Speaking of prior art, and patents, in recent threads here ... and looking at
page 10 of the DGT report, their device seems to clearly be employing the
teachings of:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20110233061?
Compare the drawings of the reactors. The patent drawing is almost identical to
as an exercise of young patent reader, after david French course I will try
to explain why I think it is not infringing.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FrenchDpatentsand.pdf
If David French can check my homework
it is not nanopowder of 3-20nm but micrometer nickel foam
as david french
Are you in touch with David? He seems to have a genuine interest in the
field - so why no ask for his opinion directly?
Of course, he is located in Canada, but that is where DGT hopes to be
located in the future, so he may not want to comment - in the event that
they would seek his services.
I have no specific relation whith him, even if I appreciate greatly his
course on patent (yet I miss much of it probably).
Opinion from him, as he already have studied Brillouin patent, would be
great.
2012/10/19 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
Are you in touch with David? He seems to have
4 matches
Mail list logo
