Well the one degree temperature rise wouldn't really convince the examiner as being useful tech or that it even works. All that tech for a one degree rise in your central-heating system for example? Some Russian workers presented data at the Sochi meeting showing a 25-30 degree increase compared to control.....what's wrong with IH, maybe they have Rossi-itis (afraid to make any outlandish claims).
New USPTO Patent Applications from Industrial Heat
-
-
Montgomery puts in patent pending . Its much cheaper than a full application.
I guess he makes successive patent pendings as the years go by.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/s…ation-first/#6359027357fe
I guess if you have money to burn... a full application will more effectively discourage funding for competitors
-
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi…1&s1=lenr&OS=lenr&RS=lenr
First I have seen this IH IP Holdings USPTO patent application. Has a 15 Nov 2018 date on it, but the initial app was filed 24 Nov 2015. Does not appear to be Rossi related:"EXOTHERMIC REACTION ANALYSIS BY PRE-REACTION SAMPLE RETENTION
Reaction processes occurring within an exothermic reaction reactor are investigated by comparing changes to at least one material in the reaction to a non-reacted sample of the material. Prior to the reaction, a sample or "coupon" of the material is removed and retained. The coupon of material is withheld from the reactor. The material is placed in the reactor and at least one exothermic reaction is triggered and sustained. Following the exothermic reaction, the material is removed from the reactor. Both the material and the coupon are then analyzed to ascertain changes to the material that did not occur to the sample. These changes are indicative of processes that occurred in the reactor." -
Quote
what's wrong with IH, maybe they have Rossi-itis (afraid to make any outlandish claims).
Ever consider the possibility that maybe IH has no good results to report?
-
Quote
"EXOTHERMIC REACTION ANALYSIS BY PRE-REACTION SAMPLE RETENTION
Reaction processes occurring within an exothermic reaction reactor are investigated by comparing changes to at least one material in the reaction to a non-reacted sample of the material. Prior to the reaction, a sample or "coupon" of the material is removed and retained. The coupon of material is withheld from the reactor. The material is placed in the reactor and at least one exothermic reaction is triggered and sustained. Following the exothermic reaction, the material is removed from the reactor. Both the material and the coupon are then analyzed to ascertain changes to the material that did not occur to the sample. These changes are indicative of processes that occurred in the reactor.
I'm no patent expert but there seems to be nothing novel in the above to justify a patent. See for example basic patent requirements: https://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html
-
No good results to report after all that time and money invested? Not good news for LENR-will we ever see any real success?
-
I mean a one degree difference between test and control could have been due to draughty window!
or perhaps the difference in thermal conductivity of hydrogen vs ??
-
When analyzing a patent portfolio, I put them into three categories:
A. Family jewels. These are patents that another company needs to enter your market. They broadly cover a company's main technology.
B. Implementation specific patents. These would cover any direct copies of a device, but could be designed around with different, non-infringing implementations.
C. Unimplemented ideas. These cover variations or other ideas thought up by the inventors, but are unlikely to be good enough to be used in products or are so narrow as to be of little value.
In LENR, there are no issued A patents yet. The patent office will not issue broad patents of over unity devices until there is an accepted theory or widely replicated results. There could be some B and C patents, but only if they are crafted in such a way that there is patentable content that does not depend on over unity claims. For instance, someone may have a unique way of layering the fuel and extracting the heat. If written carefully, it may apply to non-LENR heat sources but still cover an important, useful technique for building a LENR device.
Even in other technology areas, there are few A patents. The idea of just writing a patent then licensing if for tons of money seldom happens. The A patents that do exist are usually because the inventor perfected something that works and then built a company around the idea while writing patents to cover the proven ideas. It is possible that some of the BLP or Brillouin patent applications will eventually issue as A patents, but they are still not likely to be so broad as to preclude other techniques that will evolve as more is learned.This IH patent application is about how to test for over unity and does not cover a particular way to attain over unity. It is likely a C patent, but filing it may still be a good strategy for IH. The big problem with LENR is credibility, and patents like this, if issued, will give them some degree of credibility with potential investors and partners. Even though it does not directly cover overunity devices, they can use it to show they have some original ideas and expertise as judged by the USPTO. It is hard for investors to spend the time and money required to fully understand the value of untested ideas. Issued patents show that a company has ideas that are original in the judgment of an impartial patent examiner.
-
Another member alerted me to this patent application document, filed by IH last year - apologies if it has been linked before. Such a large body of patents must certainly help the investors sleep at night.
Full text:-
-
Thx Alan. That IH patent app is about the electrode. I remember Miles in his CFN interview saying that getting the electrode perfect is one of his secrets to success, and that many who fail, fail because they did not.
-
For those interested it is published at WIPO
WO/2018/236784
https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…8236784&redirectedID=true
US2018 62 521 581
-
Carbon nanotubes appear capable of carrying immense current densities and generating huge magnetic fields.
Carbon nanotubes are perfect size cavities and as NPP2.0 predicts the electrons should form 4D spin-spin coupled orbits around the ring. As a LENR setup this could be very promising.
Weher/how they will be able to connect the spin currents to a classical magnet current is not clear to me.
-
The decay rate of a radioactive species may be increased to a rate higher than the natural half-life of the radioactive species
This might be tricky to get through the patent office.
According to conventional wisdom natural halflives are mostly immutable.
-
This might be tricky to get through the patent office.
In Terni Hagelstein did not understand what he had. There was no accelartion of decaytime seen in his data. It was a downscaling of a higher state to a lower state. May be he has new data...or just missis crucial knowledge...
-
May be he has new data...or just missis crucial knowledge...
Maybe at Assisi we will know if Hagelstein has read up on this.
at any rate the effect Hagelstein is attempting to patent is probably a natural phenomenon
important in geothermal heating in magmas for example.
Nature has precedence
-
An exothermic reaction is generated at certain discrete plasma frequencies, which correspond to the optical phonon modes of D-D, H-D, and H--H bonds within the metal lattice. For example, in palladium metal, the frequencies are 8.5 THz, 15 THz, and 20 THz, respectively.
Interesting from a théoretical point of view.
It reminds me the frequency of Dennis letts dual laser experiments.
https://www.researchgate.net/p…ns_in_Palladium_Deuteride
I've raised a similar point about another patent
Speculations on DeBroglie wavelength and Dennis Letts dual laser experiment
-
Looking to provide a history and skill-set of the inventors I just came across this... Not sure what this means yet. Help with this and post what you find, maybe I am off course on thinking IH and the DoD work on LENR tech together.
Still winnowing to glean more.
Low Cost Plate Reactor For Exothermic Reactions
Murray; Joseph A. ; et al.
- uspto.report ›
- patents ›
- IH IP Holdings Limited ›
- Patent 16/703323
- Applicant
https://uspto.report/patent/app/20200129942
Patent Application Summary
U.S. patent application number 16/703323 was filed with the patent office on 2020-04-30 for low cost plate reactor for exothermic reactions. The applicant listed for this patent is IH IP Holdings Limited. Invention is credited to Melissa Brent Hill, Julie A. Morris, Joseph A. Murray, Hector Alejandro Rosa, Tushar Tank.
Company Aliases
IH IP Holdings, Limited
IH IP HOLDINGS LIMITED - St. Helie JE
IH IP Holdings Limited - St. Helier JEI
H IP HOLDINGS LIMITED - St. Helier JE
Application Number 20200129942 16/703323
