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 reportedly involved in the E-Cat licensing, there is 
a fair chance that IH was offered the patent rights as assignee - but refused, 
suspecting that this kind of problem would arise. Thus, IH appear to have taken 
a completely different approach in their own filing - and they have steered 
clear of this isotope issue.


An interesting point is this regard is China, since IH has strong connections. 
It would be interesting to look at the Chinese patent filings to see what IH 
did file over there. 


The Chinese market for LENR could easily be larger than the US market – and 
possibly by a factor of 10 times, given the larger population and growing 
desire to cut down on dirty coal, and given there is no competition or 
interference from BIG OIL/ OPEC. 


From: Eric Walker 


Intentionally fiddling around with the nickel isotopes without having an 
operational reason to do so strikes me as active sabotage of the ash assay, 
rather than passive standing back and allowing the Lugano team to concluding 
what they will.  So I have a hard time concluding anything but subterfuge in 
connection with this specific detail of the Lugano test if Bob's scenario is 
what occurred.  It is possible that there is a similar, but more benign, 
scenario that actually transpired.


I'm personally holding out for an active role for the nickel, though.  :)





Jones Beene wrote:

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 age, which now 
allows an expedited process).

That is where the real problem lies. See  “Manual of Patent Examining 
Procedure” Section 2016 on Fraud. This could be a costly problem which has 
repercussions far beyond the original filing. However, the USPTO does not do 
this kind of investigation – it will only come up in a challenge, and must be 
proved by the opposing party – which could be Piantelli. 

Thus us was a STUPID strategy to go to court with Piantelli so early. With 
“discovery” (the legal procedure) the truth about the isotopes could come out 
very soon.


Reply via email to