As mentioned in prior postings, the Potassium electrolytic heat cell idea and patent is not owned nor invented by Mills/ BLP, not do the current British claimants (scam artists) Eccles/ Watts have even the remotest claim to originality.
Thermacore Patent 5,273,635 December 28, 1993 Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litiz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA) Note: Randell Mills is NOT listed as co-inventor. If the patent was actually granted in 1993, it was submitted far earlier. At that time the lag time was about 4 years. So the extent of Mills' creative involvement is not clear. Mills and first research facility were also located in Lancaster (Thermacore Hdqts) in the early 1990s, and he early-on teamed up with Thermacore to develop the "wet" electrolytic cell using potassium catalyst. If Mills were an actual co-inventor, then it was probably a mistake for him not to have his name included on the disclosure as there is absolutely NO requirement that the inventor must have any employment relationship with the patent owner. Though the original patent is owned by Thermacore, not BLP, it seems that there must have been complicated agreements that neither side liked - and the partnership soon disintegrated. Mills went on to forego the "wet" electrolytic research in favor of first, a gas-phase implementation, but now almost exclusively, plasma phase. Consider this quote from Thermacore: "Light water electrolytic experiments at Thermacore show positive results. The most outstanding example is a cell producing 41 watts of heat with only 5 watts of electrical input. The cell has operated continuously for over one year..." This does not sound to me like a process that is so corrosive that it cannot be commercialized. The electrolytic battery, for example, using sulfuric acid is far more corrosive and, shall we say, there are quite a few of them around, even if they must be replaced every 4-5 years. Thermacore Electrolytic heater- Abstract "A heater which uses the electrolysis of a liquid to produce heat from electricity and transfers the heat from the electrolyte by means of a heat exchanger. One embodiment includes electrodes of nickel and platinum and an electrolyte of potassium carbonate with a heat exchanger immersed in and transferring heat from the electrolyte. " Thermacore International is now a subsidiary of Modine Manufacturing Company, and a global supplier of thermal engineering products for many industries. With manufacturing locations in Lancaster, Pa in the USA, and overseas in Mexico, the U.K., Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, Thermacore provides B2B manufacturing to other OEMs along with design R&D & manufacturing. It was formerly an independent ultra high-tech outfit, with compounded growth of 40% annually before the manufacturing economy went sour, and more recently it was acquired by Modine. Nobody really seems to knows what was going on with Thermacore or what their relationship with Mills became after merger with Modine. The only thing that seems clear is that Modine decided not to pursue the technology. However, it could well be that the wet electrolytic hydrino technology, and perhaps some of the original personnel, did not fit well into the Modine corporate culture, and realizing the unfulfilled potential of the wet cell, these R&D folks decided to leave. Here are some very interesting pdf files from the Mills' BLP site, relating to Thermacore (if the papers are still there): http://www.hydrino.org/Labs/Anomalous-Heat-from-Atomic-Hydrogen.pdf http://www.hydrino.org/Labs/Final-Report-Nascent-Hydrogen.pdf For emphasis, let me repeat: THE CELL OPERATED CONTINUOUSLY FOR OVER ONE YEAR. This was prior to the Modine merger. Now, remember, this statement is not coming from some fly-by-night self-promoting entrepreneur, nor even some university professor who is ignorant of manufacturing realities and corporate intrigue - but instead it comes from one of the most well-respected of high-tech firms, a manufacturing firm, and the inventors of the heat-pipe and many other wonderful thermal inventions. Again, the British announcement by the Eccles/Watts group was gravely deficient for not mentioning this most relevant background, and their callous plea for funding is abhorrent under circumstances of what must be *intentional non-disclosure*. This failure to credit others and disclose prior patent status casts serious doubt on both their (the Watt group) integrity and the thoroughness of their research, and may even approach criminal misconduct, since a plea for money comes along with their claim of original invention. A 5-minute Google search would have turned all of this up (as it has been posted to Vortex before). Jones Thermacore Patent 5,273,635 December 28, 1993 http://tinyurl.com/3nygq
