tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post7248874941044592639..comments2024-03-27T21:35:04.988-07:00Comments on EGO OUT: LENR INFO January 12, 2015Georgina Popescuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04628821029016016988noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-65479633530733834892015-01-12T13:41:06.749-08:002015-01-12T13:41:06.749-08:00The only reason I could ever see for the claimed &...The only reason I could ever see for the claimed 'catalyst' in the original Rossi Italian patent was that it created a 'needed' mystery (which has confounded so many 'smart' people for years) as it helped obfuscate the reality. Based on the original papers and patent including work done at Bondino Italy by Prof Focardi and Andrea Rossi, the most it could ever have been was a known catalyst that helped released monatomic hydrogen when heated (not novel and thus known to be unpatentable which is why Andrea called it a 'mystery catalyst'). <br /><br />So, the catalyst allowed Andrea's later eCats to release monatomic hydrogen as part of the heating process in lieu of the original piped in monatomic hydrogen. This is one of the areas he diverged from Piantelli's prior work & DGT's devices (which initially followed the Piantelli approach of piped in monatomic H).<br /><br />The 'mystery catalyst' was allowed to stand in the Italian patent because the patent was applied for some months before new laws (taking effect in July 2008) changed the rules such that proper searches for prior art had to be done and also the use of an unidentified element in a 'claim' was not allowed and thus invalidated a patent (once an original claim is changed in substance, the patent is normally invalidated & the applicant has to file a new patent. The reason claims cannot be altered is to prevent applicants obscuring the real process and changing the detail later either because they were hiding the real process or didn't know it at the time of filing and were using the 'mystery' as a placeholder).<br /><br />This to a large degree is what happened when Andrea Rossi took the same Italian patent and submitted it to the EPO. They did have the new rules in effect and Andrea Rossi's original eCat patent hit a brick wall and remains there to this day. If he changed his claims (removed the mystery catalyst which is what he tried to then do in 2011) then he would have had to refile and would lose his claimed priority to his 2008 Italian patent (granted in 2010).<br /><br />It is simply amazing and highly entertaining reading people's 'speculation' and 'fantasies' as to what the 'mystery catalyst' is/was. The spectrum of statements about the eCat catalyst stands as stark testimony to our imaginations when given a 'mystery' to unravel.<br /><br />DSM<br /><br />DSMdsjm1https://www.blogger.com/profile/07779323885237127015noreply@blogger.com