MaPi schrieb:Ihr scheint ja Experten zu sein
Im Vergleich zu denen, die im aktuellen Patent eine "Fusionsart, die Rossi entdeckt hat" zu erkennen glauben: unbedingt!
Wirf hier mal einen Blick rein:https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EOLYTCMH4937FI4&number=EP08873805
"The application does not meet the requirements of Article 5 PCT as the description does not disclose in a manner sufficiently clear the invention.
ln the description it is claimed that the reaction of hydrogen with nickel is generating energy. However, there is no explicit evidence of energy production in the description or Figures, as would be temperature measurements, radiation emission measurements, or any alternative measurements showing production of erergy.
According to PCT Guidelines 5.45 and 5.47, the disclosure of the claimed invention is considered sufficiently clear and complete if it provides information which is sufficient to allow the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art without undue experimentation. As factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is needed to carry out the claimed invention, which should be considered for the present invention are: the general knowledge of the invention and the level of predictability in the art.
At present cold fusion, which is the basic explanation given in the description for generating energy is not accepted as mainstream science and technology. Relevant for the present invention is D4, which is reporting an independent experiment between Nickel (as a rod) and hydrogen, where no heat generation could be put into evidence, which would result as a fusion process between Nickel atom and a proton.
As the invention seems, at least at first, to offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories, the disclosure should be detailed enough to prove to a skilled person conversant with mainstream science and technology that the invention is indeed feasible. This implies, inter alia, the provision of all the data which the skilled person would need to carry out the claimed invention, since such a person, not being able to derive such data from any generally accepted theory, could not be expected to implement the teaching of the invention by trail and error.
ln the present case, the invention does not provide experimental evidence (nor any firm theoretical basis) which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention. The description is essentially based on general statements and speculations which are not apt to provide a clear and exhaustive technical teaching."