Hi Kevin,
Yes the is the same inventor I posted about yesterday-
Christopher Cooper. Everyone interesting in this facet of LENR should look
at the patent drawings and the simplicity of the claims. This should be a
breeze to replicate - if there is anything to it. This situation begs for
more information, but it looks like you were on that particular "wavelength"
(as Van Morrison would opine).
Yesterday - all indications seemed to be that Cooper's
several patent applications were speculative, as opposed to "reduced to
practice." This is due to his lack of publications and lack of data - which
can be explained by wanting to "fly under the radar" until the patent was
granted (it has not been granted). Moreover, as suggested in that post, if
one is in the business of CNT - which his company is - and one has read any
of the LENR literature mentioning CNT, then there would have been no reason
not to try it in a simple form, which seems to be the case.
Then, one can cogently argue that if he tried CNT with heavy
water and saw gain that is by definition "reduced to practice." No argument
there. And - on closer look, his application claims priority going back to
2005 so he is no newcomer to the field. I am stunned that he has not
published or availed himself of expertise outside of his own skills -
because of a major problem.
The problem is that this alone may not be patentable, due to
prior art - and yet he is using a light source for the input ! That pushes
everything into another realm of very high importance, depending on other
details. This could have been a huge breakthrough - except that Chris did
not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of the plasmon
polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though applications can be
altered and augmented (but one loses priority).
That is too bad because otherwise he might have broad
coverage. As it stands now, this disclosure is terribly deficient in prior
art and looks unprofessional to an extent. Sadly, I think he will have very
little IP coverage in the end, when he realizes what is to be found in prior
art. But he came very close to a significant filing here. Too bad he chose
to fly under the radar. That strategy almost never works out well.
From: Kevin O'Malley
Hello Jones:
There is an interesting CNT patent mentioned on ECat World.
Carbon Nanotube Energy? New Patent Filed by Seldon
Technologies
Posted on February 28, 2014
Jones Beene wrote:
Another factor favoring CNT - as the containment mechanism
for hydrogen in an alternative version of LENR (instead of a metal lattice)
is the similarity to graphene in presence of electrons.
There is every reason to suspect that CNT would support
ballistic electrons at least as well as graphene. New paper.
http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/02/ballistic-transport-graphene-suggests-new-
type-electronic-device
From: Jones Beene
Hi Kevin,
I did include two variants of BEC- one is
associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain
operation at elevated temperatures.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
