3 ms·

> > Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power > The tech data page specifies 200kW input power Yes, but you see, that is a ma

by lutusp 13y ago

> > Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power > The tech data page specifies 200kW input power Yes, but you see, that is a marketing claim, not a physical one. If it were true, Rossi would be sequestered with a team of crack lawyers attempting to secure patent protection for his breakthrough, rather than trying to sign people up to buy his unprotected, yet-to-be-built device. Also, why doesn't Rossi use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to sustain the reaction, thus removing the input power requirement? This "fact sheet" reads very differently to someone who actually understands physics.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Yes, but you see, that is a marketing claim, not a physical one. If it were true, Rossi would be sequestered with a team of crack lawyers attempting to secure patent protection for his breakthrough As for patents on perpetual motion devices, the Patent Office is geared to reject claimed cold fusion patents that don't include a demonstration of a working device (of course, the reason for this is such claims have proven irreproducible, which impinges on the utility test for patentability.)
- BerislavLopac 13y ago
  Shouldn't this be a requirement for all patents?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Shouldn't this be a requirement for all patents? It has to demonstrate utility for all patents; but utility doesn't generally require a working device (even for patents of a "device" type). Whether it should is an interesting question, but if its clear from the information in the patent and the information generally available outside of it that a practitioner in the field could derive real utility from the described mechanism, I think there's at least a clear argument that actually having a demonstrated device is unnecessary, while with ones whose claims appear to violate physical laws or be of a class where claims have shown to be impossible to reproduce by other practitioners, the demonstration of a working device to demonstrate utility is important.

by lutusp 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Yes, but you see, that is a marketing claim, not a physical one. If it were true, Rossi would be sequestered with a team of crack lawyers attempting to secure patent protection for his breakthrough As for patents on perpetual motion devices, the Patent Office is geared to reject claimed cold fusion patents that don't include a demonstration of a working device (of course, the reason for this is such claims have proven irreproducible, which impinges on the utility test for patentability.)

BerislavLopac 13y ago
Shouldn't this be a requirement for all patents?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Shouldn't this be a requirement for all patents? It has to demonstrate utility for all patents; but utility doesn't generally require a working device (even for patents of a "device" type). Whether it should is an interesting question, but if its clear from the information in the patent and the information generally available outside of it that a practitioner in the field could derive real utility from the described mechanism, I think there's at least a clear argument that actually having a demonstrated device is unnecessary, while with ones whose claims appear to violate physical laws or be of a class where claims have shown to be impossible to reproduce by other practitioners, the demonstration of a working device to demonstrate utility is important.