10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[KitemanSA]

Rossi has stated categorically that he intends to deny anyone any access to his 'special sauce', therefore NO PATENT CAN BE GRANTED.

Well, supposedly there's a patent application for the special sauce. It may be a while before it's subject to publication, though. For various reasons I don't expect it to be published this year.

Haven't seen his patent application, not really interested, but if it is an application for a patent on a BURNER of his special sauce, than it is patentable without revealing his special sauce. Seems a semi-useless patent, but what do I know?

[chrismb]

Rossi has stated categorically that he intends to deny anyone any access to his 'special sauce', therefore NO PATENT CAN BE GRANTED.

Well, supposedly there's a patent application for the special sauce. It may be a while before it's subject to publication, though. For various reasons I don't expect it to be published this year.

Haven't seen his patent application, not really interested, but if it is an application for a patent on a BURNER of his special sauce, than it is patentable without revealing his special sauce. Seems a semi-useless patent, but what do I know?

You're both missing the point(s):

If Rossi is trying to make the thing self-destruct, then there is something he needs to patent. But he can't patent it unless he says what it is.

There is a simple, and blindingly obvious, reason why you have to give details of the thing you are claiming - because if someone else comes along and patents it for themselves, you can hardly go saying "he's not allowed to do that because I had the idea first" if they've no idea what your claims were!!!

You can't be held as infringing something that you don't know about, if the person claiming the infringement hasn't told anyone about it in the first place!! Are we supposed to take people's word for it that what they claim is an infringement is actually the subject of whatever it is they say they had the first claim on!?!?

[seedload]

You may be correct wrt 65Cu. 63Cu would fall somewhere between 61Ni and 62Ni, the first of which is not supposed to react much. But a seperate point is that Cu has an ODD number of protons which may interfere. I have been thinking that the protons in a nucleus tend toward forming alpha-units and the odd Z elements have a spare p. Might that get in the way?

FYI

June 2nd, 2011 at 9:59 AM
Mr. Rossi,

Amazing progress so far and congratulations on having fully formulated the theory even if it has to be kept a mystery from us:) Hopefully you can provide a little confirmation of some information you have already provided without disclosing your theory.

If I am correct, sir, you are saying that only NI62 and NI64 ‘react’ to form copper – presumably through some process that allows it to pick up the proton of Hydrogen. I also understand that you have a theory to explain what is happening.

* Is my understanding correct that only NI62 and NI64 transmute to copper?
* Does your theory explain why only these two isotopes react.
* Does your theory explain why the resultant Cu63 and Cu65 apparently does not react to produce zinc?

Thanks

Andrea Rossi
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Dear Mr Charlie Zimmerman:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Previously he claimed that it had something to do with the surface of the nucleus. I still don't really understand that, but, based on this combined with the above answer, there must be a difference in the "surface" of the nucleus that makes Cu65 not react where NI64 does.

Speculating, his theory would probably have a basis in this difference.

[KitemanSA]

Hey, I didn't say I agree with his business plan. Indeed I said I suspected anything patentable without the special sauce was fairly useless. But not unpatentable. Useless things do get patented.

[seedload]

I think WL may have a good start (plasmons, polaritons) but I can't quite get behind the ULMN part. I think, personally, that some form of masked proton mechanism makes more sense.

FYI, I am not saying the WL, fat slow dumb neutrons and all, is right.

What I am saying is that things he has said previously seem to fit with WL. I mean that he is doing stuff that seems to indicate that he is worried more about what picks up a neutron than what picks up a proton: no NI58 so as not to get NI59, no deuterium so as not to get Tritium, and ONLY NI62 and NI64 would actually transmute in WL.

Everything he says he does makes sense if it was WL except when he says its not WL.

[parallel]

parallel wrote:
Then there is the difficulty of an outsider like Rossi even getting a patent. ...This is based on the reaction of ivory tower academia, an attitude represented here by Giorgio and chrismb, where the device is only "real" or accepted, if it is fully described (voiding any patent)

chrismb wrote:
P., you're totally wrong on that and it shows a slowness of thought and comprehension that is shameful.

A patent REQUIRES a full description. It REQUIRES a complete enablement such that anyone else can reproduce the same results.

Rossi has stated categorically that he intends to deny anyone any access to his 'special sauce', therefore NO PATENT CAN BE GRANTED.

This is absolutely nothing to do with whatever attitude, experiment or other related waffle you might wish to attribute it to, it is, simply PATENT LAW.

Read up and educate yourself.

*******

You're both missing the point(s):

If Rossi is trying to make the thing self-destruct, then there is something he needs to patent. But he can't patent it unless he says what it is.

There is a simple, and blindingly obvious, reason why you have to give details of the thing you are claiming - because if someone else comes along and patents it for themselves, you can hardly go saying "he's not allowed to do that because I had the idea first" if they've no idea what your claims were!!!

You can't be held as infringing something that you don't know about, if the person claiming the infringement hasn't told anyone about it in the first place!! Are we supposed to take people's word for it that what they claim is an infringement is actually the subject of whatever it is they say they had the first claim on!?!?

Stop being such an arrogant ass. It is you, not me, that clearly have comprehension and reading problems.

Rossi, his patent attorney and I all know a patent requires full disclosure and enough information for someone skilled in the art to replicate it. What your small mind seems unable to grasp is that if he applies for a patent on something and parts of it are not granted, it means he has given away the secret without getting the protection.

Apart from that, pray tell just how Rossi can get a patent in the US when the patent office specifically says it will not even consider an invention like his? They can also drag it out for years if they don't like your face and remember he wants to sell product this October. You apparently have no idea how the process works in practice.

Rossi has applied for a patent and of course not knowing what is in it doesn't slow you down from making ridiculous statements about how he should apply for one. I'm sure you also missed that Rossi said following obtaining a world patent for the reactor he would then apply for one for the catalyst. Obviously you think he has no idea how to run his business and you would do much better.

You are wrong. Contrary to what you write, Rossi has stated he would be happy to disclose the catalyst and any other proprietary things ONCE HE HAD PATENT PROTECTION. I hope writing it caps makes it easier for you to read.

One of the reasons why it is difficult for Rossi to get a patent is because dogmatic scientists have managed to get a consensus that cold fusion or LENR, or whatever you want to call it, is pathological science and should be ignored. That is why the US Patent Office will not consider it.
You are amongst those whose brain has ossified, and deny as you will, earlier in this thread you made it clear that Rossi was not to be believed and you thought the process was impossible. All you did was look for possible ways to fake the experimental results and run down reputable scientific witnesses as unbelievable. Seedload and Giorgio more than you to be fair.

What I wrote, much earlier, was take the man at his word until he's proven wrong. Meanwhile there is not enough evidence to pass judgement.

[chrismb]

Stop being such an arrogant ass.

If that's how you view me, then, no, I won't stop.

What your small mind seems unable to grasp is that if he applies for a patent on something and parts of it are not granted, it means he has given away the secret without getting the protection.

Awwww... didums! Poor little Mr Rossi.

Apart from that, pray tell just how Rossi can get a patent in the US when the patent office specifically says it will not even consider an invention like his?

That's nonsense. Again - READ UP [I put it in captials so you'd notice]. Plenty of 'cold fusion' patents go through the USPTO. There is no procedure to 'refuse to consider' such a patent. Only, that they get hammered by the examiners due to lack of substantiating material. Rossi - if he has it - could ask for such material to be kept in camera and for the examiners to see [what we've not been permitted to do so].

And, aside from that, it is non-sequitur. Rossi needn't claim 'cold fusion' at all! He just has to state the substance he is using and claim it to be exothermic. That's hardly unbelievable - it is nickel and hydrogen after all - a well-konwn mix for producing heat.

Go read my earlier posts. I explained how Rossi could make his claims, without claiming any 'cold fusion'.

Also READ WHAT I PUT EARLIER [I put it in capitals so you'd notice], Rossi has said HE DOESN'T KNOW THE THEORY so why would he include guesses in a patent?

They can also drag it out for years if they don't like your face and remember he wants to sell product this October. You apparently have no idea how the process works in practice.

What element of what I said indicates that!? If Rossi makes a valid ENABLED application, then his protection starts from the date he made the application. Why is he so fearful that they will deny him a patent?

Rossi has applied for a patent and of course not knowing what is in it doesn't slow you down from making ridiculous statements about how he should apply for one.

I know what the published application says. He's claimed a metal tube with nikel in it! Perhaps only the Italian system could grant such a patent, it doesn't seem to qualify as being innovative to put a reactive substance in a tube to react it.

I'm sure you also missed that Rossi said following obtaining a world patent for the reactor he would then apply for one for the catalyst.

Why should I? It makes NO SENSE AT ALL. Why wouldn't he apply for both at the same time?

Obviously you think he has no idea how to run his business and you would do much better.

How have you come to that conclusion when I've only commented on his patent app, here?

You are wrong. Contrary to what you write, Rossi has stated he would be happy to disclose the catalyst and any other proprietary things ONCE HE HAD PATENT PROTECTION.

How can I be wrong? He cannot gain patent protection UNTIL HE HAS DISCLOSED IT.

I hope writing it caps makes it easier for you to read.

Yes, it has helped me see your non-sequiturs more easily. Thanks.

One of the reasons why it is difficult for Rossi to get a patent is because dogmatic scientists have managed to get a consensus that cold fusion or LENR, or whatever you want to call it, is pathological science and should be ignored. That is why the US Patent Office will not consider it..

As above, they will consider it. But it will need Rossi to be forthcoming with evidence of it working.

You are amongst those whose brain has ossified,

S'funny.

and deny as you will,

not denied anything. There is nothing to deny [SEE MY EARLIER POSTS]

earlier in this thread you made it clear that Rossi was not to be believed and you thought the process was impossible.

I've never said that. Reprint it. You are either lying, distorting reality to make a point to others, or just a bit simple.

All you did was look for possible ways to fake the experimental results and run down reputable scientific witnesses as unbelievable. Seedload and Giorgio more than you to be fair.

Not at all. I applied the 'scientific method', perfectly normal critique, and the outcome was the outcome.

What I wrote, much earlier, was take the man at his word until he's proven wrong. Meanwhile there is not enough evidence to pass judgement.

READ MY EARLIER POST. I agree with this comment. There is nothing to judge yet. So why are you judging it as something to be believed? Why not take me at my word when I say there is no reason for Rossi to claim 'nuclear processes'?

[parallel]

Further to my earlier comment:

In 2008, Rossi's patent application received an unfavorable preliminary report on patentability at the World Intellectual Property Organization,[10] citing serious deficiencies in both the description of the device and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility. The patent application was published on October 15, 2009

ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

Note he applied for a patent as long ago as 2008. Even though the patent was not granted the application was published in 2009.
Anybody, apart from chrismb, think he can get an international patent for the reactor and a follow-up patent for the catalyst in four months?

Edit added.
I'm not going to waste my time going through the junk reply from chrismb above, but one example should suffice.

chrismb wrote:

And, aside from that, it is non-sequitur. Rossi needn't claim 'cold fusion' at all! He just has to state the substance he is using and claim it to be exothermic. That's hardly unbelievable - it is nickel and hydrogen after all - a well-konwn mix for producing heat.

Anybody else simpleminded enough to think that is patentable?

[Ivy Matt]

But he can't patent it unless he says what it is.

No, what I meant is that, according to a certain source, Rossi has already submitted a patent application for the catalyst (and the special nickel treatment), thus it is already disclosed to the patent office(s). It is just not disclosed to the public yet, which is not required until 18 months after the application is made, in most jurisdictions. (But I'm sure you knew that.)

Apart from that, pray tell just how Rossi can get a patent in the US when the patent office specifically says it will not even consider an invention like his?

This is something I've been trying to find out about lately, but haven't been terribly successful. Mostly I've just found links to cold fusion websites that repeat this claim. Anyway, whether it's true or not, I will note that the USPTO is willing to grant patent protection even to a perpetual motion device if certain conditions are met. I can't imagine that the requirements for granting a cold fusion patent would be any more stringent.

[parallel]

Ivy Matt

parallel wrote:
Apart from that, pray tell just how Rossi can get a patent in the US when the patent office specifically says it will not even consider an invention like his?

This is something I've been trying to find out about lately, but haven't been terribly successful. Mostly I've just found links to cold fusion websites that repeat this claim. Anyway, whether it's true or not, I will note that the USPTO is willing to grant patent protection even to a perpetual motion device if certain conditions are met. I can't imagine that the requirements for granting a cold fusion patent would be any more stringent.

I did not word my comment well. As far as I know, the US Patent Office does not actually say this, but by some unwritten law behaves as though that was the case.

Here are a few not very good links that report on the problem
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government ... Memo.shtml
http://www.padrak.com/ine/POLETT899.html
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/mar2/coldfusn.htm
http://www.raven1.net/mcf/pro-freedom.c ... ct136.html

See also page 30 http://www.scribd.com/doc/55939247/25/M ... on-Patents

The Patent Office’s use of a two-tiered system to chronically discriminate against cold fusion violates many federal laws. Out of more than 300 cold fusion patent applications, the Patent Office has issued only ONE patent – and that single patent is believed to be the Patent Office’s accident/mistake.

[Giorgio]

This is based on the reaction of ivory tower academia, an attitude represented here by Giorgio and chrismb, where the device is only "real" or accepted, if it is fully described (voiding any patent) and test results published in some peer reviewed journal (who won't publish "pathological science.")

This is based on common sense and is used to prevent anyone with a bottle of water that claims to have discovered the eternal life potion to get credibility in the eyes of normal people.
The same fact that you are not able to understand this basic concept is the proving evidence that such a defence mechanism is needed.

The result is seen here:
Dear Mr Riccardo:
I think that the household targeted items will arrive later. We have to resolve the problem to make them self-destructive in case of opening the reactors. Otherwise, with few thousands of dollars anybody has access to the confidential aspects of the technology. In industrial plants this issue is more easy to afford and has been resolved.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Self destructive in case of tampering? For an home device?
This is the biggest bunch of crap that he has said so far and IF he really believe this he just proved to be extremely naif. His credibility just lost several points in my eyes.

What a ridicule statement.

[Giorgio]

Then there is the difficulty of an outsider like Rossi even getting a patent. ...This is based on the reaction of ivory tower academia, an attitude represented here by Giorgio and chrismb, where the device is only "real" or accepted, if it is fully described (voiding any patent)

P., you're totally wrong on that and it shows a slowness of thought and comprehension that is shameful.

A patent REQUIRES a full description. It REQUIRES a complete enablement such that anyone else can reproduce the same results.

Rossi has stated categorically that he intends to deny anyone any access to his 'special sauce', therefore NO PATENT CAN BE GRANTED.

This is absolutely nothing to do with whatever attitude, experiment or other related waffle you might wish to attribute it to, it is, simply PATENT LAW.

Read up and educate yourself.

I'll add more, Rossi already stated that Piantelli patent represent his device in all aspects, hence he will never be able to get a new patent on the same device. So, why are you (Parallel) still talking about the patent?

This is really basic common knowledge as Chris is stating.

[chrismb]

As far as I know, the US Patent Office does not actually say this, but by some unwritten law behaves as though that was the case.

Here are a few not very good links that report on the problem
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government ... Memo.shtml

Apart from all the other shyte you have foisetered into this forum [I deal with each of your points, why don't you have the capacity to do so to mine? If not, I will simply do the same and point out that EVERYTHING your've written is crud-plated crusty crud], the memo in this link says nothing at all that demonstrates you case.

What happens is that different Art Units receive different 'technologies' - there is no point in one specialist learning all he needs to learn when some other art unit has already done so.

This is simply a memo identifying the necessary routing of such patents, so that they go through to a few particular examiners who specialise in dealing with this type of '''technology''' [triple quotes to emphasise the irony of the term].

PARALLEL - APART FROM COLD FUSION, EESTOR AND BLP, YOU'VE NEVER CONTRIBUTED TO 'POLYWELL' AND THE 'HOT FUSION' COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS. PLEASE LEAVE THE FORUM, OR GET ON TO TALK ABOUT SOME REAL KNOWN PHYSICS.

Why this forum tolerates people whose only purpose here is to talk about COLD FUSION B*LL*CKS is just one of those things I guess I will never learn. I'm not saying people shouldn't comment about it, I'm saying that such people are not posting in the right forum if they are not part of the 'polywell community'.

[Betruger]

Rossi has said HE DOESN'T KNOW THE THEORY

Pretty sure I read in these last few days that Rossi admitted he went from guessing to having no doubts left as to the phenomenon. Now whether that's true or a lie... Considering his history with the E-Cat so far, it wouldn't be surprising at all that he lies about this to not let WL steal his thunder.

Either way, no way to know for sure because of his data embargo in spite of all this publicity.

[parallel]

chrismb,

parallel wrote:

What I wrote, much earlier, was take the man at his word until he's proven wrong. Meanwhile there is not enough evidence to pass judgement.

chrismb replied:

READ MY EARLIER POST. I agree with this comment. There is nothing to judge yet. So why are you judging it as something to be believed? Why not take me at my word when I say there is no reason for Rossi to claim 'nuclear processes'?

I am not judging it. As I said, "take Rossi's word for it until he's proven wrong." You on the other hand, do not take Rossi's word for it, despite claiming to agree with my comment.
In passing, the accumulating evidence makes me lean towards thinking the E-Cat is real.

chrismb wrote:

How can I be wrong? He cannot gain patent protection UNTIL HE HAS DISCLOSED IT.

You are wrong because you have not been following the story closely enough. From Rossi's blog - see below.

Andrea Rossi
January 31st, 2011 at 7:55 AM

Dear Mr Luca Marchini,
We made a specific patent for the catalyzers.
Our patent system is quite complex.
Warm regards,
A.R.

Mark
February 5th, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi, in a previous post you said that there is a specific patent for the catalyzers.
I searched the patent in the “WIPO” site but I wasn’t able to find it. I found only the patent WO/2009/125444 already referenced in your site. Would be possible for you to tell us the patent number of the catalyzers patent ?

Andrea Rossi
February 5th, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Dear Mr Mark:
It is not possible, because this patent is still non disclosed to the public.
Warm regards,
A.R.

E.L. Flanagan's post applies to you.

I recently retired after 35 years practicing as a patent attorney. Klein’s assertion is utterly baseless. There is no requirement that a process be “analytical” in order to be patentable.

One fact of life I have observed time and again: many who evidently have no expertise whatsoever are quite ready to express their opinions regarding the accountability of others’ work.