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





Reply via email to