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 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
><javascript:NewPDFWindow('application?documentId=EUIP5C400118284&number=EP08873805&lng=en&npl=false',
>'EUIP5C400118284_EP08873805_en')>.
>
>In recent granted patent, Rossi indicates that Nickel acts as catalyst, not
>mentioning Ni62 specifically. Maybe this should be combined with Rossis
>amended claims of WO2009125444
>
>Rob Woudenberg
>
>
>On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> *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 doesnt 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. :)
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>> Dont 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 ARs
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
