[Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
49fe8670.jpg Original reporting on leading-edge energy research and technologies May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28 EDITORIALS AND OPINION 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMEDOpinion: Letter to http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMEDNatuurwetenschappen en Techniek 2. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#TOEDTo the Editor NEWS ANNOUNCEMENTS 3. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#niCold Fusion Hot Again in India 4. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#darpaDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Takes LENR Seriously 5. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#iccmnsInternational Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science-14 6. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#acsAmerican Chemical Society Symposium on New Energy Technology 7. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#sochi15th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball-Lightning 8. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#booksCold Fusion, LENR, CMNS Book Index 9. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#siteindexLENR, CMNS Online Site Index 10. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#ficAnnouncing Hal Fox's Fusion Information Center Data Archive 11. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#preparataTribute to Giuliano Preparata 12. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#purduePurdue University Professor Rusi Taleyarkhan Files Legal Complaint 13. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#cernteaEuropean Research Center for New Clean Energy Technologies 14. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#chubbNew Cold Fusion Manuscript, Company and Web Sites from Talbot Chubb ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES 15. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#rabbitCarbon Arc Meets Quantum Rabbit 16. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#modelA Model to Quantify the Independence of Scientific Replications 17. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#scamReview of TIME Magazine's April 7, 2008, article The Clean Energy Scam 18. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#wikiSignificant Progress on the Wikipedia Cold Fusion Page 19. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#pubsPUBLICATIONS 20. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#newsSCIENCE AND ENERGY NEWS ___ inline: 49fe8670.jpg
[Vo]:Water purifier
This spiral pseudo-vortex water purifier might be of interest to Richard Texas Tea Macaulay... http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20754/?a=f
[Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
For those who have a propensity towards understanding lawyer-speak. Jones? Mr. Carrell? http://lawbites.com/blacklight-power-sci-fi-science-rejected-by-uk-ipo/ http://tinyurl.com/5wwbvp and http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/p-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/076/08 http://tinyurl.com/439trx There is a 13 page PDF document that can be downloaded from the UK IPO that describes the reasoning behind rejecting Blacklight's attempts. What I'd like to know is whether UK IPO's final decision was due to a difference in scientific opinion or whether other factors may have been involved. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
Heads-Up: There is an article tucked away near the end of this issue which could be of extreme importance in a variety of non-obvious ways ... (like ultra-high efficiency electrolysis) : 15. Carbon Arc Meets Quantum Rabbit By Steven B. Krivit This article discusses possible nuclear transmutations in carbon electrodes One of those non-obvious ways, and one of the reasons why this RD niche could be of extreme importance - is when a carbon rod serves as a cathode for water electrolysis, which is normally about 60-70% efficient... ... but if done properly can produce three times the gas for the same power input: http://67.76.235.52/electrodes.asp BTW these electrodes are available from 'The Graphite Store' http://www.graphitestore.com Now, obviously much more needs to be done in this situation before one goes out on a limb to claim overunity, but for anyone out-there in Volandia who may be experimenting with variations on the water fuel theme, many of which are based on ultra-high efficiency electrolysis ... well these results speak for themself ... and beg for a complete thermodynamic accounting... Jones
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
After reading the decision of the patent examiner, my impression is that the patent was rejected for good reason. The rejection argument is not that the theory is wrong but that Mills is trying to patent a theory and its application to calculating electron states. This would be like having a patent for using the Laws of Thermodynamics to calculate reaction energies. Imagine having to pay a fee to the patent holder each time a person attempted to use the patented methods. It is my understanding that a theory can not be patented. Why do people keep trying? Patents are granted when a theory is reduced to practice in the form of a working device. When is Mills going to have a working device? Ed OrionWorks wrote: For those who have a propensity towards understanding lawyer-speak. Jones? Mr. Carrell? http://lawbites.com/blacklight-power-sci-fi-science-rejected-by-uk-ipo/ http://tinyurl.com/5wwbvp and http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/p-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/076/08 http://tinyurl.com/439trx There is a 13 page PDF document that can be downloaded from the UK IPO that describes the reasoning behind rejecting Blacklight's attempts. What I'd like to know is whether UK IPO's final decision was due to a difference in scientific opinion or whether other factors may have been involved. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:40 AM Subject: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO snip What I'd like to know is whether UK IPO's final decision was due to a difference in scientific opinion or whether other factors may have been involved. Having plowed through the decision, the bottom line is that the Millsian molecular modeling program is intrinsically not patentable under UK law because it is in essence a computer program. I have no idea about how other sofware, such as Windows, fares under the UK law. The descision has no bearing on the merits of Mills' CQM. The comment from lawbites about sci-fi science is utterly spurious and not supported by any remarks by the UK examiner. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
Reading Ed and Mike's comments makes me wonder why in the world BLP would attempt to patent a theoretical process involving the calculation of electron states via software simulations. Is this latest battle related to Randy's Millsian Molecular Modeling endeavors, or is this a follow-up to recent alleged breakthroughs involving excess heat using the new breakthrough solid fuel base. It's as if BLP is attempting to explore a different legal strategy: To establish a precedent, where they are trying to legitimize the CQM theory indirectly through software simulations that are presumably backed by physical evidence. ...Perhaps I should say, one better hope BLP can back up their computer simulations with real physical evidence!!! This is an interesting conundrum from my perspective as sharper minds than mine have always stressed the fact that a theory or an idea can not be patented, at least not within the United States. When dealing with the development of industrial processes, such as a novel way to generate excess heat as BLP hopes to cash in on, I was under the impression that only a process, a procedure, or improvement to a process or procedure can be patented. The theory explaining why the process or procedure seems to work should (in practice) take second stage to actual physical evidence. OTOH, I gather the theory in question has not always taken second stage to physical evidence such as when BLP attempted to explain the reasons behind some of their experimental evidence as modeled through CQM theory. I believe it has been suggested more than once that BLP would fare better if they would simply focus their finite resources on patenting procedures for which their experimental evidence reveals the generation of substantial amounts of excess heat. Perhaps I'm not seeing the bigger picture, because this recent UK endeavor gives me the impression that BLP continues to spend an inadvisable amount of time and effort on attempts to legitimize CQM rather than focusing on protecting the actual processes that are known to generate substantial amounts of heat. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
Can theories be copyrighted? Harry On 12/5/2008 4:37 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Reading Ed and Mike's comments makes me wonder why in the world BLP would attempt to patent a theoretical process involving the calculation of electron states via software simulations. Is this latest battle related to Randy's Millsian Molecular Modeling endeavors, or is this a follow-up to recent alleged breakthroughs involving excess heat using the new breakthrough solid fuel base. It's as if BLP is attempting to explore a different legal strategy: To establish a precedent, where they are trying to legitimize the CQM theory indirectly through software simulations that are presumably backed by physical evidence. ...Perhaps I should say, one better hope BLP can back up their computer simulations with real physical evidence!!! This is an interesting conundrum from my perspective as sharper minds than mine have always stressed the fact that a theory or an idea can not be patented, at least not within the United States. When dealing with the development of industrial processes, such as a novel way to generate excess heat as BLP hopes to cash in on, I was under the impression that only a process, a procedure, or improvement to a process or procedure can be patented. The theory explaining why the process or procedure seems to work should (in practice) take second stage to actual physical evidence. OTOH, I gather the theory in question has not always taken second stage to physical evidence such as when BLP attempted to explain the reasons behind some of their experimental evidence as modeled through CQM theory. I believe it has been suggested more than once that BLP would fare better if they would simply focus their finite resources on patenting procedures for which their experimental evidence reveals the generation of substantial amounts of excess heat. Perhaps I'm not seeing the bigger picture, because this recent UK endeavor gives me the impression that BLP continues to spend an inadvisable amount of time and effort on attempts to legitimize CQM rather than focusing on protecting the actual processes that are known to generate substantial amounts of heat. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO Reading Ed and Mike's comments makes me wonder why in the world BLP would attempt to patent a theoretical process involving the calculation of electron states via software simulations. The calculation of properties of molecules is extremely computer intensive. 'for example, spider silk is stronger than steel, but is molecular configuration is not what a synthetic chemist would guess. Millsian software can do on a laptop what is noiw done on supercomputers. The US patent law may differ slightly. Is this latest battle related to Randy's Millsian Molecular Modeling endeavors, or is this a follow-up to recent alleged breakthroughs involving excess heat using the new breakthrough solid fuel base. Keep your eye on the solid fuel technology and read the website carefully. It's as if BLP is attempting to explore a different legal strategy: To establish a precedent, where they are trying to legitimize the CQM theory indirectly through software simulations that are presumably backed by physical evidence. ...Perhaps I should say, one better hope BLP can back up their computer simulations with real physical evidence!!! The market for Millsian is pharmaceutical and related companies. The product is the models with accurate calculations of key properties. This is an interesting conundrum from my perspective as sharper minds than mine have always stressed the fact that a theory or an idea can not be patented, at least not within the United States. When dealing with the development of industrial processes, such as a novel way to generate excess heat as BLP hopes to cash in on, I was under the impression that only a process, a procedure, or improvement to a process or procedure can be patented. The theory explaining why the process or procedure seems to work should (in practice) take second stage to actual physical evidence. OTOH, I gather the theory in question has not always taken second stage to physical evidence such as when BLP attempted to explain the reasons behind some of their experimental evidence as modeled through CQM theory. You can't patent a law of Nature, only a structure or process utilizing the law. For a long time software was not patentable, being classed as an idea. In some cases, copyright law is applied to intellectual property. There was a battle between Intel and AMD over microprocessors. AMD produced processors which would run programs written for Intel processors. In an elaborate negotiation, it was demonstrated that AMD did not use the same circuits or steal Intel's designs. You can't patent a hydrino, but you can patent compounds using hydrinos. You can patent a process for making hydrinos, and if you are clever enough you might sustain claims to all processes making hydrinos. DeForest invented the vacuum tube triode, the Audion, foundationn of the electronics industry. He tried to claim royalties for every circuit using the Audion, and failed. I believe it has been suggested more than once that BLP would fare better if they would simply focus their finite resources on patenting procedures for which their experimental evidence reveals the generation of substantial amounts of excess heat. Such a patent was filed, with hundreds of claims and clauses attempting to cover all themes and variations. It's much better to have a fundamental patent if you can get it. Perhaps I'm not seeing the bigger picture, because this recent UK endeavor gives me the impression that BLP continues to spend an inadvisable amount of time and effort on attempts to legitimize CQM rather than focusing on protecting the actual processes that are known to generate substantial amounts of heat. The UK patent is just one event in an elaborate dance. BLP is well financed. Mike Carrell
[Vo]:Gasoline prices...
...or Petrol, depending on from where you come. $3.87/U.S. Gallon here in western NY. Crazy, considering that when I moved here six years ago it was about $1.50. Yay-big increase. Now, as I was in a somewhat contemplative mood earlier, I decided to sit back and see how this really affected me. We'll ignore whether or not I agree with why the prices are going up, and so on. Let us look at the matter purely objectively. Your mileage may vary of course (HA!) but this is my personal experience. It really ain't done much to me. Why? I noticed that, perhaps subconsciously, I was planning trips differently. I still go to the same amount of places per week, I still get the same things done that need to get done, and so on. But I plan them to be on one trip, and in a single loop. I.e., a typical Saturday morning: Go to bank, get money. Go to hardware store, get stuff for home and/or experiments. Go to Radio Shi--- er...Shack. Get (what few they still carry) components. And so on. All in a logically drawn out loop. The end result is, I still pay about the same amount for gasoline, I have more time to do what I need to get done...transit time does add up. And an added benefit: less wear and tear on that car. I'll also grudgingly admit that it produces less CO2 to do this. I guess I'll be good if I /have/ to. I am also getting damned tired of people going to the gas station, and getting in line ahead of me and bitching about the price per gallon... ...and then getting $20-40 worth of lotto tickets. Can we say, hippochrissy? (Yes, I spelled that wrong on purpose. I have to do something to maintain my reputation as an evil bastard, yeah?) --Kyle Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
Howdy Mike, And thus we gain another glimpse of the new century strategies being used to capture revenue streams derived from intellectual property... or should I say properties. Actually the field remains open to a new legimate form of pirating ownership before discovery. hmmm Google concepualized an advertizing revenue stream could be created with a website. BLP appears to see a future revenue stream by pre-empting patents. Richard Mike Carrell wrote, The UK patent is just one event in an elaborate dance. BLP is well financed.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sun, 11 May 2008 23:10:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMEDOpinion: Fusion of deuterium into helium-4 gives a yield of 17 MeV. No it doesn't. It gives a yield of 23.85 MeV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sun, 11 May 2008 23:10:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMEDOpinion: A study that costs no more than one industrial windmill or a B2-stealth bomber can ask and answer crucial questions within a year. Somehow I doubt very seriously that an industrial windmill costs the same as a B2-stealth bomber. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sun, 11 May 2008 23:10:06 -0800: Hi, I wrote: 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMEDOpinion: A study that costs no more than one industrial windmill or a B2-stealth bomber can ask and answer crucial questions within a year. Somehow I doubt very seriously that an industrial windmill costs the same as a B2-stealth bomber. [snip] However the original Dutch text: Een onderzoek dat niet meer kost dan één industriële windmolen, laat staan een Apache-helikopter en/of een B2-stealthbommenwerper, en naar een vraag die binnen een jaar beantwoord kan worden. ... says: An investigation that would cost no more than an industrial windmill, let alone an Apache helicopter and/or a B2-stealth bomber, and to a question that could be answered within a year. (The latter part of this is a little confused, however the first part is clearer). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
Steven Krivit wrote: Excellent posting Steven! Is John Bockris still alive? Do you have contact information? --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
