsKMiTyAT2yoK4Bgved=0CGoQ6AEwCQ

 

As for the patent which most resembles the Hot-Cat, it is probably this one:

“Molecular hydrogen laser” US 7773656 to Mills. Of course, Rossi’s device is 
not a laser, but in operation it is closer than you may realized unless you 
have followed the SPP discussions. Fortunately for Rossi, the Hot-Cat uses the 
intense level of internal photon light to generate SPP which then keep the 
reaction going. We can see evidence of this intense photon level in some of the 
images of the HT. Mills’ laser, like so many of his other devices, “went 
nowhere,” commercially - and there appears to be no evidence that it was ever 
reduced to practice. Mills was most like unaware of SPP.

 

Rossi’s patent attorney would have been smart to go for a patent of the Hot-Cat 
as a new use for an existing device (the BLP laser). These are called 
“Improvement” patents, and often are more valuable than the originating patent. 
The example of this, which Nolo Press uses under the category of “New Uses for 
Existing Inventions” is humorous. It was the simple idea of using an existing 
product called “Bag Balm” – which was a patented ointment used to soothe cow 
udders in milk processing - to treat human baldness. The court found this 
patentable as a new use of a known product. 

 

The new patent turned out to be extremely valuable; and it is not exactly a the 
work of a patent troll; since the use was apparently non-obvious (although the 
Dairyman who got the first patent was known to have unusually thick Ron-Reagan 
hair at old age :-)

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 It is clear that Rossi has never understood what is going on in this
 reaction, which is only slightly different from the earlier devices of
 Thermacore (1992) and Mills (2003).


No, experts tell this is quite different from Themacore or Mills. It is
powder instead of bulk material. From the point of view of a patent this is
a huge  critical difference. I don't know about the physics point of view.
Patents are never about physics. They are about function. They are about
engineering. (See the papers by David French.)

Rossi's patent resembles Arata's. Rossi's own lawyers wrote many responses
trying to distinguish it from Arata. These responses were not convincing in
my opinion. If the Patent Office decides the two are are similar, that does
not mean Rossi does not get a patent. It means people who license the
technology have to pay both Rossi and Arata. That's my understanding.

This is basically a hybrid of the Ni used by Mills combined with the
nanoparticles used by Arata. It does not seem very original when you
describe it that way, but it is. No one else thought of doing it. No one
else managed to do it so effectively. It may seem like an incremental
improvement but it is enough of a leap to merit a patent. Many smaller
improvements in things like semiconductors have been granted patents.

The specific, hands-on details of how you make the gadget and how you
operate it are tremendously important in a patent. That is where Rossi is
far ahead of Arata. Unfortunately for Rossi, those details are not in the
patent, so the patent is invalid. As far as I know that's how it works.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

2014-09-28 Thread Bob Higgins

What you say, Jed, and what David French has said, is absolutely true: the
theory has no real place in the patent and can limit the scope or
completely invalidate the claims. On the other hand, if you don't have a
good theory for how the invention works, it is nearly impossible to write
claims having sufficient breadth to protect your invention and a business
based upon it.

The validated understanding generally available today for Ni-H LENR is
insufficient to write broad protective claims.  Tomorrow, when that
understanding becomes available, competitors may easily find a workaround
to a claim written today.  There is also such wide speculation on the
mechanism that it puts much of the possible mechanisms into the category of
prior art for any patents written today.  That is why I believe that there
will be no controlling patent on basic foundations (the chemistry) of Ni-H
LENR.  I think Rossi is pursuing a course needed to build a business - he
is right to try.  But I believe that even if his patent is granted, it will
be useless in protecting his product.

I also agree that Rossi has failed to completely disclose his invention.
He is in a real catch-22.

Bob Higgins

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The patent examiner will want a solid believable theory for LENR operation
 before a patent is granted.


 That is incorrect. The Patent Office never demands a theory. It is a big
 mistake to present a theory. Read the papers by David French explaining why.

 The Patent Office normally demands only one thing:

 A complete description with the best of the inventor's knowledge about how
 to make the machine. The description must be good enough a that a person
 having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) can replicate.

 In a few cases, such as this one, the Patent Office also demands
 experimental proof that the device works. In my opinion, this is entirely
 reasonable in Rossi's case, and in the Swartz's case, which Rossi cites.
 The first and second ELFORSK tests are proof that the device works. I do
 not know if they are good enough proof for the Patent Office. In my
 opinion, the first test would not be good enough. Obviously I have not seen
 the second test.

 Theory is NEVER a consideration, unless the inventor makes it a
 consideration by including it. This weakens the patent because even if the
 device works, if the theory turns out to be wrong, the patent may be
 invalid.

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

 

From: Jed Rothwell 


Rossi's patent resembles Arata's. Rossi's own lawyers wrote many responses 
trying to distinguish it from Arata. 

 

Are you confusing US patents with WIPO applications ? 

 

Which Arata patent at USPTO are you referring to? AFAIK all of Arata’s US 
patents for LENR have either lapsed or have been abandoned and his pending US 
applications have been rejected and not renewed. 

 

This Arata application is still pending at WIPO - “Method of generating heat 
energy and apparatus for generating heat energy” WO 2007061019. He has a 
Japanese patent on it. However, the US filing for the same device was rejected 
years ago and subsequently abandoned.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 This is basically a hybrid of the Ni used by Mills combined with the
 nanoparticles used by Arata. It does not seem very original when you
 describe it that way, but it is. No one else thought of doing it. No one
 else managed to do it so effectively. It may seem like an incremental
 improvement but it is enough of a leap to merit a patent. Many smaller
 improvements in things like semiconductors have been granted patents.

 The specific, hands-on details of how you make the gadget and how you
 operate it are tremendously important in a patent. That is where Rossi is
 far ahead of Arata. Unfortunately for Rossi, those details are not in the
 patent, so the patent is invalid. As far as I know that's how it works.


Yes that's how it works, except that even if both Arata and Mills had been
granted patents on their respective contributions, and the
GE/DoE/APS/etc... lawyers tried to claim that it was obvious that one
could combine these techniques (in a law suit to deprive genuine inventors
of the resources, including decent public relations via science
journalists, due them), there is the argument that any fair-selection of
jurors would find convincing:

If it was so obvious then why didn't your GE/DoE/APS/etc... clients deploy
this technology decades ago?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

2014-09-28 Thread Axil Axil

In the 2010 Patent, Rossi said that he experimentally verified that nickel
was transmuted to copper. The patent examiner stated in the rejection of
that patent, that no known science can verify that nickel can transmute to
copper, so the device is inoperable.

By the same logic, the patent examiner can reject the claim that third
party test 1 and 2 are invalid because these results go against established
science no matter what the third party test results say.

Ergo, the group that is eventually awarded the LENR  patent must prove that
LENR is supported by existing science.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 What you say, Jed, and what David French has said, is absolutely true: the
 theory has no real place in the patent and can limit the scope or
 completely invalidate the claims. On the other hand, if you don't have a
 good theory for how the invention works, it is nearly impossible to write
 claims having sufficient breadth to protect your invention and a business
 based upon it.

 The validated understanding generally available today for Ni-H LENR is
 insufficient to write broad protective claims.  Tomorrow, when that
 understanding becomes available, competitors may easily find a workaround
 to a claim written today.  There is also such wide speculation on the
 mechanism that it puts much of the possible mechanisms into the category of
 prior art for any patents written today.  That is why I believe that there
 will be no controlling patent on basic foundations (the chemistry) of Ni-H
 LENR.  I think Rossi is pursuing a course needed to build a business - he
 is right to try.  But I believe that even if his patent is granted, it will
 be useless in protecting his product.

 I also agree that Rossi has failed to completely disclose his invention.
 He is in a real catch-22.

 Bob Higgins

 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The patent examiner will want a solid believable theory for
 LENR operation before a patent is granted.


 That is incorrect. The Patent Office never demands a theory. It is a big
 mistake to present a theory. Read the papers by David French explaining why.

 The Patent Office normally demands only one thing:

 A complete description with the best of the inventor's knowledge about
 how to make the machine. The description must be good enough a that a
 person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) can replicate.

 In a few cases, such as this one, the Patent Office also demands
 experimental proof that the device works. In my opinion, this is entirely
 reasonable in Rossi's case, and in the Swartz's case, which Rossi cites.
 The first and second ELFORSK tests are proof that the device works. I do
 not know if they are good enough proof for the Patent Office. In my
 opinion, the first test would not be good enough. Obviously I have not seen
 the second test.

 Theory is NEVER a consideration, unless the inventor makes it a
 consideration by including it. This weakens the patent because even if the
 device works, if the theory turns out to be wrong, the patent may be
 invalid.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

2014-09-28 Thread H Veeder

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The patent examiner will want a solid believable theory for LENR operation
 before a patent is granted.


 That is incorrect. The Patent Office never demands a theory. It is a big
 mistake to present a theory. Read the papers by David French explaining why.

 The Patent Office normally demands only one thing:

 A complete description with the best of the inventor's knowledge about how
 to make the machine. The description must be good enough a that a person
 having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) can replicate.

 In a few cases, such as this one, the Patent Office also demands
 experimental proof that the device works. In my opinion, this is entirely
 reasonable in Rossi's case, and in the Swartz's case, which Rossi cites.
 The first and second ELFORSK tests are proof that the device works. I do
 not know if they are good enough proof for the Patent Office. In my
 opinion, the first test would not be good enough. Obviously I have not seen
 the second test.

 Theory is NEVER a consideration, unless the inventor makes it a
 consideration by including it. This weakens the patent because even if the
 device works, if the theory turns out to be wrong, the patent may be
 invalid.

 - Jed



The patent office makes decisions which respect the laws of thermodynamics
so it is the office which has a general theory of how everything is suppose
to work.
If an applicant submits a device whose operation is consistent with those
laws then there is no need for the applicant to provide a theory.
However, if an applicant has a device which actually works by violating the
2nd law of thermodynamics and the only thing the applicant can say about
how it works is that it violates the 2nd law then they should not approach
the patent office until they have a detailed theory of how it is able
violate the 2nd law.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

2014-09-28 Thread Daniel Rocha

If Rossi presented his reactor to the USPTO, and let them test it, wouldn't
that solve the issue?
I vaguely remember they have a similar rule to free energy devices.

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 *From:* Jed Rothwell


 Rossi's patent resembles Arata's. Rossi's own lawyers wrote many responses
 trying to distinguish it from Arata.



 Are you confusing US patents with WIPO applications ?



 Which Arata patent at USPTO are you referring to?


Honestly, I do not recall. Years ago I read a bunch of letters filed by
Rossi's patent lawyers arguing that his work is fundamentally different
from Arata's. I think it is fundamentally different in some ways, but the
reasons these lawyers listed seemed unimportant. There were better reasons,
in my opinion. But I know little about patents. Perhaps those lawyers
listed the kinds of differences the Patent Office wants to see.

If Arata's patent applications have lapsed, I guess Rossi's patent attorney
would want to show that his work is not like Arata's. Otherwise his claims
would also lapse, wouldn't they?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

. . . there is the argument that any fair-selection of jurors would find
 convincing:

 If it was so obvious then why didn't your GE/DoE/APS/etc... clients deploy
 this technology decades ago?


1. Patent disputes are not decided by juries. The judges are experts in
patent law.

2. That argument would never fly. Many patents are never deployed
(commercialized). That is irrelevant. The only degree of obviousness you
need is in the technical description. It has to be enough to ensure the
technical ability of a PHOSITA to replicate. If the invention has not
actually replicated, then it can be difficult to judge whether the patent
is clear enough to meet the PHOSITA standard.

I suppose that if PHOSITA have already replicated when this trial begins,
that would no longer be an issue. I cannot imagine holding this trial
before the invention is independently replicated. That would be pointless.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

In the 2010 Patent, Rossi said that he experimentally verified that nickel
 was transmuted to copper.


Big mistake. He should not have made that claim. That transmutation serves
no useful purpose at present, so he should not have mentioned it. (This is
what French and others have told me.)



 The patent examiner stated in the rejection of that patent, that no known
 science can verify that nickel can transmute to copper, so the device is
 inoperable.


Is that what the examiner said? He should have said there is no
experimental proof that nickel can transmute to copper with a process of
this nature, so proof must be submitted. Patents are contingent in
experimental evidence, not theory. You can violate all the theory you want,
as long as you can prove it works.



 Ergo, the group that is eventually awarded the LENR  patent must prove
 that LENR is supported by existing science.


Not according to David French and the other patent experts I have heard
from. The only reason an inventor might have to do this would be if they
claim that LENR is supported by existing science and they include a
specific theory in the patent application to back this up. They should say
nothing about theory. The Patent Office cannot bring up the subject.

There is only exception to this rule as far as I know. The Patent Office
can summarily dismiss applications for perpetual motion machines. That is,
for machines that violate the laws of thermodynamics. Some people say the
Patent Office should reject all cold fusion applications on this basis. I
disagree. I think these devices are predicated on those laws. In any case,
as long as the researchers do not claim that cold fusion runs forever
without any sort of fuel, they should be in the clear.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

If Rossi presented his reactor to the USPTO, and let them test it, wouldn't
 that solve the issue?
 I vaguely remember they have a similar rule to free energy devices.


The Patent Office does not have laboratories or the authority to test
devices. I think what they demand in cases such as Swartz or Rossi is
independent proof from experts that the invention works. (I mention Swartz
because the ruling in his case is cited in the link provided in this
discussion.)

I think the two ELFORSK tests are the kind of thing the Patent Office
wants. Whether those two tests alone are sufficient I cannot say. If you
had a dozen tests like that, that would be enough, wouldn't it? I don't
know.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

2014-09-28 Thread Eric Walker

From the perspective of IP strategy, Rossi was in a catch-22 in 2010.  If
he fully disclosed in a patent application, he risked having the
application denied while simultaneously letting his trade secrets out into
the wild, where others could copy him without his having legal protection.

In light of this conundrum, I see the 2010 patent application either as
something that was half-baked and drawn up without the benefit of competent
counsel, or possibly without heeding counsel; or, alternatively, like Jones
suggests, as a diversion.  It would have been one of these two, because the
application itself is obviously inadequate, with misspellings and
meanderings into theory and so on.  With regard to the possibility of
diversion, one question I have is whether a patent application that is
filed in bad faith (i.e., without the intention of really disclosing
something) will land you into difficulties later on, if you want to file a
bona fide application.  My best bet at this point:  Rossi decided to go it
on his own and didn't consult a good attorney and ended up improvising the
patent application with Focardi's help.  He wanted to be coy, avoiding
giving away too much information, fully aware of the conundrum he was in,
but he didn't understand patent law enough at the time to avoid common
pitfalls and put together a solid application.

Personally, I think the details of Rossi's 2010 patent application remind
me most of Piantelli's EU patent.

Eric


On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 The “noise” at USPTO on Rossi’s behalf could be designed to both to keep
 “something” in play, but additionally to also provide a high level of
 disinformation to patent trolls who have already tried to “claim jump”
 Rossi.


On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

I also agree that Rossi has failed to completely disclose his invention.
 He is in a real catch-22.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

From: Daniel Rocha 

 

If Rossi presented his reactor to the USPTO, and let them test it, wouldn't 
that solve the issue?  I vaguely remember they have a similar rule to free 
energy devices.

 

You are probably thinking of the Joe Newman saga. 

 

There is no “rule” for this, but there is every likelihood that if you can 
actually demonstrate a working device independently to an authority, such as a 
top University, then the Court system can order the patent examiner to grant a 
patent. 

 

Here is the long legal history of the most famous episode of this kind of 
dispute, where there was an actual model, and Joe Newman tried to use it to get 
a patent for his bogus overunity motor. Problem is – the model failed to 
produce the desired result, but he never acknowledged that and became rich 
anyway.

 

http://openjurist.org/877/f2d/1575/newman-v-j-quigg

 

Newman did have a model to present, and it could run for days - but of course 
the hundreds of batteries ran down eventually, and he often was able to stop 
the testing before that happened. Newman came fairly close to pulling off a 
scam on USPTO, and eventually became a millionaire by selling overpriced books 
to gullible “true believers” which claimed the government did him wrong. 

 

PT (or someone speaking for him) was right, there truly is one born every 
minute …

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

2014-09-28 Thread Peter Gluck

Eric, Piantelli's patents are professionally written have precision,
logical consistency while Rossi's patent is the opposite.
Peter

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 From the perspective of IP strategy, Rossi was in a catch-22 in 2010.  If
 he fully disclosed in a patent application, he risked having the
 application denied while simultaneously letting his trade secrets out into
 the wild, where others could copy him without his having legal protection.

 In light of this conundrum, I see the 2010 patent application either as
 something that was half-baked and drawn up without the benefit of competent
 counsel, or possibly without heeding counsel; or, alternatively, like Jones
 suggests, as a diversion.  It would have been one of these two, because the
 application itself is obviously inadequate, with misspellings and
 meanderings into theory and so on.  With regard to the possibility of
 diversion, one question I have is whether a patent application that is
 filed in bad faith (i.e., without the intention of really disclosing
 something) will land you into difficulties later on, if you want to file a
 bona fide application.  My best bet at this point:  Rossi decided to go it
 on his own and didn't consult a good attorney and ended up improvising the
 patent application with Focardi's help.  He wanted to be coy, avoiding
 giving away too much information, fully aware of the conundrum he was in,
 but he didn't understand patent law enough at the time to avoid common
 pitfalls and put together a solid application.

 Personally, I think the details of Rossi's 2010 patent application remind
 me most of Piantelli's EU patent.

 Eric


 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 The “noise” at USPTO on Rossi’s behalf could be designed to both to keep
 “something” in play, but additionally to also provide a high level of
 disinformation to patent trolls who have already tried to “claim jump”
 Rossi.


 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I also agree that Rossi has failed to completely disclose his invention.
 He is in a real catch-22.





-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 . . . there is the argument that any fair-selection of jurors would find
 convincing:

 If it was so obvious then why didn't your GE/DoE/APS/etc... clients
 deploy this technology decades ago?


 1. Patent disputes are not decided by juries. The judges are experts in
 patent law.


That's wrong.



 2. That argument would never fly. Many patents are never deployed
 (commercialized). That is irrelevant. The only degree of obviousness you
 need is in the technical description.


Where the utility is shown to be, in fact, as great as the hypothetical
utility of the Rossi HotCat, it is very hard to argue that the patent was
never deployed to commercial advantage despite being obvious.

That much should be obvious, even to a judge that is an expert in patent
law.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

As for the patent which most resembles the Hot-Cat, it is probably this one: 
“Molecular hydrogen laser” US 7773656 to Mills. Of course, Rossi’s device is 
not a laser, but in operation it is closer than you may realize - unless you 
have followed the SPP discussions. 

 

A picture is worth 1000 words…

 

http://fusionfroide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rossis-HOT-CAT-reactor.jpg

 

… and no, there is no indication that the photons seen here are coherent, or 
even superradiant. No evidence is possible since there is no lens. The IR light 
is coming through and/or heating a stainless steel end-cap. If the electrical 
input power is as low as claimed, then we are probably seeing superradiance, at 
least.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension

2014-09-28 Thread Alan Fletcher



At 12:27 PM 9/28/2014, Jones Beene wrote:
A picture is
worth 1000 words


http://fusionfroide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rossis-HOT-CAT-reactor.jpg


 and no, there is no indication that the photons seen here are coherent,
or even superradiant. No evidence is possible since there is no lens. The
IR light is coming through and/or heating a stainless steel end-cap. If
the electrical input power is as low as claimed, then we are probably
seeing superradiance, at least.
That is the hollow-tube version, looking end-on into a cavity filled with
black-box radiation.

[Vo]:Has Rossi Denied Mills?

I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he
says he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I
haven't seen a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi.

Has he let such a denial slip?

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

As for the patent which most resembles the Hot-Cat, it is probably
 this one: “Molecular hydrogen laser” US 7773656 to Mills. Of course,
 Rossi’s device is not a laser, but in operation it is closer than you may
 realize - unless you have followed the SPP discussions.



 A picture is worth 1000 words…




 http://fusionfroide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rossis-HOT-CAT-reactor.jpg



 … and no, there is no indication that the photons seen here are coherent,
 or even superradiant. No evidence is possible since there is no lens. The
 IR light is coming through and/or heating a stainless steel end-cap. If the
 electrical input power is as low as claimed, then we are probably seeing
 superradiance, at least.

RE: [Vo]:Has Rossi Denied Mills?

2014-09-28 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From James,

 

 I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he says

 he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I haven't seen

 a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi.

 

 Has he let such a denial slip?

 

IMO, you are setting yourself up to imagine all sorts of unfounded speculation 
and scenarios about Rossi's motivations or the lack of them. God only knows 
what Rossi is thinking from one day to the next. He is so mercurial. It matters 
little to me what Rossi might think about Mills' work. Likewise, it matters 
little to me that Mills thinks little of Rossi's work and the rest of the Cold 
Fusion community for that matter. According to Mills' CF research is bogus 
science, the result of bad measurements. While Mills may be a genius in his own 
field research and development, often such genius does not translate into being 
all that much of an expert in other fields of study, even a potentially related 
field. I see no reason not to apply the same standards of ignorance to Rossi as 
well. I don't hold their ignorance of other individual's work against them. I 
only hope they know what they are talking about when they discuss their own 
chosen field of study.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation

2014-09-28 Thread H Veeder

The link has two drawings on the same page. The top drawing, which is the
one I found, doesn't challenge FP research.

The bottom drawing is my modified version and it is intended to show that
the fusion process can be considered reversible as long as it does not
reach the final stage.
Are you asking yourself why is he proposing a hypothetical fusion process
that does not result in the production energy?

Harry

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
wrote:

I don't see how it challenge FP,
it is theory?

2014-09-28 2:34 GMT+02:00 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com:

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400:
Hi Harry,
[snip]
Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like
false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions
is improbable.
[snip]
I have told you what I think and why. Whether or not you choose to
accept it is
up to you.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

I found this drawing on a site which happened to be extremely critical of
PF's research.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpDKkgdQKrgP29Nxa0N_biIsLz0qeY8UGDGpFJCFSy0/edit?usp=sharing

What I like about the drawing is that it shows the three d-d fusion
pathways all passing through the same intermediate stage of high energy
helium 4. I modified the drawing to show the reaction going in both
directions before the excited intermediate stage has a chance to decay. I
think that the lattice facilitates the initiation of fusion but it also
tends to inhibits the completion the fusion process. The question of course
is of what relevancy is this scenario if it does not produce energy? If it
can form an epicatalytic
process then it is very relevant.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Has Rossi Denied Mills?

unfounded is a loaded term.

Nickel + catalyst = heat is not a foundation -- it is a pattern.

Please forgive my neurons for doing their job.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

  From James,



  I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he
 says

  he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I
 haven't seen

  a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi.

 

  Has he let such a denial slip?



 IMO, you are setting yourself up to imagine all sorts of unfounded
 speculation and scenarios about Rossi's motivations or the lack of them.
 God only knows what Rossi is thinking from one day to the next. He is so
 mercurial. It matters little to me what Rossi might think about Mills'
 work. Likewise, it matters little to me that Mills thinks little of Rossi's
 work and the rest of the Cold Fusion community for that matter. According
 to Mills' CF research is bogus science, the result of bad measurements.
 While Mills may be a genius in his own field research and development,
 often such genius does not translate into being all that much of an expert
 in other fields of study, even a potentially related field. I see no reason
 not to apply the same standards of ignorance to Rossi as well. I don't hold
 their ignorance of other individual's work against them. I only hope they
 know what they are talking about when they discuss their own chosen field
 of study.



 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 svjart.orionworks.com

 zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Has Rossi Denied Mills?

Rossi is known to be misleading in his statements -- and for obvious
reasons of commercial advantage -- but he seems to be avoiding outright
lies about his theory.  So what might be misleading about his denial of
Windom Larson without being a lie?

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he
 says he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I
 haven't seen a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi.

 Has he let such a denial slip?

 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

As for the patent which most resembles the Hot-Cat, it is probably
 this one: “Molecular hydrogen laser” US 7773656 to Mills. Of course,
 Rossi’s device is not a laser, but in operation it is closer than you may
 realize - unless you have followed the SPP discussions.



 A picture is worth 1000 words…




 http://fusionfroide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rossis-HOT-CAT-reactor.jpg



 … and no, there is no indication that the photons seen here are coherent,
 or even superradiant. No evidence is possible since there is no lens. The
 IR light is coming through and/or heating a stainless steel end-cap. If the
 electrical input power is as low as claimed, then we are probably seeing
 superradiance, at least.

RE: [Vo]:Has Rossi Denied Mills?