To most of us here, the issue of patent infringement unimportant. Infringement would only become an issue once the device was going to product, and it would only go to product if it was usefully producing XE. The real issue is that so little was demonstrated in this meeting that what Rossi has could be anything from nothing (a funky looking resistor) to anything you wish to imagine. So, the demo served no net purpose - except possibly to those there that were granted greater access to the data. You and I should take it as a presumed null experiment since there was inadequate data shared to show any XE.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:33 AM, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > “We may agree that the demo is crazy but is it crazy enough to have a > chance of being correct ?” > > > > Ha - ‘Bohring’ as it may sound, that may be a decent summation of the > current situation, but so is the observation that at least 60 watts > electrical is going in from the wall and only 50 watts thermal is coming > out, so there is no gain at all. > > > > It really doesn’t matter that the loss is in the power supply ! This > particular kind of loss is unavoidable and must be included in the calcs. > > > > The only power measurement which is relevant is at the wall plug - since > it is abundantly clear that at least two interfering frequencies are being > used to produce a waveform, which is necessary and lossy. Rossi was hiding > the waveform issue as far back as 5 years ago, and we know it is relevant. > The Q-pulse which is part of Brillouin's IP is similar – very similar - but > the original idea comes from Dardik and the Israeli company ENERGETICs, > both now out of the picture. > > > > The most important Euro Patent from Dardik, El-Boher et al entitled > "Pulsed low energy nuclear reaction power generators" EP 1656678 B1 with a > grant date of 2004. This is also known as the "superwave" patent. It is > similar and precedes the Brillouin IP - and will also rain on the Godes > parade, if it turns out that structured waveforms are the key to success. > > > > Two relevant remaining questions are: can these structured waveforms be > produced with less loss by using a dedicated power supply, and why does > this demo of Rossi not infringe on the Dardik IP? Or on Brillouin’s similar > IP for the Q-pulse? > > > > Dardik’s successors (including Mckubre who is on one of the old patent > apps) along with Violante have already demonstrated small thermal gain with > superwaves as far back as 2008. They are probably doing this in Texas, now > as we speak and they are probably watching Rossi to see if he has made a > breakthrough but he has not. > > > > No one issure who currently holds the basic superwave patent (since the > demise of Energetics LLC) but the USPTO fees are being maintained, so > somebody realizes the value. Bottom line - as always in measuring input > power, when unusual waveforms and interfering waves are used as input power > the losses in the power supply MUST BE included as part of input. > > > > This is likely to be exactly what SRI told Brillouion and it is probably > why Godes has gone silent. The losses in the power supply for making > superwaves cannot be lessened enough to show large gain. It is likely that > both Godes and Rossi could minimize the losses somewhat, and show COP in > the range of 1.5 to 2 but even then, they would be infringing on EP 1656678 > B1. > > > > > > > > >