So Defkalion had nothing!

I wonder if they actually bought that fancy mass spectrometer they were planning on, and where it went if they did.

How's this for a paradox: Defkalion, who had nothing and was a big scam, did a public, real-time streamed presentation, during an LENR convention.

Rossi, who has the real goods, has always refused to do it.

When someone fails at LENR he has big problems, like a bemused traveler who stumbles into a den of pit vipers, there is no redemption. Damnation is a bitch. The lives and careers of Pons and Fleischmann were destroyed by their LENR failure. Have you noticed how Rossi invokes F8 and F9 anytime he says anything? Rossi will not take any small money investment; he uses only big money where the professional investors understand how failure plays a major role in the R&D game. Even the sainted Rossi knows how perilous the sin of failure can be among the proletariat.

In the LENR religion, an erstwhile prophet will be hoisted up onto the cross by the screaming mob in a heartbeat when the dawning of failure is perceived if not understood. Poor Dr. Kim, like P&F, the purest of the sacrificial lambs is again offered up on the blooded alter of failure.

But what is failure anyway. DGT failed to boil water, the true measure of LENR success. Their system wasted all its LENR energy on radiation, RF, and the production of magnetism. The Defkalion engineers were unable to turn the LENR reaction toward the production of steam. How sad.

Rossi says now that his new system produces light and electrons. In this new dawning of the next LENR epoch, heat is just an afterthought. On their seats of judgement, this goes to show how fickle, arbitrary, and wrathful the gods of LENR can be.

In engineering, determining why something fails is more important than observing success. We can learn much from the DGT failure.

In the case of the DGT system, the barrier to their success is the electric arc reaction activation process that they used. When that arc was triggered, it disrupted the Bose condensate process that thermalized any LENR energy that was produced. Instead of producing heat, X-ray radiation and various forms of intense EMF resulted. The condensate was disrupted during the period of maximum LENR activity.

In the Rossi system, Rossi uses an electric arc in the fuel preparation stage only where heat production is not required and x-ray radiation can be tolerated. When the fuel is placed on line, a Bose condensate thermalizes the LENR energy at high efficiency and no x-ray radiation is detectable.

The same radiation production mechanism is seen in this spark based system.

http://newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf

Quote

“It is revealed that the heterogeneous non-equilibrium plasmoid is an intensive source of soft X - radiation of 1 ÷ 10 keV quantum energy.”

The most intense radiation occurs at the spark but as the LENR products moves away from the magnetic field produce by the spark, the x-ray radiation decreased by 20% at 100 Cm. As the LENR products travel away from the spark, a Bose condensate is beginning to set in to support the thermalization process of the x-ray radiation that was maximized at the spark.

This is a lesson to be applied to engineering other LENR systems, even though electric arcs are required to produce the metastable exotic hydrogen species needed to support the LENR reaction, the spark must not be used in the on line system.

The LENR reaction must be partitioned into two parts, one - to produce the Rydberg hydrogen matter during fuel preparation and two - the use of only heat during on line processes to keep the Bose condensate in place once it has formed.

Any system that uses spark discharge in on line operation is destined for failure. The Defkalion clone, AIRBUS system is an example. Also any on line system based on electrolysis is also a failure waiting to happen.

The people who are embarrassing Dr. Kim are those who are calling him a scammer if only indirectly.

For me this says it all. The quote below is from the 11/29/2011 article in Ny Teknik written by Mats Lewan. The above article quotes Alexandros Xanthoulis, President of Defkalion:

“- Let’s say I have Rossi’s formula, but I do not say it officially. My scientists have found a way to accomplish it. They need three months. I know what is in the reactor. I know everything. It was done with spectroscopy at Siena University of Padova (…) They tested the reactor without [Rossi] knew what they were doing, he continued.”

They had very informative and understandable slide sets, like this:

https://docs.google.com/file/d…m5TSUF5ZUxKS0E/edit?pli=1

Question is: what were they thinking? It was obvious that, with the politicians involved, the whole thing was doomed. But why did they do it in the first place? What did they gain? Perhaps there is nothing more to it other than stremmenos being inexcusably naive.

The "gloss" of the slide show says that an important focus may have been simply gaining funding. This is common in venture capital and private placement of high technology enterprises. Failures are often seen there in spite of the polished presentations and promising preliminary data. The usual warning concerning sale of equities or investment positions in the US of A is a reminder that is universal and likely required by law once the appeal for funding goes public, and shows something of the nature of entrepreneurship and ventures in financing high technology, that is: "This prospectus may contain forward-looking statements and investors should conduct their own due diligence".... etc., etc.

All the participants on Defkalion's side may or may not have had pure motives. The idea that their model was based on Rossi's is perhaps a warning, as others here have pointed out. If, and until Rossi secures his "50 to 150 patents", we are unlikely to see full and useful disclosure of any of the essentials of his technologies. Of course this is a complete violation of the letter and intent of patent protection, at least as I have grown to understand it. The essence of patent protection is precisely to grant a limited monopoly in order to bring out full and workable disclosure. Rossi may be working under some other understanding of patents and that key role in furthering technological progress. Frankly, I doubt that even Italian patent law is so constructed as to only assure monopoly without disclosure.... it just does not make any economic sense to allow monopoly without some public good in exchange. I suppose the law could be such that full disclosure is made AFTER the expiration at 21 years(?).... If that were the case, then prepare for glacial progress in any field of technology.

One root problem for LENR / CF, is The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In my view, they are culpable for their knee jerk classification of CF / LENR as a form of "perpetuum mobile" (perpetual motion machine). Truly egregious misdeeds underlie that bureaucratic form of pre-emptive and prejudicial defamation. I know that they will never be punished, one executive branch (Department of Justice) will never indict another executive branch (Department of Commerce) for such malfeasance, even though there may well be US Code Title 18 crimes there. Of course the USPTO actors might proclaim ignorance as a defense.... but why have "examiners" if such is their qualification?

(My apologies for ventilating a rant.)

Why did Defkalion do it? They worked with Rossi and his reactor for a long time. Defkalion saw the Rossi reactor did work but they saw that Rossi could not control his reactor. Defkalion wanted to solve the control problem by using spark activation of the reaction. They got results as good as Rossi from that approach but spark activation has a limit of its own. Defkalion traded one flawed approach for another. In the due course of time, Rossi was able to solve the control problem through the "Cat and Mouse" reactor module approach but Defkalion was stuck at a design dead end. Today, Rossi survives and Defkalion did not. Such is how R&D goes. Product development is like evolution: only the smart, the well funded, and the lucky survive.

[Quote]
"I have recently been able to consult the pdf memo Technical Characteristics and Performance of the Defkalion’s Hyperion pre-industrial product [sic!], authored by John Hadjichristos, Menelaos Koulouris, and Aris Chatzichristos, and I cannot but make (albeit reluctantly!…) several remarks on this document.My first and emotionally spontaneous comment is Biblical: …τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν [See here Matthew 7.6: «(Do not give) what is holy to dogs»].Because of the obtuseness and frivolity of the very top figures of the Greek political scene, I was unfortunate enough to meet these characters about one year and a half ago.I instructed them in and made them part of my work on cold fusion (… at the time they were ignorant of the very existence of this topic); later, I collaborated, together with Andrea Rossi, towards the (failed) development of the E-Cat in Greece.This (theatrical?) troupe of characters belongs to «Defkalion Green Technologies Global, Greece-Canada-Swiss», a firm which notoriously deceived (with Levantine wiles…) Rossi for eight months.To be more specific: John Hadjichristos holds a degree in Mathematics — he was an atypical entrepreneur in the construction business together with A. Xanthoulis; Menelaos Koulouris’ previous venture was the (probably not too successful) vending of sandwiches, pizzas, beverages, etc., in the center of Athens (I believe he might have graduated in Physics); as for Aris Chatzichristos, son of the above-mentioned John of the same name, he is a student — and I wonder what right he has to sign and associate his name with the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Greece…I will not deal with the scientific contents of this amateurish report, which is quite destitute of all GALILEAN ethos; in the ancient language of my country one could proverbially describe it as λίθοι καί κέραμοι ἀτάκτως ἐρριμμένοι [See: Xenophon, Memorabilia, 3.1.7…], that is to say: «rocks and tiles untidily tossed about”…Rather, and with a touch of malice, I wonder where Xanthoulis and the «Defkalionites» get their money from. Especially after proving themselves quite incapable of honoring (even symbolically) the financial commitments they had agreed to with ROSSI!To what end is this megalomaniac media charade? It has been polluting the Web for months with nothing tangible to show for it.These are questions which, in my opinion, must be asked by anyone who sincerely believes in the hope of new energy era … in the face of those who, whether for economic gain or «cultural» interests linked to a false concept of prestige, are attempting to discredit with (bankrolled?) fabricated stories the very advanced and tangible state of E-Cat technology.
Christos Stremmenos
Professor, University of Bologna (ret.).Former Ambassador of Greece to Italy.”

[Christos Stremmenos
- JoNP August 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM]

Longview wrote:

Quote

One root problem for LENR / CF, is The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In my view, they are culpable for their knee jerk classification of CF / LENR as a form of "perpetuum mobile" (perpetual motion machine). Truly egregious misdeeds underlie that bureaucratic form of pre-emptive and prejudicial defamation. ...

It is typical of believers in some fringe idea to blame the lack of progress on things other than the most likely culprit -- the lack of an effect.

Cold fusion does share with perpetual motion machines the perception within mainstream science that it is not consistent with science as it is understood, and that is the only reason necessary for the similar treatment it has received from the patent office. This perception is admitted by Hagelstein, one of the more prominent theorists in the field: "such an effect is not consistent with condensed matter physics, and also not consistent with nuclear physics. In essence, it is impossible based on existing theory in these fields. There is no question as to whether this is true or not (it is true)"

And in fact, the treatment that either of them has received is the furthest thing from egregious.

The purpose of the (now ended) SAWS program, to which both were considered subject, was not to bury patent applications, but to ensure the rules were properly followed on sensitive topics, including cold fusion, perpetual motion, anti-gravity, and a range of sensitive biological topics like magnets affecting taste and so on.

The intent was not unreasonable from the point of view of self-preservation, but also in the public interest. Sensitive patents are those that would attract a lot of attention, and a patent granted on anti-gravity that was obviously inoperable brings bad publicity to the entire patent system. Moreover, sensitive patents tend to promise extraordinary benefits, and so even though a patent is not intended to be a validation, many people regard it is as such, and so it can be (and is) used to facilitate fraud. For these reasons, additional scrutiny was warranted for such applications -- not to subject them to additional rules, but to ensure that existing rules were adhered to, since individual examiners can easily slip up now and then.

Ordinarily, utility does not have to be proven to obtain a patent. "Office personnel are reminded that they must treat as true a statement of fact made by an applicant in relation to an asserted utility, unless countervailing evidence can be provided that shows that <b>one of ordinary skill in the art would have a legitimate basis to doubt the credibility </b> of such a statement."

So a patent is not a validation, and was never intended to be. But it can be rejected as not useful if its claimed utility is not credible: "The second type of deficiency arises in the rare instance where an assertion of specific and substantial utility for the invention made by an applicant is not credible."

Cold fusion, along with perpetual motion, and some other claims, was cited as a specific example of "incredible" utility, or "wholly inoperative invention". Therefore, in claims of cold fusion or LENR, which are considered by most people skilled in the art to be inconsistent with known science, an examiner is justified in requiring evidence of operability.

The purpose of SAWS was to emphasize this requirement. But all that was needed to get the patent granted was evidence of operability. That does not seem like an unreasonable requirement to me.

Quote from joshua cude

Ordinarily, utility does not have to be proven to obtain a patent

Except, of course, when the device is presumed to be inoperable. Novelty, non-obviousness and utility are prime pre-requisites for patentability in my reading over the decades. You blather impressively, but I must conclude incorrectly in this instance.

I may post further on various points you attempted to make. Based on your lengthy and rather self serving response, and your several inaccuracies or misdirections, I see no reason to lend credence to much if anything of your writing.