Quantum Tunneling Thermoelectric Patents

[Erich]

Dear Folks:

After seeing this Nano-tech forum...
Nanalyze Forums - Direct conversion of heat to electricity http://www.nanalyze.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1006&#2686

I sent a post to Rodney Cox president of Borealis http://www.powerchips.gi/ (I also asked him about Boeing's patent, and he did not reply to that. )

Could You please help me separate the wheat from the chaff?

You should also read this speech given by Rodney Cox to IBM, it will give you a chuckle, shades of "too cheap to meter" http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN-AGE-IBM.Speech.6=04.pdf

"Dear Mr. Cox,

Were you aware of this patent application? Does it conflict with your device?

View topic - 95 percent Carnot Efficiency--Is it a Joke...

Regards,

Erich J. Knight"


And his reply:

"Erich

We know Kumar very well. He is using tips that may be 1 micron across.

He is trying very hard to work around out patents.

His device is not an 8" wafer or even a 1 cm2 wafer

He is probably 95% of Carnot at the ends of the tips he is using.

The geometry is very interesting-I suppose he is 5% of carnot for maybe 5 to 10% of the surface area if he is very lucky and very clever.

IMMHO Kumar's device just does not cut it.

rtc"


And when I got home today, he called! So now I'm getting my ducks in a row so when I call him back he won't think I'm an idiot. So if you look over his technology, and have any questions or comments that you would like to see addressed, please email me. Or, please send this on to anyone you know in the field who could provide any comments or questions. I'm so antsy, this guy is president of a multi
million dollar corporation, and I want to get it right.

I got into this doing nano-tech research, discovering and investing in Borealis. Their other technology includes Chorus Motors, an electric drive that overcomes harmonic drag, and produces 300% greater torque at an equal load. They just recently got a contract from Boeing for in the hub motors for airliner ground propulsion. And of course Power Chips and Cool Chips.

shengar@aol.com

 

[Erich]

Dear Folks:

I had my chat with Rodney Cox, he is very self assured, when I tried to get a cost figure for C&Pchips he said cost was not a factor. Inferring that his cost of power production is so low that as an original equipment manufacturer the world will come to him and he will charge what the energy market bears and make a lot of money.

I could not pin him down on a date for production, he did say they were still having trouble with the final production process, but they were buying more fabrication companies to keep all production in house.

When I asked about the number of companies that had placed orders and their applications all he would say was he had a had a half dozen, no names or applications.
He did mention the military has shown great interest in cool chips but asked that I not share the applications , but I'm sure you all can guess. I asked about government funding and his response was highly negative because the acceptance of DARPA funding involved too much control over the technology.

About the $ 90,000 fees and NDA for development kits, again I got the argument that he has the technology and he can ask whatever he wants.

On the Boeing patent he said that Boeing's people had worked with his development team and "should have known better " than to apply for that patent.

When I asked about his contract with Boeing for Chorus motor drives he said Boeing came to him with the deal. That the market will be huge with all the CEO's of the airlines wanting to retrofit their planes. The largest cost savings being not sucking up turtles off the tarmac. When I asked if the Boeing work was of an in the hub type design he would not confirm, or comment.

On the development of their Thermionic car patent he said they plan to do it in house in about two years using off the shelf components from the independent car part companies, Chorus drives and Power Chips.

His response to the Nextreme super lattice technology was that there too many steps in their production process to be any competition to Power Chips.

When I brought up the various calls for a Manhattan project for clean energy, the implications of China's oil thirst, etc., and how I thought his technology could save the world he laughed and reminded me that Borealis was an original equipment manufacturer, no licensing of their technology and was out to make money.

I did my best, This guy is playing very close to the vest.

Thanks to you all for the feed back, and hope to see more.

erich

 

[ravenprp]

Dear Shengar,

Thank you for reaching out to me about quantum tunneling thermoelectric patents. After reviewing the forum and the correspondence with Rodney Cox, here are my thoughts on the matter:

Firstly, I am not an expert in the field of quantum tunneling thermoelectric technology, so I cannot provide a technical analysis of the patents or the technology itself. However, here are some general observations and questions that may help guide your conversation with Mr. Cox:

1. It is clear from Mr. Cox's response that he is aware of Kumar's patent application and views it as a potential competitor to his own technology. This is not surprising, as both companies are working in the same field and are likely aware of each other's work. It is important to note, however, that a patent application does not necessarily mean that the technology described in it is viable or has been successfully implemented. It is possible that Kumar's device is still in the early stages of development and has not yet been proven to work as intended.

2. Mr. Cox mentions that Kumar's device is not an 8" wafer or even a 1 cm2 wafer. This raises the question of scalability and practicality of the technology. Can Kumar's device be scaled up to a larger size, or is it limited to small-scale applications? How does this compare to Borealis' technology in terms of scalability and practicality?

3. The mention of Kumar's device being 95% of Carnot efficiency at the ends of the tips raises questions about the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the technology. How does this efficiency compare to Borealis' technology? Is there a trade-off between efficiency and scalability?

4. Mr. Cox also mentions the geometry of Kumar's device being interesting. It would be beneficial to understand more about the specific geometry and how it contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of the device.

5. It is interesting to note that Mr. Cox views Kumar's device as not cutting it. This could be due to a number of factors, such as technical limitations, scalability issues, or potential competition for Borealis' technology. It would be helpful to understand Mr. Cox's specific concerns and why he believes his own technology is superior.

In summary, I believe it would be beneficial to ask Mr. Cox for more specific information about Borealis' technology and how it compares to Kumar's device in terms of scalability,