Posts by Rob Woudenberg

me356:

In the case of LENR discoveries there are a few things to keep in mind:

• Sharing general principles openly by publishing will will not prevent others to patent specific applications that use these general principles.
• LENR will also be used for nasty military applications. Patenting general principles will not stop governments to apply them even when they don't get a license
• You can just write up your insights and publish them e.g. here in the forum. From that moment onwards it will be prior art and therefore cannot be used for patenting the same principles.
• You suggested that in some countries prior art can be patented. The PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) covers most part the world (148 countries). PCT recognises any prior art found to prevent it from patenting in any of the countries that are member of the PCT.

Apply a 'dislike' indicator criterium to put misbehaving posters on hold for an agreed period of time.
If a poster gets too many dislikes (e.g. likes/dislike ratio smaller than 1:10) and the dislikes surpasses a certain minimum threshold (e.g 20), he gets a ban-period of say 2 weeks for commenting and starting new discussions.

I would like to emphasise that the paper itself is not the reason why I posted this item on LinkedIn, but the fact that this has been a paper showing a cooperation between Holmlid and Kotzias or in the broader sense: University of Gothenburg and Airbus.

Thanks for posting Alain.
The work of Holmlid progresses nicely. He might overtake Rossi and others with respect to LENR importance.

An active anode/cathode construction is not necessary at all to enable electrons to gain energy amount of 100 KeV.
High voltage can be generated at nano scale using ferro-electric, magneto-electric or piezo-electric (nano)materials.
Read Pekka Soininen's patent applications and you'll find this has already been claimed.

Besides, remember that Defkalion also used external driven HV with modified spark plug entries. This makes the whole construction much more inefficient and expensive. This method is therefore prior art and makes the provisional content likely worthless regarding this method.

Majorana, all, there maybe significant correlation with Rossi's findings and Holmlid and partners so both deserve to find their paths to recognition in my view. Rossi's findings may very well be based on generation of UDH (Ultra Dense Hydrogen) of which Rossi was not aware of until Holmlid got more attention within the LENR community.

Quote from Eric Walker

Quote from robwoudenberg: “This included the trade secrets to prepare the hotcat 'fuel' which is not described sufficiently in the patent applications.”
This would seem to imply that the published patents are not enabling ones, which, I would…

The published patents applications, including the one Rossi got granted this year (US9115913B1) cover only what is claimed. Most of Rossi's patent applications claim constructions and some fuel basics in combination with a new physics phenomenon. If the constructions in combination with such new physics are unique and inovative enough they can be patented excluding the details how to generate the new physics phenomenon. Another example is Airbus who recently claimed an engine based on gasturbine principles having a LENR reactor in place. Such combination is likely unique and innovative enough to grant their claims. It does however not include details how such LENR reactor should be implemented.

In the case of Rossi <> IH, Rossi very likely revealed to IH the trade secret how to prepare 'e-cat' and 'hotcat' fuel, which is part of the agreement, but not part of the patent applications.
However, if the x-cat requires a completely new recipe (a new trade secret), IH can be bypassed in my view. (See also my earlier remarks regarding x-cat not being part of the agreement)

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The license agreement prohibits Rossi or anyone he gangs up with competing with IH. Furthermore the long term test plant claims COP=50 (which I'm sure is what the test report will say). If you believe Rossi's tests then IH are contracted to have access to this technology - they could squash any attempt by Rossi to use it everywhere except Europe. They also are allowed to continue their own developments.

Thomas, it all depends on interpretations. Reading the agreement, the term E-cat is not well defined, while the whole agreement is only based on the term E-Cat. If Rossi develops a different technology that he calls X-Cat he could in my view very simply circumvent the restrictions as defined in the agreement.

It seems to me that the whole clash between IH and Rossi is not about patents or test results but about progress that Rossi has been made (and probably still is making) which is not clearly included in the agreements. The original agreement was made when Rossi was concentrating on the so-called 'hotcat' technology. In case the hotcat concept would work within the boundaries of the agreement IH would pay Rossi the remaining millions. This included the trade secrets to prepare the hotcat 'fuel' which is not described sufficiently in the patent applications. All this includes a working concept based on hotcat technology able to work with COP => 6.

Meanwhile Rossi has made significant progress in understanding how his hotcat process works and can be improved. He calls this the x-cat technology, the next generation e-cat technology. These insights and progression makes hotcat methods probably obsolete because of x-cat superiority. In my view the whole fight that emerged between IH and Rossi is not whether conditions have been met, but whether knowledge of the x-cat should be included or not.

Rossi points out that the 'old' conditions in the agreement are still met (implemented with hotcat methods) and that IH therefore should fulfil the agreed payment. For IH this hotcat knowledge transfer is not profitable anymore now Rossi has his x-cat technology in his pocket.

There's quite some comparable prior art on this filing. E.g. http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20140206&CC=US&NR=2014034116A1&KC=A1

The mother patent is US2014943016, this WO application is just building on it.

Mr. Halem and mr. Guillemin both are members of lenr-invest, which to me brings doubts regarding independent evaluation, see http://lenr-invest.com/index.php/about-us/management
An investment company promoting their investment portfolio by own 'independent evaluation' trying to stimulate more external investors to invest in their portfolio while they receive an estimated fee percentage of 10 - 15 %. Kind of fishy business.

It's very shameful Brillouin allows this kind of very doubtful promotion.
Why does Brillouin not allow several universities to evaluate their technology independently?
Not very convincing, even creating more doubts whether Brillouin's technology is commercially viable.

This is not convincing at at all I regret to say.

Absorption of hydrogen is an exothermic process which is not taken into account in the report.
Looking to the heat production they measured, 20 Watt (2KWh over 100 hours period) seems very likely caused by hydrogen absorption alone.
There's a nice article about hydrides that explains how hydrides can be used for cooling or heating by storing and releasing hydrogen in metals/alloys which confirms this characteristic.