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?
See the difference?“My process has nothing to do with the process of Piantelli,” Rossi wrote. “The proof is that I am making operating reactors; he is not.”
ref http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/ ... piantelli/
Unfortunately you are the one not seeing the difference.parallel wrote:Giogio wrote: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?
What Rossi said was:See the difference?“My process has nothing to do with the process of Piantelli,” Rossi wrote. “The proof is that I am making operating reactors; he is not.”
ref http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/ ... piantelli/
Speaking of which, wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to just stamp "patent pending" on every E-Cat leased? As I mentioned earlier, all you need to do that is a patent application that hasn't yet been rejected.Giorgio wrote:Do we really want to believe that the Home version of the E-cat will be delayed because they have to develop a self destruct solution?
You know this forum (i.e. MSimon) tolerates a lot, including some people who only talk about politics these days. I see no reason to single out someone whose primary interest is in a phenomenon purported to be a type of fusion reaction. I will say, though, that in my opinion any cold fusion enthusiast who wishes to engage in discussion on a forum devoted to high-energy nuclear reactions (heh) ought to familiarize himself with the subject lest he be put at a disadvantage. I'm not singling out parallel here, who hasn't really said much about the subject, but elsewhere I've seen some cold fusion enthusiasts say things about "hot fusion" that led me to believe they haven't the foggiest clue.chrismb wrote: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.
He stated it on Radio, his patent attorney stated it on a TV show and lastly Focardi stated this on at least another TV show and 2 radio interviews that I can remember of.parallel wrote:Reference please. Where did Rossi state that "Piantelli patent represent his device in all aspects."
That's all? That's your best counter argument to my points?parallel wrote:I think you made it up.
Too easy. They probably feel the need to complicate their lives.Ivy Matt wrote:Speaking of which, wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to just stamp "patent pending" on every E-Cat leased? As I mentioned earlier, all you need to do that is a patent application that hasn't yet been rejected.Giorgio wrote:Do we really want to believe that the Home version of the E-cat will be delayed because they have to develop a self destruct solution?
No that wouldn't work. As Rossi stated, if he sold them without patent protection (or even with protection in my view) for a few thousand dollars anyone could obtain an E-Cat and reverse engineer it.Speaking of which, wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to just stamp "patent pending" on every E-Cat leased? As I mentioned earlier, all you need to do that is a patent application that hasn't yet been rejected.
I joined this forum because I'm interested in better ways of obtaining energy and I thought the Polywell might be one such device. In the absence of news about the Polywell it is natural that the blog would wander off into other areas. Obviously, the E-Cat is another possibility. Unfortunately, I don't think hot fusion like the Tokamak is. It seems unlikely to generate power economically and we spend too much money on it.chrismb wrote:
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.
Ivy Matt wrote:
You know this forum (i.e. MSimon) tolerates a lot, including some people who only talk about politics these days. I see no reason to single out someone whose primary interest is in a phenomenon purported to be a type of fusion reaction. I will say, though, that in my opinion any cold fusion enthusiast who wishes to engage in discussion on a forum devoted to high-energy nuclear reactions (heh) ought to familiarize himself with the subject lest he be put at a disadvantage. I'm not singling out parallel here, who hasn't really said much about the subject, but elsewhere I've seen some cold fusion enthusiasts say things about "hot fusion" that led me to believe they haven't the foggiest clue.
The very moment (if) he will release the product someone will copy it, even if they have to steal one from somewhere to do so.parallel wrote:Ivy Matt,No that wouldn't work. As Rossi stated, if he sold them without patent protection (or even with protection in my view) for a few thousand dollars anyone could obtain an E-Cat and reverse engineer it.Speaking of which, wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to just stamp "patent pending" on every E-Cat leased? As I mentioned earlier, all you need to do that is a patent application that hasn't yet been rejected.
Ross is no fool and has been around long enough to understand the game. It is naive PhDs that don't. (I'm not referring to you.)
I gave you links and told you to check both patents, but as this will probably show you the truth than you prefer to cover your ears and stick your head underground.parallel wrote:It seems to me that people like chrismb overate the importance of their speculations on an obscure blog like this. I am retired and can please myself how I spend my time. I have made 192 posts. chrismb has made 2620. Does he have a job? Giorgio seems to have an inferiority complex that makes him run others down. He never admits making a mistake. Apart from the untrue story of Rossi saying that "Piantelli patent represent his device in all aspects," as far as I know Rossi never said he wouldn't apply for a patent for the catalyst either. Life is too short to waste it on Giorgio's song and dance routines - "he said it on radio." "His patent attorney stated it" - that was the opposition. Etc.
Can you please link me to a post you have ever made when you've ever BEEN 'in the area'?parallel wrote:I joined this forum because I'm interested in better ways of obtaining energy and I thought the Polywell might be one such device. In the absence of news about the Polywell it is natural that the blog would wander off into other areas.
I apologise most humbly, oh retired person, for spending MY time in the way I choose. I did not realise that only YOU have the right to spend your time how you please!I am retired and can please myself how I spend my time. I have made 192 posts. chrismb has made 2620. Does he have a job?
Are you real?parallel wrote:From my post on the previous page.Maybe you hacked into the patent officeAndrea 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.
What has this to do with the fact that I stated that the DEVICE is the same in the Piantelli-Focardi and Rossi-Focardi patents?Andrea Rossi wrote: 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.
So, again I ask, what is your purpose on being on this forum? And why have you chosen this moment, and this non-polywell subject, to start making your idle speculations.parallel wrote:chrismb,
I'm not vain enough to think I have made any "contribution wrt polywell."
What contribution have you made that makes the slightest difference?
I'm interested in following the development of it.
Another difference between us is that when I was working I didn't have time to waste making numerous idle speculations on a blog.
