Go Well My Friend..Russell Means

UPDATE Special Cold Fusion Radio show on Russell Means on getting cold fusion for the Lakota Nation and Treaty School. [download .mp3]

To my brother and friend, we were set to speak together in a matter of days.

I will speak on your behalf and deliver my promise to the Lakota People: Cold Fusion.

Go well my friend.

Russell Means (November 10, 1939 – October 22, 2012)

Related Link


Cold Fusion-James Martinez-Russell Means by
by James Martinez September 28, 2012

“President Obama and Cold Fusion LENR” Is an October Surprise Immanent, Eminent, and Imminent?


Outline an Article

Definition of  Immanent

1 : indwelling, inherent <beauty is not something imposed but something immanent — Anthony Burgess>
2 : being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge — compare transcendent

Definition of EMINENT

1 : standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted :conspicuous
2 : jutting out : projecting
3 : exhibiting eminence especially in standing above others in some quality or position : prominent

Definition of IMMINENT

1 : ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one’s head

“In American political jargon, an October surprise is a news event with the potential to influence the outcome of an election, particularly one for the U.S. presidency. The reference to the month of October is because the Tuesday after the first Monday in November is the date for national elections (as well as many state and local elections), and therefore events that take place in late October have greater potential to influence the decisions of prospective voters.”

IMMANENT

 

I.   Is an October Surprise immanent? Yes.

II.  Is Cold Fusion/LENR immanent? Arguably yes.

Definition of IMMANENT

“Being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge.”

1)   Indwelling (definition)

  • a)   Existing or residing, as an inner activating force or principle.
.

2)   Inherent (definition)

  • a)   Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
  • b)   Vested in as a right or privilege.

.

EMINENT

 

III. Is an October Surprise eminent? Yes.

IV. Is Cold Fusion/LENR eminent? Arguably yes (in some ways).

Definition of EMINENT

“Standing above others in some quality or position.”

1)   Standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted.

2)   Jutting out.

3)   Exhibiting eminence especially in being prominent.

Prominent (definition)

  • a)   Standing out so as to be seen easily, conspicuous, or particularly noticeable.
  • b)   Leading, important, or well known.

.

IMMINENT

 

V.  Is an October Surprise imminent? Yes.

VI. Is Cold Fusion/LENR imminent? Arguably Yes.

Definition of IMMINENT

“Hanging threateningly over one’s head.”

1)   Ready to take place, especially as in ‘danger’.

Danger (definition)

  • a)   Liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril.
  • b)   An instance or cause of peril, menace.
  • c)    Existence of power, jurisdiction, or domain. (Old usage)

.

Post Script

.

Sometimes the outline of an article is more inspiring than the fully fleshed out ‘Real McCoy’. A shadow, outline, or barely observable phenomenon can inspire thought, curiosity, and investigation; powering up that wonderful pondering machine (the engagement of  others).

When first posting the beginnings of this articles’ creative process I thought, “Why this premature public exposure of the ‘process’?”

Shortly after the thought, Brad Arnold commented that I may just be trying to impose a ‘self fulfilling prophecy’…

Brad, you are right! Thanks, I hadn’t  realized that and to tell the truth… now I know that… I realize this…

 

The outline IS the article.

 

Continued moments of thanks are due…

.

Dr. Eugene Franklin Mallove  (June 9, 1947 – May 14, 2004)

Dr. Martin Fleischmann (March 29, 1927 – August 3, 2012)

Dr. B. Stanley Pons NOW from August 23, 1943 (age 68)


Cold Fusion Now

LENR Science

 My Heart Always

My heart always goes…

To the mountain fastness.

My heart overflows…
With joyful gladness.

My heart always shows…
Peace through the madness.

My heart gently holds…
All painful sadness.

My heart always knows…
Love is the way.

Just say yes…

Love is!

The way.

Yes Yes Yes

Just say

Yes

Love is

The

Way

 

 

More news on Brillouin Energy Corp Patent Filing

 

The following is a further posting in a series of articles by David French, a patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review patents of interest touching on the field of Cold Fusion.

On April 23, 2012 I posted about a patent application publication number 20110122984 originating from Robert Godes and now owned by Brillouin Energy Corp. The Brillouin Energy website made reference to this pending patent application and so we reviewed Claim 1 of that application, observing on the unnecessary restriction to establishing: “current pulses through said core”. That shortcoming may never get corrected. We now have some more news about this patent filing.

On May 14, 2012 the US examiner responsible for this application issued a “Godes US patent office final rejection SN 12911586 14 May 12“. These are the letters sent from the Patent Office to the applicant advising whether the application is in good order to be allowed to advance to grant of a patent. Here is a copy of that Office Action.

This is a classic: “Prove it works” examiner’s rejection. The fact that it is labeled “Final” is not as serious as appears. For a further filing fee, examination can be re-opened and better evidence provided. However, this application has already gone through one cycle on this basis and the additional evidence that the examiner warned would have to be filed was not provided, at least that is the assessment of the examiner. A further attempt is nevertheless still possible.

The rejection is based on the premise:

“3. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, I, 10, 19 and 21-29 based upon 35 USC 101 and 112 as set forth in the last Office action because: Declaration by applicant himself does not provide the requisite counter-evidence of utility and enablement: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and substantiation. The Declaration does not provide such evidence as is necessary to render credible low energy nuclear reactions, particularly fusion reactions, given the overwhelming body of experimental data and theoretical arguments against fusion under circumstances well below the coulomb penetration barrier.”

And

“Simply stating that the concepts the inventor espouses are correct is not sufficient substantiating evidence. Sufficient substantiating evidence may be based on widely accepted scientific concepts (e.g. quantum nuclear physics, credible experiment), a working model, or supporting opinion in a widely respected and peer-reviewed publication (existing credible publications do not support optimistic applicants assumptions).”

This is the essential basis for the rejection. It is standard with respect to cold fusion applications at the US Patent Office. Section 101 of the US Patent Act stipulates that an invention must be useful. All patent laws around the world include this requirement. Section 112 of the US law further stipulates that a patent application must contain instructions on how to achieve the useful results as promised. Again, this is a standard patent requirement.

Apart from complying with the law, the US PTO probably wants to maintain respect for its patents as representing meaningful and useful information. They do not want to become a publishing house for bogus disclosures, although many patents do include bogus disclosures. There are one half million applications a year filed at the US PTO and only if you are challenged on the basis of the utility requirement are you required to file proof of utility. Apparently, management at the US PTO has singled-out cold fusion patent applications as well as perpetual motion machines for imposing an affirmative requirement that evidence of utility must be filed.

The rejection is also based on failure to describe how to build a working system (section 112). This is really the same objection: it does not work; therefore the description of how to make it work is not complete. At least that is the position of the examiner.

An applicant in this situation has the option of directly filing an appeal to the Board of Appeals and Interferences within the Patent Office. An appeal will probably take several years to resolve within the Patent Office and then another year or two if a further appeal is made to the Courts.

Note, however, that appeals are based on the record before the examiner. The purpose of issuing a “Final” office action is to establish that no further evidence in support of the application can be placed on file at the Patent Office while the “final” status is still in effect. You can buy your way out of this no-further-documentation limitation by paying a further filing fee to enter further material as of right. Without doing so, the appeal is based on the record of the file as before the examiner when the Final rejection issued.

The standard on the appeal is whether or not the applicant can established before the Board of Appeals that the examiner was wrong. Unfortunately, if there are reasons to expect that an invention lacks utility, then the burden is on the applicant to provide proof that the invention works and to thereby satisfy the examiner, or Board of Appeals on appeal, that the description of the invention is sufficient.

These are the standards that apply in respect of an appeal to the Board of Appeals. In respect of an appeal to the Courts, the only issue is whether the Board of Appeals acted outrageously inappropriately or misapplied a principle of law. These are hard standards to meet.

In this case Godes is represented by a well-established law firm, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP of San Francisco. The attorney responsible, however, is not likely to be one of the partners. The actual professional handling this file should be able to estimate in advance whether or not the documents available for filing at the US Patent Office would be sufficient to meet the utility and enablement requirement that the examiner already warned he was going to impose on this application. In fact, any patent firm representing an inventor seeking to obtain a patent directed to “cold fusion” should issue a warning from the very beginning that the applicant will be expected to provide rock-solid evidence that the statements made in the application about what can be delivered in terms of benefits are true.

Additionally, the specification has to include all of the steps, just like the recipe in a cookbook, needed to achieve this useful result. If the latter standards are not met in the original filing document, then the application is doomed to collide with the policy manifested so clearly in this rejection.

The attorneys representing Robert Godes and Brillouin Energy have a penalty-free three months from May 14, 2012 to pay the required fee and file additional submissions, or appeal. Further extensions to reply of one, two or three more months may be purchased. If no reply or appeal is filed within six months from May 14, 2012, the application will become abandoned.

However, under US law, it is permissible to start the patenting application process over again by filing a “Continuation” application which will benefit from all of the filing dates of earlier applications so long as the filings overlap in time. This will buy considerably further time before the relevance of this application has been established authoritatively through the patent office system in the United States. If this route is pursued, Brillouin Energy will be able to continue to claim that they have a “patent pending” in respect of their technology. Robert Godes has already used this procedure previously when Profusion Energy, Inc. was the owner of the rights in this invention.

David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services. Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property. For more information visit: www.SecondCounsel.com.

David French is prepared to address questions included as commentaries to any of his postings or by direct email. In particular, he would like to learn what people need to know in order to better understand patents.

Andrea Rossi interview of March 12, 2012

 The following is a further posting in a series of articles by David French, a patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review issues of interest in the field of Cold Fusion.

On March 12, 2012 Ruby Carat of ColdFusionNow personally interviewed Andrea Rossi in his home in Florida. That interview is available in video format on the ColdFusionNow.org website. [watch] The following is a summary of some of the significant remarks made by Sr Rossi during this interview.

In the last 2 years Rossi has changed his theory as to what’s happening. He’s filed a patent application for the new idea. It’s not yet published.

He is still using a powder. He does so because it has more surface area, more contact with hydrogen. He believes that surface area is important for the reaction so that the hydrogen will be able to access active sites on the nickel. And he still has to preheat the reactor which he does using electricity to increase the temperature.

He believes that when the cold fusion reaction is occurring within the particles, temperatures as high as 1500°C are being reached deep in the active matrix. He recognizes that this is getting close to the melting point of nickel, but that’s OK: if the nickel were to melt it would stop the reaction. This is a safety effect.

Even though he believes he’s getting such high temperatures in the core of the active regions, he’s only achieving output temperatures of 110-200°C. He cannot deliver steam over 200°C (This is still very, very valuable!)

Recently Siemens has introduced a turbine that operates with 30% efficiency operating off a heat source at 251°C (or 261°C). Using this turbine, Rossi will be able to generate all the electricity that he needs to make his process continue indefinitely. As a system, it will be self-contained. It’s not clear whether the Siemens turbine can produce 15 MW, but he used that as an example.

He also answered “Yes!” in response to a question as to whether his system is capable of operating in a “self-sustainable” mode.

Rossi has, for safety reasons, eliminated the external hydrogen tank. His reactor now includes a source of hydrogen bound in molecules contained in a “tablet” which is sealed in the reactor. It is this tablet which releases the necessary hydrogen for the cold fusion reaction. It is this feature which is the focus of his most recent unpublished patent application.

Once the cold fusion reaction stops, the hydrogen is recovered back into the tablet where it is either chemically stored or re-fixed somehow, available for future use. During the cold fusion reaction only a slight amount of hydrogen is consumed: pico-grams. The result is that his reactor will have a six-month lifetime without having any need for refurbishing.

His biggest barrier has been having the system certified for safety. He received great resistance to safety certification as long as he had been using an external bottle of hydrogen as the hydrogen source. The new tablet arrangement has overcome this problem. He is awaiting certification for safety and will be on the market as soon as he receives that certification.

He says that his units are under production presently. But where this is occurring is a big secret. He doesn’t want his Manufacturers hounded by cold fusion enthusiasts.

Actual products are not being manufactured at this time. The “lines” of production are being assembled, and the computer software being programmed. Actual manufacturing of the E-Cat will begin after certification as there will most likely be more design changes during the certification process.

Asked why his industrial units were to be more expensive than commercial home units, said to be delivering power at a cost of $60-$90 per kilowatt, he said that the industrial units were more of a “craft” product at this time: less parts ordered cost more. The industrial units were being produced in low-volume whereas the price quoted for home units was based on a theoretical high volume level of production.

The interview lasts for a total of 29 minutes.

David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services. Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property. For more information visit: www.SecondCounsel.com.

David French is prepared to address questions included as commentaries to any of his postings or by direct email. In particular, he would like to learn what people need to know in order to better understand patents.

The Rossi 45MW LENR Power Plant is a Real Bargain Compared to Nuclear

Rossi made the following comment on his blog:

Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
– In a 45 MW plant, if Siemens gives us 30% of efficiency, the COP is not 6, is infinite: the energy to drive the resistances will be made by the E-Cat: if we make 45 thermal MWh/h, 15 electric MWh/h will be made, of which 7.5 will be consumed by the plant, 7.5 will be sold, together with30 thermal MWh/h.
– The price of a 45 MW plant will be in the order of 30 millions.
– the price of the energy made by our industrial plants will be made by the owners and by the market.
Warm Regards,
A.R

To put the above into perspective, the following is a chart listing the power density of typical engine types:

Power density of typical engine types
combustion gas turbine 2.9 kg/kw
medium speed diesel 10 kg/kw
nuclear gas turbine (including shielding) 15 kg/kw
nuclear steam plant (including shielding) 54 kg/kw

A Rossi 45MW LENR power plant is estimated to weigh 200 tonnes (in other words about 180,000 kilograms). Since 45 megawatts is 45000 kilowatts (I always got marked down in math class when I didn’t show my work on the test, but just wrote down the answer), a Rossi 45MW LENR power plant yields a 4 kg/kw power density.

Furthermore, a nuclear plant averages about 1,000MW of heat, the heat generated by about 22 Rossi 45MW power plants. The cost of a 1,000MW nuclear plant is conservatively estimated to be around 2.4 billion dollars, while the cost of 22 Rossi E-Cat plants (at 30 million dollars each) is 660 million dollars – a little more than a third of the price! With no cost for nuclear fuel, no cost to clean up and get rid of the nuclear waste, and no risk of Fukushima type of accident!!

I think it is safe to say that the Rossi 45MW LENR power plant will be in heavy demand both by the maritime and utility industries. It is difficult to understand why both the US military and international corporations aren’t beating a path to Rossi’s door.

At the very least, you would think that the Japanese, who suffered terribly when their nuclear power plants (that furnish something like one third of Japan’s electricity) suffered catastrophic damage during the recent natural disasters, and who still suffer from the after-effects of the nuclear bombs dropped on their cities during WWII, would be intrigued by Rossi’s business plan.