MOTTO
We live in a world of microwavable answers and quick fixes. (Wally Bock)
DAILY NOTES
a) David French explains us the professional aspect- patenting methodology- re the Rossi patent rejected the third time. Thanks a lot, dear David- we have to learn from you
b) A technical dispute with Mary Yugo- who sends a must-read calorimetry paper:
M.Y and other have requested that the E-Cat should be tested using only cooling with water- no steam- pure flow calorimetry. My opinion is that is:
a) misleading and counter-natural because the commercial E-Cats will genearte steam not hot water;
b) practically impossible due to high temperatures and very great heat fluxes per surface unit- water cannot carry away the heat;
M.Y disagrees and sends this:
A beautiful example of a simple, well calibrated calorimeter which can house a reactor running at very high temperatures and which, unlike Rossi's iXXXX (watch your adjectives, M.Y.!) configuration for the hot cat, which has no forced cooling of any sort, indeed takes heat away as needed:
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/
This is in Italian but translates well with Google. Perhaps you were not aware of this.
I will ask my readers to study this paper and decide if M.Y. is right or the E-Cats go beyond the limits of water calorimetry, practically. Success!
DAILY NEWS
1) Modified Jan 18, 2016
Energy Catalyzer
We live in a world of microwavable answers and quick fixes. (Wally Bock)
DAILY NOTES
a) David French explains us the professional aspect- patenting methodology- re the Rossi patent rejected the third time. Thanks a lot, dear David- we have to learn from you
Andrea Rossi E-cat Patent Application Rejected in 2016
What’s Next for Rossi and Industrial Heat, LLC?
What’s Next for Rossi and Industrial Heat, LLC?
This web posting is obviously made by persons who want to show that Andrea Rossi is not genuine in his representations in the field of ColdFusion. I cannot subscribe to that position as a definite conclusion. I am content to wait for the results of the one-year, 1 MW test due in March - April, 2016. But I will initially make some remarks about the patenting process governing Rossi's referenced application.
Rossi's recent rejection by the US Patent Office Examiner on January 11, 2016 is part of a patenting process that began when he filed his original application back on August 4, 2009. That application claims priority from an Italian application made April 9, 2008, but is permitted to contain additional material over the Italian filing. It is important to appreciate that this application represents Rossi's thoughts at the time of his 2009 filing. He's not allowed to amend the "story" in his application after the formal filing has been made. This application also adopts a style that I strongly recommend against, namely attempting to provide a theory as to why an apparatus or construction produces promised results. Not a good idea.
This application has wound its way through the Patent Cooperation Treaty, a system for processing applications internationally on a central basis, followed by a National Entry filing at the US Patent Office. The US Examiner criticized this application on similar grounds to the present grounds in a first Office Action a year and half ago, to which Rossi replied, or rather his attorney of the day replied at that time. The Examiner then rejected this application a 2nd time, which under US rules is a "final" rejection.
However, by paying a substantial fee and filing of Request for Continued Examination - RCE, Rossi can start the examination process over. He did so and on June 12, 2015 filed further submissions against the Examiner's final rejection. Since Rossi filed an RCE, the Examiner is obliged to reply once again with a fresh Office Action. This action is not final because when you file an RCE you get an extra chance to amend your claims after the Examiner comments on the RCE submissions. The application is now at the stage where we are awaiting further comments from the applicant.
The basis of all of the Examiner’s rejections has been fundamentally founded on the premise that the disclosed invention, and the methodology provided to describe how it works, is not believable. Normally, the Patent Office takes assertions made by a patent application at face value, as if they are true. But if the Examiner can present a case that the allegations in the patent application are, on the balance of probability, not likely to be accepted as being true by informed, reasonable people in the field, then the Examiner can ask for proof that the assertions are correct.
The field in this case is being taken by the Examiner as being the universe of Physics, and not the universe of believers in Cold Fusion.
In order to overcome the Examiner's assertion that the results are not believable Rossi filed a copy of the Lugano Report and other materials. The Examiner in this recent Office Action has simply said: "Not good enough; I still don't think your claims of excess heat are believable". Consequently, as this is an RCE, Rossi's attorneys will have one more bite at the apple to file material that might satisfy the Examiner.
Rossi's recent rejection by the US Patent Office Examiner on January 11, 2016 is part of a patenting process that began when he filed his original application back on August 4, 2009. That application claims priority from an Italian application made April 9, 2008, but is permitted to contain additional material over the Italian filing. It is important to appreciate that this application represents Rossi's thoughts at the time of his 2009 filing. He's not allowed to amend the "story" in his application after the formal filing has been made. This application also adopts a style that I strongly recommend against, namely attempting to provide a theory as to why an apparatus or construction produces promised results. Not a good idea.
This application has wound its way through the Patent Cooperation Treaty, a system for processing applications internationally on a central basis, followed by a National Entry filing at the US Patent Office. The US Examiner criticized this application on similar grounds to the present grounds in a first Office Action a year and half ago, to which Rossi replied, or rather his attorney of the day replied at that time. The Examiner then rejected this application a 2nd time, which under US rules is a "final" rejection.
However, by paying a substantial fee and filing of Request for Continued Examination - RCE, Rossi can start the examination process over. He did so and on June 12, 2015 filed further submissions against the Examiner's final rejection. Since Rossi filed an RCE, the Examiner is obliged to reply once again with a fresh Office Action. This action is not final because when you file an RCE you get an extra chance to amend your claims after the Examiner comments on the RCE submissions. The application is now at the stage where we are awaiting further comments from the applicant.
The basis of all of the Examiner’s rejections has been fundamentally founded on the premise that the disclosed invention, and the methodology provided to describe how it works, is not believable. Normally, the Patent Office takes assertions made by a patent application at face value, as if they are true. But if the Examiner can present a case that the allegations in the patent application are, on the balance of probability, not likely to be accepted as being true by informed, reasonable people in the field, then the Examiner can ask for proof that the assertions are correct.
The field in this case is being taken by the Examiner as being the universe of Physics, and not the universe of believers in Cold Fusion.
In order to overcome the Examiner's assertion that the results are not believable Rossi filed a copy of the Lugano Report and other materials. The Examiner in this recent Office Action has simply said: "Not good enough; I still don't think your claims of excess heat are believable". Consequently, as this is an RCE, Rossi's attorneys will have one more bite at the apple to file material that might satisfy the Examiner.
This application has a significance far beyond the US patent that issued to Rossi's Leonardo Corporation on August 25, 2015. That patent had claims which were quite specific to a special configuration said to produce excess heat. This patent application contains the remarkably broad opening Claim 1 that reads as follows:
"1. A method for carrying out an exothermal reaction of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in that said method comprises the steps of providing a metal tube, introducing into said metal tube a nanometric particle nickel powder and injecting into said metal tube a hydrogen gas having a temperature much greater than 150.degree. C. and a pressure much greater than 2 bars.”
The interlineation shows the amendment made before the US Patent Office by Rossi's attorneys. It is virtually meaningless in terms of the objective of obtaining an Allowance for the grant of a US patent. In fact, this amendment broadens the scope of the claim.
The scope of this claim is extraordinary. If a patent were to issue based on this claim, then it would approach the category of being a Master Patent, or a patent that would dominate the field. The claim has defects that the Examiner has not raised. For example, the words "much greater than 150°C" and "a pressure much greater than 2 bars" are both indefinite. But the Examiner hasn't even bothered to raise this objection.
Further, the Examiner has not criticized the application for its reference to:
"[0025] In applicant exothermal reaction the hydrogen nuclei, due to a high absorbing capability of nickel therefor, are compressed about the metal atom nuclei, while said high temperature generates internuclear percussions which are made stronger by the catalytic action of optional elements,"(emphasis added)
This is an application filed at the time when the US law required an applicant to disclose the "best mode" for carrying out an invention. Disclosing that there is a better mode that is not disclosed, should be a grounds for rejecting this application. The applicant's attorney has endeavored to address this issue unilaterally by deleting the following Claim 8 from the application:
"8. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyze materials are used."
However, having disclosed the existence of special "catalyze materials", the deletion of this claim does not overcome a grounds for objection based on failure to describe the best mode.
It is understandable that Rossi would try and keep this patent application alive. It's scope would be remarkable if issued. Of course, even if issued, the patent could be challenged by a post-grant Opposition proceeding before the US patent office, or in any litigation in which the patent Owner attempts to assert the patent. The advantage for Rossi is that, if the patent doesn't have to be tested until litigation at some date in the future, then by that future date there may be enough evidence in existence that everything that he's saying in his patent application could be found to be true.
Some persons ask why the Patent Office is insisting that the truth of these type of applications be established prior to its grant. They observe that if Cold Fusion is impossible, then there will never be an occasion when the patent will be asserted in Court. So why make a big fuss now?
Others say that the Patent Office must be careful not to grant patents that could possibly be, and “engine of fraud".
David French
b) A technical dispute with Mary Yugo- who sends a must-read calorimetry paper:
M.Y and other have requested that the E-Cat should be tested using only cooling with water- no steam- pure flow calorimetry. My opinion is that is:
a) misleading and counter-natural because the commercial E-Cats will genearte steam not hot water;
b) practically impossible due to high temperatures and very great heat fluxes per surface unit- water cannot carry away the heat;
M.Y disagrees and sends this:
A beautiful example of a simple, well calibrated calorimeter which can house a reactor running at very high temperatures and which, unlike Rossi's iXXXX (watch your adjectives, M.Y.!) configuration for the hot cat, which has no forced cooling of any sort, indeed takes heat away as needed:
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/
This is in Italian but translates well with Google. Perhaps you were not aware of this.
I will ask my readers to study this paper and decide if M.Y. is right or the E-Cats go beyond the limits of water calorimetry, practically. Success!
DAILY NEWS
1) Modified Jan 18, 2016
Energy Catalyzer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
2) MFMP starts new glowstick 5.2 test:
9) From LENR's pre-history - Cold Fusion in Peron's Argentina;
The eight essentials of innovation
Strategic and organizational factors are what separate successful big-company innovators from the rest of the field
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2016/01/18/mfmp-starts-glowstick-5-2-test/
3) From Andrea Rossi's website:
Andrea Rossi about theory
January 18th, 2016 at 8:09 PM
Clark Roth:
To sustain that LENR can be explained by means of electron capture means to have understood nothing of nuclear physics, in general, and to understand nothing of LENR, in particular.
It is time to speak clearly about these clowneries that, violating the most elementary principles of physics and being unsustainable under a mathematical point of view, can only jet discredit on the field. To reconcile LENR with the QED and QD maybe possible, but with a very difficult study and with the alalysis of experimental data that must be eventually structured in advanced mathematical models. This is extremely difficult and cannot be substituted by stupidities that treat e.p. like balls in a pool.
Electron capture happens only in atomic structures that have nothing to do with LENR.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi about his patents
January 19th, 2016 at 10:12 AM
Jeffry:
Yes, we have now 220 patents between pending and in preparation; I am optimistic and think about 140 will be allowed, while 80 will be rejected; nevertheless, we’ll go on with the ones we do not think will be allowed, because in any case they are useful to make experience.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
3) From Andrea Rossi's website:
Andrea Rossi about theory
January 18th, 2016 at 8:09 PM
Clark Roth:
To sustain that LENR can be explained by means of electron capture means to have understood nothing of nuclear physics, in general, and to understand nothing of LENR, in particular.
It is time to speak clearly about these clowneries that, violating the most elementary principles of physics and being unsustainable under a mathematical point of view, can only jet discredit on the field. To reconcile LENR with the QED and QD maybe possible, but with a very difficult study and with the alalysis of experimental data that must be eventually structured in advanced mathematical models. This is extremely difficult and cannot be substituted by stupidities that treat e.p. like balls in a pool.
Electron capture happens only in atomic structures that have nothing to do with LENR.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi about his patents
January 19th, 2016 at 10:12 AM
Jeffry:
Yes, we have now 220 patents between pending and in preparation; I am optimistic and think about 140 will be allowed, while 80 will be rejected; nevertheless, we’ll go on with the ones we do not think will be allowed, because in any case they are useful to make experience.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi about leadership
January 19th, 2016 at 10:05 AM
David Burkley:
My great team is still the best of the world! Of course we are working in harmony, and I am not the kind of leaders that says to the others ” Boys: you do Charge!”
I am of the kind that says “Boys, follow me” and this, obviously, helps a lot.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
5) Maybe relevant! From Canada! Discusses LENR seriously!
DND/CAF Energy Horizons from Historical Data to the Potential Exploitation of Emerging Technologies Paul Labbé
Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0K2 Paul.Labbe@drdc-rddc.gc.ca
http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc207/p802902_A1b.pdf
Abstract
This paper reviews the energy portfolio of Department of National Defence (DND) and of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) from different perspectives based on recent data analyses of the energy used over several years. Then it shows a projection of the potential impacts on current and future DND/CAF capabilities of selected emerging technologies (nuclear and non-nuclear). When possible, it estimates the potential life-cycle cost savings from the hypothetical adoption of such technologies that minimize operational cost and waste management burden.
From Conclusions:
It is expected that Canadian multidisciplinary teams with relevant know-how would investigate the plausibility of claims made about LENR while DRDC conducts operational research studies and system analyses to estimate which legacy capabilities would most benefit from such advanced energy technologies.
6) LENR COMMUNITY ON GOOGLE+
https://plus.google.com/communities/111126146224334527320
7) LENR discussed in German(y):
http://forum.golem.de/kommentare/wissenschaft/kernfusion-neue-technik-soll-kontrollierte-traegheitsfusion-ermoeglichen/apropos.../97932,4381417,4381417,read.html
8) In Indonesian: The fate of water (sea water) as renewablw energy fuel:
http://energibarudanterbarukan.blogspot.ro/
It writes about LENR, about facts
January 19th, 2016 at 10:05 AM
David Burkley:
My great team is still the best of the world! Of course we are working in harmony, and I am not the kind of leaders that says to the others ” Boys: you do Charge!”
I am of the kind that says “Boys, follow me” and this, obviously, helps a lot.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
5) Maybe relevant! From Canada! Discusses LENR seriously!
DND/CAF Energy Horizons from Historical Data to the Potential Exploitation of Emerging Technologies Paul Labbé
Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0K2 Paul.Labbe@drdc-rddc.gc.ca
http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc207/p802902_A1b.pdf
Abstract
This paper reviews the energy portfolio of Department of National Defence (DND) and of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) from different perspectives based on recent data analyses of the energy used over several years. Then it shows a projection of the potential impacts on current and future DND/CAF capabilities of selected emerging technologies (nuclear and non-nuclear). When possible, it estimates the potential life-cycle cost savings from the hypothetical adoption of such technologies that minimize operational cost and waste management burden.
From Conclusions:
It is expected that Canadian multidisciplinary teams with relevant know-how would investigate the plausibility of claims made about LENR while DRDC conducts operational research studies and system analyses to estimate which legacy capabilities would most benefit from such advanced energy technologies.
6) LENR COMMUNITY ON GOOGLE+
https://plus.google.com/communities/111126146224334527320
7) LENR discussed in German(y):
http://forum.golem.de/kommentare/wissenschaft/kernfusion-neue-technik-soll-kontrollierte-traegheitsfusion-ermoeglichen/apropos.../97932,4381417,4381417,read.html
8) In Indonesian: The fate of water (sea water) as renewablw energy fuel:
http://energibarudanterbarukan.blogspot.ro/
It writes about LENR, about facts
9) From LENR's pre-history - Cold Fusion in Peron's Argentina;
In the 1950s, Perón even sank hundreds of millions of dollars – in today's money – on a project to produce cold fusion, thanks to the crackpot schemes of the scientist Ronald Richter, a man with a past so shady that no one knows if he was Austrian or German, or even if he received a doctorate.
10) Found by LENR Forum
Helium-3 Generation from the Interaction of Deuterium Plasma inside a Hydrogenated Lattice: Red Fusion
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/591/1/012039/pdf;jsessionid=12397561B6E84D6FE204DCD789F47D07.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org
LENR IN CONTEXT-1
Why Renewable Energy is Defying Gravity
Growth in renewable energy shows no signs of slowing, even though fossil fuel prices have plummeted. Here’s why.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545516/why-renewable-energy-is-defying-gravity/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20160119
Not only for students:
Student Research Resources on the Internet 2016
http://www.llrx.com/features/studentresearchresources.htm
10) Found by LENR Forum
Helium-3 Generation from the Interaction of Deuterium Plasma inside a Hydrogenated Lattice: Red Fusion
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/591/1/012039/pdf;jsessionid=12397561B6E84D6FE204DCD789F47D07.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org
LENR IN CONTEXT-1
Why Renewable Energy is Defying Gravity
Growth in renewable energy shows no signs of slowing, even though fossil fuel prices have plummeted. Here’s why.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545516/why-renewable-energy-is-defying-gravity/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20160119
Not only for students:
Student Research Resources on the Internet 2016
http://www.llrx.com/features/studentresearchresources.htm
LENR IN CONTEXT-2
An especially smart paper applicable for the LENR community- that is somewhere between existence and non-existence:
connecting cooperation and collaboration
An especially smart paper applicable for the LENR community- that is somewhere between existence and non-existence:
connecting cooperation and collaboration
Forget Egalite- for LENR is OK- it is simpler to use concentrate funding sources!
The 62 Richest People On Earth Now Hold As Much Wealth As The Poorest 3.5 Billion
Strategic and organizational factors are what separate successful big-company innovators from the rest of the field
.
the problems is that a French under social aid, is among the 1% richest income on the planet.
ReplyDeletethe problems is not social inequality but absolute poverty due to underdevelopment. Technology is the solution, not politics.
Politics , especially in Africa is the problem. ingenuity is the solution.
I have hard time believing Andrea Rossi understands anything about nuclear physics.
ReplyDeleteI have hard time believing Andrea Rossi understands anything about nuclear physics.
ReplyDeleteRead e.g. what Urutskoev write and you will see nuclear physics also does not understand itself completely essential things are ignored or not, It is not a finished science. On EGO OUT you can discover many papers about new trends in nuclear physics.
DeleteI told many times- Rossi speaks science but does technology.
And he is apparently uptodated with the dominant dogmas.
peter
Rossi speaks utter bullshit and sets up smokes and mirrors.
DeleteI feel so sorry, that so many people who should understand better, fail to see this.
Dear Timo,
Deletewhat you say and how you are saying ais a simple statements unproven> Find out the most relevant examples- show where Cook the mentor is in errr invole some authrities, Too short message! Please use euphemisms or dysphemisms however bulloshit is inadequate, low style.% examples, OK?
peter
OK. I understand the words. No sure if I can find a message.
DeleteRepeat: I do not have to prove anything. I believe what Rossi says to be devised to facilitate a deception.
Surely ou have, you say X is "so" are just words in wind you must prove it otherwise you statemnent is unproven and if offensive you have theoretically to support the consequencs.
DeleteYo belong to a secret society aiming to kill Santa Claus' reindeers Your place is in prison.
Do you like it? I hve nothing to prove, it is your duty to show that you like reindeers and you actually signed a petition asking prohibition of reindeer osso buco in all Suomi's restaurants.
Be serious.