Provisional Applications for E-Cat Patents Available at USPTO Site

Thanks to tlp and Andreas Moraitis for bringing this to our attention.

Instructions how to see those three provisional applications have been posted on vortex-l: (Thanks Blaze)

https:[email protected]/msg99635.html

You can access them by going here:

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair

And then searching on the dependent patents in turn:

61818553
61819058
61821914

CLick on the image file wrapper and the filing of interest.

  • Sanjeev

    Looks like more people are involved now. This is an important news…

    International Publications Holding (IPH) B.V.
    Singel 468
    1017AW AMSTERDAM
    Nederland

    International Publications Holding (IPH) B.V. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hachette Filipacchi Presse S.A. The activities of the company consist of participating in and financing of other companies (a.o. Hachette-VDB, Elle Paris S.A.).

    http://company.info/org/332101460000/International_Publications_Holding_IPH_B.V._AMSTERDAM/nieuws_jaarverslag_cijfers_management_uittreksel_markt

    • Sanjeev

      This may not be the correct IPH. See the comment below by Buck for real news.

  • Mr. Moho

    From that link:

    http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nrg-ceo-thinks-google-can-replace-utilities/190135/

    Crane sees the natural gas distribution system as a “dominant paradigm”
    that could replace reliance on utilities. NRG is currently working on
    a 10-kilowatt machine that generates electricity from natural
    gas, biogas and garbage and stores electricity generated by
    rooftop solar panels.

    Sounds familiar, except for the rooftop solar panels part.

  • Mr. Moho

    It looks like IPH International BV is owned by European Generation SARL, which is a subsidiary of NRG Energy Inc., one of the largest energy producers in the USA.
    That would be big news if confirmed, but details are rather vague and unclear. IPH International BV appears only in the downloadable 7-pages Application Datasheet PDF document. Why would that be?

    • Mr. Moho

      Interestingly, in the Application Datasheet dated 04-26-2014 the applicant was “Industrial Heat, Inc.” (page 4), but it appears that it got amended to “IPH International BV” in the one dated 10-06-2014.

    • Buck

      The following, which was shared on Vortex-L, seems to be the confirmation.

      http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123569754_1.pdf

      • Sanjeev

        Great ! Its a big news indeed.

  • LuFong

    The dates of these provisional reports is interesting. The Ferrara test completed March 24, 2013 according to Rossi on the JONP. The Ferrara test report was announced on the JONP on May 19, 2013 however the first version of the test was submitted May 16, 2013 to arXiv.org.

    On the other hand, the provisional patent 61819058 which details the Ferrara test was submitted to the patent office May 3, 2013 so Rossi/IH must of had access to the report data well before this.

    In fact, examining the Ferrara test report and the patent we find that they use the same images and in many instances the wording is identical. Make of this what you will but I find this perplexing for the supposed claimed independent third party test. It should be noted that Rossi never seemed to claim that he (or IH) had not seen the report etc prior the publication only that he did not know when it would be publicized.

  • Curbina

    I find that these provisional applications complete each other in many ways, specially the last one that has the most details, however, I have not been able to find the word lithium on them, and I was wondering if anyone has.

  • Mr. Moho

    According to some people on Cobraf it appears that the provisional applications contain more information than what was in the first E-Cat third party report:

    http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123569767_1.jpg
    http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123569767_2.jpg

    There might be more.
    ping @Bob Greenyer

    • tlp

      Mouse and cat explained!

      • Fortyniner

        Sort of. Actually the words used raise as many questions as they answer (emboldening mine):

        “Both Activator and Reactor are contained in the E-Cat HT2. Reactor is substantially made up of the powders contained in the inner cylinder. As far as the Activator is concerned, it is in turn made up of powders, or it makes use of them – to run the complete system.

        A control system is said to exist, whereby the behaviour of both Activator and Reactor is regulated, turning off the resistor coils once Activator’s task is completed, and damping the reaction in Reactor whenever the temperature reaches the preset maximum threshold.

        The heating curves of the E-Cat HT2 is to be attributed to the action of the Activator, the effect of which combines with that produced by the resistor coils alone, thereby accelerating the heating process. Likewise, the temperatures recorded during the cooling phase, higher than those that would be got from the resistor coils alone, might be said to be “supported” by the action of the Reactor when switched off.”

        So – the ‘Activator’ is a separate charge of powder not disclosed during sampling of ‘fuel’, as has been suspected by some commenters. There also seems to be some ambiguity in the description of the control system, which is said to be able to dampen the operation of the ‘Reactor’. It isn’t clear whether this means passively though cooling (why does the heat-producing Reactor cool when the Activator is switched off?) or actively, by some means not described (EM field?).

        As the COP of the Activator is given as max. 1.07, the meaning of the final para above is also unclear. Why bother with the Activator if its sole function is to (slightly) amplify the heat produced by the resistors? – why not just increase input by 7%? Why is heat being produced by the Activator plus the resistors during the ‘cooling phase’? Wouldn’t a ‘cooling phase’ mean resistors switched off, per the second para above?

        If anyone can make sense of this – please expound….

  • Andreas Moraitis

    COP ≈ 3 = 1 inverted clamp.
    COP ≈ 6 = 2 inverted clamps.
    COP ≈ 12 = 4 inverted clamps. Oops… there are only three – another proof that they made a mistake!

    COP = infinity = Meter was not connected. Always follow Ockham’s razor…

    • Obvious

      I was wondering, strictly out of curiosity, what would be the result of three inverted clamps….

      • winebuff67

        Cop 9?

      • Thomas Kaminski

        The load would be sourcing power on all phases like a generator. I’ll take one of those!

      • US_Citizen71

        The same as three correctly placed clamps but with reverse polarity.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        MFMP could find it out experimentally

      • buildit now

        From an electrical power engineer: 3 inverted clamps would give a correct value for the power used, except, indicate that power was being generated rather than used as Kaminski states. 2 inverted clamps would give the same reading as 1 inverted clamp, except also indicate power is being generated rather than used. All clamps disconnected would give no power readings. The bottom line, 1 inverted clamp is the worst configuration possible that still indicates power is being used.

    • Freethinker

      😀

  • Facepalm

    You can also search for: 14262740

    APPLICATION NUMBER
    14/262,740 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0326711.html

    76934
    Nifong, Kiefer, and Klinck, PLLC – Industrial Heat
    4917 Waters Edge Drive
    Suite 275
    Raleigh, NC 27606