>From Jed: > However, I do not think that errors in theory will > invalidate a patent of this nature.
I don't know enough about patents to pass judgment on such matters. Nevertheless, I'm worried that publishing such such errors in the patent will hamper Rossi's progress. I assume there exists many commercial applications that end up getting patented - where the underlying physics involved is not yet entirely understood. I assume Rossi's e-cat reactors essentially fall under such criteria. As I see it, the problem is that when someone like Rossi offers up what I assume he speculates to be a logical explanation, but where he gets the physics so blatantly wrong, it tends to devalue the validity of his patent. More to the point: There is the potential that it could undermine the validity of his work. IOW, it might have been smarter to simply leave the theoretical physics out of the patent and simply focus on revealing the specific mundane engineering steps involved. Regarding the physics involved and theoretical explanations: Simply say, something to the effect that the underlying physics involved is not yet entirely understood. However, if the following design steps as laid out in the patent are followed to-the-letter, the claimed exothermic effects will be observed repeatedly. Be sure to mention the fact that the claimed exothermic effects have been independently verified - that there is no question about the legitimacy of the observed heat. Yeah, well... that's what I would have done. But who listens to me! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
