In reply to Robin's email of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:40:04 -0800 Hi Robin, Regarding the interest of examiner Snow. [snip] ...or perhaps he's just curious? (like us) ;) [/snip] I hope this means some consideration is being given to the circumstances under which the Mill's patent was recalled late in the process. In 2008 Haisch and Moddel had a patent approved for essentially the same environment citing ZPE and Casimir effect instead of ashless chemistry and catalytic action -granted the extraction methods were completely different but the qualifying environment was really the same. Now Rossi comes along with a catalytic amplifier that seems to indicate the terms used in the Mill's patent may have been appropriate and that the patent should have been approved. I am convinced there is a direct connection between catalytic action and change in Casimir geometry - as Jones pointed out recently the size of pores in the skeletal catalyst Rayney nickel are of Casimir geometry and indicated that Mills has had the equivalent of nano powders in an inverse sense long ahead of anyone else. An article by Cornell makes the point that catalytic effect only occurs where the geometry changes at defects and openings in a nanotube -sort of like the difference between a smooth flowing stream and white water. I know Mill's never modified his papers to reflect Naudt's posit of the hydrino as actually being relativistic hydrogen but it is my humble opinion that it is OUR DEFINITION of catalytic action that has to change. If catalytic action is based on change in Casimir force then the definition for catalytic action can also be described in Casimir like terms of "change in" energy density due to suppression/segregation. I do commend examiner Snow for his immediate inquiry into circumstances that might affect these patents and extend my sympathy for his difficult position when faced with claims based on unknown physics. Regards Fran
