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 hohlr...@gmail.com 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
Although he didn't test the dogbones until high temperatures, Rossi did use the emissivity temperatures for alumina contained in the literature, which correctly corresponded to the dogbones at low temperatures. So, at least it was a better analysis than the 32 day test on Upsala. 2015-08-28 3:15 GMT-03:00 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com: [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (hohlr...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DJ%252FMxQa%252FAcHXYI0a8wwVDBn1MskCQB3vXpADQuKw62MEq34UgMarZvgmRw6GOsvwLX5uu7Q72spzF387lRb3Jy9ACCBS%252F4h9t6ZxQvT7jueI5Fl7SuAJ2SJ6MrOgf1l0AyYzS4zZ4V3w%253D%26key%3DzmMXqP03s2jyNE8Axm%252F2wux%252B2khLN%252BtItnO3YHOeJb4%253Dtc_serial=2203755tc_rand=281070244utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 | More info http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=2203755tc_rand=281070244utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 PDF version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBeUdnZkprSlhPTWs/view?usp=sharing On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com 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/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
From: Terry Blanton PDF version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBeUdnZkprSlhPTWs/view?usp=sharing Ø Well, if you enjoyed the brevity of Rossi's patent, you'll hate the details of Industrial Light and Magic, er, Industrial Heat's … One detail which seems to be missing is “who, exactly” has patent priority for using LAH + nickel in a power generating application ? By now, we can probably assume from all the attention it is getting that LAH is critical to success. I just started trying to track down some priority dates and if google is correct, then BLP does not have priority – at least I cannot find a clear reference to a claim for lithium aluminum hydride and nickel as a reactant in a gas phase cell. Mills has mentioned lithium hydride with iron – not nickel as the catalyst (which is what Holmlid is using). But no actual claim (in the legal sense) turns for LAH and nickel ... but then again, this is from a quickie google search.
Re: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 28 Aug 2015 01:55:26 -0400: Hi, [snip] 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/ Quote:- Those skilled in the art will understand based on upon the present disclosure that the attributes of a thermally conductive material included in a reaction device may vary based upon a reactive material, a target energy output and/or maximum energy output, a target energy input and/or a maxim energy input, a use of the reactor device, a pattern of energy input and/or output, and/or a location of the device with respect to another object and/or person - to name some examples. ...does the passage with respect to another object and/or person mean that it only works when Rossi is standing next to it? : Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
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 jone...@pacbell.net 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
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 lenn...@thornros.com 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 jone...@pacbell.net 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
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]: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 a.ashfi...@verizon.net 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 janap...@gmail.com 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 a.ashfi...@verizon.net 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
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 janap...@gmail.com 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 janap...@gmail.com 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 a.ashfi...@verizon.net 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
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
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.
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
Peter and Jones, Rossi has recently stated he is working on 64 more patents. I suspect this first patent was driven by the desire to get something patented. The US Patent Office is dead set against cold fusion and you probably noticed neither cold fusion nor LENR were mentioned, but rather it was an exothermic reaction. Presumably a lot more territory will be covered in the new patents.
RE: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
From: Peter Gluck Ø Rossi has no competition, makes the rules, leads- so this patent was necessary and is useful. It may be useful, but is difficult to imagine Rossi as leading the pack, with this as his flagship patent. The claims are very narrow, and that is very risky. BTW here is the digital document from USPTO, instead of the scan: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=9,115,913.PN.OS=PN/9,115,913RS=PN/9,115,913 Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=9,115,913.PN.OS=PN/9,115,913RS=PN/9,115,913 The value of this disclosure absolutely depends on lithium hydride in combination with aluminum. Anything else is not protected – for instance lithium hydride in combination with magnesium lets one avoid the claims, as does lithium hydride alone. That narrowness in claims is risky - and such lack of breadth usually indicates the inventor knows that one ingredient, and only one ingredient works … which may be the case … but this narrowness is no doubt also an acknowledgement of the massive portfolio of BLP and Mills, most of which is pending. This very limited disclosure was granted quickly – as part of a strategy, but has almost no value other than to protect lithium hydride and aluminum reactions with a liquid. For another example – lithium and aluminum could be used as an IR heat source and avoid any conflict or with a TEG or Stirling. I am very surprised they limited this to a fluid. BTW a Chinese patent has already been granted for a Stirling engine LENR variant which mentions Rossi by name, which is most curious since it assumes that Rossi’s IP can be avoided but that the best implementation for it is a Stirling engine. OTOH Rossi’s Boston law firm is known to be competent, despite the obvious apparent weakness in this filing. Apparently Rossi believes that he has tried all the permutations, and only LAH works. Jones
[Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
I have worked many years with patents so I dare to say that I know the lesson http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/08/aug-26-how-valuable-is-rossis-us-patent.html Know-how is more than patents. a complex technology as LENR needs more patents. Rosssi has no competition, makes the rules, leads- so this patent was necessary and is useful. 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
Let’s connect the dots in the Rossi patent as it fits into the big picture (while looking for even larger implications): 1)The Claim set is very narrow, and that is risky but expedient. 2)The only protection found in this disclosure is for lithium hydride in combination with aluminum or LAH. Nothing else is protected. 3)Such lack of breadth usually indicates the inventor knows that one ingredient, and only one ingredient is active 4)This streamlining is also part of a strategy for fast approval by USPTO, as is dropping any mention of LENR (as mentioned by A.Ashfield). 5)Apparently, Rossi believes that only LAH works well or is willing to roll the dice - with a streamlined disclosure. 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. Aluminum itself has never been widely used in LENR nor fractional hydrogen work before Rossi (Iwamura converted Na to Al, but that went nowhere). It has no Rydberg ionization potential orbitals. It has very strong affinity for oxygen. In short, there is a good argument that aluminum represents a near pinnacle of available chemical energy in a common metal reactant … but one thing which can push a chemical reaction further is a Mills’ type reaction. Clearly the key to success appears to be the combination of aluminum with lithium. Lithium does have one Rydberg energy (state when it loses two electrons). It is likely that the aluminum hydride anion with 4 protons becomes activated on the loss of protons and then becomes a molecule which acts like a catalytic metal. LAH crystallizes as a unit cell where Li+ centers are surrounded by AlH4 tetrahedra. The compound begins to lose hydrogen with added heat. I suspect it becomes active for “shrinking hydrogen” about 350 C when one proton has escaped, and another is nearing the thermal oscillation region where it will soon escape. If – instead of escape, the nascent hydrogen instead drops to the third redundant ground state (3 X 27.2 = 81.6 eV) then it has acted exactly as would potassium, but with the advantage that potassium needs to lose 3 electrons instead of two, so arguably LAH is more efficient. Mills can see that now but ….did he see it before Rossi?? I doubt it. Mills has a history of amending patent applications long after they were filed, since few of his have been granted. They are two complex and over-reaching. For instance, there is almost no doubt (as I reported several years ago) that Mills amended a plasma-phase patent - and added “gas phase” to that older application AFTER Rossi’s initial demo with gas phase, and it is possible that Mills added LAH to an older application, as well – following Rossi’s disclosure of the HotCat ingredients. All of that may be sorted out in Court one of these days, but do not give Mills any credit for being more honest that Rossi, simply because he is better educated and has raised more capital. Neither of them have a reputation for truthfulness.
