IP protection and publication of discovery

Quote from robwoudenberg

Yes, that will be prior art that will prevent any claims having Lithium as an essential catalyst for LENR after you published it.

PersonallyI doubt that Lithium plays an essential role. As Me356 also indicated he does not need Lithium. The presence of Lithium may cause Lithium transmutations, but as we all know there are other transmutations possible (e.g. Nickel).

To add more personal thoughts: I think that UDH (Ultra Dense Hydrogen) is the key. Holmlid has already publications on that (and by that also prior art on how to produce UDH with catalysts he mentions).

I think Me356 said that he did not need lithium aluminum hydride but he used pure lithium instead. Aluminum moderates the lithium reaction. I could be wrong, I don't read every word on every post. I will concede this point and be surprised if you can find a reference in a post were Me or anybody else can produce the Rossi type reaction without lithium added to the fuel mix.

Axil wrote: "Back in 2011, I identified lithium as Rossi's catalyst. Does that invalidate Rossi's patent since the use of lithium or any of the alkali metals are the LENR catalysts and therefore are prior art.See post as follows:Patent office dispute between Piantelli and Rossi?"

Hidetsugu Ikegami published a "book" on this in October 2012. In that book he references earlier work he did related to LENR involving hydrogen and lithium which was published in 2001 (H. Ikegami, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 40 (2001) 6092) and 2006 (H. Ikegami, Ultradense Nuclear Fusion in Metallic Li Liquid, No.1, Swedish Energy, Agency ER 2006:42, Revised Ed. Sakaguchi E.H. VOC Co. Tokyo/Sakura, 2007).

Also here is an interesting quote from me356 that suggests that Lithium is not at all necessary: "The only thing I would like to say is that Nickel - Hydrogen reaction (even without lithium) can yield inconsiderable amount of neutrons. From thermal to high energetic. I can create this on demand and it is little bit worrisome. "

.

Quote from axil

“Quote from axil: “I think Me356 said that he did not need lithium aluminum hydride but he used pure lithium instead. Aluminum moderates the lithium reaction. I could be wrong, I don't read every word on every post. I will concede this point and be surprised if you can find a reference in a post were Me or anybody else can produce the Rossi type reaction without lithium added to the fuel mix.

Have a look at this posting by Me356 here :"We can completely exclude lithium or similar compounds that can create a hydrides"
Maybe Me356 is willing to help out on this.

removed: double posting

Quote from quizzical

Axil wrote: "Back in 2011, I identified lithium as Rossi's catalyst. Does that invalidate Rossi's patent since the use of lithium or any of the alkali metals are the LENR catalysts and therefore are prior art.See post as follows:Patent office dispute between Piantelli and Rossi?"

Hidetsugu Ikegami published a "book" on this in October 2012. In that book he references earlier work he did related to LENR involving hydrogen and lithium which was published in 2001 (H. Ikegami, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 40 (2001) 6092) and 2006 (H. Ikegami, Ultradense Nuclear Fusion in Metallic Li Liquid, No.1, Swedish Energy, Agency ER 2006:42, Revised Ed. Sakaguchi E.H. VOC Co. Tokyo/Sakura, 2007).

Also here is an interesting quote from me356 that suggests that Lithium is not at all necessary: "The only thing I would like to say is that Nickel - Hydrogen reaction (even without lithium) can yield inconsiderable amount of neutrons. From thermal to high energetic. I can create this on demand and it is little bit worrisome. "

.

Display More

Details, details, details...

It is the alkali metals that catalyze the Bose condensation of hydrogen through Rydberg blockade that thermalized the nuclear energy liberated by the LENR reaction. Without this Bose condinsate, the LENR reaction is useless, not much heat is produced in proportion to other energy formats, just a lot of nasty nuclear reaction by products like neutrons, gammas, x-rays, radioactive isotopes...

And that gets us close to Ogfusionist's claims here and earlier under other pseudonyms, that carefully prepared nickelous oxide on a substrate of Fiberfrax will fuse protons at something over 850 to 1000 C. The result was a melting of the Fiberfrax (1450 C?). Over the course of discussing that, it was seen by me anyway, that at least one factor in the impressive result, was the poor ability of such a refractory to dissipate the heat generated (of course it is an excellent insulator). Nevertheless, it was an interesting and at times convincing story, if one looked at all his testimony over a year or more. A problem there was always identifying and quantifying the amount of non-chemical excess heat generated, if any. High temperature yes, high (excess over redox chemistry)) energy release??

Let's keep to the subject.

Me: I understand your goal as not preventing others (it's too late anyway) but to enable others to use your discovery free.

Thanks! That is a great goal.

This thread have several good answers, mine is OSHWA.org - Open Source Hardware Association.

Software differs from hardware. Software is more like writing a book, authoring. Hardware is the old game of patents.

Therefore there is need for a new solution, OSHWA is one of the strongest today.

There is a case to be made that the Rossi/me356 IP is already open source due to the large amount of info about this variety of LENR reaction that has been produced on the internet and in papers.

IH should change their defense from "Rossi IP is worthless because it does not work" to "Rossi's IP is worthless because it is open source/public domain". IH can make a good case the the Ni/H reaction is open source by researching the publically available data on the Ni/H reaction and entering that into the court case.

Mats, a process describing how LENR effect can be created isn't hardware either. I would place it in the category 'recipes' or 'processes'.

Everyone familiar with present LENR patent applications will notice that up till now none of them describe in a reproducible way what process steps are required to start LENRs.
Most of them describe applications (e.g. an apparatus) rather than that. Most of these applications are worthless and are easy to circumvent. These applications would fall under the category 'Hardware'.

So, what's missing is a step by step description of essential process steps to create LENR, consisting of:

• description on how to prepare fundamental ingredients
• description of the conditions to start LENRs
• Optional: description of the method of controlling LENRs
• Optional: a clear indication of the dangers of implementing

me356 There is already many good points for you to digest above. My only guide is think carefully before you make your move. Also double check with more than one patent/IP lawyer the guidance you get (also some differences between US/EU patents).

You expressed that you are exited to share what you have with the world. Well short video showing steady plasma glow with ball lightning or something, would already explode the arena But I think you should make your IP part before shake the world with video.

I noticed your repeated reference to 'neutron radiation' and other maybe questionable possibilities of new discoveries. If that enables what I think, you need to have some responsible thinking on that aspect.

me356

Quote from me356

In some experiments, with a certain materials and in a certain conditions, one can establish a transfer channel. It can be considered as "a black hole".

This mean, that in just few miliseconds even 1L of hydrogen can just "disappear" and is irreversibly transformed to other kind of energy (including neutron radiation).

Just lets stop for a moment.

Personally I think you should consider a meeting with Ed Storms, MFMP and with David French why?

Ed Storms – has the broadest scientific and read background I know in LENR and also may be able to advise you on any potential national security issues.
MFMP – Have the discipline to impartially report (in scientific discipline) what they find (and it would be a rather nice and fitting tribute to P&F).
David French - has about 35 years’ experience in intellectual property law and is an expert in the differences between
‘trade secrets’ and ‘patents’, you cannot have both apparently, according to him.”

What you describe appears to be 'big', choose you friends wisely.

As Rossi appears to be experiencing there may be greater forces at work trying to prevent this coming to market in the short/medium term so be careful.

Best regards
Frank

RobW: Good thinking! Agree the procedure is the secret sauce.

Please read http://www.oshwa.org/faq/

In which part of the soft and hard IP domain would you put 'procedure'?

@me356 a blockchain contract is the only reliable way for you to store protect your invention and your self by now . if what you are describing is true it becomes a national security issue for multiple countries stolen Ip should be the least of your worries .alone you will not be able to handle whats coming . a the public ledger contract is decentralized can't be forged can't be hacked and you can build a decentralized for profit organisation on it while making the information open source (i hate to say that but think NRA with shares and influence) .
the reward for you and contributing members will be in the trillions while minimizing the risk .
i don't think its worth going to details here .

me356,

I would recommend having someone you trust replicate the results first and agree to not share the secrets. You want to make sure you have something real before you waste your own (and everyone else's) time with worrying about IP issues. I know you are convinced, but I urge you to allow someone else to try to replicate before getting too excited.

Even if you could do it black box style and have MFMP do the testing, it would be wise. Then you could spend a lot of money consulting with attorneys on the best way to protect it. First, be sure it works by relying on some trusted others.

Mats: Oshwa mentions 'design files' related to open source hardware. Those design files contain very specific circuit descriptions etc. Those can be circumvented in many occasions. To give you an example: part of a shared electronic circuit design contains an OPAMP as an amplification component. By replacing the OPAMP component by a discrete transistor circuit one can circumvent the openly shared circuit description.

A procedural description being the core of IP claims is very common and does not specifically fall under hardware of software IP domains.

A process step description can be generic.
To give an example in the field of LENR:
One of the essential steps may be to reduce the nickel-oxide layer of nickel particles bought from any of the well known suppliers to allow smooth absorption of Hydrogen by nickel particles.
In essence it's sufficient to mention 'reduction of nickel-oxide layer from nickel particles' as one of the process steps. It is not required to describe the exact way of reducing nickel-oxide layers as there are numerous ways to do this.

Quote from Anubis

@me356 a blockchain contract is the only reliable way for you to store protect your invention and your self by now . if what you are describing is true it becomes a national security issue for multiple countries stolen Ip should be the least of your worries .alone you will not be able to handle whats coming . a the public ledger contract is decentralized can't be forged can't be hacked and you can build a decentralized for profit organisation on it while making the information open source (i hate to say that but think NRA with shares and influence) .
the reward for you and contributing members will be in the trillions while minimizing the risk .
i don't think its worth going to details here .

You're making things way too complicated. This forum's content is already a publicly shared ledger in itself.

Quote

You're making things way too complicated. This forum's content is already a publicly shared ledger in itself.

this forum can be erased from the internet no trace the stakes are high . the block chain allows the inventor and contributors to get a reward from their work without being taken advantage of by attorneys ,advisers or special interest ..

I am sometimes baffled by the naivete on this forum .
If I was Me356 I would take an appointment with a Dr for a complete health check and store the results in a multiple safe places and watch my back. The difference between what you are saying and what rossi is talking about is that you freely talk about enormous neutrons in your comments about one litter of hydrogen disappearing with so little coverage have convinced me that you need urgently a PR adviser or publish what you have .either way I hope you never logged into this forum without using appropriate tools to protect your identity this is valid for electronic exchanges between you and other members of the community.
At this point it doesn't really matter if you have something or not.
I have served in a field that will be looking into your post by now and believe me they don't think like most people here.
There is no way you will be allowed to disclose this using conventional ways . Even if you manage to do so you will be smeared and attacked to a point that you can't imagine.

I apologize for the chronic dislexya.
I don't intend to instill fear or paranoia
These are genuine worries .

Quote from Anubis

I am sometimes baffled by the naivete on this forum .
.

me356 is just the latest experimenter to reveal miraculous claims and all those workers are doing just fine, and living in obscurity. This process of revelation and disbelief has been going on for over a100 years now. All successful LENR experimenters have so far been protected by the cloak of unbelievability. Leif Holmlid et al is an example of an experimenter who produces mericle level experiments and publishes them is peer review publications and yet nobody takes him seriously.

There is no need for complicated LENR processes to produce unbelievable results.

A series of experiments that I am particularly fond of by A.V. Simakin light under the mediation of nanoparticles (provides topological order equivalent to cracks) can produce a nuclear reaction. Laser light alone does not produce the nuclear effect.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf

Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt.

It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission and the transmutation that fission can produce.

Abstract
Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 – 0.355 m were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 – 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed.

Here is another paper:

I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission.

See references:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ



These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why can’t others replicate these experiments? They don't beleive that these results are possible.

Critics of LENR are hard put to explain these series of experiments and why and why transmutation and fission are demonstrated by them so they just ignore them.

The cloak of unbelievability has protested Rossi up until now and will do so until he begins manufacturing in massive production.

The only people that beleive that me356 has anything are we few here, the others in this world do not believe. There are 100 more examples spanning the last century, why is now any different?

Quote from Anubis

I am sometimes baffled by the naivete on this forum .

Stop this anachronistic noisy fear screaming: This forums content is well safed in Millions of backups of searchengines all over the world. Neither secret services is able to completely debug this mess.

On the other side ME is no con. He - on advice - carefully avoided to publish anything for the patent rats listing/hanging around here.

If ME managed to build a cheap, reliable reactor with easily available fuel and high COP (>20, then it's enough to publish all the construction/fuel details as open source. Nobody can prevent a private person to construct his own reactor, even if this stuff is patented...
At least we will have a "free" heating-source.

Electricity always needs additional knowledge. This is far outside public domain. For this we have to wait.

PS: I know your concern: NSA - via AKAMAI, Cloudflare etc. - directly controlls (hosts!!) over 50% of the worldwide IP traffic. People don't care...