Uh. If it has not been replicated it is not replicated. An attempt at replication is not replication.Axil wrote:The Piantelli research is currently being replicated by NASA. End of the “no replication case”!!!
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
What is the size of a hydrogen atom? Diameter of an H atom (= double Bohr's radius) = 2.4 Ångström = 2.4*10-9 nm = 2.4*10-10 m.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_s ... rogen_atom
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_s ... rogen_atom
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
What Piantelli has done is peer reviewed and publishd science under current study be NASA.I [and others] have stated that what Rossi has done is not science. No-one has made a statement of disagreement with that. But other than that...?
Last edited by Axil on Sun May 15, 2011 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A hydrogen atom has a diameter of approximately 1.06x10^-10 m, as defined by the diameter of the spherical electron cloud around the nucleus. The hydrogen nucleus has a diameter of approximately 2.40x10^-15 m.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=379349
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=379349
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
If the only way to take advantage of a [any] nickel cataytic material is to "inject hydrogen into a metal tube filled by a nickel powder, even of nanometric dimensions, or nickel granules or bars, in a high temperature and pressurized hydrogen gas saturated environment" then his patent is solid.Axil wrote:I humbly ask the experts in patent law that frequent this thread to share their judgment about the intellectual property protection afforded a “method” of catalytic activity that is provided as opposed to the catalyst as a “material”.
However, if such a powder can be used to liberate energy in other ways, then his patent is weak because one would merely have to use it in that other way to avoid infringement.
So essentially this patent is relying on the fact that Rossi's secret pixie powder cannot be used in any other way, other than inside a metal tube (which, seeing as he has admitted he doesn't really know why it works, is not only a risk too far, but probably makes it contestable).
In terms of opinion as to method or material, in this case I do not think any IP specialist would hesitate in saying that it is the pixie powder that is the substance to patent. Merely patenting the material would ensure it could then not be used in any other configuration, which seems an enormously more powerful patent.
I could offer more useful advice if I were paid enough. For example, if he knows enough about his invention then he could probably pick a specific aspect of the process and patent that, rather than either the apparatus or the material.
That is, he's patented apparatus, he could've patented material [but not in all jurisdictions] but he could've avoided giving away his secret sauce by, for example, patenting the control of the catalytic reaction. viz. he's said that he can control the rate of the reaction by controlling the heat input. So, what he could [still, perhaps] patent is 'a method in which means are provided to deliver external heat to a hydrogen-nickel reactor thereby controlling its exothermal energy output'. There y'go - no mention of fusion reactions, no special sauce, and fully enabled because anyone can do those steps.
In a patent, sometimes it is better to pick an unusual, but necessary, process feature. If you patent one necessary part of a process, the whole process is effectively patented. Even better, others might then improve other parts of the process, and be motivated to do so themselves by getting their own patents on the other parts of it. Then you work together and everyone makes money who has contributed.
A good example is the Wright Bros, who patented the flight control but not the aeroplane. A bad example is Boulton and Watt who cornered the steam engine market and suffocated innovation for a couple of decades. {IIRC: Once their patent [which they had managed to persuade Parliament to extend] expired, the innovation on steam engines exploded and power and efficiency, that had been stagnant under their licencing, trebled within a decade. see http://mises.org/daily/3280 }
Sure. Unfortunately no adequate proof of transmutation (particle evolution - protons, neutrons, electrons, others, or energy evolution in radio waves - gammas, X-rays) has been provided.Axil wrote:Transmutation is PROOF that a nuclear process is occuring.
When all this shakes out I'm betting we will find it is a combination of chemical reactions and physical transformations.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
That is an assertion. Care to provide your reasons?parallel wrote:MSimon,No.I note they went to a LOT of trouble to keep the samples dry. Could water absorption and the chemical reactions that can accompany it account for the "extra" energy? Or a change in crystalline structure?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
chris,
Love the Mises link. http://mises.org/daily/3280
I have been meaning to do a blog post on it. I may yet get around to it. Thanks for the heads up.
Love the Mises link. http://mises.org/daily/3280
I have been meaning to do a blog post on it. I may yet get around to it. Thanks for the heads up.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
No known reactions for the materials used could provide even a tiny pecentage of the energy seen.MSimon wrote:That is an assertion. Care to provide your reasons?parallel wrote:MSimon,No.I note they went to a LOT of trouble to keep the samples dry. Could water absorption and the chemical reactions that can accompany it account for the "extra" energy? Or a change in crystalline structure?
What I do not like is just that the PhD making the experiments has been president of a public utility company that has invested into BLP while he was in charge. As is the case of Dr. Jansson.parallel wrote:Thanks GIThruster for putting it plainly. I do wonder if some of the naysayers believe labs are run by PhDs in gleaming white coats (halos faintly visible against a dark background) working just for the love of science.
As I said, conflicting interests do not weight in favour of the scientific method.
Heat from alterations of the crystal structure or similar. I exclude nuclear transformations because so far the the signature of such transformations is not in evidence. In fact "no nuclear excrement" is a selling point.parallel wrote:MSimon,What do you include in "physical transformations"?When all this shakes out I'm betting we will find it is a combination of chemical reactions and physical transformations.
I may be prepared to take your bet
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.