PROCESSES OR MEANS, e.g. BATTERIES, FOR THE DIRECT CONVERSION OF CHEMICAL ENERGY INTO ELECTRICAL ENERGY (electrochemical processes or apparatus in general C 25; semiconductor or other solid state devices for converting light or heat into electrical energy H 01 L, e.g. 31/00, 35/00, 37/00)
Good spade work Gondring. Now we cross reference this info against the broadly worded claims of the Rossi patent (google WO 2009/125444 A1) which are broad enough to encompass chemical reactions. It would appear the Rossi patent has slipped past as a chemical reactor in which case its possible a practical demo of the device for patent examiner's benefit never occurred.
Of course, as a chemical reactor the eCAT is of no commercial value but then its not the role of the patent office to determine commercial value.
If nuclear reactions are occurring then Rossi is still protected but the granting of the patent only covers ‘exothermic reactions of nickle and hydrogen under pressure’ which could easily fall short of nuclear reactions. Thus we are back at square one as pertains the validity of the eCAT.
Someone more expert please correct me.
Oh thank you so much, mugwump56 and Gondring, for your spadework and illuminating observations! Seem's the jury's still out on whether any kind of nuclear reaction has occurred at all.
If the patent only covers "exothermic reactions of nickle and hydrogen under pressure," then it seems the patent holder itself knows that nuclear reactions are probably not taking place. At least the patent doesn't seem to mention them. Or am I missing something?
I'm perplexed by what the Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies SA, had been excluded from in its exclusive licensing/marketing agreement with the patent holder. Defkalion has
[t]he rights to use and industrial use (for non-military purposes) of the invention of the Italians for the whole world except the United States.... Defkalion.What on earth is going on here?
Thanks so much for writing! Please keep me posted!