The cause of the cold fusion reaction must be universal as a lowest common denominator among all the various varieties and instances of its occurrence.
In the same way that a solid like coal, a liquid like petrol, and a gas like methane can each burn through a common hydrocarbon combustion mechanism so to will cold fusion manifest in a single cause whether it be the mills reaction, the Rossi reaction or the Ponds and Fleischman D-Pt reaction. Even though Larsen & Windom theory is invalid, their attempt to describe cold fusion using a single causative mechanism is true to the mark. Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis for cold fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. The universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied manifestations that have been observed so far and accurately predict new ones going forward. On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > The reason that Andrea Rossi is so desperate to frame his E-Cat as > "nuclear" > is no mystery among patent attorneys who have looked into the various > filings. > > Here is the first reason (priority date 2000): > > http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=1rHHAAAAEBAJ&dq=20090146083 > > Rossi's side may counter this broad application - and they might admit that > even if there are no nuclear reactions in the E-Cat, then the Mills' > application is for catalytic hydrogen gain in a NON-nuclear reaction of > Ni-H > is framed for a plasma reactor, and NOT for gas-phase. > > They could possibly win on that - BUT - Mills did revise this earliest > application, more than once - and claim 206 in the newest version states > explicitly: > > [0206] "According to an embodiment of the invention, a reactor for > producing > hydrinos, plasma, and power may take the form of a hydrogen gas cell. A gas > cell hydrogen reactor of the present invention is shown in FIG. 3. Reactant > hydrinos are provided by a catalytic reaction with a catalyst such as at > least one of those given in TABLES 1 and 3 and/or a by a disproportionation > reaction. Catalysis may occur in the gas phase." > > And, as you might imagine - Nickel is listed in Table 3. > > Catch-22 for all of this is: what priority date does Mills get on this > claim, since it was not in the original year 2000 filing? > > If Rossi has can prove an earlier priority - then the situation could be > interesting. > > If Defkalion is really looking at this technology as a long-term business > venture and not as a 'pump and dump' - then the smart thing to do IMHO - > would be to work out something with BLP ahead of time, and this could be > possible since Rossi may be a few months ahead on the priority date (this > issue of dates is not crystal clear at the moment). > > Jones > > >
