This cartoon from Droidmatters is targeted toward Information Technology, but informs in an easy way some issues with the US Patent and Trademark Office:
From The Spoilsman: How Congress Corrupted Patent Reform by Zach Carter published on Huffington Post back in October.
“Many people are still looking for work or looking for a job that pays more,” Obama said to a scrum of reporters. “There are more steps that we can take right now that would help businesses create jobs here in America.”
The first item on Obama’s list of immediate, job-creating congressional actions was the passage of patent reform legislation.
“Right now, Congress can send me a bill that would make it easier for entrepreneurs to patent a new product or idea, because we can’t give innovators in other countries a big leg up when it comes to opening new businesses and creating new jobs,” he said.
Besides the fact that the US Patent and Trademark Office re-routes cold fusion/LENR related applications, what else is the problem?
Trolls file hundreds of lawsuits a year over “low quality” patents — lobbyist legal jargon for the questionable or downright bizarre patents routinely granted by the understaffed Patent and Trademark Office. In recent years, patents have been approved for products including a wheeled flower pot (patent No. 7,908,942), the crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich (patent No. 6,004,596), a decorative box that can be placed in a casket (No. 7,908,942) and an accounting scheme that helps people dodge taxes by moving stock options around (No. 6,567,790). Once approved by the patent office, it’s difficult and costly to overturn the patent in courts, which grant significant deference to the office’s decisions.
What does the newly enacted patent reform mean for innovators?
December 29, 2010 Energy: America’s Next Space RaceREAD NOW.
The Michigan US Senate race includes over half-a-dozen Republicans vying for Democrat incumbent Debbie Stabenow’s long-held seat, but only one has LENR on their platform.
Former Juvenile Court Judge Randy Hekman states his energy policy on the campaign website www.RandyHekman2012.com:
8. Energy: The simple reality is that our economy depends on energy derived from coal, oil and natural gas to function. Energy exploration – mining and drilling – provide needed jobs and the energy these industries produce keep our economy moving. We need to end the policies that subsidize inefficient sources of energy such as ethanol, wind and geothermal. The best alternative energy program is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). We must work to develop this energy program. Randy Hekman, candidate for US Senate from Michigan
Randy Hekman has a long history of association with LENR science. He formed his own company in 1996 to provide energy research and consultation for LENR.
In 2004, along with Dr. Peter Hagelstein, Dr. Michael McKubre, Dr. Talbot Chubb, and Professor David J. Nagel, Mr. Hekman helped to prepare the report presented at the Department of Energy Review of the field that sought funding for research. The results of that Review, and a critique of the issues related to the Department of Energy and LENR, are compiled by Jed Rothwellhere.
Mr. Hekman prefers the term LENR to ‘cold fusion’ saying that though the process is nuclear, it “involves neither fusion nor fission.” In addition, he says,
“Because of its nature, LENR does not require heavy shielding nor does it produce radioactive waste. It offers incredible potential to provide inexpensive and safe energy for our nation, and a boost to our economy.”
We sent Mr. Hekman a few questions about his experiences with LENR and here are his responses.
Senate candidate Randy Hekman supports LENR.
Q&A with Candidate Randy Hekman
CFN You are running for the US Senate seat from Michigan and have publicly stated support for LENR science and technology. What is the response when you discuss new energy?
RH I have spoken to many people in our state and elsewhere about LENR over the past 14 years that I have been working full or part time in this field. When I am given a full opportunity to explain how LENR works, I find people are supportive. The ultimate proof, however, will be when people become willing to invest major dollars in the technology. So far, this has eluded us.
CFN You believe that coal, oil and natural gas are still important. What do you see as the role of fossil fuels in the economy?
RH More than 1.7 trillion barrels of crude oil (these are proven reserves) can be found in the 50 states of our nation, plus enormous amounts of natural gas and coal. Until we get LENR on stream, we will need to use these resources to allow our economy to recover from the malaise it is in. But I firmly believe that LENR technology is the means of meeting the world’s energy needs into the future. It is safe, inexpensive, virtually inexhaustible, and causes no environmental damage. In fact, it can be used to convert spent fission fuel into benign elements.
CFN The BP/Horizon oil catastrophe caused damage to both the economy and environment, and the federal response was weak. As a member of Senate, how would you have responded differently?
RH The damage to the environment was significant at the time and costly to remediate, but not for long term. Human beings will at times make mistakes. We must do all in our power to minimize the likelihood and severity of mistakes, but deal with life when mistakes occur and go on. I am not overly put out by the federal government’s response except their reluctance to open up exploration more quickly.
CFN You state that “We need to end the policies that subsidize inefficient sources of energy such as ethanol, wind and geothermal.” Why do you call these sources of energy ‘inefficient’?
RH Without government subsidies, these approaches to alternate energy could not work. Government has a very poor record of picking winners and losers. Let market forces do their thing to bring the winners to the top and losers off the scale. LENR can become a powerhouse because it is good, not because government feeds it with resources.
CFN Why do you call Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR the ‘best alternative energy program’?
RH I am totally convinced that LENR is an energy source that is virtually limitless and can be used in small and very large applications safely and durably. I have studied it long enough to become totally convinced it is real and the wave of the future.
CFN In 2004, you were part of a group that presented a survey of the field of condensed matter nuclear science to the Department of Energy in a bid to include LENR science in their energy research funding mix. How would you characterize the outcome?
RH I was a part of that group. I was there when our group made its presentations to the panel of experts. The panel was impressed, as they should have been, with a description of the data supporting LENR experiments. But they were rolling their eyes when our team tried to describe the theories behind the data. We tried to say it was “cold fusion.” I am totally convinced it is neither fusion nor fission, but neutron-catalyzed nuclear reactions utilizing the weak force rather than the strong force.
CFN Recent demonstrations of Andrea A. Rossi’sEnergy Catalyzer and announcements of other products planned for release next year by researchers in Greece and Italy have generated alot of excitement from the public, as well as some mainstream press. What changes, if any, have you noticed in the public awareness as these technologies are being developed.
RH I agree there has been growing news on the subject, but I am VERY skeptical of Mr. Rossi’s work, based on his excessive secrecy and his sketchy background. On the other hand, however, more and more legitimate scientists are following with great interest the work of Lewis Larsen and his partner, Allan Widom. I feel they accurately explain this phenomenon.
CFN Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently mentioned cold fusion in an interview with the Washington Examiner. What do think brought cold fusion to his attention? Are you aware of any other political candidate who supports condensed matter nuclear science?
RH I’m sorry, but I can’t answer your question about Mitt. And no, I don’t know of others who support it.
CFN What do you see on the new energy front moving forward into 2012?
RH I’m optimistic that we will see great breakthroughs in people’s acceptance and, frankly, we need it!
See also…
US Senator Hopeful – A LENR Enthusiast! by Eli Elliott May 16, 2011
Republican Candidate Mitt Romney speaks out for Cold Fusion by Ruby Carat December 9, 2011
The Washington Examiner’s Transcript of our interview with Mitt Romneypublished here has this mention of cold fusion from the Republican Presidential candidate:
CARNEY: What role should government have in promoting certain industries or economic activities such as homeownership, or manufacturing, renewable energy or fossil fuel energy, exports, or just advanced technology? What sort of subsidies and incentives do you favor? You had some of these in Massachusetts, I know.
ROMNEY: Very limited — my answer to your first question. I’m not an advocate of industrial policy being formed by a government. I do believe in the power of free markets, and when the government removes the extraordinary burdens that it puts on markets, why I think markets are more effective at guiding a prosperous economy than is the government.
So for instance, I would not be investing massive dollars in electric car companies in California. I think Tesla and Fisker are delightful-looking vehicles, but I somehow imagine that Toyota, Nissan, and even General Motors will produce a more cost-effective electric car than either Tesla or Fisker. I think it is bad policy for us to be investing hundreds of millions of dollars in specific companies and specific technologies, and developing those technologies.
I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with — with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it.
But basic science, in my view, is a way that research can encourage our entire economy. And so, for instance, in Michigan, some years ago — I think it was in 2007 — I spoke there and said, you know, I think we ought to embark upon an effort to do analysis on energy research, transportation research, materials research. But again, basic research which could then be either purchased by or licensed by companies foreign and domestic.
CARNEY: For instance, nuclear power right now is getting loan guarantees under both Bush and Obama policies to help develop nuclear power more rapidly. Is that the sort of thing that you would support?
ROMNEY: My inclination would be to do this: It would be to say that – if we went to the nuclear people and they say that, you know, if you could give us our permits in three years, then we wouldn’t need any help. And so what I might be willing to do is say we will either give you your permits in three years or refund the money to you we’ve invested to build the facility or to reach this point. We will, in effect, give a guarantee that you will not be prevented from developing nuclear power by virtue of government’s malfeasance and ineffectiveness. And so rather than saying, here, we’ll give you a bunch of money to build a nuclear facility, we would instead guarantee certain government action.
In an area, sometimes it’s hard to find the line between research and development. In the area of nuclear research, for instance, there is discussion of an entirely different technology for building very small nuclear plants that use a pebble-type technology, as opposed to the rods that – you’re familiar with this – there’s a discussion about building a model facility to see if that technology actually works. I actually consider that research. It would be owned by the government; perhaps we’d hire companies to build it; and we’d see if it works. And if so, then that technology could be licensed to any number of companies, again, foreign or domestic, to build facilities here and around the world.
That, again, is if we don’t think that there is going to be sufficient interest in that part of industry to carry out research which has a very high-risk of failure and requires a great deal of resources.
It’s election season in the US, and time to demand better from our representatives. Now is the time to be planning your 2012 Campaign for Clean Energy.
An article on Andrea A. Rossi‘s visit to the Massachusetts State House was published today in the Boston Globe business section.
Republican Bruce Tarr, a Massachusetts State legislator from Gloucester active in alternative energy, invited Mr. Rossi to discuss possibilities for manufacturing E-Cat units within the state.
Andrea Rossi speaks with Massachusetts State Legislators about manufacturing E-Cats. Photo Boston Globe
Entitled “Hope, skepticism for cold fusion“, the piece by D.C. Denison described a “roomful of skeptical people”, including Mr. Tarr. Nevertheless, the legislator is open to the economic potential that this new science and technology can generate.
“My thought process was pretty simple: If it works, I want this technology to be developed and manufactured in Massachusetts,’’ Tarr said.
He is not alone.
States across the US are experiencing budget shortfalls that have affected counties and cities with severe cuts to social services. Dropping property values and high unemployment has ground state revenues down further, even as costs increase. Unemployment funds have reached extreme lows and some states are close to running out of benefits for jobless workers.
Fresh technology based on a new kind of physics is a godsend to State budget committees. Cold fusion technology is in the nascent stage, and Mr. Rossi’s steam generator is the first step in a wide-open field of research and development that will generate new roles and jobs for people worldwide.
1 MW E-Cat comes in a shipping container.
As a thermal energy generator, the Energy Catalyzercan be used for heating work spaces or as a hot-water heater at a fraction of current costs, and its clean, a welcome development for environmental programs which have seen their budgets slashed too.
The fuel is hydrogen, the main element in water, and the reaction occurs in a powder made of nickel, the same metal that is in a US 5 cent piece. There is no carbon dioxide emitted by this reaction and there are no radioactive materials used.
Further developments will integrate thermo-electric generators that can turn the steam into electricity. When electrical costs are one-tenth, or even one-hundredth, of what they are now, global economies will be rocked by change, with local economies standing to benefit. Cold fusion energy technology does not need to be connected to a grid system.
It’s easy to see why states are courting the inventor of the first cold fusion energy technology to be released. As Dr. Michael McKubre noted in his recent public talk, “Energy is currency.”
Since States can’t print their own money the way the US federal government can, cold fusion power will have to do.
Related Links
Hope, skepticism for cold fusion by D.C. Denison from Boston Globe November 28, 2011
Kelley T of Sierra Vista, AZ is the creator of the Whitehouse.gov petition asking President Obama to “investigate the usefulness of the Energy Catalyzer, a creation of the Italian inventor Andrea Rossi and he needs your help in gathering signatures to move the request forward to the President.
Can you take a moment and sign the petition to publicly put this issue in front of President Obama? You must register with Whitehouse.gov using an email address to sign the petition, and the effort needs over 24,000 signatures to make it through.
Having just sent a batch of letters to the Congressional House and Senate Sub-committees on Energy, this effort towards the Whitehouse completes the triptych.
