Analysis of Rossi Patent Revisions in International Application (David French on Cold Fusion Now)

There’s an interesting article on Cold Fusion Now written by Canadian Patent Attorney David French who looks at the February 2016 international patent application that Andrea Rossi/Leonardo Corporation have made through the WIPO organization (see here: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2016018851) and compares it with the US patent that Rossi was awarded in August 2015.

The article on Cold Fusion Now is here: http://coldfusionnow.org/analysis-of-new-rossi-pct-filing-based-on-us-patent-9115913-issued-25aug15/

French writes:

This is Rossi’s patent assault on the World. This is an extension of the US patent of August 25, 2015, and it is an upgraded rewrite. This document has the potential of producing patents in over 100 countries around the World. This includes further patents in the US

There are some revisions in the international application which could provide some helpful clues to researchers and replicators, and French points out the changes in the article.

I am not well versed in the details of patent law, so it’s nice to have an expert provide commentary and analysis. French compares the US and international patents and notes deletions and additions.
.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “…nickel acts as a catalyst for the reaction, and is not itself a reagent.”
    This suggests that it is the following reaction that is taking place.
    http://www.coinweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/walton2015b.jpg

  • Dr. Mike

    Many thanks to David for his analysis of the enhancements to Rossi’s international patent application. It certainly appears that Rossi’s lawyer has closed a few of the loopholes in the US patent. Now, when will someone try to replicate this patent? Anyone “well-versed in the art” should be able to duplicate/replicate this invention. Once this device is understood, then efforts could be made to replicate Rossi’s more advanced devices.

    • DrD

      It’s interesting that in the application he predicts (but doesn’t claim) a COP of just over 6. I assume he’s being conservative.
      He also predicts a fuel lifetime of 6 months. Again I think he’s being conservative,
      Also explained is why he said he couldn’t do steam at 600 degC (Engineer 48’s customer needed 600C). I think he said up to 550C?
      He does not give details of the elctrical input which I think is his “hammer”. This might be crucial to any replication. Also, did he mention isotopic ratios? Nor does he mention fuel preparation (I think).
      I’m not sure if the absence of essential details like these (if indeed they are essential) might be grounds for rejection.

      • Dr. Mike

        DrD,
        I believe that any “essential detail” left out of the patent would open the patent to a challenge for failure to provide full disclosure. Therefore, I think the patent can be replicated to a limited COP with the information provided. To assume otherwise would require an incompetent patent attorney. Note that Rossi’s early patent applications purposely did not disclose the details of the invention because Rossi was not about to disclose the real invention until the US Patent Office lifted its ban on “cold fusion” patents.
        The patent does contain a claim (#7) for increasing the porosity of the Ni. As for the other things that you mentioned that are not in the patent claims, these seem to be available for anyone else to file a patent for if that enhancement actually provide a significant advantage over Rossi’s device and are not obvious enhancements to anyone “skilled in the art”. My guess is that Rossi plans on filing patents (or has already filed) for all enhancements as he discovers them, which accounts for the modifications to the international patent.
        Dr. Mike

    • Omega Z

      This is just the U.S. patent that has been granted.
      It does not include current work in progress. That will be additional patents in the pipeline.

  • US_Citizen71

    Interesting bit:
    “In one embodiment, the reagents are placed in the reaction chamber at a pressure of 3-6 bar and a temperature of from 400 C to 600 C. An anode is placed at one side of the reactor and a cathode is placed at the other side of the reactor. This accelerates electrons between them to an extent sufficient to have very high energy, in excess of 100 KeV. Regulation of the electron energy can be carried out by regulating the electric field between the cathode and the anode.”

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

      Yes, this seems to be the ‘driver’ mechanism that initiates and controls LENR in the ‘Quark/X’ configuration. It’s not entirely clear (to me, anyway) whether the energy input is from DC current flow through the ‘fuel’ or from the presence of an electrostatic field between the electrodes. The reference to electron acceleration seems to indicate the latter.

      Whichever it is, the critical factor – undisclosed of course – will be the voltages, waveforms and frequencies that must be applied to start the LENR reaction and then maintain it.

      • DrD

        My understanding is that in one embodiment he uses resistance heaters and in a different emodiment he uses the electrodes. So at least two different types described here. I’m a little confused about the chronology of this (it was Pre DC -electric “discovery” and pre Quark?). Still studying it.

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

          Yes, it seems to be rather a ‘catch all’ type document, designed to enhance the existing patent by closing ‘loopholes’ and extending the scope of the claims to cover recent developments, rather than an instruction for building any one type. Even obvious details about how the heater plates might be constructed, and nickel preparation, are omitted, as well as any details of the anode/cathode arrangement.

          Much it seems to relate to basic thermal engineering that would have been familiar to a c.19th designer of steam boilers, and ‘claims’ such as the idea of placing a heater in a pocket in a tank (the flanged, closed tubes we saw a long time ago) aren’t exactly new. I would view this exercise as a lot of ‘smoke’ designed to draw attention away from a few small but crucial ‘fires’, while still providing protection for them.

        • US_Citizen71

          My read is it is the trigger and stop for the hotcat. 400 to 600C being the preheat temperature before turning on the electric field stimulation. I doubt we will see publication of QuarkX techniques yet.

          • SG

            This is the correct interpretation. The reason I know this is that I’ve read the underlying provisional patent application, which is available through the WIPO website. In fact, the underlying provisional patent application expressly states that “this is the Rossi effect.”

      • US_Citizen71

        The heater plates do have insulation between themselves and the resistors so that could be. But, there is language in the patent concerning the wafers being welded at the ends to seal them. That would make them shorted and only able to be one side, so maybe there is another isolated lead inside the wafer?

  • Eyedoc

    Again a nicely done assessment by David . Thank you sir, and Ruby (and Frank 🙂

  • Chris Marshalk

    Whatever the story is each day, the only thing that will convince me is a final product that has hit the market.

    • William D. Fleming

      I also have lingering doubts, but also great hope, and I wish the best for Andrea Rossi. He has to follow his own inclination. You and I are not much of a factor here.