I thought that members of this group might be interested in a few news items..
What new methods are being used to study cold fusion? What historical trends are underway in the cold fusion field? What alarming non-linear process have the Israeli's come up with? What simple devices can be used to stimulate LENR & transmutations? What various techniques can now be used to generate neutrons quite simply? Why are the Japanese so brilliant in coming up with simple ideas? Why are the French and Italians brilliant at implementation? Why is the US, Britain, Canada and Australia falling behind? Why is there silence from the German community? How does plasma science intersect the cold fusion field?(hint: don't toss out those old plasma science textbooks just yet) How will condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) theory be assisted by nanotechnology trends in instrumentation?
Recent News:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Cold Fusion Energy Patents: Soon to Be Issued ..URL's listed on site below
As reported in the recent MIT Technology Review and Physics Today, the latest patent info in Cold Fusion Energy is available at the USPTO web site. I've placed these patent URL links on my Atomic Motor Energy Blog : http://www.atomicmotor.com
You can also add a MyYahoo RSS feed for the latest news as it happens from your MyYahoo front page for convenience. Just click "Add to MyYahoo" button near each daily story.
I hope this helps raise awareness on this energy source. As glaciers melt, oil depletes and forrests burn..science phenomenon can often times be burried when competing against Britney as a news item.
We also have an On-line poll available to gauge opinions on Cold Fusion Energy applications. Please visit. Thank you ! .
( Please forward this email to interested friends and colleagues ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send a message to : edi...@dailyelement.cerg.org with just the words UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
>Cold Fusion Energy Patents: Soon to Be Issued ..URL's listed on site >below
As we say over here in the wet science: Molecular Biology is less complicated than Intellectual Property Law because the cell is contrained by the laws of chemistry but IP suffers no such constraints.
> Cold Fusion Energy Patents: Soon to Be Issued ..URL's listed on site > below
> As reported in the recent MIT Technology Review and Physics Today, the > latest patent info in Cold Fusion Energy is available at the USPTO web > site. I've placed these patent URL links on my Atomic Motor Energy > Blog : http://www.atomicmotor.com
> You can also add a MyYahoo RSS feed for the latest news as it happens > from your MyYahoo front page for convenience. Just click "Add to > MyYahoo" button near each daily story.
> I hope this helps raise awareness on this energy source. As glaciers > melt, oil depletes and forrests burn..science phenomenon can often > times be burried when competing against Britney as a news item.
> We also have an On-line poll available to gauge opinions on Cold > Fusion Energy applications. Please visit. Thank you ! .
Interesting website. Thanks for bringing it to this forum's attention. I guess we'll have a lot to talk about in a few months after the DOE review of cold fusion. Certainly the USPTO issuing a cold fusion patent would be huge news and give the field a big boost. Don't get your hopes up though about those pending cold fusion patents. The USPTO has sat on cold fusion for years, only to deny them.
On 30 Aug 2004 11:00:47 -0700, joh...@patmedia.net
(JohnnyCJohnny) wrote: >Interesting website. Thanks for bringing it to this forum's >attention. I guess we'll have a lot to talk about in a few months >after the DOE review of cold fusion. Certainly the USPTO issuing a >cold fusion patent would be huge news and give the field a big boost. >Don't get your hopes up though about those pending cold fusion >patents. The USPTO has sat on cold fusion for years, only to deny >them.
I don't know what "give the field a big boost" means, but it would certainly give the attempts to harvest investors a big boost.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
> Interesting website. Thanks for bringing it to this forum's > attention. I guess we'll have a lot to talk about in a few months > after the DOE review of cold fusion. Certainly the USPTO issuing a > cold fusion patent would be huge news and give the field a big boost. > Don't get your hopes up though about those pending cold fusion > patents. The USPTO has sat on cold fusion for years, only to deny > them.
" Certainly the USPTO issuing a cold fusion patent would be huge news and give the field a big boost." Maybe, but the USPO has already issued several perpetual motion patents. These days one can patent most anything, there is no requirement that it work or meet scientific principles. The PO is mostly interested in money, little else. A patent gives the grantee the exclsive right to manufacture and sell the device in question for 20 years. There is no garantee that it will sell or that it is any way viable or marketable or that it even exists. The days of having to present a working model to the PO have long passed. Complicated weasel wording is par for many of today's patents designed to fleece investors without any intention of marketing a device. Bob
"Rob Eldred" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message <news:dIPYc.13853$E47.13646@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>... > "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message > news:cd2ccfd9.0408301000.6cc1df5b@posting.google.com... > > Interesting website. Thanks for bringing it to this forum's > > attention. I guess we'll have a lot to talk about in a few months > > after the DOE review of cold fusion. Certainly the USPTO issuing a > > cold fusion patent would be huge news and give the field a big boost. > > Don't get your hopes up though about those pending cold fusion > > patents. The USPTO has sat on cold fusion for years, only to deny > > them.
> " Certainly the USPTO issuing a cold fusion patent would be huge news and > give the field a big boost." Maybe, but the USPO has already issued several > perpetual motion patents. These days one can patent most anything, there is > no requirement that it work or meet scientific principles.
That's utterly false. The USPTO has a long standing policy of NOT issuing a patent for a perpetual motion machine unless a working model can be examined by patent examiners. Yes, the USPTO is still interested in patenting things that work and are based upon scientific principles. They reject all sorts of things. They've rejected cold fusion patents for over a decade. A couple of cold fusion patents have snuck through under different names. Where are you getting your info from? You are dead wrong.
> The PO is mostly > interested in money, little else. A patent gives the grantee the exclsive > right to manufacture and sell the device in question for 20 years. There is > no garantee that it will sell or that it is any way viable or marketable or > that it even exists. The days of having to present a working model to the PO > have long passed. Complicated weasel wording is par for many of today's > patents designed to fleece investors without any intention of marketing a > device. > Bob
The point is if the USPTO starts issuing cold fusion patents en mass, it will provide credibility for the fledgling field; a field that couldn't get patents in the past because it wasn't taken seriously. Well, people will start taking it more seriously if the USPTO starts issuing patents. What's this, a dozen cold fusion patents have been issued in the past year? Perhaps I should take a closer look. That will be the reaction if the position of the USPTO changes.
> That's utterly false. The USPTO has a long standing policy of NOT > issuing a patent for a perpetual motion machine unless a working model > can be examined by patent examiners.
But they also accept items for patent that have no working model in the office, and no expert evaluation. As I recall they have patented a number of machines which were then advertised as PM machines, including some really strange fusion devices that somehow left no radioactive residue (a PM machine by another name I expect). All you need to do is obfuscate the nature of the machine, say by claiming it collects zero point energy, or just avoid discussing where it gets the energy at all.
> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message > news:cd2ccfd9.0408310411.3414f3f7@posting.google.com... > ... > > That's utterly false. The USPTO has a long standing policy of NOT > > issuing a patent for a perpetual motion machine unless a working model > > can be examined by patent examiners.
> But they also accept items for patent that have no working model in the > office, and no expert evaluation. As I recall they have patented a number of > machines which were then advertised as PM machines, including some really > strange fusion devices that somehow left no radioactive residue (a PM > machine by another name I expect). All you need to do is obfuscate the > nature of the machine, say by claiming it collects zero point energy, or > just avoid discussing where it gets the energy at all.
Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse true believers of doing. You making up an example without supporting evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty clear that they don't accept pertpetual motion machines of any sort. Yes, a couple of "cold fusion" patents have been issued under different names that failed to mention cold fusion. But, they were just describing chemical processes, not claiming to have invented a free energy machine.
(JohnnyCJohnny) wrote: >"Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalli...@boeing.com> wrote in message <news:I3BG22.1wI@news.boeing.com>... >> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message >> news:cd2ccfd9.0408310411.3414f3f7@posting.google.com... >> ... >> > That's utterly false. The USPTO has a long standing policy of NOT >> > issuing a patent for a perpetual motion machine unless a working model >> > can be examined by patent examiners.
>> But they also accept items for patent that have no working model in the >> office, and no expert evaluation. As I recall they have patented a number of >> machines which were then advertised as PM machines, including some really >> strange fusion devices that somehow left no radioactive residue (a PM >> machine by another name I expect). All you need to do is obfuscate the >> nature of the machine, say by claiming it collects zero point energy, or >> just avoid discussing where it gets the energy at all.
>Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse true >believers of doing. You making up an example without supporting >evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty clear that they don't >accept pertpetual motion machines of any sort.
No, they don't. But the examiners aren't all that clever and a few machines not denoted to be perpetuum mobile have slipped through, and been publicized as PM later by the promoters.
>Yes, a couple of "cold >fusion" patents have been issued under different names that failed to >mention cold fusion. But, they were just describing chemical >processes, not claiming to have invented a free energy machine.
But how are they promoted after patent issuance?
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen wrote: > JohnnyCJohnny <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote: > > Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse > > true believers of doing. You making up an example without > > supporting evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty > > clear that they don't accept pertpetual motion machines > > of any sort.
> No, they don't. But the examiners aren't all that clever > and a few machines not denoted to be perpetuum mobile have > slipped through, and been publicized as PM later by the > promoters.
What's the point of having a PM or cold fusion patent and not having stated as such in the patent?
The patent must "fully disclose" how the thing works. If PM or cold fusion is essential to the "operation" and not disclosed the patent would be invalidated.
Especially if the inventor knew it required PM or cold fusion to operate beforehand.
Also, technically it is the responsibility of the inventor to make sure the patent fully discloses all pertinent information.
> > Yes, a couple of "cold fusion" patents have been issued > > under different names that failed to mention cold fusion. > > But, they were just describing chemical processes, not > > claiming to have invented a free energy machine. > But how are they promoted after patent issuance?
As I recall the patents that "seemed" to slip through were not cold fusion patents at all. The patents were pertaining to a specific structure or process. The patent database is full of patents for specific detail improvements.
There are a relatively few of what I call "Basic Patents". Laser, radio, transistor, telegraph and others. But countless improvement patents.
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* > * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * > * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Duane
-- Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3X [*] Powered by \ \ \ //| Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / | Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / | Red Rock Energy \ \ / / | Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / | 1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts | White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ | USA 55110-3364 === \ | (651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ | red...@redrok.com (my email: address) \ | http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===
> > > Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse > > > true believers of doing. You making up an example without > > > supporting evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty > > > clear that they don't accept pertpetual motion machines > > > of any sort.
> > No, they don't. But the examiners aren't all that clever > > and a few machines not denoted to be perpetuum mobile have > > slipped through, and been publicized as PM later by the > > promoters.
> What's the point of having a PM or cold fusion patent > and not having stated as such in the patent?
The point is to prove that the patent office is biased. If they'll approve a patent that describes the cold fusion process, only under a different name, it demonstrates bias on the part of the USPTO.
> The patent must "fully disclose" how the thing works. > If PM or cold fusion is essential to the "operation" > and not disclosed the patent would be invalidated.
> Especially if the inventor knew it required PM or cold > fusion to operate beforehand.
> Also, technically it is the responsibility of the inventor > to make sure the patent fully discloses all pertinent > information.
> > > Yes, a couple of "cold fusion" patents have been issued > > > under different names that failed to mention cold fusion. > > > But, they were just describing chemical processes, not > > > claiming to have invented a free energy machine.
> > But how are they promoted after patent issuance?
> As I recall the patents that "seemed" to slip through were > not cold fusion patents at all. The patents were pertaining > to a specific structure or process. The patent database > is full of patents for specific detail improvements.
They were patents that described the electrolysis of heavy water using paladium. About as close to cold fusion as you can get a U.S. patent for. If the patents had mentioned cold fusion, they probably would have been rejected. They were submitted by people working on "cold fusion", so obviously that's what they were describing, just being clever not to mention the name, and it worked.
> There are a relatively few of what I call "Basic Patents". > Laser, radio, transistor, telegraph and others. > But countless improvement patents.
> > ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* > > * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * > > * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
> Duane
> -- > Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver > http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3X [*] > Powered by \ \ \ //| > Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / | > Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / | > Red Rock Energy \ \ / / | > Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / | > 1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts | > White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ | > USA 55110-3364 === \ | > (651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ | > red...@redrok.com (my email: address) \ | > http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===
|> What's the point of having a PM or cold fusion patent |> and not having stated as such in the patent? |> |> The patent must "fully disclose" how the thing works. |> If PM or cold fusion is essential to the "operation" |> and not disclosed the patent would be invalidated.
People cheat. They "fully disclose" to an overworked and overchallenged patent official, and then sell it differently in their PR.
> Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse true > believers of doing. You making up an example without supporting > evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty clear that they don't > accept pertpetual motion machines of any sort. Yes, a couple of "cold > fusion" patents have been issued under different names that failed to > mention cold fusion. But, they were just describing chemical > processes, not claiming to have invented a free energy machine.
Sorry but you just made my point. You can patent a process that involves effects that are not soundly established as valid, and you can patent a perpetual motion machine component if you do not claim it is a PM machine clearly. I did have a specific example in mind but would rather not go into detail.
> Duane C. Johnson asks: ... > |> The patent must "fully disclose" how the thing works. ... > People cheat. They "fully disclose" to an overworked and overchallenged > patent official, and then sell it differently in their PR.
Recall the brouhaha when the basic process for the P&F cold fusion process had been "disclosed" to the scientific community, and then it was offered, as explanation for all the null results, that oh, by the way, it depends on some very precise and very proprietary (and pretty much secret and rather random) process for preparing the electrodes. "fully disclose" NOT.
>The point is to prove that the patent office is biased. If they'll >approve a patent that describes the cold fusion process, only under a >different name, it demonstrates bias on the part of the USPTO.
<snip>
More fundamental question -- What is the value of a patent?
A patent attorney I met described a patent as a "license to sue". The Patent Office does not protect the patent holder. The patent holder himself has to pay the full costs of defending his patent -- hunting down people who are making money off the invention he has patented and then suing them one by one. And Patent Attorneys are not cheap, he assured me!
If the patented device is worthless (e.g. a perpetual motion machine), no competitor will be making money off it, and that "licence to sue" will be worthless. Any patent slipped through the Patent Office would be irrelevant vanity.
> > > > Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse > > > > true believers of doing. You making up an example without > > > > supporting evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty > > > > clear that they don't accept pertpetual motion machines > > > > of any sort.
> > > No, they don't. But the examiners aren't all that clever > > > and a few machines not denoted to be perpetuum mobile have > > > slipped through, and been publicized as PM later by the > > > promoters.
> > What's the point of having a PM or cold fusion patent > > and not having stated as such in the patent?
> The point is to prove that the patent office is biased. If they'll > approve a patent that describes the cold fusion process, only under a > different name, it demonstrates bias on the part of the USPTO.
Johnny, I'm not sure that your conclusion is logical. Even if it is, what does it have to do with the function and purpose of a granted patent?
You simply cannot patent anything whose foundation of operation relies on a disproven or yet unproven mechanism to function. True, a clever patent attorney can weasel-word a patent to avoid disclosing the underlying mechanism on which the patent claims are based, but realize that USPTO issuance of the patent is largely based ONLY on the claims themselves being both useful and original. This secures for the patent holder the exclusive rights to the commercial rights to of any claims made within the patent when USING THE METHODS DESCRIBED.
A patent that is granted based on a non-disclosed imaginary priciple that doesn't exist is, even if granted, worse less than the paper that it printed upon. The USPTO office makes an effort to prevent this needless and pointless paperwork, but will not seriously resist the efforts of a clever, paid-by-the-hour patent attorney to force a patent, no matter how ridiculous, though as a "service" to his client.
Frankly, I don't see this as bias on the part of the USPTO, but perhaps I've missed something.
>Johnny, I'm not sure that your conclusion is logical. Even if it is, >what does it have to do with the function and purpose of a granted >patent?
>You simply cannot patent anything whose foundation of operation relies >on a disproven or yet unproven mechanism to function. True, a clever >patent attorney can weasel-word a patent to avoid disclosing the >underlying mechanism on which the patent claims are based, but realize >that USPTO issuance of the patent is largely based ONLY on the claims >themselves being both useful and original. This secures for the patent >holder the exclusive rights to the commercial rights to of any claims >made within the patent when USING THE METHODS DESCRIBED.
>A patent that is granted based on a non-disclosed imaginary priciple >that doesn't exist is, even if granted, worse less than the paper that >it printed upon. The USPTO office makes an effort to prevent this >needless and pointless paperwork, but will not seriously resist the >efforts of a clever, paid-by-the-hour patent attorney to force a >patent, no matter how ridiculous, though as a "service" to his client.
People who take out patents for perpetual motion machines generally aren't interested in maintaining exclusive rights since they know the machines don't work and any attempts to build one will not, therefore, infringe the patent. Such patents are sales devices, intended to help attract investors.
It's not so clear that people who take out patents on cold fusion know the process doesn't work, but I guarantee you not one can survive a real test.
>Frankly, I don't see this as bias on the part of the USPTO, but >perhaps I've missed something.
It's not bias; it's incompetence.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
In sci.physics.fusion JohnnyCJohnny <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote:
: The history of the USPTO is pretty clear that they don't : accept pertpetual motion machines of any sort.
The official policy may be that they don't accept patent applications for perpetual motion machines unless accompanied by a working model, but they have issued at least one patent for a perpetual motion machine nonetheless. IIRC, a picture of the relevant page of the patent application is reproduced in Martin Gardner's essay about perpetual motion machines which was reprinted in his book _The New Age: Notes of a Fringe-Watcher_. I know that Martin Gardner mentions the patent in *one* of his essays and expresses his annoyance the the guy who got the patent actually stole the idea from Dr. Matrix.
----- Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness." -- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1oz....@world.std.com>
|> "Bruce Scott TOK" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in |> message news:200409011153.i81Br7EE028327@ipp.mpg.de... |> > Duane C. Johnson asks: |> ... |> > |> The patent must "fully disclose" how the thing works. |> ... |> > People cheat. They "fully disclose" to an overworked and overchallenged |> > patent official, and then sell it differently in their PR. |> |> Recall the brouhaha when the basic process for the P&F cold fusion process |> had been "disclosed" to the scientific community, and then it was offered, |> as explanation for all the null results, that oh, by the way, it depends on |> some very precise and very proprietary (and pretty much secret and rather |> random) process for preparing the electrodes. "fully disclose" NOT.
Oh yeah, there is that too. Just don't disclose, and lie and say you did.
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote: >Fred B. McGalliard wrote:
>|> "Bruce Scott TOK" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in >|> message news:200409011153.i81Br7EE028327@ipp.mpg.de... >|> > Duane C. Johnson asks: >|> ... >|> > |> The patent must "fully disclose" how the thing works. >|> ... >|> > People cheat. They "fully disclose" to an overworked and overchallenged >|> > patent official, and then sell it differently in their PR. >|> >|> Recall the brouhaha when the basic process for the P&F cold fusion process >|> had been "disclosed" to the scientific community, and then it was offered, >|> as explanation for all the null results, that oh, by the way, it depends on >|> some very precise and very proprietary (and pretty much secret and rather >|> random) process for preparing the electrodes. "fully disclose" NOT.
>Oh yeah, there is that too. Just don't disclose, and lie and say you >did.
Or you could "disclose" to, say, the Patent Office of Trinidad and Tobago.
If the stakes are big enough and you have both a viable and valuable technology and the investors, BUY Trinidad and Tobago (for example) a Patent Office if they don't have one already, in exchange for the one-dollar (US) a year, long-term contract to operate it, and suddenly disclosure issues become much, much easier. <DIABOLICAL GRIN>
Of course, before then you want to endow St. George's University in Grenada (for example) with a condensed-matter physics program, experimental facilities, funds for research, and, in due course, a competent faculty convenient for peer-review of publications to support patents and other documentation of priority of discovery, and who did what, when.
I looked in your website ( www.atomicmotor.com ) for information on cold fusion and condensed-matter physics, but it was mostly - political shilling for the John Kerry campaign, and - and short pieces on "alternative energy" technology.
I didn't see anything much, new, or substantive to do with either condensed-matter physics, cold or pycnonuclear fusion, or anything else I expected to see from the description in the original post.
It is pretty funny to see that the Kerry camp has decided to borrow nuclear fusion from Lyndon LaRouche as a Presidential campaign issue - thanks for the laugh, dude.
Renaissance Man
On 29 Aug 2004 23:04:41 -0700, atomicmotor2...@yahoo.com (Johnathan
>I thought that members of this group might be interested in a few news >items..
>What new methods are being used to study cold fusion? >What historical trends are underway in the cold fusion field? >What alarming non-linear process have the Israeli's come up with? >What simple devices can be used to stimulate LENR & transmutations? >What various techniques can now be used to generate neutrons quite >simply? >Why are the Japanese so brilliant in coming up with simple ideas? >Why are the French and Italians brilliant at implementation? >Why is the US, Britain, Canada and Australia falling behind? >Why is there silence from the German community? >How does plasma science intersect the cold fusion field?(hint: don't >toss out those old plasma science textbooks just yet) >How will condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) theory be assisted by >nanotechnology trends in instrumentation?
Thx ..its not Pro-Bush or pro-Kerry ..just Pro-Cold Fusion. If mother earth chimes in to help ..well then ..I guess its just a sign of the times right? (hint: get used to it). Look closely and you may see clues ..science leaves clues everywhere if we keep our eyes open..i.e most are not obvious.
Renaissance Man <ren...@ricochet.com> wrote in message <news:26dfj0da6952om446pm8oah3s84n48ok3h@4ax.com>... > I looked in your website ( www.atomicmotor.com ) for information on > cold fusion and condensed-matter physics, but it was mostly > - political shilling for the John Kerry campaign, and > - and short pieces on "alternative energy" technology.
> I didn't see anything much, new, or substantive to do with either > condensed-matter physics, cold or pycnonuclear fusion, or anything > else I expected to see from the description in the original post.
> It is pretty funny to see that the Kerry camp has decided to borrow > nuclear fusion from Lyndon LaRouche as a Presidential campaign issue - > thanks for the laugh, dude.
> Renaissance Man
> On 29 Aug 2004 23:04:41 -0700, atomicmotor2...@yahoo.com (Johnathan > Chan) wrote:
> >Hello:
> >I thought that members of this group might be interested in a few news > >items..
> >What new methods are being used to study cold fusion? > >What historical trends are underway in the cold fusion field? > >What alarming non-linear process have the Israeli's come up with? > >What simple devices can be used to stimulate LENR & transmutations? > >What various techniques can now be used to generate neutrons quite > >simply? > >Why are the Japanese so brilliant in coming up with simple ideas? > >Why are the French and Italians brilliant at implementation? > >Why is the US, Britain, Canada and Australia falling behind? > >Why is there silence from the German community? > >How does plasma science intersect the cold fusion field?(hint: don't > >toss out those old plasma science textbooks just yet) > >How will condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) theory be assisted by > >nanotechnology trends in instrumentation?
I invented a fusion reactor that uses muons (subatomic particles that live one millionth of a second) to catalyse fusion reactions between deuterium and tritium. A scientist at Los Alamos Nati0onal Laboratory reviewed the idea, he thinks it might be practical.
"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
> > "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message > > news:cd2ccfd9.0408310411.3414f3f7@posting.google.com... > > ... > > > That's utterly false. The USPTO has a long standing policy of NOT > > > issuing a patent for a perpetual motion machine unless a working model > > > can be examined by patent examiners.
> > But they also accept items for patent that have no working model in the > > office, and no expert evaluation. As I recall they have patented a number of > > machines which were then advertised as PM machines, including some really > > strange fusion devices that somehow left no radioactive residue (a PM > > machine by another name I expect). All you need to do is obfuscate the > > nature of the machine, say by claiming it collects zero point energy, or > > just avoid discussing where it gets the energy at all.
> Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse true > believers of doing. You making up an example without supporting > evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty clear that they don't > accept pertpetual motion machines of any sort. Yes, a couple of "cold > fusion" patents have been issued under different names that failed to > mention cold fusion. But, they were just describing chemical > processes, not claiming to have invented a free energy machine.
> I invented a fusion reactor that uses muons (subatomic particles that live > one millionth of a second) to catalyse fusion reactions between deuterium > and tritium. A scientist at Los Alamos Nati0onal Laboratory reviewed the > idea, he thinks it might be practical.
Of course it's practical. Has been known for about 50 years. The problem isn't the fusion, that works. It is finding a Muon generator that does not use up all the power and then some.
The perpetual motion machine is of special concern to the USPTO. It was my understanding that violating the second law of thermodynamics (a law of physics) was actually illegal (by the laws of the US) and that perpetual motion machines were not palatable by law.
> >Johnny, I'm not sure that your conclusion is logical. Even if it is, > >what does it have to do with the function and purpose of a granted > >patent?
> >You simply cannot patent anything whose foundation of operation relies > >on a disproven or yet unproven mechanism to function. True, a clever > >patent attorney can weasel-word a patent to avoid disclosing the > >underlying mechanism on which the patent claims are based, but realize > >that USPTO issuance of the patent is largely based ONLY on the claims > >themselves being both useful and original. This secures for the patent > >holder the exclusive rights to the commercial rights to of any claims > >made within the patent when USING THE METHODS DESCRIBED.
> >A patent that is granted based on a non-disclosed imaginary priciple > >that doesn't exist is, even if granted, worse less than the paper that > >it printed upon. The USPTO office makes an effort to prevent this > >needless and pointless paperwork, but will not seriously resist the > >efforts of a clever, paid-by-the-hour patent attorney to force a > >patent, no matter how ridiculous, though as a "service" to his client.
> People who take out patents for perpetual motion machines > generally aren't interested in maintaining exclusive rights since > they know the machines don't work and any attempts to build one > will not, therefore, infringe the patent. Such patents are sales > devices, intended to help attract investors.
> It's not so clear that people who take out patents on cold fusion > know the process doesn't work, but I guarantee you not one can > survive a real test.
> >Frankly, I don't see this as bias on the part of the USPTO, but > >perhaps I've missed something.
> It's not bias; it's incompetence.
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* > * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * > * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
