Talk-Polywell.org

raphael wrote:morally compromise???

Yes, in my opinion and in the case of something so fundamentally important as a new source of energy, there is a moral imperative to make everything crystal clear to avoid screwing it up and getting it signed off as a nut-job. (Or otherwise, to test the thing sufficiently to figure out early that it is a nut-job and not embroil everyone else into a waste of time.)

I would say the same thing of anyone who, in whatever way, caused a fundamental breakthrough that had the potential to improve billions of people's lives to stall and fail. In this case, this means making the technology and processes absolutely transparent. A correctly drafted patent would mean Rossi could accomplish this, to the benefit of everyone, and still become more wealthy that he'd never be able to spend his money quick enough. But it seems that he can't even be bothered to find good patent advice. Some patent clerk(s) have just rubber-stamped his 'un-enabled' patent application, which will fail.

Axil wrote: Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna 29 March 2011.
...

Thanks, but this tells me nothing about the temperature of the nickle, per-se. All this does is tell us what the LOW end of the heat flow is like, not what the high end is.

Anyone?

chrismb,

I would say the same thing of anyone who, in whatever way, caused a fundamental breakthrough that had the potential to improve billions of people's lives to stall and fail. In this case, this means making the technology and processes absolutely transparent. A correctly drafted patent would mean Rossi could accomplish this, to the benefit of everyone, and still become more wealthy that he'd never be able to spend his money quick enough. But it seems that he can't even be bothered to find good patent advice. Some patent clerk(s) have just rubber-stamped his 'un-enabled' patent application, which will fail.

You really make a habit of false accusations and statements.
If you had bothered to follow the link you would have seen his patent attorney said that it was probably impossible to get a patent on the device (not the powder) because it was too similar to an existing patent.
Also, that the US patent office refuses to grant patents on cold fusion, because they have been persuaded it does not exist.

parallel wrote:If you had bothered to follow the link you would have seen his patent attorney said that it was probably impossible to get a patent on the device (not the powder) because it was too similar to an existing patent.

I believe that was Piantelli's patent attorney.

parallel wrote:Also, that the US patent office refuses to grant patents on cold fusion, because they have been persuaded it does not exist.

Perhaps they just need to see a sufficiently persuasive demonstration.

Perhaps they just need to see a sufficiently persuasive demonstration.

I thought that might have been the reason for the demo at first, but that does not seem to be the case.

Apparently the US patent office will not even look at a cold fusion patent, treating them the same as perpetual motion. So I don't know how one would get around that.

Without knowing just what is in the E-Cat no one knows what the patent problem is. It may well be that much of it has already been covered by earlier published work. Getting heat from Ni and H2 is not new. Maybe what it needed was tweeking rather than a new discovery. Remember Rossi said he made a couple of thousand devices to get to where he now is.

NASA is working on Ni-H Replication and Theory Confirmation

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/05/ ... firmation/

KitemanSA wrote:

Axil wrote: Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna 29 March 2011.
...

Thanks, but this tells me nothing about the temperature of the nickle, per-se. All this does is tell us what the LOW end of the heat flow is like, not what the high end is.

Anyone?

No one. These info are just not public. You can derive some bits here and there from the various posts of Rossi and from his interviews, but I find it hard to give them any real weight.

parallel wrote:chrismb,

I would say the same thing of anyone who, in whatever way, caused a fundamental breakthrough that had the potential to improve billions of people's lives to stall and fail. In this case, this means making the technology and processes absolutely transparent. A correctly drafted patent would mean Rossi could accomplish this, to the benefit of everyone, and still become more wealthy that he'd never be able to spend his money quick enough. But it seems that he can't even be bothered to find good patent advice. Some patent clerk(s) have just rubber-stamped his 'un-enabled' patent application, which will fail.

You really make a habit of false accusations and statements.
If you had bothered to follow the link you would have seen his patent attorney said that it was probably impossible to get a patent on the device (not the powder) because it was too similar to an existing patent.
Also, that the US patent office refuses to grant patents on cold fusion, because they have been persuaded it does not exist.

You are misunderstanding Chrismb point.
He is stating that if he had drafted the patent in a more complete way, including also the catalyst, he would have had the patent granted.
The way it is now the patent does not represent any advance in respect to the available patented processes (the Piattelli-Focardi one), and hence cannot be granted.

Wikipedia - Energy Catalyzer:

...on 6 April 2011 an application was approved by the Italian Office for Patents and Trademarks, which issued a patent for the invention.

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

here is the source, given in Wikipedia, to saying the patent was approved

http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Avanza ... coraSearch
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufficio_it ... i_e_marchi
TITLE: "processo ed apparecchiatura per ottenere reazioni esotermiche, in particolare da nickel ed idrogeno."
(TRANSLATION: "process and equipment to obtain exothermal reactions, in particular from nickel and hydrogen")
N. Brevetto 0001387256
Data Deposito: 09 aprile 2008,
Data Brevetto 06 aprile 2011,
Inventori: Andrea Rossi.

Staggeringly... it is true! The UIBM has granted it!

http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Avanza ... coraSearch

I would be tempted to think this is more a comment on the UIBM than the 'invention', but I don't speak Italian to work out if it is possible to see the reasons for grant so I cannot have an opinion on this.

In any case, even as issue the patent is substantially flawed. If not challenged, it could easily be got around by using this reactive substance in a plastic box, rather than a metal tube. Rossi should be patenting this nickel 'substance' as a substance rather than trying for a utility apparatus (though not all patent jurisdictions allow patents on substances, it is true).

But that's enough free patent advice for him for now.....!

Hopefully it will be enough for Rossi to become more forthcoming with the details. That would make the patent very worthwhile.

Good news about Rossi's patent.

However, as most know, a patent is not worth the paper it is written on until it has been challenged in court. Historically, most small inventors spend the rest of their lives and most of their money trying to defend their inventions against the blood sucking legal system.

Read the wiki article about the Wright Brothers as a good example. It helped kill Wilbur at an early age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers

It looks like Rossi has taken a sensible course in not disclosing the catalyst until he has to, and, getting academia involved at Bologna U. that may just offer him some protection. I hope this allows him to pursue further development without getting bogged down in patent suits.

An English translation of the patent here:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicat ... 44A1&KC=A1

Having now read the patent, there are several things of interest.

1. In the early analysis the main new element was zinc, but a number of other elements were found.
2. The copper doesn't show up until some time later.
3. His first claim is for LENR from just H2 under pressure over nano particles of Ni. This is probably true and gets around him having to disclose the catalyst, mentioned but not identified in claim 2.

It is hard to see anything particularly novel in the reactor design. I can see why some doubted he could get a patent for this. But see 2 posts above....