Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Well I suppose this is a better way of expressing excess energy than using COP values which I agree can be misleading. Problem is not many studies are quite so quantitative so a lot more digging has to be done.


    A Takahashi

    Anomalous heat effect by interaction of hydrogen isotope gas and metal nanocomposites supported by zirconia or by silica has been examined. Observed absorption and heat evolution at RT were not too large to be explained by some chemical processes. At elevated temperatures of 200 ~ 300C, most samples with binary metal nanocomposites produced excess power of 3 ~ 24 W lasting for up to several weeks. The excess power was observed not only in the D-PdNi system but also in the H-PdNi system and H-CuNi system, while single-element nanoparticle samples produced no excess power. The Pd/Ni ratio is one of the keys to increase the excess power. The maximum phase-averaged excess heat energy exceeded 270 keV/D, and the integrated excess heat energy reached 100 MJ/mol-M or 90 MJ/mol-H. It is impossible to attribute the excess heat energy to any chemical reaction; it is possibly due to radiation-free nuclear process.

  • That being said, there should be some metric for an LENR reactor if it is actually to be used as an energy source.

    Yes. If we ever get to the point where LENR is a practical source of energy, this may be an important issue. However, when evaluating experimental results, it is not important. It is not applicable. Other criteria such as the signal to noise ratio apply.

  • And no need to even sell one. just having it available for sale..law~

    Please quote your "law".


    I don't think you have to make a sale or offer for sale an item to enforce a patent. There are defensive patents.

    "Patents are rights granted by the U.S. government, specifically the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to an inventor, to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing a particular invention without permission."


    There is not a requirement in the US of selling the item as far as I know.

    Many items are patented such as rockets and so on that are granted patents that are never sold or offered for sale.

    There is also constructive reductions to practice which do not even require the physical production of a device.

  • I've bin down this road in the past, A trap is a trap.. you can look this up easily yourself.

  • I've bin down this road in the past, A trap is a trap.. you can look this up easily yourself.

    So why do you try to set traps instead of giving your so called "law".

    You say your been down this road but I tried to search your posts and don't see that you

    ever addressed the question. Perhaps it was in a separate thread. Please give a link to your post.


    I try to look it up but see nothing that requires sales before you can enforce a patent.

    Yes you can use sales as support for claims of utility but there are other ways for that.


    Your response just seems to be a smoke screen for a false statement.

  • Quote

    Like you say IO it is the divisor part of the COP that is the issue,

    I suggest something more like:

    ((Power out * conversion efficiency to useful energy) - Power in) / cost to make and fuel and service device over useful life per unit time

    So if for example if the power output were 100% neutrinos it wouldn't be quite as useful


    Yeah, well... as long as devices purported to produce energy from LENR, like for example Brillouin's and of course, all of Rossi's, are connected to a robust supply of mains power, I suggest that the ratio of Pout vs Pin is relevant and interesting. If a device ever produces long lasting amounts of output power with no (or negligible) input power, then consideration of fuel and service would matter. Until someone has a mostly self-running device, the issues are indeed Pout>Pin, Eout>Ein, how much and how long. Impressive quantities, verified independently would be the only convincing criteria for the existence of a real, new power source. That's the argument JedRothwell vehemently balks at because despite his protestations there is no device yet which cleanly meets the criteria to be impressive to the real world and mainline science.

  • That's the argument JedRothwellvehemently balks at because despite his protestations there is no device yet which cleanly meets the criteria to be impressive to the real world and mainline science.

    Except for the ones described in peer reviewed papers published by distinguished scientists. They impressed many mainstream scientists, and the editors and reviewers of the journals.

  • "Patents are rights granted by the U.S. government, specifically the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to an inventor, to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing a particular invention without permission."


    There is not a requirement in the US of selling the item as far as I know.

    Actually, there is in some cases. There have been instances in which corporations used a patent to keep important technology off the market, and impede progress. Uncle Sam intervened and forced them to license the technology and have it manufactured. I have forgotten the specific devices. As I recall, some of the devices were needed by the military. The government says it is an abuse of the patent system to use it to suppress technology. I agree, and I think that is a clear reading of the Constitution:


    "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."


    By refusing to manufacture, and by not allowing others to manufacture, you would not "promote the progress of science."


    However, if you patent unimportant technology that would not have a significant impact, the government will not care if you don't manufacture it. It probably would not even notice.

  • https://patents.google.com/patent/US7806371B2/en

    I could have added RC helicopters , A trap..could have added the power reactor I was using to light up the effect's at the field.. I still don't know if it's lenr or not and pist off the powers to be.. knowing they do not wont anyone playing in there sand box..

    bin down this road ~

  • But not selling is not the same as not manufacturing and using for your own company. I don't think you have to sell the invention to others during the life of the patent. If you did I doubt there would be many soft ware companies left.


    That is- make it and use it for your own companies use for the life of the patent.

  • A counter example would be a company invents a machine to make cheaper integrated circuits. I doubt they have to sell that to others so others can sell similar circuits. They can just use it to make circuits and sell them to the market. The machine is still theirs to use exclusively.


    Do not confuse selling the invention itself and what the invention may do for the company.


    as you say: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."


    The inventor can reap the rewards of exclusively using the invention for a limited time to help his company. He can gain the rewards of an invention without selling it. He can use it in his business.

  • But not selling is not the same as not manufacturing and using for your own company. I don't think you have to sell the invention to others during the life of the patent.

    Yes, you do -- in some cases. When the gadget it important, Uncle Sam insists you either manufacture it, or license others to manufacture it. They will not let you sit on it. They have every right to insist, as you see from the wording of the Constitution.


    The government has intervened in the patent process for other reasons as well. Famously, they insisted that AT&T license the transistor. I think that was more of antitrust issue. AT&T clearly intended to manufacture transistors. They were not planning to sit on it. The government told them they had to license others so they would not have too much control. I recall they did not object. I think they saw the wisdom of licensing it, for business reasons, and not just to keep the government happy.


    The government does not force anyone to give away intellectual property. That's not what I mean. AT&T had to license the transistor, but they were paid royalties, of course.

  • A counter example would be a company invents a machine to make cheaper integrated circuits. I doubt they have to sell that to others so others can sell similar circuits.

    If Uncle Sam determined that the machine is important, and if it appeared the company did not intend to use it, Uncle would force them to use it or license it. The company would not be allowed to sit on the technology and prevent it from being used by anyone. There have been several cases like this, although I do not recall the specific inventions (other than the transistor).

  • Slandered patent reinforcement / infringement... he only needs to have a sale item to lay claim to all lenr~

    Jed, recall the entry to this discussion was DnG claim that Rossi could lay claim to al LENR by just offering some system for sale and that was the law.


    I don't think that one LENR system for sell when others are not selling anything means that person takes all and everyone else's patent are thrown out.


    If that is the case then CETI could claim all LENR since they offered the RIFLEX kits a one time. - they might have even sold a couple.


    Yes the government can acquire patents, make them secret, and use them. But in general you do not have to sell an invention to hold a patent. The anti-trust judges and national security folks may demand it but that is with a separate court order under special cases.


    In the case of ATT, the patent was not revoked. It was the anti trust business issues left over from their near monopoly of the vacuum tubes that were at play and not the transistor patent itself. My understanding is that they calculated the fighting of transistor anti trust suits would be like the vacuum tube suits and decided to freely (at 26K) license the tech.

  • Jed, recall the entry to this discussion was DnG claim that Rossi could lay claim to al LENR by just offering some system for sale and that was the law.


    I don't think that one LENR system for sell when others are not selling anything means that person takes all and everyone else's patent are thrown out.

    Ah, I did not understand that is what he meant. Yes, selling has nothing to with a patent, and it does not give you rights to other people's patents. Selling is not what I was talking about. I said that important technology must be manufactured or licensed. You often hear tales of big companies "buying up the patents" to prevent this or that breakthrough from reaching the public. Perhaps they did this, but it is unconstitutional and the patent judges have stopped them from doing it in many cases.


    Yes the government can acquire patents, make them secret, and use them.

    That is a different story. The government can only do that in cases of national security, for military related patents. I have heard stories about the government doing that, but no specifics. I doubt it has happened often.


    What I am talking about are cases where the government tells patent holders they must either manufacture the gadget or license others to manufacture it.


    But in general you do not have to sell an invention to hold a patent. The anti-trust judges and national security folks may demand it but that is with a separate court order under special cases.

    Anti-trust was an issue with the transistor. In other cases, it was constitutional patent law, and it was the patent office judges who made the rulings. The intent in the constitution is clear, as you see. You have to "promote the progress of science." You cannot impede it.


    In the case of ATT, the patent was not revoked.

    I never said any patent was revoked for this reason. You get to keep it. You get royalties. But you or someone else has to manufacture it.

  • About licensing patents, I remember that one key rule in LENR-Cities model was that any IP owned by a member should be ready to be used, against royalties, by another member of the ecosystem. Another rule was that the price was free, except it must not be higher than any contract with foreigners of the ecosystem.

    The goal was to push cheap reuse of IP, "mutual assured development" as they say, when you benefit from the success of competitors.


    One point also is that sitting on a patent is stupid, even manufacturing alone, because quickly other came to compete with your "you think could not be circumvented patent", and you did not build enough product yourself compared to what you could have been paid to let other manufacture.


    I remember that in business strategy there are two rules of thumb :

    • the price of any good is reduced by 20-30% every time you double the number of item produced (Learning curve)
    • the volume of production is more or less proportionate to the capital expended (depend on the domain... chemistry is about 0.5sales/1invested cars is 1.5sales/1invested). "Asset turnover".

    If you cannot flood the market immediately, which required huge capital you probably don't have, you will be overtaken by others with more capex, who will manufacture at lower price, fixing the price at a level you loose money, or at least cannot produce enough cash flow to reinvest and avoid losing market share.



    Patent don't work anymore as barrier, just to motivate investors.

    It is also seen as slowing your own innovation, and if competitors try to copy your loose patent it has been see slowing their innovation too. Publishing easy to circumvent patents is thus seen as a way to slow competitors.


    Another rule in electronics is that you need a second source, and without a second source, most manufacturers refuse to manufacture, even to design. I don't have the details...