Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aepervius said:
I am suddenly thinking that self destruct process will be verrrry fiddly.
Click to expand...

Didn't Rossi already suffer from "a fire" that destroyed a factory or something?

My bet is on something like "We had a working machine, but the self destruct went off accidentally and destroyed it. Now we need <money, time, whatever> to make a new one"
 
Mr.D said:
Didn't Rossi already suffer from "a fire" that destroyed a factory or something?

My bet is on something like "We had a working machine, but the self destruct went off accidentally and destroyed it. Now we need <money, time, whatever> to make a new one"
Click to expand...

Either that, or he could say that the self destruct mechanisms were all flawed, and none of the devices can be sent out or repaired for safety issues...
 
So a Guy named Hank Mills wrote an article for the "Perpetual Enegy Source Network" here

the critical patents covering the technology and the protections for the proprietary "catalysts" used have not yet been granted. This has pressured Andrea Rossi into deciding the technology cannot be launched for use by individuals for home use, until he has designed a self destruct mechanism to be built into every unit.

From reading Andrea Rossi's comments, it seems the technology will not be released for use by individuals (use in homes) any time soon, unless the patents involved are granted. It is an absolute tragedy that due to the delays of the U.S. Patent Office (and their policy of not granting patents to "cold fusion" processes), the E-Cat may only see use in industrial settings for some time to come.

It is very possible that there will be lives lost due to this delay...

The patent office, the powers that be, and pathological skeptics have suppressed cold fusion technology for decades. If you examine the history of cold fusion, you will see how legitimate research was squashed, how researchers were ridiculed, and how countless cold fusion related patent applications were denied. The villain here is not Andrea Rossi, but the corrupt system in place that fights against cold fusion pioneers.

This suppression must end.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA, this guy is really serious about this!

The best response to his article was this response:

I am a US patent attorney, and I'd like to shed light on some of the misconceptions apparent in Mr. Mills statement regarding US patent rights. My comments are in no way intended to malign Mr. Rossi's efforts; rather, I'm excited by his technology and sincerely hope it works.

According to Mr. Mill's statement, it appears that Rossi has at least one pending, non-published US patent application on file at the USPTO. I surmise that Rossi chose to file a non-publication request with the USPTO in order to keep the content of his application non-public until and unless a patent issues. Indeed, filing a non-publication request is a reasonable choice for many inventors, and it makes perfect sense for Rossi's E-Cat.

Rossi's decision to delay publicly using, selling, demonstrating, or otherwise disclosing the E-Cat are not supported or induced in any way by the Patent Office or by Mr. Mill's reasoning. First, since a patent application is already on file that presumably describes and claims the "heart" of the E-Cat technology, there can be no harm to, or loss of, patent rights by publicly disclosing the E-Cat today. Sure, someone can copy it, but Rossi will have an enforceable patent right (in the US) against the copier the day the patent issues. Moreover, to the extent that someone physically copies his device, that person would arguably be a "willful" infringer of the patent and likely subject to an injunction and triple money damages. Rossi's scenario in these legal and business respects is absolutely ordinary. Simply put, once you have an application on file, you are generally free to disclose the invention. Often, as would be the case here, post-filing disclosure is not only possible, but highly advantageous.

Second, for any invention of value, every engineer understands that there is no reliable " self-destruct " mechanism. There simply is no mechanism that can withstand the resources of large business or government agencies.

Third, since such a mechanism is presumably not already described in a pending patent application, Rossi would need to file another application to seek protection on the E-Cat + mechanism, thereby further delaying (for years) bringing the technology to market.

Fourth, all patent rights are territorial by nature. A US patent only confers a right to exclude in the US. Every other patent right in existence is the same. Unless there is a Chinese patent on file, no amount of patent protection outside of China will do Rossi any good. Moreover, since a Chinese patent application would, like its US counterpart, describe the E-Cat in detail, the mere act of filing a Chinese patent would disclose the invention to the Chinese. China, while communist, is also corporatist. It would be a matter of hours before top Chinese companies had their hands on the patent application. In short, it's sheer folly to withhold the E-Cat based on what the Chinese will or will not do.

My comments are of course general in nature and in no way constitute legal advice. That being said, I hope they are helpful.

Regards
Click to expand...

Ouch!
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
And with one swoop he has the perfect excuse to 1) give him more time for more scheme if he need 2) he can outright explain why the first delivery *if he ever think of doing one* will not work.
Click to expand...

It's also a nice escape hatch if someone ever gets a hold of one of his prototypes. "It's true that NIST cracked open a stolen tube and found nothing but a NiCd battery. This is because the self-destruct mechanism went off! You turned it from an E-cat into a battery by opening it!

Although the delay excuse seems more promising, because securing something like this is utterly impossible. They've essentially said "we're not going to actually release the e-cat until we can get the red matter and the unobtanium to form an alloy. Pardon us if our promised October release date slips a little."

Just on the nondestructive analysis part: take a sealed box up to Passport Systems (http://www.passportsystems.com/) and their nuclear fluorescence baggage scanner will give you a complete isotope analysis of its contents (i.e., not just "this brick is 60% copper" but "this brick is 55% 63Cu and 5% 65Cu"). (Lead shielding can't help, for the same reason that it wouldn't shield internal gamma rays.) Totally nondestructive measurement---no need to open it, sample it, warm it, cool it, shake it, etc. Neutron diffraction can probably tell you the alloy, grain structure, even the temper. (Maybe lead shielding defeats this?)

And there's no way to defeat a smart-enough engineer who simply wants to cut, grind, or etch their way in. It's hard to imagine a serious engineer even considering promising such a thing. The list of sort of passive countermeasures just isn't that long. Breaking the case releases acid? Lets air into the pyrophoric material? Sets off an explosive? Nothing that a bath of liquid nitrogen won't take care of.
 
Last edited:
Hear, hear. A self-destruct mechanism. Something that can misfire for whatever reason. Built into these units. Thousand(s) of such units. Which are to be used in power plants. Where people work.

I see. Makes complete sense to do that. Not.

Just goes to show how transparent the maneuvers of the free-energy cranks are. I mean, really, can't they come up with more creative excuses by now? After all these scams are nothing new. Always the same style of excuses. Gets pretty boring after a while...

Greetings,

Chris
 
attaboy said:
And your qualifications to evaluate the contents of any original research document are??
Click to expand...

Um, why is that relevant, we have a report of an alleged research project preformed at AMES, are you serious?

Have you read anything other than this thread at the JREF? This is standard, often and in many cases, what is reported in not the same as what is in the original. It is certainly true of almost every news story regarding science taht gets reported. Why should a letter copied on a blog be any different?

Why this sudden flare up of appeal to authority.

Maybe you should read around the JREF, going to the original source is always a good idea. Is there some reason you think one should not want to look at source material?
 
HoverBoarder said:
Either that, or he could say that the self destruct mechanisms were all flawed, and none of the devices can be sent out or repaired for safety issues...
Click to expand...

HoverBoarder said:
So a Guy named Hank Mills wrote an article for the "Perpetual Enegy Source Network" here



HAHAHA, this guy is really serious about this! The best response to his article was this response:



Ouch!
Click to expand...

ben m said:
It's also a nice escape hatch if someone ever gets a hold of one of his prototypes. "It's true that NIST cracked open a stolen tube and found nothing but a NiCd battery. This is because the self-destruct mechanism went off! You turned it from an E-cat into a battery by opening it!
Although the delay excuse seems more promising, because securing something like this is utterly impossible. They've essentially said "we're not going to actually release the e-cat until we can get the red matter and the unobtanium to form an alloy. Pardon us if our promised October release date slips a little."
Just on the nondestructive analysis part: take a sealed box up to Passport Systems (http://www.passportsystems.com/) and their nuclear fluorescence baggage scanner will give you a complete isotope analysis of its contents (i.e., not just "this brick is 60% copper" but "this brick is 55% 63Cu and 5% 65Cu"). (Lead shielding can't help, for the same reason that it wouldn't shield internal gamma rays.) Totally nondestructive measurement---no need to open it, sample it, warm it, cool it, shake it, etc. Neutron diffraction can probably tell you the alloy, grain structure, even the temper. (Maybe lead shielding defeats this?)

And there's no way to defeat a smart-enough engineer who simply wants to cut, grind, or etch their way in. It's hard to imagine a serious engineer even considering promising such a thing. The list of sort of passive countermeasures just isn't that long. Breaking the case releases acid? Lets air into the pyrophoric material? Sets off an explosive? Nothing that a bath of liquid nitrogen won't take care of.
Click to expand...

Christian Klippel said:
Hear, hear. A self-destruct mechanism. Something that can misfire for whatever reason. Built into these units. Thousand(s) of such units. Which are to be used in power plants. Where people work.
I see. Makes complete sense to do that. Not.

Just goes to show how transparent the maneuvers of the free-energy cranks are. I mean, really, can't they come up with more creative excuses by now? After all these scams are nothing new. Always the same style of excuses. Gets pretty boring after a while...
Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...

I just thought of another possible excuse:
"Because we were FORCED by the authorities intransigence to include Self Destruct capabilities, our devices will no longer produce as much excess energy; they are now just VERY GOOD steam generators but no longer over-unity - buy them anyway to support us on our further research..."

Yeah, I'D buy That - - - NOT.:D

Cheers,

Dave
 
BenBurch said:
Many of us here are in the sciences. DD is. I used to be.
Click to expand...

I'm but a mere biologist--I do not understand a lot of physics (I keep trying). But I think I know a scam when I see one.

Either Rossi is suffering from a delusion or some other mental illness, or he is so full of **** that his eyes are brown.
 
Dancing David said:
Um, why is that relevant, we have a report of an alleged research project preformed at AMES, are you serious?

Have you read anything other than this thread at the JREF? This is standard, often and in many cases, what is reported in not the same as what is in the original. It is certainly true of almost every news story regarding science taht gets reported. Why should a letter copied on a blog be any different?

Why this sudden flare up of appeal to authority.

Maybe you should read around the JREF, going to the original source is always a good idea. Is there some reason you think one should not want to look at source material?
Click to expand...

What flare up are you talking about? I don't see any flare up.
Have you ever had to evaluate a research publication on an academic basis like I have many times? Have you ever written a peer reviewed research publication like I have?
What concerns me is that you will probably take any publication you find related to the research project performed at AMES and try to poke holes in it rather that evaluate it critically.
I agree with you that a letter in a blog may be of questionable credibility. But when I posted that link to the blog you took it to mean that I stood lock, stock and barrel behind everything that was printed there, and it was you who flared up against me. I then stated that all I was doing was reporting a link to a blog I found, for the interest of this forum. But you still continued to come after me.
You ask "Have you read anything other than this thread at the JREF?" Why is this important especially when I have so many other things going on in my life?
 
BenBurch said:
Many of us here are in the sciences. DD is. I used to be.
Click to expand...
I realize that. And I'm sure at least some of the careers are noteworthy. And I'm not questioning the basic intelligence of the posters. But from some of the views I see expressed it seems to me that many backgrounds are just not adequate enough for this thread.
 
attaboy said:
I realize that. And I'm sure at least some of the careers are noteworthy. And I'm not questioning the basic intelligence of the posters. But from some of the views I see expressed it seems to me that many backgrounds are just not adequate enough for this thread.
Click to expand...

High energy physics, calorimetry design, and nuclear power safety isn't enough for you? OK, have fun.
 
attaboy said:
What concerns me is that you will probably take any publication you find related to the research project performed at AMES and try to poke holes in it rather that evaluate it critically.
Click to expand...

I mean, the Luminiferous Aether is a pretty good theory, and various parts of it are supported by lots and lots of experiments! I mean, if you go out of the way to do something like the Michaelson-Morley experiment, you can come up with things make it look pretty bad---but why would you do that when you could evaluate it critically? How do you expect the Luminiferous Aether theory to succeed when all you do is try to disprove it?

Same thing for engineering. The hologram-wave-energy-technology Power Bracelet works just fine in lots of tests, unless you go out of your way to criticize it. You do these double-blind tests and it fails! You wanted it to fail, didn't you? You demanded special tests you knew it would fail!

</sarcasm>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom