I agree with Bob about the validity of the patent.
Unfortunately I believe all patents are ending up in this dilemma.
The amount of information is so enormous that it is going to be very hard
to defend any patent.
In addition there is no way one can get any positive earnings out of the
patent only
If I were Rossi or IH, I would worry more about the validity of his patent
due to prior art. There is so much ART that is described over the years in
online forums, particularly in Vortex-L, that a search used by any would be
patent busting organization would likely turn up amazing prior art publi
I wrote:
> In other words, the lack of mention is a small piece of circumstantial
> evidence in support of your hunch that 62Ni was added before the blank run
> for no obvious operational reason (e.g., so that the ash analysis would be
> compromised). Not a smoking gun by any means, but intere
What you say is interesting and possibly explains something of the economic
considerations relating to nickel that go into the E-Cat. What caught my
interest in the lack of detail about nickel in the patent application cited
below went back to the earlier thread on the reliability of the Lugano
Faced with a working reaction and attempting to optimize it, I am sure
Rossi would have explored the reactivity of the individual isotopes of Ni.
In the process, he may have found that 62Ni was optimum. I would be
surprised if he found out that it was the only isotope that was active.
Just to put
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Teslaalset
wrote:
The Ni62 amendments to US2009125444 were sent to the patent office in April
> 2013 while Rossi’s patent US9115913B1 originated as filing in March 2012.
> US91159B1 does not mention specifically Ni62 in the claims, but instead the
> general term ‘
Re-send, I got a mail bounce on this message:
The Ni62 amendments to US2009125444 were sent to the patent office in April
2013 while Rossi’s patent US9115913B1 originated as filing in March 2012.
US91159B1 does not mention specifically Ni62 in the claims, but instead the
general term ‘Nickel’. Th
In reply to Teslaalset's message of Sat, 3 Oct 2015 20:18:09 +0200:
Hi,
At that time didn't he still think that the primary reaction was Ni62 + H =>
Cu63?
If so, then specifying Ni62 explicitly would make sense because Cu63 is stable.
>Rossis patent application WO2009125444 had a major claim c
If theory of how the LENR reaction works is included in the Patent, and
that theory is later disproved, is the patent invalidated? If this is so,
is it not best to keep theory out of a patent?
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Teslaalset
wrote:
> I had included the link to the amended claims in th
I had included the link to the amended claims in the orginal posting, but
it seems including hyperlinks with a substitute does not work at Vortex.
Here is the
link:
javascript:NewPDFWindow('application?documentId=EUIP5C400118284&number=EP08873805&lng=en&npl=false',
'EUIP5C400118284_EP08873805_en')
Rossi’s patent application WO2009125444 had a major claim change on April
15, 2013 (initiated in the European patent family member EP2259998),
stating that the applied Nickel SHALL be Ni62. The discussed matter in this
discussion thread could well be tightly related to the amended claims
.
In rece
From: Eric Walker
Ø I do not assume anything at this point about what Industrial Heat knew or
didn't know in connection with Rossi's preparation for the Lugano test.
The patent in question is not in their name, so this doesn’t relate to them
very much.
Given the amount of money rep
It sounds like there could be a legal house of cards, then, if deception is
shown during a patent suit. I remember a recent patent application by
Rossi whose description seemed to incorporate large portions of the Lugano
report as evidence. I was wondering whether the isotope analysis was
include
Don’t forget that the Lugano report, containing the fallacious isotope data -
was apparently submitted directly to the patent office as documentation for
obtaining the IP. This detail was mentioned in AR’s blog, IIRC. It is probably
one reason that Rossi got the expedited grant (in addition to a
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Bob Higgins
wrote:
I don't consider this to be subterfuge on Rossi's behalf. I don't think he
> ever agreed to full open access to everything from his design.
>
If that is the case, please remind me never to do business with you! Trust
that someone is being stra
ICP-MS does digest the entire "sample", but the sample used is typically
1-2 small 100 micron scale particles - not the entire ash or grams of it.
So, in the Lugano report on page 45 where they show Particle1 and Particle2
of the ash and the accompanying EDS, it is likely that they only digested
Pa
Excellent hypothesis Bob. This is a million times more likely to have happened
than the deception which Rossi is trying to push over on the patent office.
My prediction is that the Lugano episode, which is little more than sham PR
event, masquerading as science - will cost Rossi, Leonardo an
I do not by any means rule out the scenario you propose. I only attempt to
draw out its implications.
If what you say is what happened, I see several implications. A first
implication is that the 62Ni would have had to have been relatively
granular and segregated from the "fuel" nickel, even aft
Yes, my hypothesis is that the reactor tube was not empty when given to the
Lugano team to test - it had been pre-loaded with 62Ni. They did their
dummy tests with the inert 62Ni by itself (and no H2). When it came time
for Rossi to add the "fuel" powder, a sample of what he was putting in was
ta
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Bob Higgins
wrote:
As I was translating Parkhomov's paper this morning, I was struck by the
> fact that the other researchers are not seeing any isotopic movement in the
> Ni in their experiments, while they are seeing minor shifts in the Li
> isotopic ratio.
>
Ye
Bob,
Interesting point on the SS can being stripped of its protective oxides.
In my most recent experiment (with no excess heat seen), the stainless fuel
container was extremely shiny after use as if nickel plated. There was a
cooler end that appeared to have an oxidized layer.
Jack
On Fri, Oct
While I was translating Parkhomov's latest presentation, I was struck again
by the plethora of elements in the ash that were not in the "fuel".
Previously I pleaded through Bob Greenyer to get Parkhomov to give us a
slice of his stainless steel fuel can. When the reactor is heated over
1000C in th
I have a intuition that the one 100 micro particle that the Lugano analysts
looked at was a one in a million rough event. That particle could never
have been manually fabricated by anybody. A human could not have made that
particle. It is a miracle of transmutation.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:48 PM,
As I was translating Parkhomov's paper this morning, I was struck by the
fact that the other researchers are not seeing any isotopic movement in the
Ni in their experiments, while they are seeing minor shifts in the Li
isotopic ratio.
The big shadow still hanging over the Lugano experiment does no
Will someone with an analogical bent find out if there was more fission
going on than fusion. It looks like there was an increase in lighter (Z)
elements and a reduction in the heavier elements. Nickel which according to
Rossi is not a fuel looks like the element that was most likely to be
disrup
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This just in. See:
>
>
> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/
>
These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that all
tests but the Lugano test were run for a handf
This just in. See:
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/
27 matches
Mail list logo
