ICCF21 Thread

  • DW: ... "the rejuvenation of this hunt may just prove to be worth it in the long run (perhaps for us, and/or our children, and / or our children's children). ..."

    >>> Too much children


    SD: ... "I can not say anything really sticks out as earth shattering."

    >>> Flatline

  • I believe. Rossi mentioned something on JONP indicating that to be the case also

    Hmmm. that would be interesting. I do not read JONP, but I will have to see if I can find the post. It would be rare (I do not remember other cases) of where Rossi stated someone walked away as such. He talked snakes and clowns, evil corporations etc. But usually when a seemingly legit entity was on the scene and then disappeared, Rossi simply did not mention them anymore or he vilified them as "snakes". Such as the NATO colonel, the various "aerospace engineers" that have "collaborated" with him over the years. All disappeared never to be mentioned again. The many customers of which he sold numerous (13 units) of 1MW plants to. They seem to simply dissolve into the fog of memory, no word nor reason. The believers are content to never bring them up as they know it would mean excommunication from the church. Whether it be JONP or ECW. (As the recent episode with Mr. Russ showed)


    Oh well. I think it clear that the court depositions exposed Rossi to the core. Perhaps one of these days the court of irrefutable facts will show his true colors as well. "F8 or F9" ! 8o

  • Shane D, congratulations to dare to say things, the true reality of things.

    A lot of excitement before each ICCF, many disillusions a few weeks later.

    Three quarters about lenr's papers are related to Pd / D cells, for example.

    What an originality !

    The recent "japanese" works which had XH, by Ni/Pd particle way, are only replications of things already done for 10 years now.

    Following this observation, we understand that Lenr problem should not money necessarily but rather inspiration.

    The old guard is overwhelmed because they realize that recipe wasn't written in their old school books.

    So called secrecy in Lenr field both with so called lake of money well helps to hide failures.

    I don't know whether to feel frustrated as you seem to be, but rather angry.

    Why ?

    Because many newcomers refer to old ones work , therefore at the end not a lot to keep, if you consider low levels of results.

    Probably better to put eyes on a blank sheet.

    DF

  • Cydonia,


    That is just my opinion judging from the audios I listened too. Others may find them much more encouraging. If so, we would like to hear from them. Also, as Jed says, the presentation slides will reveal more, and hopefully show more to be excited about.


    Maybe there was nothing earth shattering IMO, but that does not diminish the importance of someone new to the field such as Beiting replicating Arata. Or someone like Letts/Higgins, and the IH team getting some good solid wattage. Or GEC working with NASA, and as you said, the Japanese replicating others works from the past 10 years. Those are all important, and good signs the field will be around long enough to eventually piece everything together.


    If you want to call me frustrated, it is because there looks to be nothing close to commercial value yet. It is a different arm of LENR, where the rules, and transparency change. Frustratingly so. Understandable maybe, when you get into funding, IP, and making a $, but all seem to follow the same dead end pattern, where their secrets, and IP follow them to the grave. Maybe this time will be different. Russ and Alan are trying their best to make it so. :) We shall see,

  • At ICCF-21 I had the opportunity to chat with Peter Hagelstein, where the Lipinski patent came up. He indicated that he had only looked at the Google version. I suggested it might be useful to look over the original WIPO application of 2014. I mentioned that it did not seem to be available at all. This is a bit of a shame, since that 100+ page document had a depth and abundance of revealing details. The key, in my experience, to reading that original was ignoring or skimming the first ~19 pp of theory. The results reported and the Q values become ever more impressive the deeper into their application one reads.


    Perhaps Jed or someone else with foresight managed to archive that original WIPO application "as it was". My own document handling skills unfortunately failed to save it in a survivable original form. All the old links I now find here are "404" dead.

  • Here is the link Wyttembach kindly provided for the Lipinski's 2014 WIPO application:


    Li-proton fusion WO2014189799-PAMPH-330-2-1.pdf

    Link above doesn't work so if you share a private mail, I can send you your request.


    It's interesting to have shared your feeling about a great member from old guard.

    Once again, old guard seems to focus on his own work filled by complex mathematical fog, no more .. another explanation for lack of XH ...

  • Cydonia, Sorry that link is not working. I was able to download the "corrected original" from an emailed link... presumably having that link as an attachment. But, the absence of the arrowbox at the end suggests that it is indeed somehow dead through the LENR Forum's system.


    Very good thing about the ICCF was seeing so many "old guard" folks face to face. It seemed to me that I already knew them well....

  • Cydonia, Sorry that link is not working. I was able to download the "corrected original" from an emailed link... presumably having that link as an attachment. But, the absence of the arrowbox at the end suggests that it is indeed somehow dead through the LENR Forum's system.


    Very good thing about the ICCF was seeing so many "old guard" folks face to face. It seemed to me that I already knew them well....

    Yes, after some web research i found file you said about Lipinski 2012.

    Unfortunally too big to be shared directly by the forum.

    However it seems to be more complete than next release, thanks.

  • The Lipinski UGC patent describes such detail that it should at least be replicable by others. Their focus has apparently been on lithium and protons where the proton energies are typically well under under 2 keV.


    There may be similar reactions involving other elements that are yet to be explored. If there is some validity to their theory "unified gravity", then it should also be able to predict other such low energy routes to fusion.

  • Speaking of Swartz; over on Vortex Jed posted a 360 Law article about him losing his legal fight with the USPTO. He represented himself (Pro Se), which in such a complicated case is a risk. Swartz has long complained about his issues with the patent office. Mentioned it at ICCF 21 also, which is why I posted here.


    The article is behind a paywall, but someone provided it anyway:


    http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/s…122.Opinion.7-17-2018.pdf

  • I don't think there is much chance of gaining "certiori" with the US Supreme Court in this case, since it does not involve conflicting lower appellate opinions, nor strong constitutional issues.... but who knows. Since Mitch has gone pro se so far, he might as well push all the way. One issue he might pursue is the Daubert v. Merrell Dow decision (not a patent decision, but one involving scientific expert opinion), which requires the judge to make decisions based on actual expertise, as I understand it. Interestingly there is now at least one justice of the Supremes with some patent law experience..... which could go a long way to making the Swartz case judiciable at that level. Long ago, the US Supreme Court was not supreme in patent litigation, but that changed in the late 70s, if I recall correctly, when they ruled themselves over the former highest US jurisdiction for patents, trademarks (and "law of the sea", btw).


    Daubert v. Merrell Dow has apparently been taken further, if we are in this case to trust our infamous online encyclopedia, here is a further development (recommending to Dr. Swartz, a brief reading there before an attempt at higher appeal):


    "The principle in Daubert was expanded in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, where the evidence in question was from a technician and not a scientist. The technician was going to testify that the only possible cause of a tire blowout must have been a manufacturing defect, as he could not determine any other possible cause. The Court of Appeal had admitted the evidence on the assumption that Daubert did not apply to technical evidence, only scientific evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, saying that the standard in Daubert could apply to merely technical evidence, but that in this case, the evidence of the proposed expert did not meet the standard."


    The point being that the previous 1923 "Frye Rule" is much akin to the arguments the PTO is making re Swartz, that is "general acceptance" and so forth.... essentially overturned or at least refined in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow. Now actual expertise specific to the issue at hand must (or may?) be used by the court in evaluating a case. In fact Daubert has not so far had great impact distinguishing opinions from the much older Frye Rule.... but I suspect it could here.

  • Longview,


    In David French's podcast on CFN: David French on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast (#008)

    he claimed the USPTO had indicated to him 4 years ago, that they would grant an LENR patent if the inventor proves it works. From what I read of Swartz's argument, he said many things, but provided no proof other than his own results, and general LENR lore to support his technology.


    I can understand the rejection, as the LENR community has heard the same argument from from him for 20 years now, with nothing to show.

  • I can understand the rejection, as the LENR community has heard the same argument from from him for 20 years now, with nothing to show.

    As far as I know, Swartz has not been verified or replicated. (By "verify" I mean using his own devices; replication would be from scratch.) I asked him about this several times, but he never responded. I have heard from two groups that were involved in attempts to verify that failed. I have not heard from anyone else who tried, or anyone who succeeded.


    I do not believe any claim that has not been verified. I have doubts until the claim is replicated. So, based on what I know, I do not believe Swartz's claims. I don't disbelieve them either; I don't know.


    Of course there may be some positive tests I did not hear about. Swartz is secretive. Still, if there were such tests it would be in his interest to inform the Patent Office and the public, and I would probably hear about it. In other words, either he has "nothing to show" or he has chosen to show nothing.