as an exercise of young patent reader, after david French course I will try to explain why I think it is not infringing. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FrenchDpatentsand.pdf If David French can check my homework
it is not nanopowder of 3-20nm but micrometer nickel foam as david french explain, is claim 1 is good, no need to care of the others. claim 1 might be killed by piantelli work, but I don't know if piantelli tested arcing, and dielectric medium.... (is hydrogen or any athmosphere a dielectric medium? yes but not so clear according to that claim, I should call USPTO) the other claims seems retreat position, with some complementary innovations like: - macrosopic particle of dielectric+nano - some transition metals - adding alloys - zirconium or Titanium or thorium oxides mattrix - more than 2athosphere hydrogene - spillover catalyst (thorium,cerium,palladium,zirconium) - spillover catalyst produce via promoter in the particles - 150-15000vold arc - suspension in water - terahertz excitation - fluidized bed DGT can infrige Ahern if they ise nanoparticle, eventually embedded in a mattrix... If as they say, the modify the surface, they are innovative. 2012/10/19 Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > > Speaking of prior art, and patents, in recent threads here ... and looking > at page 10 of the DGT report, their device seems to clearly be employing > the teachings of: > > http://www.google.com/patents/US20110233061? > > Compare the drawings of the reactors. The patent drawing is almost > identical to the DGT image of their reactor on page 10. > > Of course - there is always the small chance that DGT does not use a > nickel-based nanopowder or nano-structured material - alone or supported in > a dielectric. > > Jones > > > Today, an official announcement about test results was posted on the > Defkalion GT forum: > > http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4143 > > > > As previously promised, we are attaching two files that contain a signed > protocol and a preliminary report by one independent international group on > our technology. This marks the end of our first cycle of testing on our lab > reactors, which lasted five months with 21 different experiments having > been conducted by three different international organizations. The attached > documents indicate the test results obtained by one such team. > > > > The other two international well known testing organizations obtained > equally impressive results following similar protocols while using their > own instrumentation. These results, data, and full analyses by each of the > three testers will be published in peer reviewed Journals as applicable by > each Journal. > > Names of the testers and the organizations they represent are still > under strict NDAs and have therefore been removed from the attached > documents. Defkalion will not disclose names. > > > > In the attached protocol the first page represents our R&D path and our > testing strategy. The test performed under this protocol can be identified > under step 1.3.2, which represents the end of this section of our work in > progress. Subsequent R&D steps and tests on our pre-industrial prototypes > have already been scheduled by third parties (as depicted in step 2 – > Hyperion Multi-Reactor Kernel Testing). > > > > Additionally, all such tests have been video recorded. The following two > links indicate a small sample of such recordings. > > > Defkalion Green Technologies > > 19th October, 2012 > > Links: > Two videos have been added: > > Explanation of the calorimetry set-up: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvmWGeryKQc > > > > Triggering the reaction > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yax8oHzlXkI > > > > Exec Sum of Defkalion Test Review - Sept 2012.pdf [52.49 KiB] > http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/download/file.php?id=31 > > > 2012-09-07_Test Report Validation_Signed_No Names.pdf [3.52 MiB] > http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/download/file.php?id=30 > > > > > > >
