From: Peter Gluck
Dear Jones
How is connected GENIE with the Cincy Cell- in your opinion?The connection is that both use electrochemistry (and LENR techniques) to create nuclear reactions which secondarily transmute heavy metals. Here is an old IE article on the CGC http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/IE13-14CincinattiGroup.pdf But the dissimilarity outweighs the similarity, and there is no claim of excess heat in the CGC, whereas the GEC is based upon the prospect of having large excess heat, apparently as a replacement for a fission reactor - what Khim is calling "Generation 5". However, the GEC reactor goes well beyond the Boss, Forsley et al patent -- which is simply a "System and method for generating particles" and that is where the injustice of selective USPTO patent-granting may lie. Not to mention the cleverness of Dr Khim. How did they get coverage for LENR techniques in this application - when all the many others in prior art did not? Does this relate to having the USN as the co-assignee? Yup, there is no doubt about that detail. Our patent office has been a massive failure to the general public in this regard. Europe allows patents for LENR, and even has a separate classification for them - so why not the USA? This puts our small inventors at massive disadvantage. What a bunch of incompetent and spineless "yes-men" we have in USPTO - and one can only suspect that this goes back to political pressure from the physics establishment and their cronies in congress. BTW, both the CC and GEC produce transmutation in heavy metals which may look like fission, but the GEC is reputed to produce actual fast neutrons for fast fission and excess heat. That would b a huge difference, if true and very valuable indeed. I can find no data indicating that fast fusion has been proved, however - does anyone have a citation for this detail (actual proof of fast fission) ? Probably not ... especially since such data would most likely trigger the 37 C.F.R. 5.2 Secrecy Order. http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/program.html Fast fission is not easy to prove since U235 will fission with thermal or fast neutrons, and one would need to show that the reaction in question was not thermal, if they want it to be novel. Of course this would be ideal for the nuclear submarine, so we have to ask - why has this not been applied to small reactors which are used in submarines and does that relate to Khim's strategy of not patenting the reactor itself? Very clever, Dr. Khim. It is almost as if this disclosure was part of a two-part strategy to avoid Navy oversight (being potentially valuable to some of our enemies for such things as nuclear powered submarines) ... and since they did let it through (without a secrecy order) Khim may have succeeded twice with this strategy - but whose side is he on, really? Is this starting to sound vaguely like an old James Bond plot? Please don't say: "No, Dr."
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
