[Vo]:Etiam OY Patent WO 2013/076378 A2 EP2783369
I'm not sure if this has been discussed or reviewed.. but here is a patent that was mentioned as having been filed 3 months earlier than Rossi's latest patent. Thermal-energy producing system and method https://www.google.com/patents/EP2783369A2?cl=it Inventor: SOININEN, Pekka Company: ETIAM OY http://etiam.fi/news.html
RE: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
Peter and Jones, Rossi has recently stated he is working on 64 more patents. I suspect this first patent was driven by the desire to get something patented. The US Patent Office is dead set against cold fusion and you probably noticed neither cold fusion nor LENR were mentioned, but rather it was an exothermic reaction. Presumably a lot more territory will be covered in the new patents.
RE: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
From: Peter Gluck Ø Rossi has no competition, makes the rules, leads- so this patent was necessary and is useful. It may be useful, but is difficult to imagine Rossi as leading the pack, with this as his flagship patent. The claims are very narrow, and that is very risky. BTW here is the digital document from USPTO, instead of the scan: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=9,115,913.PN.OS=PN/9,115,913RS=PN/9,115,913 Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=9,115,913.PN.OS=PN/9,115,913RS=PN/9,115,913 The value of this disclosure absolutely depends on lithium hydride in combination with aluminum. Anything else is not protected – for instance lithium hydride in combination with magnesium lets one avoid the claims, as does lithium hydride alone. That narrowness in claims is risky - and such lack of breadth usually indicates the inventor knows that one ingredient, and only one ingredient works … which may be the case … but this narrowness is no doubt also an acknowledgement of the massive portfolio of BLP and Mills, most of which is pending. This very limited disclosure was granted quickly – as part of a strategy, but has almost no value other than to protect lithium hydride and aluminum reactions with a liquid. For another example – lithium and aluminum could be used as an IR heat source and avoid any conflict or with a TEG or Stirling. I am very surprised they limited this to a fluid. BTW a Chinese patent has already been granted for a Stirling engine LENR variant which mentions Rossi by name, which is most curious since it assumes that Rossi’s IP can be avoided but that the best implementation for it is a Stirling engine. OTOH Rossi’s Boston law firm is known to be competent, despite the obvious apparent weakness in this filing. Apparently Rossi believes that he has tried all the permutations, and only LAH works. Jones
[Vo]:Making Hydrogen Fuel from Water and Visible Light Highly Efficient
Hu’s team has been able to increase the yield and energy efficiency up to two magnitudes greater than previously reported results using visible light instead of UV. http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2015/august/making-hydrogen-fuel-water-visible-light-highly-efficient.html Mats www.animpossibleinvention.com http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/
[Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
I have worked many years with patents so I dare to say that I know the lesson http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/08/aug-26-how-valuable-is-rossis-us-patent.html Know-how is more than patents. a complex technology as LENR needs more patents. Rosssi has no competition, makes the rules, leads- so this patent was necessary and is useful. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:my opinion about Rossi's US patent plus daily info Aug 26, 2015
Let’s connect the dots in the Rossi patent as it fits into the big picture (while looking for even larger implications): 1)The Claim set is very narrow, and that is risky but expedient. 2)The only protection found in this disclosure is for lithium hydride in combination with aluminum or LAH. Nothing else is protected. 3)Such lack of breadth usually indicates the inventor knows that one ingredient, and only one ingredient is active 4)This streamlining is also part of a strategy for fast approval by USPTO, as is dropping any mention of LENR (as mentioned by A.Ashfield). 5)Apparently, Rossi believes that only LAH works well or is willing to roll the dice - with a streamlined disclosure. 6)Randell Mills has been on record for well over one year as saying that “LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is disclosed in my patents.” [filed in Russia and the USA.] It is likely that Rossi’s disclosure would otherwise fit into the category of a Mills’ reaction, despite the fact that aluminum is one of the few metals BLP does not claim as catalytic. Rossi’s attorneys were negligent not to mention Mills as prior art, and that may come back to haunt them. Aluminum itself has never been widely used in LENR nor fractional hydrogen work before Rossi (Iwamura converted Na to Al, but that went nowhere). It has no Rydberg ionization potential orbitals. It has very strong affinity for oxygen. In short, there is a good argument that aluminum represents a near pinnacle of available chemical energy in a common metal reactant … but one thing which can push a chemical reaction further is a Mills’ type reaction. Clearly the key to success appears to be the combination of aluminum with lithium. Lithium does have one Rydberg energy (state when it loses two electrons). It is likely that the aluminum hydride anion with 4 protons becomes activated on the loss of protons and then becomes a molecule which acts like a catalytic metal. LAH crystallizes as a unit cell where Li+ centers are surrounded by AlH4 tetrahedra. The compound begins to lose hydrogen with added heat. I suspect it becomes active for “shrinking hydrogen” about 350 C when one proton has escaped, and another is nearing the thermal oscillation region where it will soon escape. If – instead of escape, the nascent hydrogen instead drops to the third redundant ground state (3 X 27.2 = 81.6 eV) then it has acted exactly as would potassium, but with the advantage that potassium needs to lose 3 electrons instead of two, so arguably LAH is more efficient. Mills can see that now but ….did he see it before Rossi?? I doubt it. Mills has a history of amending patent applications long after they were filed, since few of his have been granted. They are two complex and over-reaching. For instance, there is almost no doubt (as I reported several years ago) that Mills amended a plasma-phase patent - and added “gas phase” to that older application AFTER Rossi’s initial demo with gas phase, and it is possible that Mills added LAH to an older application, as well – following Rossi’s disclosure of the HotCat ingredients. All of that may be sorted out in Court one of these days, but do not give Mills any credit for being more honest that Rossi, simply because he is better educated and has raised more capital. Neither of them have a reputation for truthfulness.
