RE: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Eric

...

> A little bit of an indirect strategy, but it kind of makes sense to me.

It does sound like a reasonably strategic maneuver. Under similar circumstances 
I think that's what I would do. 


Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

With the acquisition of the technology by IH, Rossi has had the opportunity
> to avail himself of competent counsel.  At face value it seems he has not
> done so.  Or perhaps this is another play of some kind.  Things never seem
> to get boring.
>

One reason has occurred to me for Rossi's filing an incomplete and
inadequate patent application.  As David French says in the article, claims
in an initial filing can be thought of as placeholders.  Rossi's patent
attorneys might be making this bet: it is not difficult to put in an
application now in order to get an early date of priority.  But it's far
from guaranteed that an application will be approved, so better not to
reveal any trade secrets at this point.  If things look different in a
year, the application can be amended to fix the deficiencies, filling in
the information that was left out.  If things do not look better in a year,
the application can be abandoned without having released the enabling
information (e.g., about the catalyst).

A little bit of an indirect strategy, but it kind of makes sense to me.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:


> Rossi might know what is happening with lithium but he also might not. Is
> this lack of revelation about lithium destructive of his patent
> application, you be the judge.
>

I do not know enough about patents to be the judge. David French does know
about patents and he does not seem impressed by this one.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Axil Axil]

Rossi provides a moving target for those who want to understand what he is
doing from one day to the next.

When he described the Hot-Cat, he said that he did not need a catalyst any
more. But this statement is equivocal.

Rossi when from a hydrogen gas envelope to supply hydrogen to his reactor,
to a solid hydride, that releases and restores hydrogen as a function of
the reactors operational temperature.

But this Lithium Aluminum hydride performs two critical functions
symaltianiously.

Yes, the hydride stores and releases hydrogen, but it also supplies lithium
as the "secret sauce" which replaces potassium that was used in his lower
temperature reactors. This lithium will find its way into the crystal
structure of the alumina, where it combines with hydrogen to form lithium
hydride. This is the fuel source of the Hot-Cat.

The vapor pressure of the LiH is increased by its storage inside the
alumina crystals which keeps the hydrogen from decomposing at high
temperatures which would usually free the hydrogen from its chemical bounds
with lithium.

Rossi might know what is happening with lithium but he also might not. Is
this lack of revelation about lithium destructive of his patent
application, you be the judge.



On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:24 AM, H Veeder  wrote:

> Rossi's original name for the Ecat was the energy catalyst, so the
> putative catalyst​ might be the reactor itself. ;-)
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> See David French's analysis of Andrea Rossi's new patent application:
>>
>>
>> http://coldfusionnow.org/andrea-rossi-2nd-us-patent-application-published-6-nov-2014-at-uspto/
>>
>> David French concludes:
>>
>> How can the best mode requirement be met when a catalyst is required and
>>> that catalyst is not disclosed? How could this application even have been
>>> filed? ... Others can search through this disclosure for ostensibly useful
>>> technical information, but as a patent filing this application will
>>> encounter great difficulties.
>>>
>>
>> With the acquisition of the technology by IH, Rossi has had the
>> opportunity to avail himself of competent counsel.  At face value it seems
>> he has not done so.  Or perhaps this is another play of some kind.  Things
>> never seem to get boring.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[H Veeder]

Rossi's original name for the Ecat was the energy catalyst, so the putative
catalyst​ might be the reactor itself. ;-)

Harry

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> See David French's analysis of Andrea Rossi's new patent application:
>
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/andrea-rossi-2nd-us-patent-application-published-6-nov-2014-at-uspto/
>
> David French concludes:
>
> How can the best mode requirement be met when a catalyst is required and
>> that catalyst is not disclosed? How could this application even have been
>> filed? ... Others can search through this disclosure for ostensibly useful
>> technical information, but as a patent filing this application will
>> encounter great difficulties.
>>
>
> With the acquisition of the technology by IH, Rossi has had the
> opportunity to avail himself of competent counsel.  At face value it seems
> he has not done so.  Or perhaps this is another play of some kind.  Things
> never seem to get boring.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Eric Walker]

See David French's analysis of Andrea Rossi's new patent application:

http://coldfusionnow.org/andrea-rossi-2nd-us-patent-application-published-6-nov-2014-at-uspto/

David French concludes:

How can the best mode requirement be met when a catalyst is required and
> that catalyst is not disclosed? How could this application even have been
> filed? ... Others can search through this disclosure for ostensibly useful
> technical information, but as a patent filing this application will
> encounter great difficulties.
>

With the acquisition of the technology by IH, Rossi has had the opportunity
to avail himself of competent counsel.  At face value it seems he has not
done so.  Or perhaps this is another play of some kind.  Things never seem
to get boring.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Abstract

A system is disclosed for converting energy from the electromagnetic
> quantum vacuum available at any point in the universe to usable energy in
> the form of heat, electricity, mechanical energy or other forms of power.


It seems they were able to travel into the black hole and obtain the
quantum data [1].

Eric


[1] http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7286

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:
> maybe I read it too fast, but in fact it seems this patent does not patent
> NiH reaction, but assume the fuel exist and have some characteristic... it
> seems to patent the reactor...

And rightly so if various ingredients generate wide ranging results.
Ingredients and method of operation might be separately patented.

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alain Sepeda]

maybe I read it too fast, but in fact it seems this patent does not patent
NiH reaction, but assume the fuel exist and have some characteristic... it
seems to patent the reactor...

2014-11-08 0:06 GMT+01:00 James Bowery :

>
> The patent is invalid.  The catalyst has to be specified in at least a
> preferred embodiment.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  The USPTO has an 18 month embargo on publication, which is* optional* and
>> not required - and they chose not to avail themselves of the delayed
>> publication.  That is a strategy choice. You can find this stature
>> online: (35 U.S.C. 122 Confidential status of applications)
>>
>> The implication is that they want to get the most basic version of the
>> device protected and in front of the public immediately if possible.
>> These is a very limited scope patent – and could get through, but it may
>> not protect very much.
>>
>> There is no mention of isotopes or a particular catalyst. This means
>> that they cannot protect the use of any catalyst, other than as a trade
>> secret, but catch-22 – if the devices is not described well enough so
>> that a practitioner “skilled in the art” can make and use it, they are
>> in trouble on the basic claim.  This is the so-called “enablement
>> requirement” of 35 U.S.C. 112.
>>
>> The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the
>> invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the
>> claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the
>> interested public in a meaningful way. Thus if MFMP can replicate the device
>> for any gain, then Rossi is in a good position.
>>
>> *From:* Frank Acland
>>
>> Maybe Industrial Heat is using the USPTO's fast track service for this
>> one: *http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp*
>> 
>>
>> … why did this patent show up already?  It was only filed in april of
>> this year.
>>
>>
>>* Application Number* * Filing Date** Patent Number*
>>
>> 61818553May 2, 2013
>> 61819058May 3, 2013
>> 61821914May 10, 2013
>> Ron Kita  wrote:
>>
>> Greetings Vortex-L,
>>
>>
>> *http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20140326711.PGNR.&OS=DN%2F20140326711&RS=DN%2F20140326711*
>> 
>>
>> Ad Astra,
>>
>> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>>
>> Doylestown PA
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>
>> Frank Acland
>> Publisher, *E-Cat World* 
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

> The total output is 1.440113 MW --- so "reactor 600" is most likely the 
> initial on-site customer acceptance test for the new 1MW system 

Correction -- the total excess output was 1.44 MWh ... but the duration isn't 
described, so the power can't be calculated. 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[James Bowery]

The patent is invalid.  The catalyst has to be specified in at least a
preferred embodiment.


On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  The USPTO has an 18 month embargo on publication, which is* optional* and
> not required - and they chose not to avail themselves of the delayed
> publication.  That is a strategy choice. You can find this stature online:
> (35 U.S.C. 122 Confidential status of applications)
>
> The implication is that they want to get the most basic version of the
> device protected and in front of the public immediately if possible.
> These is a very limited scope patent – and could get through, but it may
> not protect very much.
>
> There is no mention of isotopes or a particular catalyst. This means that
> they cannot protect the use of any catalyst, other than as a trade
> secret, but catch-22 – if the devices is not described well enough so
> that a practitioner “skilled in the art” can make and use it, they are in
> trouble on the basic claim.  This is the so-called “enablement requirement
> ” of 35 U.S.C. 112.
>
> The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the
> invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the
> claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the
> interested public in a meaningful way. Thus if MFMP can replicate the device
> for any gain, then Rossi is in a good position.
>
> *From:* Frank Acland
>
> Maybe Industrial Heat is using the USPTO's fast track service for this
> one: *http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp*
> 
>
> … why did this patent show up already?  It was only filed in april of
> this year.
>
>
>* Application Number* * Filing Date** Patent Number*
>
> 61818553May 2, 2013
> 61819058May 3, 2013
> 61821914May 10, 2013
> Ron Kita  wrote:
>
> Greetings Vortex-L,
>
>
> *http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20140326711.PGNR.&OS=DN%2F20140326711&RS=DN%2F20140326711*
> 
>
> Ad Astra,
>
> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>
> Doylestown PA
>
>
>
>  --
>
> Frank Acland
> Publisher, *E-Cat World* 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

A few things I'm not clear about in the 1MW "reactor 600" 

Fig 17 : 
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?docid=20140326711&PageNum=14&IDKey=72E161583AAE&HomeUrl=http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526u=%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.html%2526r=1%2526p=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526d=PG01%2526S1=20140326711.PGNR.%2526OS=DN/20140326711%2526RS=DN/20140326711
 

It doesn't show the actual position of the reactor element[s] inside the 
"reactor shelter" [606], although other elements like the internal reservoir 
[612] pumps [610] and flow meters [614] are shown. 

There are no pumps shown from the external tanks [620a,620b] into the reactor 
shelter : the text says that pumps [610] do this, though they're shown as 
pumping water from the internal reservoir back to the tank. (There are a total 
of 80 pumps! Hard to squeeze them all into the diagram.) 

The readings MW1a and MW1b must be from the Flow Meters into the reactor -- 
Tank a : 1050 to 1750 kg Tank b : 2900 to 3900 kg. 

I presume that the water cycle to and from the top (a) and bottom (b) tanks are 
run at the same time, but it's not clear why they use different amounts of 
water. 

It might be that the "shelter" either contains spare heating elements on one 
side, or that one side isn't fully populated. 

None of this matters to the COP calculation, of course. I haven't reconciled 
why my "conservative" COP is greater than theirs. 

I tried splitting the calculation in two sections, allocating the power in 
proportion to the separate flows. 
This gives COP = 12.84 and 12.83 using the reduced mass and ignoring 
super-heating. 

I get a slightly higher value for heating the water to boiling point -- 120 vs 
117 kWh (they use a specific heat of 1.14 kWh/gK, mine uses a lonlinear 
official water table), but a smaller value for evaporation -- 143.8 kWh vs 
their 144.01 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

I forgot to subtract the generator power at the start of the run : My VERY new 
calculations are : 

Nominal 12.8 
Start: 15.1 
End 14.6 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

My new calculations are : 

Nominal 12.08 (1 more than their result) 
Start: 14.2 
End 13.7 

Calculator : 

Nominal 
http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plot&ever=d&efzx0=0&efzy0=0&efzx9=9&efzy9=9&esl=1&epbr=2&enm=Patent+Reactor+600+--++1MW++--+Conservative&edh=1&edm=0&eds=0&eif=2295&eip=140.7&ecp=0&eox=1&eoxr=2&et0=22.4&ep0=1&et1=54.9&et2=100&er2=1
 

Start 
http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plot&ever=d&efzx0=0&efzy0=0&efzx9=9&efzy9=9&esl=1&epbr=2&enm=Patent+Reactor+600+--++1MW++--+Start&edh=0&edm=0&eds=36&eif=25.50&eip=140.7&ecp=0&et3=121&ep3=1&eoxr=3&et0=22.4&ep0=1&et1=22.4&et2=100&er2=1
 

End 
http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plot&ever=d&efzx0=0&efzy0=0&efzx9=9&efzy9=9&esl=1&epbr=2&enm=Patent+Reactor+600+--++1MW++--+End&edh=0&edm=0&eds=36&eif=25.50&eip=140.7&ecp=0&et3=139.7&ep3=1&eoxr=3&et0=22.4&ep0=1&et1=54.9&et2=100&er2=1
 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

Good grief! 3 years on, and I've just noticed a bug in my calculator. 

I calculate COP = output/input (AND say so on the output). 

It's actually COP = (input+output)/input 

The values will be even higher than I reported! 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

OK ... I re-read the paper more carefully. 

They only recorded data when the steam temperature was above 101C at 
atmospheric pressure, with actual steam temperatures rising from 121.3C to 
139.7C 
So it MUST have been 100% dry, and super-heated -- no need to measure the 
quality. 

(OK : I could quibble a little, that the boiling point depends on the actual 
atmospheric pressure, or at least corrected for altitude.) 

I ran this through my steam calculator. They took water from two tanks, at 
slightly different temperatures --- starting at 21.6C and 22.4C, and ending at 
54.9 and 46.8 so I used the highest value of 54.9 

The time of the test is not given, so I set it to a nominal 1 hour. 

First, using their conservative values -- reducing the amount of water used (to 
2295kg) and not counting the heating of the steam (Quality=1) 

This gives a COP of 11.081 -- which is close to their value. (The energy to 
heat he water to boiling, and then to superheat it is very small compared to 
the evaporation). 

http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plot&ever=c&efzx0=0&efzy0=0&efzx9=9&efzy9=9&esl=1&epbr=2&enm=Patent+Reactor+600+--++1MW++--+Conservative&edh=1&edm=0&eds=0&eif=2295&eip=140.7&ecp=0&eox=1&eoxr=2&et0=22.4&ep0=1&et1=54.9&et2=100&er2=1
 

However, their procedure complicates things : they apparently return the water 
straight back to the same tank, so it actually rises from 21.6 to a final value 
of 54.4 and a highest value of 54.9 (and similarly for the second tank). As the 
inlet water temperature rises, so does the steam temperature. 

They use the highest temperature values in their calculations, so they again 
under-estimate the COP. 

To try and estimate the true COP, I divided the time and water flow by 100, and 
then used the start and end temperature values. (In each case I use the highest 
temperature of the two tanks -- I could use a weighted average.), and the full 
volume of water. This still assumes that all the generator power goes into 
heating. 

This gave a COP of 13.2 at the start, and 12.7 at the end 

So I'd say that the actual COP is around 13 

RE: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Jones Beene]

To take this part of the thread (re: a putative DCE connection to the Rossi 
patent application) - to its natural conclusion, there is one big … no huge … 
advance made by Rossi - over the Haisch/Moddel disclosure. 

That would be assuming that Rossi has actually seen the level of gain which is 
claimed, whereas H/M saw little gain in their prototype … which could have been 
for any number of reasons but mainly because you also need SPP. Therefore - the 
natural question of looking at the two together is this – can the Casimir 
effect be enhanced by high temperature (and SPP)?

Thanks to Google, we have an answer, since this citation pops up  (behind an 
annoying paywall) which indicates that the Casimir is indeed enhanced at high 
temperature. Imagine that.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140709/ncomms5364/abs/ncomms5364.html

Abstract:  The temperature dependence of the Casimir–Polder interaction 
addresses fundamental issues for understanding vacuum and thermal fluctuations. 
It is highly sensitive to surface waves, which, in the near field, govern the 
thermal emission of a hot surface… the observed increase of the interaction 
with temperature, by up to 50%, relies on the coupling between atomic virtual 
transitions in the infrared range and thermally excited surface-polariton 
modes. 

In conclusion – the Haisch/Moddel patent may explain slight thermal gain via 
DCE, when hydrogen is absorbed into ceramic cavities of the proper size, but 
which the original inventors could not document enough gain to matter. Yet 
Rossi has found using a much higher temperature regime - which he may not have 
explained correctly in his patent application using SPP in combination with 
Casimir. 

Each got part of the answer, but it requires looking at both to see it all. So 
where do we go from here?

From: David Roberson 
*   Are you not amazed that a patent is issued for a device of this type 
and not for one that claims cold fusion as the source of energy? 
Not really – this is the dividing line between mainstream and fringe – and it 
is a narrow line.
I’m assuming you are talking about the Haisch/Moddel device, which is an issued 
patent; but which could relate to the Rossi HT which is only an application, 
not granted. Rossi was wise to drop the nuclear claims.
*   What are the chances that the inventors actually brought one of these 
systems to the patent office to prove that it works?
None but they built a prototype. These are extremely well credentialed 
inventors. 
Plus the Casimir force is real. There is no need for anything else to establish 
credibility, and IIRC when this patent was part of CoolEssence – they built a 
prototype which performed poorly!  So the patent was granted, even though the 
device did not perform well. Roarty may know the details of the prototype.

> It is very sad that our field is treated as the unwanted kid while everyone 
> else gets a free ride
But realize – this is because there is no good proof of a nuclear reaction in 
the estimation of USPTO yet the Casimir force is proved. 
If it turns out the Rossi HT device is based on the Dynamical Casimir Effect 
(DCE) – which very well could be the case, who knows? … then USPTO was correct 
in rejecting anything to do with nuclear reactions, since there is no 
convincing evidence.
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
You say potato, I say potato… 
 
But the main implications which stands out on first read – if we try to 
interpret what is being claimed in this disclosure relative to what we already 
know…
1)Non-nuclear
2)Requires substantial electrical input and elevate temperature
3)Requires ceramic containment
4)If hydrogen is the active “agent” for gain,  in the sense of Ni-H 
- then the hydrogen must be embedded in the nickel as a strongly bound hydride 
instead of as a more weakly bound absorbate , in such a way that hydrogen is 
not released at extreme temperature (as it usually is).
5)Otherwise, and this is more likely: the ceramic matrix would 
retain the diffuse hydrogen after thermal release from the nickel; and if it is 
porous, as sintered ceramic usually is (6-8% porosity is common), then this 
points to a Casimir modality…
 
If I were the folks at Jovion, I would be feeling pretty good about this turn 
of events, having a granted patent- United States 7,379,286Quantum vacuum 
energy extraction
 
Inventors: Haisch, Bernard (Redwood City, CA); Moddel, Garret (Boulder, CO)
Assignee: Jovion Corporation (Menlo Park, CA)
 
Abstract
A system is disclosed for converting energy from the electromagnetic quantum 
vacuum available at any point in the universe to usable energy in the form of 
heat, electricity, mechanical energy or other forms of power. By suppressing 
electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy at appropriate frequencies a change may 
be effected in the electron energy levels which will result in the emission or 
release of energy. Mode supp

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

From: "Jack Cole"  
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 12:24:13 PM 

> The report notes that they ignored the energy needed to heat the steam beyond 
> 100C and also underestimated the flow by 10% to be conservative. Does this 
> affect your analysis? 

With my engineering hat on, the result is probably valid. (Assuming the steam 
quality's 95% there's an extra 5% leeway). 

With my scientific/anti-pseudo-skeptic hat : a loophole as big as a barn. They 
probably could have rented a steam-quality meter for $100 for a day to do a 
spot check on vented steam. $1000 with an expert to run it. Or they could have 
installed a steam/water separator in the output pipe and monitored it 
continually. Or sparged the output. Or something. 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Blaze Spinnaker]

The COP etc is meaningless without replication or at the very worst - third
party verification.


On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Alan,
>
> The report notes that they ignored the energy needed to heat the steam
> beyond 100C and also underestimated the flow by 10% to be conservative.
> Does this affect your analysis?
>
> Jack
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
>> *From: *"David Roberson" 
>> *Sent: *Thursday, November 6, 2014 10:09:13 AM
>>
>> > I was referring to the evidence supporting the claimed COP and not the
>> usefulness of the steam itself.  Accurate measurement of the heat power is
>> the important issue at hand.  Of course the guys calculating the COP must
>> know how much heat the steam contains.  That seems obvious and not needing
>> to be stated.
>>
>> Still needs to be taken into account.  They don't describe the structure
>> of the "boiler".  Since they're only aiming for 100C steam the hotcat
>> heater elements are most likely immersed in a tank of water, so they just
>> boil the water and don't super-heat the resulting steam.
>>
>> In that case it's most like a kettle boiler, which will typically (is
>> this situation typical?) generate 95% steam quality.  Depending on the
>> application they might not even need "dry" 100C steam.
>>
>> In the original test they just had a simple outlet valve to check that no
>> liquid water was escaping. They probably had that here, too, though it's
>> not described.
>>
>> A real-life steam customer will be happy just seeing some steam vented,
>> with no liquid water running out of the outlet.
>>
>> But it won't satisfy scientists and skeptics.  Or the patent office?
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Jack Cole]

Alan,

The report notes that they ignored the energy needed to heat the steam
beyond 100C and also underestimated the flow by 10% to be conservative.
Does this affect your analysis?

Jack

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> *From: *"David Roberson" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, November 6, 2014 10:09:13 AM
>
> > I was referring to the evidence supporting the claimed COP and not the
> usefulness of the steam itself.  Accurate measurement of the heat power is
> the important issue at hand.  Of course the guys calculating the COP must
> know how much heat the steam contains.  That seems obvious and not needing
> to be stated.
>
> Still needs to be taken into account.  They don't describe the structure
> of the "boiler".  Since they're only aiming for 100C steam the hotcat
> heater elements are most likely immersed in a tank of water, so they just
> boil the water and don't super-heat the resulting steam.
>
> In that case it's most like a kettle boiler, which will typically (is this
> situation typical?) generate 95% steam quality.  Depending on the
> application they might not even need "dry" 100C steam.
>
> In the original test they just had a simple outlet valve to check that no
> liquid water was escaping. They probably had that here, too, though it's
> not described.
>
> A real-life steam customer will be happy just seeing some steam vented,
> with no liquid water running out of the outlet.
>
> But it won't satisfy scientists and skeptics.  Or the patent office?
>

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

From: "David Roberson"  
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 10:09:13 AM 

> I was referr ing to the evidence supporting the claimed COP and not the 
> usefulness of the steam itself. Accurate measurement of the heat power is the 
> important issue at hand. Of course the guys calculating the COP must know how 
> much heat the steam contains. That seems obvious and not needing to be 
> stated. 

Still needs to be taken into account. They don't describe the structure of the 
"boiler". Since they're only aiming for 100C steam the hotcat heater elements 
are most likely immersed in a tank of water, so they just boil the water and 
don't super-heat the resulting steam. 

In that case it's most like a kettle boiler, which will typically (is this 
situation typical?) generate 95% steam quality. Depending on the application 
they might not even need "dry" 100C steam. 

In the original test they just had a simple outlet valve to check that no 
liquid water was escaping. They probably had that here, too, though it's not 
described. 

A real-life steam customer will be happy just seeing some steam vented, with no 
liquid water running out of the outlet. 

But it won't satisfy scientists and skeptics. Or the patent office? 

RE: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Jones Beene]

From: David Roberson 

*   Are you not amazed that a patent is issued for a device of this type 
and not for one that claims cold fusion as the source of energy? 

Not really – this is the dividing line between mainstream and fringe – and it 
is a narrow line.

I’m assuming you are talking about the Haisch/Moddel device, which is an issued 
patent; but which could relate to the Rossi HT which is only an application, 
not granted. Rossi was wise to drop the nuclear claims.

*   What are the chances that the inventors actually brought one of these 
systems to the patent office to prove that it works?

None but they built a prototype. These are extremely well credentialed 
inventors. 

Plus the Casimir force is real. There is no need for anything else to establish 
credibility, and IIRC when this patent was part of CoolEssence – they built a 
prototype which performed poorly!  So the patent was granted, even though the 
device did not perform well. Roarty may know the details of the prototype.

> It is very sad that our field is treated as the unwanted kid while everyone 
> else gets a free ride

But realize – this is because there is no good proof of a nuclear reaction in 
the estimation of USPTO yet the Casimir force is proved. 

If it turns out the Rossi HT device is based on the Dynamical Casimir Effect 
(DCE) – which very well could be the case, who knows? … then USPTO was correct 
in rejecting anything to do with nuclear reactions, since there is no 
convincing evidence.


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
You say potato, I say potato… 
 
But the main implications which stands out on first read – if we try to 
interpret what is being claimed in this disclosure relative to what we already 
know…
1)Non-nuclear
2)Requires substantial electrical input and elevate temperature
3)Requires ceramic containment
4)If hydrogen is the active “agent” for gain,  in the sense of Ni-H 
- then the hydrogen must be embedded in the nickel as a strongly bound hydride 
instead of as a more weakly bound absorbate , in such a way that hydrogen is 
not released at extreme temperature (as it usually is).
5)Otherwise, and this is more likely: the ceramic matrix would 
retain the diffuse hydrogen after thermal release from the nickel; and if it is 
porous, as sintered ceramic usually is (6-8% porosity is common), then this 
points to a Casimir modality…
 
If I were the folks at Jovion, I would be feeling pretty good about this turn 
of events, having a granted patent- United States 7,379,286Quantum vacuum 
energy extraction
 
Inventors: Haisch, Bernard (Redwood City, CA); Moddel, Garret (Boulder, CO)
Assignee: Jovion Corporation (Menlo Park, CA)
 
Abstract
A system is disclosed for converting energy from the electromagnetic quantum 
vacuum available at any point in the universe to usable energy in the form of 
heat, electricity, mechanical energy or other forms of power. By suppressing 
electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy at appropriate frequencies a change may 
be effected in the electron energy levels which will result in the emission or 
release of energy. Mode suppression of electromagnetic quantum vacuum radiation 
is known to take place in Casimir cavities. A Casimir cavity refers to any 
region in which electromagnetic modes are suppressed or restricted. When atoms 
enter into suitable micro Casimir cavities a decrease in the orbital energies 
of electrons in atoms will thus occur. Such energy will be captured in the 
claimed devices. Upon emergence form such micro Casimir cavities the atoms will 
be re-energized by the ambient electromagnetic quantum vacuum. In this way 
energy is extracted locally and replenished globally from and by the 
electromagnetic quantum vacuum. This process may be repeated an unlimited 
number of times. This process is also consistent with the conservation of 
energy in that all usable energy does come at the expense of the energy content 
of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Similar effects may be produced by 
acting upon molecular bonds. Devices are described in which gas is recycled 
through a multiplicity of Casimir cavities. The disclosed devices are scalable 
in size and energy output for applications ranging from replacements for small 
batteries to power plant sized generators of electricity.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[David Roberson]

I was referring to the evidence supporting the claimed COP and not the 
usefulness of the steam itself.  Accurate measurement of the heat power is the 
important issue at hand.  Of course the guys calculating the COP must know how 
much heat the steam contains.  That seems obvious and not needing to be stated. 
 

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today



From: "David Roberson" 
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:39:11 AM

> The quality of the steam is not that important provided a method to 
> accurately measure the amount of heat it contains is used.  A COP of 11.07 is 
> important and represents a significant improvement above the earlier 
> specification of greater than 6.   If you are concerned about the accuracy of 
> the measurement then that is a different problem.




The steam quality is critically important, as it can range between 0% (NO water 
vaporized) and 100% (ALL the water vaporized).  


This is exactly the same configuration as was used for the original 1MW 
acceptance test -- generator, reactors, condensers in a recycling loop. I don't 
THINK this includes a heat exchanger, which (if the thermocouples are connected 
properly) can give an irrefutable measurement.


The total output is 1.440113 MW --- so "reactor 600" is most likely the initial 
on-site customer acceptance test for the new 1MW system 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[David Roberson]

That is a good point Alan.  It is an interesting coincidence that the thought 
came into my mind just before it was published.  That concept will become of 
much importance as applications for the CATs begin to appear.  I can imagine 
that complex systems of these types of devices will be developed which depend 
upon the environment into which the individual units are imersed.  Actions and 
control methods must be adjusted to take advantage of the local configuration.

My simulation of an individual HotCat type device indicated that it should be 
possible to design it so that it remains stable over a large range of core 
operating temperatures.  The forth order radiation power sink is a major 
component of that design plan.  If these individual units are then grouped into 
a system such as a large oven, then the reverse radiation from the heated 
interior of that oven change the equation significantly.  I can readily obtain 
a latching condition where the individual CATs continue to produce significant 
heat power without requiring any input heating from the built in electric 
heaters.

As long as enough heat from electric heaters remains, then the overall COP for 
the complete system can become very large and hopefully under control.  Of 
course the complete overall system has to be designed as a unit so that the 
oven can cool down once all of the electrical heating coils are turned off.  
The heat escaping the furnace must be larger than all of the heat power 
generated by the contributing latched CATs for this to happen.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today



Seeing that the publication date was set by the USPTO, I doubt it   =8-)



From: "David Roberson" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:19:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today



Notice that the system including a number of reactors working together is 
similar to what I was describing in a posting yesterday.  Perhaps that is why 
they decided to publish that information today.

Dave

RE: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Randy Wuller]

Alan:

 

I don’t think that means that at all.  At best you need to see the various 
agreements between the parties to make such a statement.

 

Ransom

 

From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

 

Note that the inventor is Rossi, working for IH  ... but the ASSIGNEE is still 
Leonardo Corporation, Miami.

 

So apparently IH didn't get ALL the IP rights   

 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

From: "David Roberson"  
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:39:11 AM 

> The q uality of the steam is not that important provided a method to 
> accurately measure the amount of heat it contains is used. A COP of 11.07 is 
> important and represents a significant improvement above the earlier 
> specification of greater than 6. If you are concerned about the accuracy of 
> the measurement then that is a different problem. 


The steam quality is critically important, as it can range between 0% (NO water 
vaporized) and 100% (ALL the water vaporized). 

This is exactly the same configuration as was used for the original 1MW 
acceptance test -- generator, reactors, condensers in a recycling loop. I don't 
THINK this includes a heat exchanger, which (if the thermocouples are connected 
properly) can give an irrefutable measurement. 

The total output is 1.440113 MW --- so "reactor 600" is most likely the initial 
on-site customer acceptance test for the new 1MW system 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[David Roberson]

The quality of the steam is not that important provided a method to accurately 
measure the amount of heat it contains is used.  A COP of 11.07 is important 
and represents a significant improvement above the earlier specification of 
greater than 6.   If you are concerned about the accuracy of the measurement 
then that is a different problem.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 12:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today



From: "Alan Fletcher" 
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 8:41:48 AM



> 600 is new - describing an assemblage of 18 reactors 
> This is used to generate STEAM --- the COP is reported as  *** 11.07 ***


No mention (that I can see) of  steam quality or anything to measure it.


[0196] Throughout the test, the temperatures of steam measured by the two 
probes have always been the same or very similar to each other. Throughout the 
test, the pressure of the steam was always equal to atmospheric pressure 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[David Roberson]

Are you not amazed that a patent is issued for a device of this type and not 
for one that claims cold fusion as the source of energy?  What are the chances 
that the inventors actually brought one of these systems to the patent office 
to prove that it works?

It is very sad that our field is treated as the unwanted kid while everyone 
else gets a free ride.  It leads me to suspect that organizations with a large 
amount of influence have been aware of the potential of LENR type devices for a 
long time and have gone to great lengths to suppress their introduction into 
the world.  If the technology has been known and kept from being developed then 
those responsible for this behavior should be taken to the shed out back and 
given a beating.

This posting sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory and I suppose that is what 
it is, but the actions of the patent office give it credibility.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 12:01 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today





You say potato, I say potato… 
 
But the main implications which stands out on first read – if we try to 
interpret what is being claimed in this disclosure relative to what we already 
know…
1)Non-nuclear
2)Requires substantial electrical input and elevate temperature
3)Requires ceramic containment
4)If hydrogen is the active “agent” for gain,  in the sense of Ni-H 
- then the hydrogen must be embedded in the nickel as a strongly bound hydride 
instead of as a more weakly bound absorbate , in such a way that hydrogen is 
not released at extreme temperature (as it usually is).
5)Otherwise, and this is more likely: the ceramic matrix would 
retain the diffuse hydrogen after thermal release from the nickel; and if it is 
porous, as sintered ceramic usually is (6-8% porosity is common), then this 
points to a Casimir modality…
 
If I were the folks at Jovion, I would be feeling pretty good about this turn 
of events, having a granted patent- United States 7,379,286Quantum vacuum 
energy extraction
 
Inventors: Haisch, Bernard (Redwood City, CA); Moddel, Garret (Boulder, CO)
Assignee: Jovion Corporation (Menlo Park, CA)
 
Abstract
A system is disclosed for converting energy from the electromagnetic quantum 
vacuum available at any point in the universe to usable energy in the form of 
heat, electricity, mechanical energy or other forms of power. By suppressing 
electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy at appropriate frequencies a change may 
be effected in the electron energy levels which will result in the emission or 
release of energy. Mode suppression of electromagnetic quantum vacuum radiation 
is known to take place in Casimir cavities. A Casimir cavity refers to any 
region in which electromagnetic modes are suppressed or restricted. When atoms 
enter into suitable micro Casimir cavities a decrease in the orbital energies 
of electrons in atoms will thus occur. Such energy will be captured in the 
claimed devices. Upon emergence form such micro Casimir cavities the atoms will 
be re-energized by the ambient electromagnetic quantum vacuum. In this way 
energy is extracted locally and replenished globally from and by the 
electromagnetic quantum vacuum. This process may be repeated an unlimited 
number of times. This process is also consistent with the conservation of 
energy in that all usable energy does come at the expense of the energy content 
of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Similar effects may be produced by 
acting upon molecular bonds. Devices are described in which gas is recycled 
through a multiplicity of Casimir cavities. The disclosed devices are scalable 
in size and energy output for applications ranging from replacements for small 
batteries to power plant sized generators of electricity.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

Seeing that the publication date was set by the USPTO, I doubt it =8-) 

- Original Message -

From: "David Roberson"  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:19:15 AM 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today 

Notice that the system including a number of reactors working together is 
similar to what I was describing in a posting yesterday. Perhaps that is why 
they decided to publish that information today. 

Dave 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

From: "Alan Fletcher"  
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 8:41:48 AM 

> 600 is new - describing an assemblage of 18 reactors 
> This is used to generate STEAM --- the COP is reported as *** 11.07 *** 

No mention (that I can see) of steam quality or anything to measure it. 

[0196] Throughout the test, the temperatures of steam measured by the two 
probes have always been the same or very similar to each other. Throughout the 
test, the pressure of the steam was always equal to atmospheric pressure 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[David Roberson]

Notice that the system including a number of reactors working together is 
similar to what I was describing in a posting yesterday.  Perhaps that is why 
they decided to publish that information today.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 11:42 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today



Quick read : most of it describes the physical structure and results of the 
first (2013) independent test.  It says nothing about what the reaction is, 
other than it contains nickel and produces hydrogen.


Banding/shadows  :  for the melted/banding run it gives the dimensions and 
positions of the bands and the heater elements. The dark parts are where the 
wires are.  It ascribes these to shadow, though I still think those wires 
(based on the Penon pictures)  were too thin to produce shadows from the 
internal, diffuse source.  


I think that the result from the different energy transfer of ceramic and the 
gaps in  the ceramic (where the energy would have to be transferred by 
radiation or conduction through a gas). I deduce that the conduction through 
the ceramic won.  It still means that the energy was coming from inside, and 
not from the heater wires.


600 is new - describing an assemblage of 18 reactors 


[0169] A system 600 for producing heat, according to at least one embodiment, 
is illustrated in FIG. 17. According to at least one embodiment, the system 
includes a high number of individual reactor devices. The reactor device 400 
described above represents an exemplary choice for use in the system 600, 
although other reactor devices including reactor device 200 and others are 
within the scope of these description of the system 600. In a particular 
example of the system 600, a total number of 18 reactor devices are used. Each 
of the reactors may absorb a power of about 1.1 kW....


This is used to generate STEAM --- the COP is reported as  *** 11.07 ***

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Jones you need to look at the claims.  The abstract / background / etc are
just context.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> You say potato, I say potato…
>
>
>
> But the main implications which stands out on first read – if we try to
> interpret what is being claimed in this disclosure relative to what we
> already know…
>
> 1)Non-nuclear
>
> 2)Requires substantial electrical input and elevate temperature
>
> 3)Requires ceramic containment
>
> 4)If hydrogen is the active “agent” for gain,  in the sense of
> Ni-H - then the hydrogen must be embedded in the nickel as a strongly bound
> hydride instead of as a more weakly bound absorbate , in such a way that
> hydrogen is not released at extreme temperature (as it usually is).
>
> 5)Otherwise, and this is more likely: the ceramic matrix would
> retain the diffuse hydrogen after thermal release from the nickel; and if
> it is porous, as sintered ceramic usually is (6-8% porosity is common),
> then this points to a Casimir modality…
>
>
>
> If I were the folks at Jovion, I would be feeling pretty good about this
> turn of events, having a granted patent- United States 7,379,286*Quantum
> vacuum energy extraction*
>
>
>
> Inventors: Haisch, Bernard (Redwood City, CA); Moddel, Garret (Boulder, CO)
>
> Assignee: Jovion Corporation (Menlo Park, CA)
>
>
>
> Abstract
>
> A system is disclosed for converting energy from the electromagnetic
> quantum vacuum available at any point in the universe to usable energy in
> the form of heat, electricity, mechanical energy or other forms of power.
> By suppressing electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy at appropriate
> frequencies a change may be effected in the electron energy levels which
> will result in the emission or release of energy. Mode suppression of
> electromagnetic quantum vacuum radiation is known to take place in Casimir
> cavities. A Casimir cavity refers to any region in which electromagnetic
> modes are suppressed or restricted. When atoms enter into suitable micro
> Casimir cavities a decrease in the orbital energies of electrons in atoms
> will thus occur. Such energy will be captured in the claimed devices. Upon
> emergence form such micro Casimir cavities the atoms will be re-energized
> by the ambient electromagnetic quantum vacuum. In this way energy is
> extracted locally and replenished globally from and by the electromagnetic
> quantum vacuum. This process may be repeated an unlimited number of times.
> This process is also consistent with the conservation of energy in that all
> usable energy does come at the expense of the energy content of the
> electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Similar effects may be produced by acting
> upon molecular bonds. Devices are described in which gas is recycled
> through a multiplicity of Casimir cavities. The disclosed devices are
> scalable in size and energy output for applications ranging from
> replacements for small batteries to power plant sized generators of
> electricity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Jones Beene]

You say potato, I say potato… 

 

But the main implications which stands out on first read – if we try to 
interpret what is being claimed in this disclosure relative to what we already 
know…

1)Non-nuclear

2)Requires substantial electrical input and elevate temperature

3)Requires ceramic containment

4)If hydrogen is the active “agent” for gain,  in the sense of Ni-H 
- then the hydrogen must be embedded in the nickel as a strongly bound hydride 
instead of as a more weakly bound absorbate , in such a way that hydrogen is 
not released at extreme temperature (as it usually is).

5)Otherwise, and this is more likely: the ceramic matrix would 
retain the diffuse hydrogen after thermal release from the nickel; and if it is 
porous, as sintered ceramic usually is (6-8% porosity is common), then this 
points to a Casimir modality…

 

If I were the folks at Jovion, I would be feeling pretty good about this turn 
of events, having a granted patent- United States 7,379,286Quantum vacuum 
energy extraction

 

Inventors: Haisch, Bernard (Redwood City, CA); Moddel, Garret (Boulder, CO)

Assignee: Jovion Corporation (Menlo Park, CA)

 

Abstract

A system is disclosed for converting energy from the electromagnetic quantum 
vacuum available at any point in the universe to usable energy in the form of 
heat, electricity, mechanical energy or other forms of power. By suppressing 
electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy at appropriate frequencies a change may 
be effected in the electron energy levels which will result in the emission or 
release of energy. Mode suppression of electromagnetic quantum vacuum radiation 
is known to take place in Casimir cavities. A Casimir cavity refers to any 
region in which electromagnetic modes are suppressed or restricted. When atoms 
enter into suitable micro Casimir cavities a decrease in the orbital energies 
of electrons in atoms will thus occur. Such energy will be captured in the 
claimed devices. Upon emergence form such micro Casimir cavities the atoms will 
be re-energized by the ambient electromagnetic quantum vacuum. In this way 
energy is extracted locally and replenished globally from and by the 
electromagnetic quantum vacuum. This process may be repeated an unlimited 
number of times. This process is also consistent with the conservation of 
energy in that all usable energy does come at the expense of the energy content 
of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Similar effects may be produced by 
acting upon molecular bonds. Devices are described in which gas is recycled 
through a multiplicity of Casimir cavities. The disclosed devices are scalable 
in size and energy output for applications ranging from replacements for small 
batteries to power plant sized generators of electricity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

Note that the inventor is Rossi, working for IH ... but the ASSIGNEE is still 
Leonardo Corporation, Miami. 

So apparently IH didn't get ALL the IP rights  

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Alan Fletcher]

Quick read : most of it describes the physical structure and results of the 
first (2013) independent test. It says nothing about what the reaction is, 
other than it contains nickel and produces hydrogen. 

Banding/shadows : for the melted/banding run it gives the dimensions and 
positions of the bands and the heater elements. The dark parts are where the 
wires are. It ascribes these to shadow, though I still think those wires (based 
on the Penon pictures) were too thin to produce shadows from the internal, 
diffuse source. 

I think that the result from the different energy transfer of ceramic and the 
gaps in the ceramic (where the energy would have to be transferred by radiation 
or conduction through a gas). I deduce that the conduction through the ceramic 
won. It still means that the energy was coming from inside, and not from the 
heater wires. 

600 is new - describing an assemblage of 18 reactors 

[0169] A system 600 for producing heat, according to at least one embodiment, 
is illustrated in FIG. 17. According to at least one embodiment, the system 
includes a high number of individual reactor devices. The reactor device 400 
described above represents an exemplary choice for use in the system 600, 
although other reactor devices including reactor device 200 and others are 
within the scope of these description of the system 600. In a particular 
example of the system 600, a total number of 18 reactor devices are used. Each 
of the reactors may absorb a power of about 1.1 kW. ... 

This is used to generate STEAM --- the COP is reported as *** 11.07 *** 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Blaze Spinnaker]

yeah, i'm a huge source of typos

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:
>
> . . . interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized
>> gas when in an initial state before activation of the heating element.
>>
>> I am sure a POSITA could replicate that.
>>
>
> PHOSITA (person having ordinary skill in the art)
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Jed Rothwell]

Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:

. . . interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized gas
> when in an initial state before activation of the heating element.
>
> I am sure a POSITA could replicate that.
>

PHOSITA (person having ordinary skill in the art)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Blaze Spinnaker]

For example, look at the first indie claim:

1. A reactor device comprising: a sealed vessel defining an interior; a
fuel material within the interior of the vessel; and a heating element
proximal the vessel, wherein the fuel material comprises a solid including
nickel and hydrogen, and further wherein the interior of the sealed vessel
is not preloaded with a pressurized gas when in an initial state before
activation of the heating element.

I am sure a POSITA could replicate that.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> Jones, that's mostly true.   It depends on what they're specifically
> claiming though.  with patents the devil is in the details.
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  The USPTO has an 18 month embargo on publication, which is* optional* and
>> not required - and they chose not to avail themselves of the delayed
>> publication.  That is a strategy choice. You can find this stature
>> online: (35 U.S.C. 122 Confidential status of applications)
>>
>> The implication is that they want to get the most basic version of the
>> device protected and in front of the public immediately if possible.
>> These is a very limited scope patent – and could get through, but it may
>> not protect very much.
>>
>> There is no mention of isotopes or a particular catalyst. This means
>> that they cannot protect the use of any catalyst, other than as a trade
>> secret, but catch-22 – if the devices is not described well enough so
>> that a practitioner “skilled in the art” can make and use it, they are
>> in trouble on the basic claim.  This is the so-called “enablement
>> requirement” of 35 U.S.C. 112.
>>
>> The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the
>> invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the
>> claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the
>> interested public in a meaningful way. Thus if MFMP can replicate the device
>> for any gain, then Rossi is in a good position.
>>
>> *From:* Frank Acland
>>
>> Maybe Industrial Heat is using the USPTO's fast track service for this
>> one: *http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp*
>> 
>>
>> … why did this patent show up already?  It was only filed in april of
>> this year.
>>
>>
>>* Application Number* * Filing Date** Patent Number*
>>
>> 61818553May 2, 2013
>> 61819058May 3, 2013
>> 61821914May 10, 2013
>> Ron Kita  wrote:
>>
>> Greetings Vortex-L,
>>
>>
>> *http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20140326711.PGNR.&OS=DN%2F20140326711&RS=DN%2F20140326711*
>> 
>>
>> Ad Astra,
>>
>> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>>
>> Doylestown PA
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>
>> Frank Acland
>> Publisher, *E-Cat World* 
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Daniel Rocha]

I think the 18 months, which are optional pretty much anywhere in the
world, has ran out for the 1st application. So, the others will be
published in due time.



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

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Jones, that's mostly true.   It depends on what they're specifically
claiming though.  with patents the devil is in the details.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  The USPTO has an 18 month embargo on publication, which is* optional* and
> not required - and they chose not to avail themselves of the delayed
> publication.  That is a strategy choice. You can find this stature online:
> (35 U.S.C. 122 Confidential status of applications)
>
> The implication is that they want to get the most basic version of the
> device protected and in front of the public immediately if possible.
> These is a very limited scope patent – and could get through, but it may
> not protect very much.
>
> There is no mention of isotopes or a particular catalyst. This means that
> they cannot protect the use of any catalyst, other than as a trade
> secret, but catch-22 – if the devices is not described well enough so
> that a practitioner “skilled in the art” can make and use it, they are in
> trouble on the basic claim.  This is the so-called “enablement requirement
> ” of 35 U.S.C. 112.
>
> The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the
> invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the
> claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the
> interested public in a meaningful way. Thus if MFMP can replicate the device
> for any gain, then Rossi is in a good position.
>
> *From:* Frank Acland
>
> Maybe Industrial Heat is using the USPTO's fast track service for this
> one: *http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp*
> 
>
> … why did this patent show up already?  It was only filed in april of
> this year.
>
>
>* Application Number* * Filing Date** Patent Number*
>
> 61818553May 2, 2013
> 61819058May 3, 2013
> 61821914May 10, 2013
> Ron Kita  wrote:
>
> Greetings Vortex-L,
>
>
> *http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20140326711.PGNR.&OS=DN%2F20140326711&RS=DN%2F20140326711*
> 
>
> Ad Astra,
>
> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>
> Doylestown PA
>
>
>
>  --
>
> Frank Acland
> Publisher, *E-Cat World* 
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Jones Beene]

The USPTO has an 18 month embargo on publication, which is optional and not 
required - and they chose not to avail themselves of the delayed publication.  
That is a strategy choice. You can find this stature online: (35 U.S.C. 122 
Confidential status of applications)

The implication is that they want to get the most basic version of the device 
protected and in front of the public immediately if possible. These is a very 
limited scope patent – and could get through, but it may not protect very much. 

There is no mention of isotopes or a particular catalyst. This means that they 
cannot protect the use of any catalyst, other than as a trade secret, but 
catch-22 – if the devices is not described well enough so that a practitioner 
“skilled in the art” can make and use it, they are in trouble on the basic 
claim.  This is the so-called “enablement requirement” of 35 U.S.C. 112.

The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the invention in 
such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention 
is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a 
meaningful way. Thus if MFMP can replicate the device for any gain, then Rossi 
is in a good position.

From: Frank Acland 

Maybe Industrial Heat is using the USPTO's fast track service for this one: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp

… why did this patent show up already?  It was only filed in april of this year.


Application Number  Filing Date Patent Number   
61818553May 2, 2013 
61819058May 3, 2013 
61821914May 10, 2013
Ron Kita  wrote:
Greetings Vortex-L,

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20140326711.PGNR.&OS=DN%2F20140326711&RS=DN%2F20140326711

Ad Astra,
Ron Kita, Chiralex
Doylestown PA





-- 
Frank Acland
Publisher, E-Cat World  
 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Frank, I wonder if that means they're confident they have something and
want to get patent rights sewn up ASAP.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Frank Acland  wrote:

> Maybe Industrial Heat is using the USPTO's fast track service for this
> one: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
> wrote:
>
>> Looks like there are three related patents filed last year in May.   I
>> wonder when we'll seem them pop up.   Also, why did this patent show up
>> already?  It was only filed in april of this year.
>>
>> *Application Number**Filing Date**Patent Number*61818553May 2, 2013
>> 61819058May 3, 201361821914May 10, 2013
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Ron Kita  wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings Vortex-L,
>>>
>>>
>>> http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20140326711.PGNR.&OS=DN%2F20140326711&RS=DN%2F20140326711
>>>
>>> Ad Astra,
>>> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>>> Doylestown PA
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Frank Acland
> Publisher, E-Cat World 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Daniel Rocha]

Tomorrow, and next week's friday.

2014-11-06 11:37 GMT-02:00 Blaze Spinnaker :

> Looks like there are three related patents filed last year in May.   I
> wonder when we'll seem them pop up.   Also, why did this patent show up
> already?  It was only filed in april of this year.
>
> *Application Number**Filing Date**Patent Number*61818553May 2, 2013
> 61819058May 3, 201361821914May 10, 2013
>
>
>
-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Roarty, Francis X]

Blaze,
interesting this was filed in April and Rossi was already describing the 
shadows cast by the coils far ahead of the controversy after the released 
report..and to give Rossi credit his explanation does have the ring of truth. 
The reacting material was much  hotter than the heating coils making them by 
comparison into lamp shades/ insulators trapping some of the light and heat 
trying to escape the reaction. This seems like the simplest and therefore most 
likely explanation for the shadows.
Fran

From: Blaze Spinnaker [mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

Looks like there are three related patents filed last year in May.   I wonder 
when we'll seem them pop up.   Also, why did this patent show up already?  It 
was only filed in april of this year.



Application Number

Filing Date

Patent Number


61818553

May 2, 2013


61819058

May 3, 2013


61821914

May 10, 2013


On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Ron Kita 
mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Greetings Vortex-L,

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20140326711.PGNR.&OS=DN%2F20140326711&RS=DN%2F20140326711

Ad Astra,
Ron Kita, Chiralex
Doylestown PA

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Frank Acland]

Maybe Industrial Heat is using the USPTO's fast track service for this one:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> Looks like there are three related patents filed last year in May.   I
> wonder when we'll seem them pop up.   Also, why did this patent show up
> already?  It was only filed in april of this year.
>
> *Application Number**Filing Date**Patent Number*61818553May 2, 2013
> 61819058May 3, 201361821914May 10, 2013
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Ron Kita  wrote:
>
>> Greetings Vortex-L,
>>
>>
>> http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20140326711.PGNR.&OS=DN%2F20140326711&RS=DN%2F20140326711
>>
>> Ad Astra,
>> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>> Doylestown PA
>>
>
>


-- 
Frank Acland
Publisher, E-Cat World 

Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Looks like there are three related patents filed last year in May.   I
wonder when we'll seem them pop up.   Also, why did this patent show up
already?  It was only filed in april of this year.

*Application Number**Filing Date**Patent Number*61818553May 2, 201361819058May
3, 201361821914May 10, 2013

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Ron Kita  wrote:

> Greetings Vortex-L,
>
>
> http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20140326711.PGNR.&OS=DN%2F20140326711&RS=DN%2F20140326711
>
> Ad Astra,
> Ron Kita, Chiralex
> Doylestown PA
>