Month: May 2012

Posted on

Patenting Cold Fusion technology – Navigating Patent Office Classification – Part 1 –


This posting is being republished with hyperlinks.

The following is a further posting in a series of articles by David French, a patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review issues of interest touching on the field of Cold Fusion.

Following the April 23, 2012 posting on ColdFusionNow one of the commentators observed as follows:

“The US Patent Office has become a grave yard for “Cold Fusion” applications. I wonder what would happen if the ‘powers that be’ anoint one particular LENR application. ………. Frankly, it is hard to believe all the LENR patents are failing to pass US Patent Office muster due to failure to prove that the device works as promised.”

There seems to be a widely held impression that the US Patent Office is refusing to granting patents relating to Cold Fusion devices. This is both true and not true. Here is the background.

There is actually a class in the US patent office classification system for inventions that relate to Cold Fusion. Here it is:

Class 376 INDUCED NUCLEAR REACTIONS: PROCESSES, SYSTEMS, AND ELEMENTS
Subclass 100 NUCLEAR FUSION

– pending applications in AppFT Database for CCL/”376″/100: 79 applications.– issued patents in US Patent Collection db for CCL/376/100: 65 patents.
(Searches done May 29, 2012)

A review of these applications and patents will show that most do not all relate to Cold Fusion. Here are the results obtained by adding “Cold Fusion” as a search term:
Subclass 100 NUCLEAR FUSION

– applications in AppFT Database for CCL/”376″/100 and “Cold Fusion: 21 applications.
– patents in US Patent Collection db for CCL/376/100 and “Cold Fusion”: 27 patents.

However “Cold Fusion” does not appear in any of the claims of the referenced patents. It does appear in the claims of 2 of the referenced applications:

PUB. APP. NO. Title
1. 20100008461 Cold Fusion apparatus Inventor: Hodgson; John Andrew; (Safety Harbor, FL)
2. 20070140400 Cold Fusion apparatus Inventor: Hodgson; John Andrew; (Safety Harbor, FL)

The first, later application published in 2010, replaces the earlier application which was abandoned. Neither of these applications have been examined to the point of being allowed to issue as a patent.

Of the 27 issued patents containing the word “Cold Fusion” it is apparent even just from the titles that they do not necessarily relate to that field precisely. For example, the reference to:

United States Patent 6,024,935 issued to Randall Mills et al. on February 15, 2000 and entitled
“Lower-energy hydrogen methods and structures” only refers to “Cold Fusion” in the list of prior art documentation.

Leaving Class 376 for the moment to identify other patents, US patent 7,893,414 entitled ” Apparatus and method for absorption of incident gamma radiation and its conversion to outgoing radiation at less penetrating, lower energies and frequencies” issued to Lattice Energy LLC (Chicago, IL) on February 22, 2011 on an invention by Lewis G. Larsen of Chicago, IL and Allan Widom of Brighton, MA This patent is not classified as being directed to Cold Fusion technology. The abstract of this patent reads as follows:

Abstract

Gamma radiation (22) is shielded by producing a region of heavy electrons (4) and receiving incident gamma radiation in such region. The heavy electrons absorb energy from the gamma radiation and re-radiate it as photons (38, 40) at a lower energy and frequency. The heavy electrons may be produced in surface plasmon polaritons. Multiple regions (6) of collectively oscillating protons or deuterons with associated heavy electrons may be provided. Nanoparticles of a target material on a metallic surface capable of supporting surface plasmons may be provided. The region of heavy electrons is associated with that metallic surface. The method induces a breakdown in a Born-Oppenheimer approximation Apparatus and method are described.

This patent was classified in US class 250 , subclass 515.1. US class 250 relates to “Radiant Energy”, and subclass 515.1 is defined as follows:

515.1 Shields:
This subclass is indented under subclass 505.1. Subject matter comprising means to absorb radiant energy not elsewhere provided for.

Subclass 505.1 in turn is defined as follows:

505.1 Radiation Controlling Means:
This subclass is indented under the class definition. Subject matter comprising means to modify, contain or eliminate at least some of the emanations or (or caused by, in the case of secondary emissions) a source of invisible radiation.

Accordingly, while the Widom and Larsen patent is very relevant to the field of Cold Fusion, as its claims are not focused on generating excess energy from a Cold Fusion effect, it has been classified elsewhere than US class and subclass 376/100.

Returning to Class 376/100, this Class is a catchall class for inventions that relate to nuclear fusion generally. Here is the subclass definition:

100 Nuclear Fusion
This subclass is indented under the class definition. Subject matter comprising structures and processes in which two reacting nuclei are combined to yield at least one nucleus having a greater mass than either of the reacting nuclei.
(1) Note. Subject matter of this subclass and of the subclasses indented hereunder may include, for example, reactions and methods including neutron generators wherein the neutron is a product of a fusion reaction, e.g., A D-T reaction.

(2) Note. Patents are included in this and indented subclasses even if there is failure of the system to actually obtain fusion if it is clear that the intent or aim of the patent is to obtain it.

(3) Note. Neutrons from an ionized or plasma system or reaction may be appropriately utilized or moderated to bring about or cause a fission-type nuclear reaction.

(4) Note. Energy or heat of a nuclear fission reaction system may be appropriately utilized to bring about ionization to plasma or fusion reaction levels.

Classifying Cold Fusion inventions in this class and subclass is really an act of despair. That category is very broad. Many dozens of further subclasses address particular cases of a nuclear fusion process. The higher subclass is only used if there is no existing more precise subclass. There is no US specific subclass for a Cold Fusion invention.

This specific subclass 376/100 presupposes that the nuclear reaction taking place is “two reacting nuclei are combined to yield at least one nucleus having a greater mass than either of the reacting nuclei”. Perhaps this event occurs in Cold Fusion, perhaps not. It may be that only neutron absorption occurs after neutrons are created, followed by fission. If that is what a patent application represents as occurring, then US Patent Office Examiners may hesitate to place such an application in Class 376/100. Nevertheless, this is where most Cold Fusion inventions based on increasing the mass of atomic nuclei are likely to be classified until a more specific subclass is created.

This ends Part 1 of this posting on patent classification as it relates to Cold Fusion. Part 1 has addressed the traditional classification system used at the US patent office. There is a separate classification system in effect in Europe. This is the “International Patent Classification” – IPC. Part 2 will address the treatment of Cold Fusion under the IPC.

Posted on

Hot and Cold Fusion at MIT

This is an action initiated by Contributor Gregory Goble, poet and clean energy advocate. He felt pity for the hot fusioneers who have lost their largesse due to budget cuts, and who might now consider taking help from their poor ole cousins in the cold fusion community who have the ability to save their programs by providing clean, affordable power to probe plasma science. Ironic, huh?

Follow This 

We are biting our fingernails waiting for commercialization of cold fusion and the hot fusion folks are sweating out their own issues. It’s going to be a long summer.

While a lattice-assisted nuclear reactive (LANR/cold fusion) device is operating at MIT with zero funding, the MIT hot fusion budget has been eliminated (shut down) and hot fusion energy generation research may soon end worldwide. Ironically, Tokamak reactors may be much less costly to operate if powered by low-energy nuclear reaction LENR generated power. Presently the power to create a Tokamak nuclear reaction is magnitudes greater in costs with today’s energy technologies than if supplied by cold fusion generated electricity.

Primary utility power for the MIT Alcator C-Mod is provided by a 24-MVA peak power, 13.8-kV line. In total, storage and conversion systems have been designed to supply up to 500 MJ at up to 400 MVA to the experiment. Electrical costs are $5,002,000, which is approximately 5% of the run budget. [source]

Alcator C-Mod MIT Budgets and Schedule (2009 – 2013)
Incremental costs for 1 run week (at 14 ± 3 weeks) Cost: $2,008,000

Costs per run (in thousands):
Electricity $11
Specialty gases primarily B2D6 $2
Liquid Helium cryopump, DNB $9
Overtime technicians $13
Liquid Nitrogen coil & machine cooling $47
Maintenance inspections, power systems, klystrons, ICRF tubes, diagnostics, data, vacuum, instrumentation $124
Total per run $208

Source: http://www.psfc.mit.edu/~marmar/5year_2008/12_budget_schedule.pdf

As you can see the hot fusion folks still believe fusion only takes place at extremely high temperatures in a plasma and seem to be unaware of fusion taking place in low temperature vibrational environments. Science is discovering nuclear active environments NAE can occur in a condensed matter.

Here is where we “turn substance into accident“.

This is a medieval term which means “to give new quality to substance; a loose and ironic use of the terms of scholastic philosophy.” –from the glossary of Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer translated by A. Kent Hieatt and Constance Hieatt Bantam Books.

Hot and cold fusion folks can work together to advance science by using cold fusion/LANR/LENR to power hot fusion experiments.

If you live in a district where your Representative in on the House Energy and Water Subcommittee FY2013 Appropriations bill, then message the following note to your representative. (You need to put in a zip code matching the Representatives district to use the email form).

If you do not live in a district where your Representative is on the House Energy and Water Subcommittee FY2013 Appropriations bill, then message the following note to: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers – Attention Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee Members here
@

Energy and Water Subcommittee Members

Republicans
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey email
Jerry Lewis, California email
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho email
Denny Rehberg, Montana email
Rodney Alexander, Louisiana email
Steve Womack, Arkansas email
Alan Nunnelee, Mississippi email

Democrats
Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana email
Ed Pastor, Arizona email
Chaka Fattah, Pennsylvania email
John W. Olver, Massachusetts email

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES Concerning the FY2013 Appropriations bill pg. 105

“The Department is instead directed to continue operations at the Alcator C-Mod facility and to fund continued research… ” –by funding LENR to help hot fusion.

Honorable Subcommittee Members,
The MIT Tokamak reactor is a project that advances engineering and science. Both construction and operational energy costs can be reduced by utilizing cold fusion/LENR energy devices just now emerging into the marketplace. Blacklight Power has a technology, recently validated by academic and industry experts that could provide cost-reductive electricity for research with high-energy requirements.

NASA plans utilization of condensed matter nuclear reaction science engineered into its next generation of spacecraft. Here are two announcements by NASA to utilize Cold Fusion/LANR/LENR energy devices to replace plutonium for spacecraft power and a NASA presentation of the science and theory behind this science.

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook by Dennis Bushnell NASA
Abundant Clean/Green Energy by Joseph Zawodny NASA
LENR at GRC from NASA Glenn Research Center .pdf

The following is a list of four companies developing new commercial products based on LENR:

http://www.ecat.com/
http://www.brillouinenergy.com/
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/

Include these advanced energy solutions as relief to your budget, energy, and environmental concerns. Funding LENR research brings benefits far beyond science exploration; we will be developing the ultra-clean energy that can power our future for millenia.

Thank you for this consideration,

The following is publicly posted fund raising material from MIT and ITER – Help Save Hot Fusion. It describes conventional models of fusion based on high-energy collisions in a hot plasma.

This does not describe cold fusion/LANR/LENR which hot fusioneers do not believe possible.

Intro Fusion
Nuclear fusion is the process by which light nuclei fuse together to create a single, heavier nucleus and release energy. Given the correct conditions (such as those found in plasma), nuclei of light elements can smash into each other with enough energy to undergo fusion. When this occurs, the products of the fusion reaction have a smaller total mass than the total mass of the reactants. The mass difference is converted to energy as determined by Einstein’s famous formula, E=mc2. Here, m is the mass difference and c is the speed of light. Even though the mass difference is very small, the speed of light is extremely large (about 670,000,000 miles per hour), so the amount of energy released is also very large. [source]

What is a Tokamak?
Since we have now established what nuclear fusion is, and its potential as an attractive source of energy, the next obvious question is: How do we create fusion in a laboratory? This is where tokamaks come in. In order for nuclear fusion to occur, the nuclei inside of the plasma must first be extremely hot, like in a star. For example, in the Alcator C-Mod tokamak we routinely create plasmas which reach temperatures of 90,000,000 degrees Celsius, about 5 times hotter than the center of the Sun. [source]

The President’s 2013 Budget Proposal shuts down Alcator C-Mod, an essential laboratory for clean energy research at MIT.

Does the proposed budget only cut Alcator C-Mod?
No. Almost all domestic programs under the Department of Energy’s Office of (Hot) Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES) received cuts under the president’s FY13 proposed budget, although the shutting down of Alcator C-Mod is by far the most severe and irreversible. Proposed cuts also target the DIII-D tokamak in California (-11.9%), plasma physics theory (-14.4%), the Advanced Design program (-62.9%), and general plasma science (-21.6%), among many others. [source]

What has happened?
The Presidential budget request for 2013 was announced on Monday, February 13, 
2012. In that request, C-Mod, an essential laboratory in the U.S. and World
Fusion Energy Program, is threatened with termination. C-Mod is a world-class
laboratory housed at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center and dedicated to educating students. As the only high field, compact high performance divertor tokamak, it is unique in the world. In the coming decade, vitally important research, including many critical ITER physics, research and development tasks, can only be accomplished on C-Mod. Although the budget for the fusion science part of the Department of Energy remained nearly constant at 400 million dollars, most US fusion labs face significant cuts because funding for the construction of ITER was increased by 45 million dollars. This money was taken out of C-Mod and other existing experiments. View the Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) director’s presentation about the budget here. [source]

ITER Faces Massive Budget Cuts
Due to the many challenges of fusion energy—just look at the size of the investment in ITER—this is a project that could only be attempted at an international level. However, let’s always remember that (hot) fusion technology remains in competition with other technological approaches for energy generation. We therefore need to implement and stop losing time. We must bear in mind that we have been entrusted with public funds, which gives us an enormous responsibility towards the citizens within the ITER Members.

Since the European Union has agreed to earmark funds for ITER through 2020 at the level of EUR 6.6 billion (of which EUR 2.3 billion is for 2012-2013), we have concerns regarding the schedule slippages that have occurred over the past several months. Slippages do not contribute to the positive image of the project; they also risk undermining the political support for ITER if they are not corrected soon. The next six months will therefore be crucial. [source]

C-Mod Funding Restored in Proposal from House Appropriations Subcommittee
The House Energy and Water Subcommittee released their FY2013 Appropriations bill. This appropriations recommendation includes specific language restoring funding to the Alcator C-Mod project:
The [President’s budget] request proposes to shut down the Alcator C-Mod facility and provides only enough funding for decommissioning and existing graduate students. The Department is instead directed to continue operations at the Alcator C-Mod facility and to fund continued research, operations, and upgrades across the Office of Science’s domestic fusion enterprise. 
House of Representatives Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2013, pg. 105

The domestic fusion budget (inclusive of C-Mod) is almost completely restored to FY2012 levels (the President’s Budget Request cuts ~$48.3 million, the House Appropriations recommendation only cuts of $0.5 million). ITER, the international fusion reactor which the US is collaborating on, also receives increased funding, $73 million above the President’s Budget Request. These increases overcome the issues of trying to fund both the domestic US fusion program and ITER on a flat budget. [source]

Posted on

What if?

Peter Gluck, a long-time researcher in cold fusion/LANR/LENR and contributor to the first issue of Infinite Energy magaizine with his “Why Technology First”, asked a simple question: What if twenty-three years ago, the scientific authorities moved to fully investigate and develop cold fusion technology?

What would have happened?

It’s your chance to write a sci fi story.

From his EgoOut site:

An alternative history of Cold Fusion.
November 1989- the state authorities for research in
the US and in all the other industrialized countries take a
historic decision: “We will go Cold!”.
That means- all the funding and forces used for Hot Fusion
will go starting from now to search and develop Cold Fusion.
Great money, thousands of scientists, many hundreds
of labs worldwide, a million of Pd-D cells (soon) all
specialized and dedicated to cold fusion. The best theorists
worldwide publishing Cold Fusion papers in peer reviewed
journals. Patent Offices following the example of US developing
fast methods for the approval of the Cold Fusion patents.
Cold Fusion has successfully climbed all the Everests of high priority.
So it has started, can you tell how it has continued up to today? –Peter Gluck

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/sequel-to-my-way-to-lenr-truth.html

An early paper from 1992 from Dr. Peter Gluck attempting to identify the nuclear active environment:
Understanding Reproducibility: Topology is the Key download .pdf

Posted on

More news on Brillouin Energy Corp Patent Filing

 

The following is a further posting in a series of articles by David French, a patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review patents of interest touching on the field of Cold Fusion.

On April 23, 2012 I posted about a patent application publication number 20110122984 originating from Robert Godes and now owned by Brillouin Energy Corp. The Brillouin Energy website made reference to this pending patent application and so we reviewed Claim 1 of that application, observing on the unnecessary restriction to establishing: “current pulses through said core”. That shortcoming may never get corrected. We now have some more news about this patent filing.

On May 14, 2012 the US examiner responsible for this application issued a “Godes US patent office final rejection SN 12911586 14 May 12“. These are the letters sent from the Patent Office to the applicant advising whether the application is in good order to be allowed to advance to grant of a patent. Here is a copy of that Office Action.

This is a classic: “Prove it works” examiner’s rejection. The fact that it is labeled “Final” is not as serious as appears. For a further filing fee, examination can be re-opened and better evidence provided. However, this application has already gone through one cycle on this basis and the additional evidence that the examiner warned would have to be filed was not provided, at least that is the assessment of the examiner. A further attempt is nevertheless still possible.

The rejection is based on the premise:

“3. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, I, 10, 19 and 21-29 based upon 35 USC 101 and 112 as set forth in the last Office action because: Declaration by applicant himself does not provide the requisite counter-evidence of utility and enablement: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and substantiation. The Declaration does not provide such evidence as is necessary to render credible low energy nuclear reactions, particularly fusion reactions, given the overwhelming body of experimental data and theoretical arguments against fusion under circumstances well below the coulomb penetration barrier.”

And

“Simply stating that the concepts the inventor espouses are correct is not sufficient substantiating evidence. Sufficient substantiating evidence may be based on widely accepted scientific concepts (e.g. quantum nuclear physics, credible experiment), a working model, or supporting opinion in a widely respected and peer-reviewed publication (existing credible publications do not support optimistic applicants assumptions).”

This is the essential basis for the rejection. It is standard with respect to cold fusion applications at the US Patent Office. Section 101 of the US Patent Act stipulates that an invention must be useful. All patent laws around the world include this requirement. Section 112 of the US law further stipulates that a patent application must contain instructions on how to achieve the useful results as promised. Again, this is a standard patent requirement.

Apart from complying with the law, the US PTO probably wants to maintain respect for its patents as representing meaningful and useful information. They do not want to become a publishing house for bogus disclosures, although many patents do include bogus disclosures. There are one half million applications a year filed at the US PTO and only if you are challenged on the basis of the utility requirement are you required to file proof of utility. Apparently, management at the US PTO has singled-out cold fusion patent applications as well as perpetual motion machines for imposing an affirmative requirement that evidence of utility must be filed.

The rejection is also based on failure to describe how to build a working system (section 112). This is really the same objection: it does not work; therefore the description of how to make it work is not complete. At least that is the position of the examiner.

An applicant in this situation has the option of directly filing an appeal to the Board of Appeals and Interferences within the Patent Office. An appeal will probably take several years to resolve within the Patent Office and then another year or two if a further appeal is made to the Courts.

Note, however, that appeals are based on the record before the examiner. The purpose of issuing a “Final” office action is to establish that no further evidence in support of the application can be placed on file at the Patent Office while the “final” status is still in effect. You can buy your way out of this no-further-documentation limitation by paying a further filing fee to enter further material as of right. Without doing so, the appeal is based on the record of the file as before the examiner when the Final rejection issued.

The standard on the appeal is whether or not the applicant can established before the Board of Appeals that the examiner was wrong. Unfortunately, if there are reasons to expect that an invention lacks utility, then the burden is on the applicant to provide proof that the invention works and to thereby satisfy the examiner, or Board of Appeals on appeal, that the description of the invention is sufficient.

These are the standards that apply in respect of an appeal to the Board of Appeals. In respect of an appeal to the Courts, the only issue is whether the Board of Appeals acted outrageously inappropriately or misapplied a principle of law. These are hard standards to meet.

In this case Godes is represented by a well-established law firm, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP of San Francisco. The attorney responsible, however, is not likely to be one of the partners. The actual professional handling this file should be able to estimate in advance whether or not the documents available for filing at the US Patent Office would be sufficient to meet the utility and enablement requirement that the examiner already warned he was going to impose on this application. In fact, any patent firm representing an inventor seeking to obtain a patent directed to “cold fusion” should issue a warning from the very beginning that the applicant will be expected to provide rock-solid evidence that the statements made in the application about what can be delivered in terms of benefits are true.

Additionally, the specification has to include all of the steps, just like the recipe in a cookbook, needed to achieve this useful result. If the latter standards are not met in the original filing document, then the application is doomed to collide with the policy manifested so clearly in this rejection.

The attorneys representing Robert Godes and Brillouin Energy have a penalty-free three months from May 14, 2012 to pay the required fee and file additional submissions, or appeal. Further extensions to reply of one, two or three more months may be purchased. If no reply or appeal is filed within six months from May 14, 2012, the application will become abandoned.

However, under US law, it is permissible to start the patenting application process over again by filing a “Continuation” application which will benefit from all of the filing dates of earlier applications so long as the filings overlap in time. This will buy considerably further time before the relevance of this application has been established authoritatively through the patent office system in the United States. If this route is pursued, Brillouin Energy will be able to continue to claim that they have a “patent pending” in respect of their technology. Robert Godes has already used this procedure previously when Profusion Energy, Inc. was the owner of the rights in this invention.

David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services. Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property. For more information visit: www.SecondCounsel.com.

David French is prepared to address questions included as commentaries to any of his postings or by direct email. In particular, he would like to learn what people need to know in order to better understand patents.

Posted on

A Crack in the Code

There is much speculation on the nature of the cold fusion reaction.

What starts a nuclear reaction when hydrogen meets a tiny piece of metal?

Low-energy nuclear reactions LENRs do not occur often in Nature. We generally do not see spontaneous heat energy erupt before our eyes in ordinary material. It is a rare phenomenon and historically difficult to reproduce in the lab.

This is what has led Edmund Storms, a twenty-three year veteran of cold fusion research and formerly of Los Alamos National Laboratory, to speculate that the reaction cannot occur in ordinary material, but requires some special environment that operates independently of the larger metallic structure. He calls this special environment the Nuclear Active Environment NAE.

According to Storms, the NAE must be present for the energy-producing reaction to occur. His fullest survey of the field yet was summarized in the recently updated A Student’s Guide to Cold Fusion May 2012. [visit] In it, Storms has pushed the idea of the NAE further by proposing a model.

To reproduce the excess heat effect between hydrogen and various metals maximally and efficiently, the recipe on how to perform the steps must be clearly stated. What elements must we put together to initiate the power-producing reaction on demand?

This recipe exists experimentally for a few lucky leaders in the race to commercialize a technology. Labs like Blacklight Power, Brillouin Energy, JET Energy, LENUCO, Leonardo Corporation and Praxen-Defkalion Green Technologies all have recipes to initiate LENR with a particular key element which also happens to be a trade secret. Ironically, each of these successful laboratory breakthroughs uses a different theoretical model as a guide.

If there is no one definitive theory that tells us how to make cold fusion work for all the varied forms of energy cells and transmutation generators that have been discovered, why not go back to basics and look at the source of all that’s known about these systems, the experimental data?

And that’s exactly what Edmund Storms did, deciding that “Identification of the NAE can start by finding a single condition that is present during all successful LENR studies.”

So what environmental factor appears in all successful experiments?

All successful experiments have some kind of rough, broken topology in common. Cracks, crevices, or microscopic mountains of material built-up on a surface that create tiny canyons at their feet are all present in some form or another.

Cracks can form through repeated stress. Most metals used in cold fusion show cracks, if not until after repeated loading and de-loading of hydrogen. Thus, Storms’ idea of the NAE is absence of material, like a crack.

The material deposited on the surface electrodes from the original style palladium-deuterium Pd-D electrolytic systems came from contaminants both in the Pyrex container and the heavy water salt solution. The stacking of contaminant particles makes ‘hollows’ where hydrogen (deuterium) could be become trapped.

Slide from Navy SPAWAR Twenty Year History of LENR Research Using Pd-D Co-deposition showing bumpy surface where hydrogen can hang.
Co-deposition techniques, whereby palladium and deuterium are purposefully deposited on a planar substrate have measured many transmutation elements. Upon examination, they are found to have many crooks and crannies, tiny caverns where hydrogen could have been trapped.

Thin-film electrodes have measured transmutation effects between the interfaces of the different layers, places that may enjoy a thin space for hydrogen to collect.

Nano-particle powders may be generating just the right-sized spaces between the tiny spheres to create the NAE.

Slide from Navy SPAWAR Twenty Years of LENR Research Using Pd-D Co-deposition showing mottled surface of electrodes.
Storms visualizes the cracks as, perhaps, long thin spaces where hydrogen can stack up on one another with an electron shielding the positive-charges of the proton nuclei. [see top]

With the electron screening the positive-charge, the protons can migrate closer than they normally would. Of this arrangement, Storms says “This is obviously not a conventional relationship.”

Given the NAE of a crack, Storms is proposing a three-step framework to describe the reaction.

Storms 3-Step Model
1. The nuclear active environment NAE is formed.
2. The NAE is populated with hydrogen and electrons.
3. Resonance initiates the nuclear mechanisms that cause fusion.

Through some endothermic process, meaning it requires energy to perform, the NAE of a crack or space is created first. Then, hydrogen is introduced to the space, perhaps through pressure. After the hydrogen is introduced to the NAE and it’s all stacked up, an energy is applied.

Superwave pulses
Irving Dardik's Superwave pulse activates Energetics Technologies generator.
The energy may be introduced as a Brillouin Q-wave or an Energetics Superwave, or perhaps, as a Letts laser-light. Simply heating the cell can add enough energy too.

Whatever the source, the added energy makes the hydrogen dance back and forth in step with the frequency of the applied pulse.

When the energy applied is at the resonant frequency of the hydrogen/NAE combination, then the nuclear mechanism initiates. The resonant frequency is determined by the size, shape and mass of the H-stack. But like Ella Fitzgerald singing just the right note to make the glass shatter, the resonant frequency applied to the crack and its contents will increase the response exponentially.

But what is the nuclear mechanism that ensues? Storms leaves the nature of that open at this time, though he considers the idea of some special type of matter forming, like a Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC, a Lochon, hydrinos, or Rydberg matter.

Whatever mechanism occurs in the third step to set-off the mass-to-energy conversion, he believes it is initiated by resonance. Further, as the resonance process turns mass into energy following Einstein’s E=MC2 equivalence, the energy dissipates not explosively, but by a emitting series of photons, light-energy, that over a period of time, both disperse in the atomic lattice and are focused and emitted along the axis of the crack.

Hydrogen isotopes
Hydrogen has one positively-charged proton at the center. Deuterium has an extra neutron, tritium has two extra neutrons at the center. All have a negatively-charged electron orbiting the nucleus to make an atom.
The energies of the photons will depend on the type of fusion reaction, which is itself dependent upon the ratio of hydrogen H and deuterium D in the NAE.

The electron which shielded the positive-charge of the protons in the stack performs double-duty as it is sucked into the fusion process, and occasionally, emitted back out as a Beta decay during the process in which tritium is formed.

Hydrogen, deuterium or tritium present at the ends of the stack would be available to interact with other elements, producing the observed transmutations.

JET Energy diagram of palladium atomic matrix when filled with hydrogen. The palladium atoms are bonded together through their outer electrons in what's called a lattice.
In this model, energy can accumulate in the NAE through resonance without affecting the atomic bonds of the crystal lattice. It allows the nuclear mechanism to operate in an environment independently of the larger metallic matrix. There is no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Storms’ model gives testable claims along with a proposal on how to create the NAE and he’ll be working with colleagues in the coming months to test this hypothesis. Only experimental confirmation of a model will determine its usefulness in engineering energy-producing cells.

If Edmund Storms is right, and creating cold fusion is a matter of resonance, then the possibility exists that the transition metals need not be the only host to the reaction; any material could create cold fusion. All we need do is create the little space, add hydrogen, and apply the proper frequency, and there is clean, dense, portable, and next-generation energy technology that leaps above the hard-won trial-and-error achievements thus far, and the energy revolution we seek will be delivered.

Cold Fusion Now!

For more from Edmund Storms, go here.

Posted on

JET Energy NANOR device at MIT continuing to operate months later

Big thanks to E-Cat World [visit] for posting this video by musician Barry Simon of the JET Energy NANOR device running since January 2012. The video has Professor Peter Hagelstein explaining the lattice-assisted nuclear reaction LANR/cold fusion energy device.

The revolutionary energy producing device was first turned on earlier this year in January for a short course on the science Cold Fusion 101 co-taught by Peter Hagelstein of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Electrical Engineering and Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy, who built the NANOR cell.

There is a beautiful soundtrack, too!

Related Links

Demonstration of Excess Heat from the JET Energy NANOR at MIT by Peter Hagelstein MIT and Mitchell Swartz JET Energy download .pdf

Successful Cold Fusion/LANR Demonstration at MIT – again by Ruby Carat February 1, 2012

Top