Who was awarded the potassium patent or was it deemed by Rossi and his legal team to be open source. Rossi's low heat reactor (1 Megawatt version) must use a potassium based fuel. A Lithium based fuel must run in a reactor with and operating temperature of over 1000C. Is Rossi conceding the Big cat and his tiger reactor subsystem as using and open source technology?
DGT used Potassium carbonate (K2CO3) as their fuel. This is the standard LENR catalyst. It has been used from the earliest times of LENR. Thermocore might have been the first to experiment with potassium. Potassium could support the a fine LENR reactor design. Melting point (891 °C (1,636 °F; 1,164 K) Boiling point - decomposes. A competitor of Rossi could develop a reactor that uses K2CO3 with no patent recourse protection from Rossi. I believe that Rossi is reserving the Lithium aluminum hydrate fuel as a doorway to the direct conversion of the LENR reaction into electricity. This might be why Rossi made a point that the lithium based LENR patent was the first LENR patent to be set in place by Rossi’s team. A way to get around the Rossi patent protection is to mix chemical compounds containing cesium, potassium and lithium together is proportions that are different from those specified by the Rossi patent. Even if Mills does not discrib what he does in his technologies as LENR, as described by Mills in his patents, there are hundreds of chemical compound combinations that will support the LENR reaction. These chemicals uses as fuel are not fundamental to LENR, it is what these fuels produce that results in LENR. Those more fundamental elements are nanoparticles of the proper sizes and aggregations comprised of elements and/or chemical compounds. If you remember the story of how a LENR reaction melted and vaporized a hole a lab table and the the reinforced concrete floor of a LENR lab floor just under the table, that vaporized floor material served as fuel of the LENR reaction in that amazing case. On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > I have the opinion that patents are just costly and a way for patent > lawyers to suck money out of inventors.. It really does not protect. Read > Jones's idea about how the fight about the right claim is already in full > swing and they are lawyering up. Another thing is that I think another way > to really hurt LENR would be to involve D Trump. He has money but all I > heard him able to do is to fire people. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 > > “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> *From:* Blaze Spinnaker >> >> 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. >> >> Ø Yeah, it's a very narrow patent that can only prevent immediate >> knockoffs and let Rossi claim he has a patent. Until we see a replication >> though, I remain skeptical. >> >> >> >> The scenario which is shaping up now is most ironic. The “replication” >> may come from none other than Randell Mills/ BLP ! It could happen in >> September. >> >> >> >> The BLP device could be in a different form factor, but they would be >> foolish not to become proactive at this juncture. If they have anything to >> show, it is crunch time. Presumably BLP’s LAH demo, if it happens, will be >> coordinated by a head-on legal assault by Patent attorneys and politicians. >> The USPTO has been under pressure from politicians for some time for just >> this type of intransigence. Mitchell Swartz has a similar problem with them. >> >> >> >> And now we have a situation where USPTO seem to be favoring a foreign >> inventor with a long criminal record – in an election season. How hard will >> it be for Mills to enlist “the Donald” on his side. OMG the Donald gets >> involved in LENR J >> >> >> >> Mills has every right to feel slighted by the USPTO since he has invested >> up to $20 million in attorney fees over the past 25 years to maintain a >> portfolio with a large number of long running, non-granted applications. >> This has allowed him to continually improve what he has on file. Moreover, >> it is very likely that his claim for priority (in the use of LiAlH4) will >> have been amended onto a patent with a much earlier original filing that >> Rossi, and the court will have to decide who is the original inventor. >> >> >> >> Note that having a granted patent does NOT give the patent holder much in >> the way of legal presumption. The minute that Mills’ attorneys present >> evidence of prior invention, the burden of proof will have shifted. >> >> >> >> This is shaping up to be marvelous entertainment, if nothing else. The >> best part is that Mills/BLP have now been forced to “put up or shut up.” >> >> >> >> Jones >> >> >> > >
