Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[Horatius]

I am not privy to the details of the particular cells that Thermacore had which had a stated COP of 10. What is in their patent does probably not accurately depict those best cells.

And once again, if that is true, you try to cover up their incompetence by suggesting that they've violated the law. Because US Patent law has a requirement that the inventor disclose the "Best mode of carrying out the invention" as known to the inventor.

When describing an invention in a patent application, every inventor must disclose the best mode of carrying out the invention, known to the inventor. This requirement is found at 35 USC 112(a). Therefore if the inventor knows of multiple ways of making or using the invention, he/she must not withhold the best way known to him or her while disclosing one or more inferior ways. That is the inventor must not withhold disclosure of his/her preferred mode.

Courts have described the best mode requirement as one ensuring that the patent applicant plays ‘fair and square’ with the patent system. The requirement ensures a quid pro quo of disclosure exchanged for the patent grant. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1209-10 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

http://www.waltmire.com/2018/01/11/patent-drafting-best-mode-requirement/

In 1995 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit succinctly explained the basics of the best mode requirement:

The sole purpose of the best mode requirement is to restrain inventors from applying for patents while at the same time concealing from the public preferred embodiments of their inventions, which they have in fact conceived. The best mode inquiry focuses on the inventor’s state of mind at the time he filed his application, raising a subjective factual question. The specificity of disclosure required to comply with the best mode requirement must be determined by the knowledge of facts within the possession of the inventor at the time of filing the application.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/02/06/best-mode-requirement-preferences/id=65879/


So, good job, I guess?

 

[markie]

And once again, if that is true, you try to cover up their incompetence by suggesting that they've violated the law. Because US Patent law has a requirement that the inventor disclose the "Best mode of carrying out the invention" as known to the inventor.



http://www.waltmire.com/2018/01/11/patent-drafting-best-mode-requirement/



http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/02/06/best-mode-requirement-preferences/id=65879/


So, good job, I guess?

This is good to know. But I find it hard to believe that a company filing a patent is obligated to reveal all of their pertinent trade secrets related to that patent. So that 'best mode requirement' that you shared does not imo require release of certain trade secret details which would most fully optimize that device. Considering only one embodiment, the description can be good enough to work as described, but not specific or accurate enough to work optimally.

Consider what Thermacore wrote near the end of their patent, my bold:

It is to be understood that the form of this invention as shown is merely a preferred embodiment. Various changes may be made in the function and arrangement of parts; equivalent means may be substituted for those illustrated and described; and certain features may be used independently from others without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the following claims.

For example, other electrolytes, such as rubidium carbonate, can also be used, as can other materials for the electrodes.


That said, it might be doubtful that the Thermacore devices in the 1990 BBC Too Close to the Sun video are what the patent describes.

 

[markie]

By your own description, the thing ran on hydrogen and put out ten Watts of heat.

A simple flame would do it, if you could sustain a flame that small.

Every kid who plays with one of these can out-perform those specs.

The Thermacore device I had in mind that ran on hydrogen was this:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

which involved hydrogen gas under pressure in nickel tubes as described in an early post. This is clearly different and later than the patented device. The hydrogen in tube device could kick out 25 watts of excess heat throughout a three week period.

 

[markie]

Were you ever a scientist you would know that the above is the purest bull. If there were the slightest hint of a bare clue of a possibility that such a thing as a hydrino existed, scientists would be all over it. Real scientists are not the reticent polite beings portrayed above. Real scientists are ten times as bloodthirsty as the worst lawyer. If the hydrino were real and not investor bait, there would be a scientific and financial war going on right now. Look at CRISPR. Look at PCR. Anything that works gets jumped on. On the other hand, bull snot gets ignored. Like the hydrino fantasy.

To your credit you completed your "purest bull" expression with your "bull snot" expression near the end. Impressive.

But how silly. Your imagination would have us believe that historically all new and potentially very important scientific ideas that had the misfortune of going against the mainstream were nonetheless quickly jumped on by aggressive scientists who wanted to have their place in history, or whatever. Wrong. Lots of very important scientists and ideas were ignored or mocked for decades before being generally accepted. Boltzmann and his statistical thermodynamics comes to mind. There are many more examples.

 

[jsfisher]

This is good to know. But I find it hard to believe that a company filing a patent is obligated to reveal all of their pertinent trade secrets related to that patent. So that 'best mode requirement' that you shared does not imo require release of certain trade secret details which would most fully optimize that device. Considering only one embodiment, the description can be good enough to work as described, but not specific or accurate enough to work optimally.

Consider what Thermacore wrote near the end of their patent, my bold:

It is to be understood that the form of this invention as shown is merely a preferred embodiment. Various changes may be made in the function and arrangement of parts; equivalent means may be substituted for those illustrated and described; and certain features may be used independently from others without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the following claims.

For example, other electrolytes, such as rubidium carbonate, can also be used, as can other materials for the electrodes.


That said, it might be doubtful that the Thermacore devices in the 1990 BBC Too Close to the Sun video are what the patent describes.

First you dismiss US patent law based solely on your own personal incredulity, then you quote Thermacore stating it complied with the very patent requirement you so readily dismissed.

How does this support your argument, exactly?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Lots of very important scientists and ideas were ignored or mocked for decades before being generally accepted. Boltzmann and his statistical thermodynamics comes to mind.

That can't possibly be true. It wasn't very long between Boltzmann publishing and Gibbs basing his theories on it. And there were respected people in the generation prior to him working up to those ideas.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Nor do I know exactly how many watts of heat their best cells produced. I'm guessing around 10 watts. Given that, I don't think it was good enough to make it to commercialization. Thermacore didn't think so either

Given that you can buy 10W generators, you are clearly both wrong.

 

[halleyscomet]

In other words it was simply not financially feasible to bring to commercialization.

A 10 to 1 energy increase isn't commercially viable????

Seriously?

You're seriously clinging to that argument even after all the other posts here about it?

That's a level of delusion and reality denial worthy of a Flat Earther.

 

[Horatius]

This is good to know. But I find it hard to believe that a company filing a patent is obligated to reveal all of their pertinent trade secrets related to that patent.

Yes, actually, that is exactly what patent law requires. This is the deal the patentee makes with society (via the government). We protect their interest in the patent for the term of the patent, in exchange for a complete disclosure of everything needed to make the patent work. That is, anyone of skill in the art should be able to pick up the patent, do exactly what is disclosed, and produce exactly the same result. If they've held back any trade secrets, that is impossible, and violates their part of the deal.

That is literally the entire point of the patent system. In fact, the requirement for the disclosure of the "best mode" was included specifically because people were trying to game the system in the exact manner you suggest, and it was made explicit that this was not allowed.

So that 'best mode requirement' that you shared does not imo require release of certain trade secret details which would most fully optimize that device. Considering only one embodiment, the description can be good enough to work as described, but not specific or accurate enough to work optimally.

And as usual, your opinion is not just wrong, but actively harmful. Anyone following your advice would likely end up with an invalid patent.

Consider what Thermacore wrote near the end of their patent, my bold:

It is to be understood that the form of this invention as shown is merely a preferred embodiment. Various changes may be made in the function and arrangement of parts; equivalent means may be substituted for those illustrated and described; and certain features may be used independently from others without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the following claims.

For example, other electrolytes, such as rubidium carbonate, can also be used, as can other materials for the electrodes.

And that's what we call "boiler plate", the vast majority of patents include such language. What this does is give them broad coverage for other, less-optimal options which would still work, but not as well as the best mode. After all, there's a requirement to disclose the best mode, not every mode. As they indicate, people of skill in the art can be expected to know that substitutions can be made, and this prevents someone from effectively circumventing the patent by making some minor substitution in the best mode. Such language cannot, and does not, cover their ass if they've deliberately hidden "trade secrets" that are essential to the operation of the patent.

 

[JayUtah]

That is literally the entire point of the patent system.

Correct, because it is the means that is protected by the patent, not the outcome. If someone achieves the same outcome by a different means (better or worse), they haven't infringed on your patent. A full disclosure of means and method is required so that a court can accurately judge whether infringement has actually occurred. This is why not everyone opts to protect their intellectual property via patent. Some choose simply to keep it a trade secret. You can have a trade secret, or a patent, but not both.

 

[markie]

A 10 to 1 energy increase isn't commercially viable????

Seriously?

You're seriously clinging to that argument even after all the other posts here about it?

That's a level of delusion and reality denial worthy of a Flat Earther.

Well then, get crackin'. Make such an electrolytic cell and try to commercialize it. Make a bulk contraption that runs on 1 watt of electricity and produces 10 watts of heat, and lasts for maybe a few months before it needs to have some kind of service.

For personal use I would rather get a tea light candle that produces over 30 watts of heat for several hours.

For a science fair project the electrolytic cell would be an excellent choice. But for practical use, not.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well then, get crackin'. Make such an electrolytic cell and try to commercialize it. Make a bulk contraption that runs on 1 watt of electricity and produces 10 watts of heat, and lasts for maybe a few months before it needs to have some kind of service.

For personal use I would rather get a tea light candle that produces over 30 watts of heat for several hours.

For a science fair project the electrolytic cell would be an excellent choice. But for practical use, not.

You seem to have misunderstood the comet...

I'd rather follow the Mills plan and never have to produce anything...if I were so inclined.

It seems very profitable.

 

[Horatius]

Make a bulk contraption that runs on 1 watt of electricity and produces 10 watts of heat,

Forrest something something trees.

 

[markie]

Yes, actually, that is exactly what patent law requires. This is the deal the patentee makes with society (via the government). We protect their interest in the patent for the term of the patent, in exchange for a complete disclosure of everything needed to make the patent work. That is, anyone of skill in the art should be able to pick up the patent, do exactly what is disclosed, and produce exactly the same result. If they've held back any trade secrets, that is impossible, and violates their part of the deal.

That is literally the entire point of the patent system. In fact, the requirement for the disclosure of the "best mode" was included specifically because people were trying to game the system in the exact manner you suggest, and it was made explicit that this was not allowed.

And as usual, your opinion is not just wrong, but actively harmful. Anyone following your advice would likely end up with an invalid patent.

And that's what we call "boiler plate", the vast majority of patents include such language. What this does is give them broad coverage for other, less-optimal options which would still work, but not as well as the best mode. After all, there's a requirement to disclose the best mode, not every mode. As they indicate, people of skill in the art can be expected to know that substitutions can be made, and this prevents someone from effectively circumventing the patent by making some minor substitution in the best mode. Such language cannot, and does not, cover their ass if they've deliberately hidden "trade secrets" that are essential to the operation of the patent.

"Anyone following your advice would likely end up with an invalid patent. "

Really? Practically, how would a patent examiner know that the description for a device is the best possible iteration? So, I hardly see how "best mode" is enforceable.

And what is "best"? An iteration may be best for one aspect of operation and not for another. There are tradeoffs. As long as the device works as described, it should be good patent. (Cripes, patented devices do not even need to be shown to work to receive a patent grant.)

"Such language cannot, and does not, cover their ass if they've deliberately hidden "trade secrets" that are essential to the operation of the patent."

Why do you use the word "essential". I'm not talking about information essential for the device to operate. I'm talking information for optimal device operation. It's a near impossibility for a relatively brief description on paper (a patent) to include all information about a device down to the last detail. And, the devils are often in the details, and therein lie some trade secrets.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Forrest something something trees.

Give me a constant supply of trees and I bet you I can make something that consumes less than 1 watt of electricity and produces more than 10 watts of heat. I believe its application may even be known to others.

Dave

 

[markie]

You didn't even try.

The amount of heat energy available after a chemical reaction or series of chemical reactions depends on how much heat energy is produced and how much is consumed by those reactions. Consume less in those reactions and you have more available later, given the same heat energy produced.

Your question asked about heat produced, which would imply heat energy produced. However, above you refer to "potassium carbonate solution" getting "substantially hotter" which would instead imply simply temperature and not heat energy. Temperature depends on specific heat. The specific heat of sodium is over one and a half times that of potassium, meaning given the same temperature and mass, sodium holds over half again as much heat energy than potassium.

Please, try harder.

Well you have a point up to a point. Both the mass and the specific heat of the same low molar solutions of sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate would be (I think) higher for the former. But just by a bit. Not nearly enough to account for the temperature difference observed. Also, you seem to be confusing the specific heat of the two solid metals with what they would be in a weak solution as carbonate cations.

 

[halleyscomet]

Well then, get crackin'. Make such an electrolytic cell and try to commercialize it. Make a bulk contraption that runs on 1 watt of electricity and produces 10 watts of heat, and lasts for maybe a few months before it needs to have some kind of service.

For personal use I would rather get a tea light candle that produces over 30 watts of heat for several hours.

For a science fair project the electrolytic cell would be an excellent choice. But for practical use, not.

If hyrinos were real I would.

Hell, why don't YOU slap together the science fair project to prove Hydrinos exist? You claim to believe they're real.

 

[Horatius]

"Anyone following your advice would likely end up with an invalid patent. "

Really? Practically, how would a patent examiner know that the description for a device is the best possible iteration? So, I hardly see how "best mode" is enforceable.

The Examiner wouldn't. That's why I said they'd get a patent. But that patent would be legally invalid, and that would come up if the patentee ever ended up in court.

The examiner doesn't have the resources to build and test the device as described in the patent, but the patentee's competitors sure as hell do. And when they sit down and try to replicate the patentee's work, it will be blindingly obvious that the patentee has failed in their duty to properly disclose their best mode. And the courts absolutely will give that evidence due consideration, and can invalidate the patent if convinced.

And what is "best"? An iteration may be best for one aspect of operation and not for another. There are tradeoffs. As long as the device works as described, it should be good patent. (Cripes, patented devices do not even need to be shown to work to receive a patent grant.)

It's "best" as contemplated by the patentee, which is usually assumed to be the device as sold. So it's again easy to show they failed to properly disclose by showing that the device as sold is in some important manner different from the device as described. This isn't rocket surgery, markie.

"Such language cannot, and does not, cover their ass if they've deliberately hidden "trade secrets" that are essential to the operation of the patent."

Why do you use the word "essential". I'm not talking about information essential for the device to operate. I'm talking information for optimal device operation. It's a near impossibility for a relatively brief description on paper (a patent) to include all information about a device down to the last detail. And, the devils are often in the details, and therein lie some trade secrets.

It's "essential to the operation of the patent" as contemplated by the patentee. And again, yes, "the devils are often in the details" and those details matter when you're applying for a patent.

Such issues are rare in the patent world, but they do happen.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ing-the-system-loses-viagra-patent-in-canada/

Pfizer's legal monopoly on one of its top-selling drugs just got shredded in Canada. The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled 7-0 the company should have its patent taken away because the drug company attempted to "game" the system, grabbing a patent without disclosing what their invention really was.

Pfizer was able to acquire its Canadian patent without naming the compound required to make Viagra, namely, sildenafil citrate. The Canadian patent system, like all patent systems, is a kind of bargain between patentees, who are given a limited monopoly on a particular product or process, and the public, which is supposed to benefit from the disclosure of a new invention, the justices noted in their opinion.

"Pfizer had the information needed to disclose the useful compound and chose not to release it," the ruling said. "As a matter of policy and sound statutory interpretation, patentees cannot be allowed to 'game' the system in this way."

The company that successfully busted the Pfizer patent is Israel-based Teva Pharmaceuticals, the world's largest generic drug company. Generic Viagra will probably hit the Canadian market in short order and cut Pfizer's profit in that country to almost nothing.

Unlike all the crap BLP has ever put out, this is not a hypothetical discussion of some sci-fi balderdash. Real companies with real patents have really had their patents invalidated for doing exactly what you're suggesting is (or should be) common practice.

 

[abaddon]

Wow, markie knows nothing about patents. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Lurch]

Wow, markie knows nothing about patents. Why am I not surprised?

Because in the world of woo "want to believe" trumps facts.