On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Roarty, Francis X < [email protected]> wrote:
> > He is probably too old and poor to survive the years of litigation it > would take to recover anything from his intellectual property – Especially > since new physics must first be proven before any explanation Rossi > currently has could be patentable. > You don't have to prove new physics to patent a device. You have to show it's novel and doesn't infringe. Rossi could get a patent by fully disclosing his method and his catalyst and he'd be protected from date of filing. The likely reason he hasn't done it is because the device can't be proven to work when properly tested. > I honestly believe we are only a single breakthrough away from this > technology being proven by experiment rathe r than theory. I would put > Mills, Moller and Rossi all in the same boat of having self destructive > product – the more OU they demonstrate the more damage the geometry > sustains making repeatability difficult unless you use new powder every > time. Defkallion talk of modifying the reactor geometry and spreading out > the reaction does sound like a logical way to mitigate the self destruction > – I don’t think it will eliminate it but could increase repeatability > enough to finally prove by experiment that this is for real. > Rossi and Defkalion often speak or write about tests lasting days, weeks and even months. Neither has ever claimed that the reaction isn't easily started, easily maintained and reproducible. The only issue, according to them, is the need to provide electrical heating to the device while it runs -- Rossi fancifully named "safety" heater. There is no good theoretical reason why the heat has to be electrical and also no reason why it can't be supplied by the device. If that makes the geometry too difficult then, as others suggested, use the heat from one device to provide input energy for the other device and feed the output of the second device back to the input of the first (through regulators of course). Mills, so far, is unconvincing. Supposedly he showed power being made from his secret sauce at Rowan U however he did not explain how the secret sauce is regenerated afterwards or how much energy that takes. And Mills has nothing headed for independent testing of the complete cycle or for marketing, far as I know. I'm not sure which Moller we're speaking of here. There's a flying car Moller who has shown dramatically unstable and unsafe flying vehicles, always tethered, for some 20 years. I'd not put much money in his stock if I were you. If it's some other Moller, maybe you can tell us which one.
