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 public disclosure for many of the things in his claims. If I were hired to bust a patent, that's where I would begin.
I don't think any controlling patent will survive for the basic LENR mechanisms due to prior art public disclosures (not necessarily by the inventors). The valuable patents will be for the machines that utilize LENR in the future. On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 isotope assays. If they were intentionally compromised, and > were nonetheless used as evidence in the patent application, this would > have endangered the patent, once granted, if there was a patent suit. > > 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 interesting nonetheless. >
