What do you think about one of the different creative commons licenses?
For example: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
It allows to share, improve and use it commercial, but you have to share the new findings and show the name of the initial inventor (in this case me356).
Is the assumption that this IP protection mechanism does not restrict LENR as a impossible concept as is done by the patent office?
I've seen you edit Dewey Weaver's posts many times now. I've seen inflammatory posts coming from others that have not been similarly edited.
I have noticed that also.
Don't be ridiculous! There was no need to remove that, for crying out loud. This is political correctness run amok. I am the one the comment was directed to, and I don't give a damn about it, so why should you or anyone else?
I understand, the moderator is just disappointed that I am using the same depressed level of language and innuendo as you have been using to disparage me. The moderator should be applying judgement for language exclusion equally and equitably across all posters but we all have flaws.
Microsoft never had copy protection as far as I recall. In 1976 Gates said "it gets in the way." Anyway, that wasn't the reason their products were unreliable.
Unlike other software, in the early times, Windows had no product key. The failure of your memory should give cause to question the reliability of the information that you supply.
Dewey Weaver is a master at this linguistic technique, I am listening closely and learning a lot.
Jed Rothwell: "Think of personal computers or PC software in 1982."
He has forgotten how Bill Gates and microsoft released an atrous product that failed 10s of times be day and it gained popularity because Microsoft failed to enforce their copy protection protocol. In terms of LENR, that is open source where the LENR technology can be used to build a developer and user base.
Post edited to remove ageist comments. Unkind, unfair and unnecessary.
I am not convinced that the millions of monkeys typing on the Internet will undermine IP by prior disclosure. The prior disclosure should at least have a reasonable standard of relevance to the claimed patent application IP before it invalidates a patent or application. Otherwise the patent system is in deep trouble. The whole periodic table has been rattled off as possible catalysts, and nearly every possible reactor body material, including clay, in regards to LENR inventions and possible processes at some point in this one forum, and probably on dozens of other sites as well.
If the incriminating information is in a post on a public website, it counts.
Let's talk about your priority around rushing a product to market. In your opinion, is a working experiment or prototype needed before a technology can be productized and made ready for market?
The top goal is to get massive R&D funding into the LENR pipeline. The release of a LENR product is the means to that goal where people who can be impactful toward LENR development can see the product for themselves and be inspired by its possibilities. The product need not be perfect. It justs needs to serve as an assurance that money can be made with the LENR technology. The money men who make funding decisions can make allowances for sustainable power levels, safety, form factor, service strategy, fuel longevity. The product just needs to inspire hope and faith in the LENR technology.
I can understand that the people in the possession of the LENR IP will delay product release for as long as they can to extend that product lead to the Nth degree. That is why competition is required to force the hand of those who have the means to do something substantive for LENR.
Jed Rothwell: "Defkalion was definitely fake, as you see in the Gamberale report."
Defkalion made a good faith effort to develop a LENR reactor, IMHO, but I now understand how they failed to properly format the energy that their reactor produced. DGT produced a huge amount of wasted energy, which is an issue that all spark driven LENR reactors suffer from. The technology to capture and reformate that energy into something useful is not easy to do, but the understanding of that reactor's design details speak to the facts that the DGT reactor was just ineffective and was not faked.
Jed Rothwell: "why would I go to this trouble just aggravate you? You are not important to me."
Why does a 5 year older pull the wings off a fly and watch it stumble around...for fun, just because he can.
Axil - your blind-faith in Rossi as the saviour of Ni-H LENR after 5+years of misleading misfires is pretty hard to believe. You're a smart guy and big thinker and you need to realize and accept that Rossi is not your ride to the LENR promised land. How do you put so much faith in a man who has so far only revealed himself as a master of deception, a wait until the NEXT test hope generator and a live to fight another day promise monger? He is terrorizing the one active Ni-H researcher who seems to have something useful and you, if you really believed what you are saying, should be outraged by Rossi's EPO patent challenges to Dr. Piantelli. On that subject, do you have some thoughts for Rossi's ongoing harassment of Piantelli, one of the true fathers of Ni-H LENR?
True, Rossi is an imperfect vessel in the advancement of LENR, but goodness and saintly behavior is not the measure of the effectiveness to get a LENR product in the marketplace. If IH had a plan and a desire to RUSH a product concept into the market to get LENR over the unbelievability hump, then IP would become the vessel of all my hopes and dreams. But IH shows no such intention, yet Rossi still does. The main goal is product on the market.
Piantelli is a saintly man, a true giant among men, a personification of an angelic spirit, but unfortunately he is secretive and I detect no movement on his part to get a product on the market. For me, this is his true measure. It is all about ways to a means. Your evaluation about motivations is faulty. Rossi could be the biggest bastard since Adolf Hitler but if he can release a LENR product into the marketplace, he is golden.
Why have you rejected the destruction of Rossi's IP claims by supporting the effort to define his IP as open source? This would put his IP out to all and sundry, and the most money hungry would get a product out into the marketplace. IH wants to sit on that IP forever in order to make money somewhere down the line. Sitting around and delay is not good, therein is my beef with IH. Get your butts in gear and get a product to market.
Then you will be opposed to all researchers in this field. Every one of them. I have worked with them for many years. Every one of them "is negative" about one experiment or another. In many cases, they dismiss some of their own experiments as failures or mistakes.
This statment may have exposed a weakness in your thinging processes. Let's concider...
Anyone who performs experiments in an attempt to advance the field of LENR is not negative to the field of LENR. You are just being cantankerous in an attempt to aggravate me. Your thinking processes are usually solid so this deviation from common sense is based on something other than clear thinking.
Jed Rothwell: "You are engaged in wishful thinking. You want this to be true, so you give Rossi the benefit of the doubt."
I will give anybody who is positive toward LENR the benefit of the doubt. The more positive that they are, the more benefit that I will give. I do not beleive or trust anyone who is negative toward LENR, and that's the way it is.
Rossi's current and upcoming patents are a potential problem for open source. Rossi is allowing the use of any IP that he has generated in the lab setting. This does not need to be the case. Mark LeClair restricts any use of his IP because he claims it is dangerous to the used by the untrained experimenter.
Rossi can change his mind at any time and come down hard on any experimenter if he sees that the situation is becoming a disadvantage to him.
I beleive that the time is now to convince IH that it is in their interest to prove that the IP of Rossi is open source. That would starve Rossi of any new partners based on the hope of sharing Rossi's IP. IH can then claim that Rossi's IP has no value and any contractual based payment for it should not be enforced.
If IH thinks that there is value in Rossi's IP, then they will not fight to prove that Rossi's IP is open source. But if they want to save themselves 300 million, then proving the open souce status of Rossi's IP holds value to IH.
The initiative to define Ni/H IP as open source rests with the inventors that currently hold IP patents including IH, Rossi, Piantelli, and the others.
I am sure that the big money guys like Exxon Mobil, GE, BP, et al, will spend endless money to defeat any IP claims currently patented. So if me356 and any other small person thinks that they will make money in LENR, they are wrong. Rossi's idea about his IP lasting for only a few months after his product in on the market hold merit and that the lowest cost producer being in control of the LENR market is true. LENR IP will not last very long when so much money is in the balance.
And (bless you) so would writing in plain English.
I try my best to use the terms that I see commonly used in science. But instead of being encouraged in this effort to conform with the common language usage in science, I am lambasted for speaking in word salad.
Clearly, each scientific specialty is like a foreign country with its own language and jargon. It takes a long time living in those far off lands to become familiar with the customs and languages used there. Translation to common parlance is very difficult. For example, explaining quantum optics in terms that a six year old can understand takes a world class communicator.
Would you care to answer my previous question and explain why you so vociferously believe in and support Rossi?
In my estimation, Peter like myself have invested a lot of faith and hope in Ni/H technology. That support for Ni/H technology is transferred to Rossi as the only practitioner of that art to have a practical application of the technology.
We both want to see the Ni/H technology taken seriously and we understand that this can only be done if an Ni/H produce goes into massive production. This goal of Ni/H revelation and proof of viability is not in the game plan of IH but it is in the deepest fiber of Rossi's being. Rossi is doing what we want and IH is not. This is why we give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. To undercut Rossi's legal claims, IH now want to undercut the Ni/H technology by disparaging its ability to produce excess heat which is clearly not true. Simply put, undercutting Ni/H to undercut Rossi is bad.
Dear me356,
Have you considered that the 1 liter of H2 that seems to "disappear" has been replaced by just vaccum ? Of course at first glance it seems to break the rule of conservation of matter-energy but only if you consider that there's only one Universe..Facing the problem of the observed antisymetry between matter and anti-matter in our Universe, Andreï Sakharov suggested that there was not only one Universe but two (His theory is known as "Twin Universe Theory"). In such case there is conservation of matter-energy if you consider both universes and not just one. So, if you see a true "annihilation" = true disparition of matter then you may have accomplished what Jean-Pierre Petit (French astrophysicist who worked on a cosmological model inspired by Sakharov) call a "local swapping between our universe and the shadow universe.
The large amount of hydrogen gas could have been converted to a small amount of coulombic crystal...gas to solid conversion. This crystal could well be nanoscopic in particle size and therefore not visible to the naked eye.
I have few kinds of particle/radiation detectors and all are confirming what I am observing without any doubt (either electric and non-electric/analog).
Why will the release of the data recorded by particle/radiation detectors reveal too much info regarding the LENR reaction that me356 is generating? Such info is a result and possibly the ultimate cause of the reaction(like the COP) and has no practical value in informing the way that the LENR reaction is created and/or controlled.
ME might be overestimating the analytical power that we here who express LENR interests have in interpreting this type of data as to deducing the practical ways and means of the LENR system.
I can understand any concern coming from the revelation that neutrons and gammas are produced by EM's reaction since the NRC would become involved with this type of system.
Outside of neutrons, the identification of other particle types are involved and take a great deal of experimental design thinking to setup. I am addressing the production of mesons, muons and electrons, which is my particular interest.
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?
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.
Display MoreAxil 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. "
.
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...
