[Vo]:Industrial Heat World Patent Application
I don't know if my first post went through: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBeUdnZkprSlhPTWs/view?usp=sharing
Re: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
PDF version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBeUdnZkprSlhPTWs/view?usp=sharing On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Well, if you enjoyed the brevity of Rossi's patent, you'll hate the > details of Industrial Light and Magic, er, Industrial Heat's world app: > > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/08/27/industrial-heat-files-new-international-patent-for-energy-producing-reaction-devices/ >
Re: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
Well, if you enjoyed the brevity of Rossi's patent, you'll hate the details of Industrial Light and Magic, er, Industrial Heat's world app: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/08/27/industrial-heat-files-new-international-patent-for-energy-producing-reaction-devices/
Re: [Vo]:The SPP as black holes and Dark Matter
FYI: The actual paper that this article is based on, is here: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150827/ncomms9069/pdf/ncomms9069.pdf Mark Jurich From: Axil Axil Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:13 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:The SPP as black holes and Dark Matter Science has discovered how the movement of electrons inside of EMF soliton can produce a dark mode that is an effective EMF black hole. The absence of radiation is the result of the current being divided between two different components, a conventional electric dipole (this is the plasmon in the SPP) and a toroidal dipole (this is the polariton in a SPP) (associated with poloidal current configuration), which produce identical fields at a distance. https://38.media.tumblr.com/122c3dc97f96e686d79f47c56f370d5e/tumblr_mmfvja84Kd1r25psio1_500.gif If these two configurations are out of phase then the radiation will be cancelled out, even though the electromagnetic fields are non-zero in the area close to the currents. This also expains how SPPs are dark matter. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-08-theory-radiationless-revolution.html#jCp
[Vo]:The SPP as black holes and Dark Matter
Science has discovered how the movement of electrons inside of EMF soliton can produce a dark mode that is an effective EMF black hole. The absence of radiation is the result of the current being divided between two different components, a conventional electric dipole (this is the plasmon in the SPP) and a toroidal dipole (this is the polariton in a SPP) (associated with poloidal current configuration), which produce identical fields at a distance. https://38.media.tumblr.com/122c3dc97f96e686d79f47c56f370d5e/tumblr_mmfvja84Kd1r25psio1_500.gif If these two configurations are out of phase then the radiation will be cancelled out, even though the electromagnetic fields are non-zero in the area close to the currents. This also expains how SPPs are dark matter. [image: New theory leads to radiationless revolution] Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-08-theory-radiationless-revolution.html#jCp
RE: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
From: Axil Axil Who was awarded the potassium patent or was it deemed by Rossi and his legal team to be open source. Thermacore held that patent but it has expired, so yes - it is in the public domain. Jones
Re: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
In one important way, Rossi's catalytic approach is more powerful than that of Pekka Soininen. Rossi uses up to 100 micron nickel particles which are sintered together from 5 micron COTS powder. The EMF power application that these particles produce is proportional to the SIZE SPREAD of the particles sizes used. A particle size spread between 100 microns and 1 nanometer produces a EMF power application factor of 10^15 when heat (infrared EMF) is converted to magnetic power. On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > From MFMP as follows: > > > @Ecco > > Filing date Nov 27, 2012 > Priority date Nov 27, 2011 > Also published as US20150162104, WO2013076378A2, WO2013076378A3 > Inventors Pekka Soininen > > From this patent > > https://www.google.com/patents/EP2783369A2?cl=en > > [0116] In an embodiment of the present invention styrene catalyst is > utilized for enhancing nuclear fusion in a solid state system. The > precursor for the styrene catalyst, hematite Fe203, having corundum crystal > structure is reduced with hydrogen gas into magnetite FesO i. The precursor > (iron oxide) is doped with alkali metal hydroxide comprising lithium > hydroxide LiOH, sodium hydroxide NaOH, potassium hydroxide KOH, rubidium > hydroxide RbOH and/or cesium hydroxide CsOH or with alkali metal oxide > comprising lithium oxide Li20, sodium oxide Na20, potassium oxide K20, > rubidium oxide Rb20 and/or cesium oxide Cs20. The alkali metal hydroxide is > preferably KOH and the alkali metal oxide is preferably K20. Textural > promoters comprising alumina Al203 and/or chromia Cr203 are added to the > iron oxide. The said textural promoters are stable in process conditions in > hot, highly reducing environment and they prevent the loss of lattice > defects that are necessary for storing Rydberg matter and inverted Rydberg > matter. > > [0123] Industrial catalysts have been optimized for specific chemical > processes. For example, formation of coke (solid carbonaceous material) on > the catalyst surface is avoided if the process temperature is kept in a > specified temperature range. The present invention does not utilize > compounds that form coke and temperatures above the normal temperature > range for catalytic processes can be used in the present thermal- energy > producing reactor. [0124] The probability for obtaining nuclear fusion near > a single structural defect of a material is very small. Arranging a very > large number of particles with surface and lattice defects to the reaction > container increases the probability for nuclear fusion events per time unit > within the reaction container to a noticeable and useful level. For > example, if a 50 g piece of nickel is converted into 5 nm Ni nanoparticles > with about 6000 atoms, about 8.55*1019 Ni nanoparticles is obtained. Each > Ni nanoparticle may be in contact with a catalyst nanoparticle that > promotes the formation of Rydberg atoms and clusters. Even a very small > probability for obtaining nuclear fusion near a single Ni nanoparticle > becomes considerable and useful when all the 8.55*1019 probabilities are > added together. > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Rossi said that the COP of the mouse is (1.1). The mouse must produce >> meson, muons and other subatomic particles via induced rydberg matter that >> reacts with the Cats that surround it to induce a LENR based chain reaction >> inside the Cats. >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield >> wrote: >> >>> Rossi has talked about a Mouse to go with the E-Cat but we haven't seen >>> one yet. I'm guessing this is probably a very small E-Cat that supplies >>> heat in a controlled way to the main E-Cat. >>> >>> Strange how all my comments end up at the bottom of the list. This >>> makes it difficult to follow the context. >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
>From MFMP as follows: @Ecco Filing date Nov 27, 2012 Priority date Nov 27, 2011 Also published as US20150162104, WO2013076378A2, WO2013076378A3 Inventors Pekka Soininen >From this patent https://www.google.com/patents/EP2783369A2?cl=en [0116] In an embodiment of the present invention styrene catalyst is utilized for enhancing nuclear fusion in a solid state system. The precursor for the styrene catalyst, hematite Fe203, having corundum crystal structure is reduced with hydrogen gas into magnetite FesO i. The precursor (iron oxide) is doped with alkali metal hydroxide comprising lithium hydroxide LiOH, sodium hydroxide NaOH, potassium hydroxide KOH, rubidium hydroxide RbOH and/or cesium hydroxide CsOH or with alkali metal oxide comprising lithium oxide Li20, sodium oxide Na20, potassium oxide K20, rubidium oxide Rb20 and/or cesium oxide Cs20. The alkali metal hydroxide is preferably KOH and the alkali metal oxide is preferably K20. Textural promoters comprising alumina Al203 and/or chromia Cr203 are added to the iron oxide. The said textural promoters are stable in process conditions in hot, highly reducing environment and they prevent the loss of lattice defects that are necessary for storing Rydberg matter and inverted Rydberg matter. [0123] Industrial catalysts have been optimized for specific chemical processes. For example, formation of coke (solid carbonaceous material) on the catalyst surface is avoided if the process temperature is kept in a specified temperature range. The present invention does not utilize compounds that form coke and temperatures above the normal temperature range for catalytic processes can be used in the present thermal- energy producing reactor. [0124] The probability for obtaining nuclear fusion near a single structural defect of a material is very small. Arranging a very large number of particles with surface and lattice defects to the reaction container increases the probability for nuclear fusion events per time unit within the reaction container to a noticeable and useful level. For example, if a 50 g piece of nickel is converted into 5 nm Ni nanoparticles with about 6000 atoms, about 8.55*1019 Ni nanoparticles is obtained. Each Ni nanoparticle may be in contact with a catalyst nanoparticle that promotes the formation of Rydberg atoms and clusters. Even a very small probability for obtaining nuclear fusion near a single Ni nanoparticle becomes considerable and useful when all the 8.55*1019 probabilities are added together. On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Rossi said that the COP of the mouse is (1.1). The mouse must produce > meson, muons and other subatomic particles via induced rydberg matter that > reacts with the Cats that surround it to induce a LENR based chain reaction > inside the Cats. > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: > >> Rossi has talked about a Mouse to go with the E-Cat but we haven't seen >> one yet. I'm guessing this is probably a very small E-Cat that supplies >> heat in a controlled way to the main E-Cat. >> >> Strange how all my comments end up at the bottom of the list. This makes >> it difficult to follow the context. >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
Rossi said that the COP of the mouse is (1.1). The mouse must produce meson, muons and other subatomic particles via induced rydberg matter that reacts with the Cats that surround it to induce a LENR based chain reaction inside the Cats. On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Rossi has talked about a Mouse to go with the E-Cat but we haven't seen > one yet. I'm guessing this is probably a very small E-Cat that supplies > heat in a controlled way to the main E-Cat. > > Strange how all my comments end up at the bottom of the list. This makes > it difficult to follow the context. > >
RE: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
Rossi has talked about a Mouse to go with the E-Cat but we haven't seen one yet. I'm guessing this is probably a very small E-Cat that supplies heat in a controlled way to the main E-Cat. Strange how all my comments end up at the bottom of the list. This makes it difficult to follow the context.
Re: [Vo]:the roles of Li, Ni, H and Al in the Rossi Effect Opera?
A SPP is an EMF soliton which captures and converts via frequency down shifting the gammas produced from the reactions that the SPP catalyzes. The SPP and the nuclear reaction is tightly coupled as a single quantum system using magnetism as the communication pathway between the various parts of this quantum system. The frequency that comes out of the SPP is regulated by the dimensions of the SPP. At 1 to 3 nanometers the circular storage inside the SPP produces XUV an soft X-Rays. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering-gallery_wave On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Peter suggests that the 2 He4 formed from Li and maybe hydrogen reaction > end up with significant kinetic energy, which is given up as heat to the > system. This reaction, if correctly described as producing energetic > particles, must heat a plasma or liquid and not result in any energetic EM > measurable radiation. > > If it occurred in solid with any key dimentional significance, the > energetic He4’s would quickly destroy the geometry of significance—thus a > plasma or a liquid metal is indicated. > > I have no good explantion of how the energetic He-4’s occur without some > energetic measureable EM. > > I think the mass energy conversion of the Li H system avoids particles > with high kinetic energy. Experiments regarding Be-8 decay and the type of > EM observed when decay happens in a solid are pertinent to this issue > IMHO. However it is not clear Be-8 is a player—it may only be a ghost. > > Bob Cook > > *From:* Peter Gluck > *Sent:* Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:48 AM > *To:* Arik El Boher ; Bo Hoistadt > ; Brian Ahern ; CMNS > ; Dagmar Kuhn ; David Daggett > ; doug marker ; Dr. > Braun Tibor ; eCatNews ; Gabriel > Moagar-Poladian ; Gary ; Haiko > Lietz ; jeff aries ; Mark Tsirlin > ; Nicolaie N. Vlad ; > Peter > Bjorkbom ; Peter Mobberley > ; Pierre Clauzon > ; Roberto Germano ; Roy Virgilio > ; Steve Katinski ; Sunwon Park > ; Valerio Ciampoli ; vlad > ; VORTEX > *Subject:* [Vo]:the roles of Li, Ni, H and Al in the Rossi Effect Opera? > > See please: > > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/08/aug-27-2015swarm-of-questions-regarding.html > > changes and surprises' Should we forget the isotopic shifts from the > Lugano experiment? > > Peter > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
Re: [Vo]:the roles of Li, Ni, H and Al in the Rossi Effect Opera?
Peter suggests that the 2 He4 formed from Li and maybe hydrogen reaction end up with significant kinetic energy, which is given up as heat to the system. This reaction, if correctly described as producing energetic particles, must heat a plasma or liquid and not result in any energetic EM measurable radiation. If it occurred in solid with any key dimentional significance, the energetic He4’s would quickly destroy the geometry of significance—thus a plasma or a liquid metal is indicated. I have no good explantion of how the energetic He-4’s occur without some energetic measureable EM. I think the mass energy conversion of the Li H system avoids particles with high kinetic energy. Experiments regarding Be-8 decay and the type of EM observed when decay happens in a solid are pertinent to this issue IMHO. However it is not clear Be-8 is a player—it may only be a ghost. Bob Cook From: Peter Gluck Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:48 AM To: Arik El Boher ; Bo Hoistadt ; Brian Ahern ; CMNS ; Dagmar Kuhn ; David Daggett ; doug marker ; Dr. Braun Tibor ; eCatNews ; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian ; Gary ; Haiko Lietz ; jeff aries ; Mark Tsirlin ; Nicolaie N. Vlad ; Peter Bjorkbom ; Peter Mobberley ; Pierre Clauzon ; Roberto Germano ; Roy Virgilio ; Steve Katinski ; Sunwon Park ; Valerio Ciampoli ; vlad ; VORTEX Subject: [Vo]:the roles of Li, Ni, H and Al in the Rossi Effect Opera? See please: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/08/aug-27-2015swarm-of-questions-regarding.html changes and surprises' Should we forget the isotopic shifts from the Lugano experiment? Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:EGO OUT has an associate: CAMILO URBINA from Chile
See here please http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/08/introducing-camilo-urbina-our-blogs.html I am very happy; one word that comes in my mind is "relay" I wish you all the best, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
Who was awarded the potassium patent or was it deemed by Rossi and his legal team to be open source. Rossi's low heat reactor (1 Megawatt version) must use a potassium based fuel. A Lithium based fuel must run in a reactor with and operating temperature of over 1000C. Is Rossi conceding the Big cat and his tiger reactor subsystem as using and open source technology? DGT used Potassium carbonate (K2CO3) as their fuel. This is the standard LENR catalyst. It has been used from the earliest times of LENR. Thermocore might have been the first to experiment with potassium. Potassium could support the a fine LENR reactor design. Melting point (891 °C (1,636 °F; 1,164 K) Boiling point - decomposes. A competitor of Rossi could develop a reactor that uses K2CO3 with no patent recourse protection from Rossi. I believe that Rossi is reserving the Lithium aluminum hydrate fuel as a doorway to the direct conversion of the LENR reaction into electricity. This might be why Rossi made a point that the lithium based LENR patent was the first LENR patent to be set in place by Rossi’s team. A way to get around the Rossi patent protection is to mix chemical compounds containing cesium, potassium and lithium together is proportions that are different from those specified by the Rossi patent. Even if Mills does not discrib what he does in his technologies as LENR, as described by Mills in his patents, there are hundreds of chemical compound combinations that will support the LENR reaction. These chemicals uses as fuel are not fundamental to LENR, it is what these fuels produce that results in LENR. Those more fundamental elements are nanoparticles of the proper sizes and aggregations comprised of elements and/or chemical compounds. If you remember the story of how a LENR reaction melted and vaporized a hole a lab table and the the reinforced concrete floor of a LENR lab floor just under the table, that vaporized floor material served as fuel of the LENR reaction in that amazing case. On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > I have the opinion that patents are just costly and a way for patent > lawyers to suck money out of inventors.. It really does not protect. Read > Jones's idea about how the fight about the right claim is already in full > swing and they are lawyering up. Another thing is that I think another way > to really hurt LENR would be to involve D Trump. He has money but all I > heard him able to do is to fire people. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 > > “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> *From:* Blaze Spinnaker >> >> 6)Randell Mills has been on record for well over one year as saying >> that “LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is >> disclosed in my patents.” [filed in Russia and the USA.] >> >> It is likely that Rossi’s disclosure would otherwise fit into the >> category of a Mills’ reaction, despite the fact that aluminum is one of the >> few metals BLP does not claim as catalytic. Rossi’s attorneys were >> negligent not to mention Mills as prior art, and that may come back to >> haunt them. >> >> Ø Yeah, it's a very narrow patent that can only prevent immediate >> knockoffs and let Rossi claim he has a patent. Until we see a replication >> though, I remain skeptical. >> >> >> >> The scenario which is shaping up now is most ironic. The “replication” >> may come from none other than Randell Mills/ BLP ! It could happen in >> September. >> >> >> >> The BLP device could be in a different form factor, but they would be >> foolish not to become proactive at this juncture. If they have anything to >> show, it is crunch time. Presumably BLP’s LAH demo, if it happens, will be >> coordinated by a head-on legal assault by Patent attorneys and politicians. >> The USPTO has been under pressure from politicians for some time for just >> this type of intransigence. Mitchell Swartz has a similar problem with them. >> >> >> >> And now we have a situation where USPTO seem to be favoring a foreign >> inventor with a long criminal record – in an election season. How hard will >> it be for Mills to enlist “the Donald” on his side. OMG the Donald gets >> involved in LENR J >> >> >> >> Mills has every right to feel slighted by the USPTO since he has invested >> up to $20 million in attorney fees over the past 25 years to maintain a >> portfolio with a large number of long running, non-granted applications. >> This has allowed him to continually improve what he has on file. Moreover, >> it is very likely that his claim for priority (in the use of LiAlH4) will >> have been amended onto a patent with a much earlier original filing that >> Rossi, and the court will have to decide who is
[Vo]:Re: my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
It will be interesting to see how the oil companies react to the patent fracus. They are in a Catch-22. Also keep in mind that China has been brought into the picture via Tom Darden and IH. The court battle will take time while China is producing units for sale in third world countries and elsewhere. IMHO Rossi and IH are way ahead in this chess game. The PO executives (and others) should be indicted for conspiracy to defraud investors and inventors and protecting existing oil and nuclear factions. Bob Cook From: Lennart Thornros Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 7:26 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015 I have the opinion that patents are just costly and a way for patent lawyers to suck money out of inventors.. It really does not protect. Read Jones's idea about how the fight about the right claim is already in full swing and they are lawyering up. Another thing is that I think another way to really hurt LENR would be to involve D Trump. He has money but all I heard him able to do is to fire people. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Blaze Spinnaker 6)Randell Mills has been on record for well over one year as saying that “LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is disclosed in my patents.” [filed in Russia and the USA.] It is likely that Rossi’s disclosure would otherwise fit into the category of a Mills’ reaction, despite the fact that aluminum is one of the few metals BLP does not claim as catalytic. Rossi’s attorneys were negligent not to mention Mills as prior art, and that may come back to haunt them. Ø Yeah, it's a very narrow patent that can only prevent immediate knockoffs and let Rossi claim he has a patent. Until we see a replication though, I remain skeptical. The scenario which is shaping up now is most ironic. The “replication” may come from none other than Randell Mills/ BLP ! It could happen in September. The BLP device could be in a different form factor, but they would be foolish not to become proactive at this juncture. If they have anything to show, it is crunch time. Presumably BLP’s LAH demo, if it happens, will be coordinated by a head-on legal assault by Patent attorneys and politicians. The USPTO has been under pressure from politicians for some time for just this type of intransigence. Mitchell Swartz has a similar problem with them. And now we have a situation where USPTO seem to be favoring a foreign inventor with a long criminal record – in an election season. How hard will it be for Mills to enlist “the Donald” on his side. OMG the Donald gets involved in LENR J Mills has every right to feel slighted by the USPTO since he has invested up to $20 million in attorney fees over the past 25 years to maintain a portfolio with a large number of long running, non-granted applications. This has allowed him to continually improve what he has on file. Moreover, it is very likely that his claim for priority (in the use of LiAlH4) will have been amended onto a patent with a much earlier original filing that Rossi, and the court will have to decide who is the original inventor. Note that having a granted patent does NOT give the patent holder much in the way of legal presumption. The minute that Mills’ attorneys present evidence of prior invention, the burden of proof will have shifted. This is shaping up to be marvelous entertainment, if nothing else. The best part is that Mills/BLP have now been forced to “put up or shut up.” Jones
[Vo]:the roles of Li, Ni, H and Al in the Rossi Effect Opera?
See please: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/08/aug-27-2015swarm-of-questions-regarding.html changes and surprises' Should we forget the isotopic shifts from the Lugano experiment? Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
I have the opinion that patents are just costly and a way for patent lawyers to suck money out of inventors.. It really does not protect. Read Jones's idea about how the fight about the right claim is already in full swing and they are lawyering up. Another thing is that I think another way to really hurt LENR would be to involve D Trump. He has money but all I heard him able to do is to fire people. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Blaze Spinnaker > > 6)Randell Mills has been on record for well over one year as saying > that “LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is > disclosed in my patents.” [filed in Russia and the USA.] > > It is likely that Rossi’s disclosure would otherwise fit into the category > of a Mills’ reaction, despite the fact that aluminum is one of the few > metals BLP does not claim as catalytic. Rossi’s attorneys were negligent > not to mention Mills as prior art, and that may come back to haunt them. > > Ø Yeah, it's a very narrow patent that can only prevent immediate > knockoffs and let Rossi claim he has a patent. Until we see a replication > though, I remain skeptical. > > > > The scenario which is shaping up now is most ironic. The “replication” may > come from none other than Randell Mills/ BLP ! It could happen in > September. > > > > The BLP device could be in a different form factor, but they would be > foolish not to become proactive at this juncture. If they have anything to > show, it is crunch time. Presumably BLP’s LAH demo, if it happens, will be > coordinated by a head-on legal assault by Patent attorneys and politicians. > The USPTO has been under pressure from politicians for some time for just > this type of intransigence. Mitchell Swartz has a similar problem with them. > > > > And now we have a situation where USPTO seem to be favoring a foreign > inventor with a long criminal record – in an election season. How hard will > it be for Mills to enlist “the Donald” on his side. OMG the Donald gets > involved in LENR J > > > > Mills has every right to feel slighted by the USPTO since he has invested > up to $20 million in attorney fees over the past 25 years to maintain a > portfolio with a large number of long running, non-granted applications. > This has allowed him to continually improve what he has on file. Moreover, > it is very likely that his claim for priority (in the use of LiAlH4) will > have been amended onto a patent with a much earlier original filing that > Rossi, and the court will have to decide who is the original inventor. > > > > Note that having a granted patent does NOT give the patent holder much in > the way of legal presumption. The minute that Mills’ attorneys present > evidence of prior invention, the burden of proof will have shifted. > > > > This is shaping up to be marvelous entertainment, if nothing else. The > best part is that Mills/BLP have now been forced to “put up or shut up.” > > > > Jones > > >
RE: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
Jones, Further to what you wrote, Rossi's stated plan is to win the commercial battle by selling first, selling it so cheaply it is not worth competing with the "name" brand. In order to do this he has to have a patent to protect against others stopping him through their patents. The court battles for something this lucrative will probably extend beyond his life time, but he doesn't care if he can sell E-Cats meanwhile. It will be interesting to see what new patents he comes up with. He seems genuinely excited by the E-Cat X so this is probably a new twist.
RE: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
From: Blaze Spinnaker 6)Randell Mills has been on record for well over one year as saying that “LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is disclosed in my patents.” [filed in Russia and the USA.] It is likely that Rossi’s disclosure would otherwise fit into the category of a Mills’ reaction, despite the fact that aluminum is one of the few metals BLP does not claim as catalytic. Rossi’s attorneys were negligent not to mention Mills as prior art, and that may come back to haunt them. Ø Yeah, it's a very narrow patent that can only prevent immediate knockoffs and let Rossi claim he has a patent. Until we see a replication though, I remain skeptical. The scenario which is shaping up now is most ironic. The “replication” may come from none other than Randell Mills/ BLP ! It could happen in September. The BLP device could be in a different form factor, but they would be foolish not to become proactive at this juncture. If they have anything to show, it is crunch time. Presumably BLP’s LAH demo, if it happens, will be coordinated by a head-on legal assault by Patent attorneys and politicians. The USPTO has been under pressure from politicians for some time for just this type of intransigence. Mitchell Swartz has a similar problem with them. And now we have a situation where USPTO seem to be favoring a foreign inventor with a long criminal record – in an election season. How hard will it be for Mills to enlist “the Donald” on his side. OMG the Donald gets involved in LENR J Mills has every right to feel slighted by the USPTO since he has invested up to $20 million in attorney fees over the past 25 years to maintain a portfolio with a large number of long running, non-granted applications. This has allowed him to continually improve what he has on file. Moreover, it is very likely that his claim for priority (in the use of LiAlH4) will have been amended onto a patent with a much earlier original filing that Rossi, and the court will have to decide who is the original inventor. Note that having a granted patent does NOT give the patent holder much in the way of legal presumption. The minute that Mills’ attorneys present evidence of prior invention, the burden of proof will have shifted. This is shaping up to be marvelous entertainment, if nothing else. The best part is that Mills/BLP have now been forced to “put up or shut up.” Jones
Re: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
> > 6)Randell Mills has been on record for well over one year as saying > that “LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is > disclosed in my patents.” [filed in Russia and the USA.] > > > > It is likely that Rossi’s disclosure would otherwise fit into the category > of a Mills’ reaction, despite the fact that aluminum is one of the few > metals BLP does not claim as catalytic. Rossi’s attorneys were negligent > not to mention Mills as prior art, and that may come back to haunt them. > > > Yeah, it's a very narrow patent that can only prevent immediate knockoffs and let Rossi claim he has a patent. Until we see a replication though, I remain skeptical.
