Q&A with Jack Cole on new Hot Cat replication, experiment completion

A new replication attempt of the Andrea Rossi E-Cat technology has been announced by Jack Cole on http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/01/13/hot-cat-replication-attempt/.

The Universal LENR Reactor was designed by Dale Basgall and Jack Cole and they have been posting updates since September 2012.

Nikita Alexandrov, President, Permanetix Corporation has contacted the lab and generated these details about the experiment.

 
Photo: Reaction chamber in operation. Note that the true light color was orange. Courtesy Jack Cole.
 

Q&A with Jack Cole and Nikita Alexandrov

Q A replication of the Rossi type Ni-H LENR system was posted to your website. Were you the one who performed this experiment or was it someone else?

A Yes, I was the one who performed the experiment.

Q Can you go into detail regarding the nickel powder ie: grain size, composition, purity, source, batch number, etc?

A INCO Type 255 Nickel Powder (2.2 to 2.8 um particle size). Purchased on Ebay. I also use Fe2O3 added to the nickel.

Q Can you explain which type thermocouple/DAQ system you were using?

A I’m using a type K thermocouple of the type frequently used in kilns. I use a USB thermocouple adapter that has it’s own software (http://www.pcsensor.com/index.php?_a=product&product_id=49). The power data is acquired directly from the programmable DC power supply using a Visual Basic .NET program that I wrote. The VB program samples and adjusts power levels every 5 seconds to compensate for changing resistance to maintain a constant power output.

Q Can you explain which sources you ordered your alumina materials from?

A I purchased a 12″ alumina tube from Amazon and cut it into 3″ sections. It is 3/8″ OD and 1/4″ ID. The experiment was conducted with a 3″ tube.

Q Can you explain the geometry of your reactor and heating coils as well as method of sealing?

A The heating element is simply coiled Kanthal. The seal is not hermetic (it leaks hydrogen). I tested with a dangerous gas detector and it was leaking up to the last power step. After that point, I detected no more hydrogen. It was either sealed at that point or no more hydrogen was being produced. Based on the description of how Rossi sealed his reactor in the Lugano report, I find it unlikely his seal was hermetic (unless he found a very clever method of sealing the tube).

Q Can you explain which hydrogen carrier you used? In the report it was implied it was not LiAlH4, was it magnesium based – if you do not want to go into detail can you just confirm it was not a gas or which elements were present?

A I used lithium hydroxide and aluminum powder. The advantage with this method is that it does not start producing significant amounts of hydrogen until the LiOH melts at 480C. Earlier experiments were performed with KOH and aluminum powder. It starts producing hydrogen after 100C (presumably when the water absorbed in the KOH is liberated as steam). I haven’t seen any research discussing these facts as most research looks at combining water with these elements at room temperature to produce hydrogen. I don’t add any water (not really needed since these compounds absorb water from the air). The hydrogen production can be quite vigorous as I found out in an earlier copper tube experiment where the end cap was shot across the room into the basement wall.

Q Can you tell me if you made a blank, sealed reactor for the calibration?

A The calibration (control run) was performed with the same cell with one end sealed. The lack of seal on one end is a potential limitation. What bolsters the results is that the apparent excess heat has been decreasing (makes it less likely that the lack of seal on one end gave a bad calibration). Additionally, the Delta T at the first two power steps was almost identical between the control and experimental run. Hydrogen production started at the third power step.

Q Can you tell me how many trials you performed with this system before you saw xP?

A I performed many experiments with different types of tubes before this (brass, copper, and stainless steel). The trouble with all those is the melting temperatures and difficulty sealing. Copper is easy to seal, but you have to keep it below 150C to keep the solder from melting. You can get hydrogen with KOH and aluminum at that level (which produces chemical heat). I had promising results with alumina on my first run (but I used it as it’s own calibration comparing the lower temperature curve to the higher temperature curve–certainly not ideal). Part of the difficulty has been finding the right heating element diameter to match with my DC supply to be able to produced the needed heating levels. I have done probably 15 experiments with alumina tubes, but I had the best configuration for making measurements on the last one that I reported on.

Q Would you be interested in having a sample of your spent nickel material analyzed for elemental transmutations?

A I’ll keep it after I’m done with it in case this could be done in the future. Right now, I need to work on calorimetry to verify this in a more rigorous way.

Q Would you feel comfortable having me post your answers publicly, online and not just to the private mailing list?

A You can use it in whatever way you like. Keep in mind that I am not yet convinced by these results and there is more work to be done. I might yet discover that there is a simple conventional explanation that is not LENR. The results have to convince me, and I’m not to that point yet.

Q Thanks so much, this will really help educate the general community.

Live Open Science Project Dog Bone tests E-cat model online

The World Wide Web now traffics a new model of scientific collaboration as a group of young researchers tested a revolutionary energy technology live online today.

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project at quantumheat.org formed in 2012 at ICCF-17 in Daejon, Korea, to find a reproducible cold fusion experiment, a task that no leading science institution had the sense or courage to try. The collective has tested replications of energy cells designed by Francesco Celani, Tadahiko Mizuno, as well as designs of their own.

Mathieu Valat (L) of MFMP and Francesco Piantelli (R) of Nichenergy discuss partnership.
Mathieu Valat (L) of MFMP and Francesco Piantelli (R) of Nichenergy discuss partnership.
They are now focused on working with Francesco Piantelli, one of the first to explore excess energy from nickel-light-hydrogen systems, and, the “dog bone” model E-Cat, so named for the reactor’s appearance in the test report Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel [.pdf]

Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat was repeatedly demonstrated producing excess heat. Now owned by Industrial Heat, the technology appears to have been reproduced by well-respected Russian scientist Alexander Parkhomov [.pdf]. MFMP began to organize Project Dog Bone in October, and the group is now working with Parkhomov to reproduce his set-up. Today, a calibration test took place live on Youtube and Google hangouts, the online venues all the participation Silicon Valley can muster for this field.

Where are visioneers?

Bill Gates (far left) listens to Dr. Vittorio Violante at ENEA.
Bill Gates (far right) listens to Dr. Vittorio Violante at ENEA.
Bill Gates‘ visit to ENEA labs, one of the leading institutions in the world on LENR materials science, was investigatory. How much he was told, we do not know. No further information was forthcoming from ENEA.

Nevertheless, the creators of this reality are keeping tabs on the field, but have not made funding available. Why would Bill Gates, who seeks solutions to energy problems, not see the solution cold fusion offers?

Why haven’t the daring entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley jumped on what Gerald Celente calls “the greatest investment opportunity of the 21st century”: an ultra-clean energy source that could power their technological fantasies for millenia?

David Niebauer, a lawyer who represents technology firms in California says Silicon Valley is not ignoring the field, but taking a “wait and see” attitude.

“VCs do not invest in research; they are looking for commercialization and sound go-to market strategies,” he says. “Until LENR has a viable commercial product, they will remain on the sidelines. I know a number of VCs and Silicon Valley tech companies that are watching the field with interest. Some small investments are also trickling in in the form of angel investments from individuals inside these institutions.”

brillouinppttechnical3-27-12-120815120338-phpapp0216Robert Godes, President and Chief Technology Officer of Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC), a commercially-minded company based in Berkeley, California developing their own Brillouin Hot Tube reactor has met with difficulty convincing Silicon Valley capital to migrate across the bay. When asked if the Digerati were stepping up to fund new work, the answer was a flat, “No! – but we’re doing OK.”

Brillouin captured around $2 million in funding over the last couple years, money spent on hiring engineers and lab staff, and funding a collaboration with SRI International in Menlo Park, California to test their technology. They’re getting a lot of science on the way to a product.

“We have gotten results back on 3 of 5 electrolyte samples we sent out for analysis”, says Godes, “and I am hoping to get the last two soon. We can reliably produce Tritium which is a step in the process. At the same time we are also using T so that it does not build up in the system to the point where it becomes a concern for users of the technology.”

Says Godes, “We need to sell less of the company to obtain the capital required. We are close to completion of a new manufacturing process that will allow us replicate the demonstration we ran for Mike McKubre [the director of the Energy Research Lab at SRI]. That will provide another big boost to the valuation of BEC.”

A little support could make a big impact

Companies like Industrial Heat and Brillouin Energy Corporation (and there are more) represent the small independent start-ups in the new energy field, and a handful of staff is all most of these companies have. Even ENEA, the institute Bill Gates visited in Italy, is a company with perhaps less than 500 employees. How would an investment from the Gates Foundation effect their research?

Terra Power wants next generation nuclear technology.
Gates and Khosla both support Terra Power for next-generation nuclear technology.
“We do know that Gates often invests along side his friend Vinod Khosla, one of the wealthiest and most successful VCs in the world”, says Niebauer. “Khosla is famous for his “Black Swan” theory of investing and if ever there was a “Black Swan” it is LENR.”

“If Gates and Khosla took an interest and investment position in the field, it would be huge. What we need is more investment to speed up and expand the research being conducted on a shoestring by a handful of private companies. Also, not to be underestimated is the simple acceptance [of LENR] as a valid field of research. More physics and engineering students need to be encouraged to study the field – a Gates/Khosla bet would spur research and development on many levels.”

Still, some researchers in the field say too much is still unknown to engineer a product and money is better spent on an all-out science lab where experiments would reveal nature of the reaction. Former Los Alamos National Lab nuclear chemist and author of The Explanation of LENR Edmund Storms would like to see funding for lab that would have tens of experiments going at once to “breakdown each parameter space.”

“Theory guides the optimal engineering of LENR,” says Storms.

Figure emerges from ground

Cold Fusion is the Mystery Landscape that Bob Dobbs described in his model of cultural evolution. A usable technology is not yet publicly available, but the ground is forming to support it, and MFMP Live Open Science is a vital component.

While the bulk of Silicon Valley intelligence, creativity, and capital is focused on developing the next phone app, the new pioneers of technology are utilizing the network for a collaboration of global scale, and doing it on fly specks. The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is making our clean energy future a reality, and inviting you to participate.

Follow the action:

First calibration test presented live on Youtube is available for viewing.

Data was available in near-real-time here: http://data.hugnetlab.com/

Donate to Live Open Source Science with MFMP

Says Michael McKubre, “It would not take much to turn the LENR/CMNS field from resource-limited to talent-limited. I am looking forward to a very exciting 2015.”

 

 

 
**********************
Related Links

Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project

Russian scientist replicates Hot Cat test: “produces more energy than it consumes”

Andrea Rossi on 3rd-Party Report, Industrial Heat, & 1MW Plant — New Interview with John Maguire

David Niebauer

Brillouin Energy Corporation

The Explanation of LENR

David J. Nagel on CASHFLOW describes a reasoned approach to funding

David J. Nagel Scientific and Commercial Overview of LENR [.pdf] published in Infinite Energy #112 (2013)

Francesco Celani continues Live Open Science with Open Power Association

The following is a google-translated and slightly modified Press Release from Open Power Association at hydrobetatron.org. The original in Italian is here.

*************************************
We are honored to be able to announce that Prof. Francesco Celani officially will collaborate with Open Power!

10-Francesco-Celani-IMG_0729Francesco Celani, besides being always our friend as well as an esteemed scientist, is an honorary member of “Open Power” from the foundation of the Association itself.

On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Francesco Celani visited our new laboratory in Rome where he met with Ugo Abundo, our President and Scientific Director of the Open Power Association, for a scientific debate on issues of common interest. On this occasion, the relationship of scientific collaboration that will occur between us and Francesco Celani was made official.

Interviewed by Luciano Saporito, his words filled us with pride about our commitment in the field of new energy. Francesco Celani claimed that “the Open Power laboratory is well structured and the enthusiasm of the researchers involved is strong. The research ranges in different, complementary directions, is carried out in specific work islands; procedures are scientifically confirmable, and the equipment well-built and well-engineered; the fields of investigation are integrated and promising, and the proposed solutions innovative and desirable to make optimal maximum effort in running the designed projects.”

Francesco Celani also explained, in some detail, to Ugo Abundo the NEW discovery (June 25 2014) an electrical phenomenon, apparently not due to known phenomena, due to the interaction of Hydrogen gas with long (100cm ) fine wire (diameter 100 microns and 200-meter) of Constantan (alloy Cu_55%, Ni_44%, Mn_1% with traces of iron from 0 to 0.5%) having the surface covered by the same Constantan with reduced dimensionality (measured between 50 and 5000 nm with SEM) as a methodology developed by the LNF even with help, at various levels of external colleagues.


The whole is measured, at a macroscopic level, when such INDIVIDUAL wires, electrically isolated from each other, with sheaths made of borosilicate glass, placed inside a reactor also having the hydrogen gas, have an internal temperature of about 150° C and external next environment.

In other words, it is as if you were in the presence of a new form / method (apart from the well-known Seebeck effect and / or Thompson) DIRECT CONVERSION from Heat to Electricity. From the point of view of scientific speculation, the role of Hydrogen understood as mono-atomic and / or even proton is a truly challenging idea. Obviously we’re just starting, though recent (December 15, 15:00) results show that the ignition temperature is not 150° C but only (about) 55° C. Some suggestions on the issue of “abnormal current” were provided to Francesco Celani also by some researchers, collaborators Open Power.

Francesco Celani is Senior Researcher of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Frascati (INFN), and Vice President of the International Society of Nuclear Science and Condensed Matter (ISCMNS). Francesco Celani came to the study of “Cold Fusion”, now called LENR, out of “suspicion”, as he himself tells us. Indeed, he has always operated by the “methodological skepticism” of Descartes, always inspired by the desire for “truth”. As Franklin Eugene Mallove denounced the falsifying of data in a report on “Cold Fusion” experiments by the MIT (due to the interests of the establishment and related to funds for research on nuclear fission which they already enjoyed), Francesco Celani has courageously instigated the diffusion of two internal documents he himself accidentally discovered on two NASA research efforts on “Cold Fusion”, (that of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons), which validated results from years ago.

Francesco Celani in his decades-long work as an Experimental Physicist, was always animated by a spirit truly Scientific, (also a worthy interpreter of the tradition of the experimental method of Galileo Galilei). He is also a proponent of a vision given to the needs of humanity in general, and to the Italian people in particular, that is, as far as possible, having real evidence in the daily life of the” Citizens Whatever, and now open source, the science itself.

His previous participation in the methodology of Live Open Science (LOS), founded by the working group “Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project” in 2012, continues, and is further strengthened. Both collaborations, with MFMP and Open Power, share the same goals in the same fields of human knowledge: one at International level and the other National.

francescocelanienergy.org
hydrobetatron.org
contatti@hydrobetatron.org

********************* END

Related Links

Live Open Science Methodology .[pdf] presented by Francesco Celani (in Italian)

Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project

GlobalBEM PULSE #3: “We ourselves are the biggest obstacle to breakthrough”

PULSE-3-coverThe Global Breakthrough Energy Movement is a collective of artists, activists, and technologists creating events and forums for new energy researchers in order to power a revolution in human living arrangements, and they have published another edition of their flagship magazine.

PULSE presents science and technology in the field of breakthrough energy. The gorgeous PULSE #3 is a sensory banquet of full-page, beautifully-printed art, and has articles on topics such as The Agonizingly Long Wait for Breakthrough of Breakthrough Energy by Fred Teunisson, who laments the lack of progress in commercial development of new energy technology, and ultimately takes a hard look in the mirror for why.

This issue also features an article on The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction by Dr. Edmund Storms, a book that compares the observational data from cold fusion experiments with the many theories of LENR. Cold Fusion Now’s Ruby Carat was one of the editors of the book and designed the front cover hydroton.

Subscribe to PULSE and support the work of GlobalBEM.

Read articles in PULSE #3 like:

Two possible propellantless or reactionless (space) drives … or not? … page 6

The agonizingly long wait for the breakthrough of Breakthrough Energy … page 12

Scientific proof of a potential alternative energy source dating back 2,5000 years … page 15

Truth and reality in the 21st century – or why GlobalBEM should create her own reality … page 10

Thunderclap Campaign – Energy Revolution! … page 21

An interview with New Earth Nation founder Sacha Stone … page 24

The Secret Space Programme 2014 … page 34
Secret Space Program and Breakaway Civilization Conference 2014 Review … page 36
Secret Space Program Conference and Laura Eisenhower … page 38

New book in German discusses zero-point energy.
New book in German discusses zero-point energy.
Free energy for all humans … page 40

Hemp, the controversial plant – hemp, the graphene contender … page 42

See a free peek inside PULSE #3 online!

Or, help to make forums and conferences for breakthrough energy science and technology researchers.

Subscribe to PULSE!

It just might be that the discovery of vacuum energy as a limitless energy source, is to be synchronized with a spiritual renaissance for all of humanity
Moray B. King from PULSE #3

Andrea Rossi on 3rd-Party Report, Industrial Heat, & 1MW Plant — New Interview

Intro: You are listening to the Q-Niverse podcast. Let me just say, before we get started, that today’s episode is being brought to you in part by ColdFusionNow.org who helped facilitate the dialogue you are about to listen to. Today I have with me Andrea Rossi. Mr. Rossi is an inventor and entrepreneur who, for many years, has worked to develop the Energy Catalyzer, also known as the E-Cat – a reactor fueled by nickel and hydrogen that allegedly harnesses “cold fusion”, or low-energy nuclear reactions, on an industrial scale. Mr. Rossi has been working on this technology for well over a decade and has recently partnered with a highly-credible commercial investor to take the technology to the “next level”. A recent third-party analysis of the E-Cat, carried out by a coalition of European professors and engineers over the course of the past year, reports that the technology is in fact producing energy well in excess of any known chemical reaction. Andrea Rossi, thank you for being with me today.

Andrea Rossi: Thank you.

John Maguire: Starting off, can you explain your thoughts and feelings over the past year waiting for the new analysis of the E-Cat? Has this been a tense time for you, or have you been too busy refining the reactor to worry much about it?

Rossi: Basically I am focused on my work which is Research and Development, and direction of the manufacturing of the E-Cat and plant. This has been, as always, a period just of work. For what concerns the report – it is for sure an important report. [It] has been made by a third, independent party. The results are interesting, [and] very problematic, and we are studying these results.

JM: Now, were you worried at all that [analysis/report] might come up with negative results? Did you have any indication over the course of the year? Or were you pretty much in the dark like everyone else?

Rossi: This report is in the hands of the professors that made it.

JM: Sure…fair enough. What do you think the ultimate impact of the report will be? Can it possibly persuade the larger scientific community or other major industrial players beside ELFORSK to get interested in LENR generally speaking, in your opinion?

Rossi: This is difficult to say…this is difficult to say. Honestly, I do not know. But our target is not to convince anybody. Our target is to make a plant that works properly. Now we have finished [with all the tests] and we are focusing exclusively on the market and on the production that we have to set up. This report is no doubt very interesting and we are studying it because, as you probably know, there is a surprising result regarding the Nickel-62 in particular, and we are studying it because we are strongly directed, under a theoretical point of view, to understand these kinds of results that was unexpected. But our main focus remains the operation of industrial plant.

JM: Now you mentioned theory there real quick, so maybe we can talk about that really quick. Do you think that the reaction can be explained within the Standard Model or do you think we’re gonna have to go well beyond that to account for what’s going on, because as you noted there were some strange changes in the powder – which we don’t really have time to get into too much – but can you put it in a theoretical context, or do you any ideas theory wise that you’re able to share?

Rossi: No, we are starting on it. It will take time because the reconciliation is not an easy task. And we are studying with specialists.

JM: You’re working with a team to develop the theory, is that the idea?

Rossi: Yes.

JM: Now getting back to the report. In regards to excess heat, the measured coefficient-of-performance, or COP, came out to be around 3.2-3.6 over a very prolonged period of time. Some experts argue the calorimetry was suitable, while others remain unsatisfied for various reasons. So first, what did you make of the review group’s methodology and excess heat measurements?

Rossi: Well the calculations have been made by the professors. I know that some of them are very well [experienced with] that kind of measurement. They have also [made a core] with manufacturer of thermal chambers. I suppose they know what they did. I want not to enter into this question because I just accept the results [I have been given]. I have nothing to comment about that. About the various opinions [out there] we do not consider them real [objections] because what’s of interest to us, again, is that the plant we have in operation works properly. Honestly we have no more time to lose in this discussion. [Concerning] the COP – you have seen in the report the COP has been calculated in a very conservative way. Every number has been calculated [within] the most conservative margin. Actually, I think [the COP] could be maybe increased but again, this is not a theoretical issue, this is a technological issue that can be seen only at a fixed point in an industrial, operational plant — no more theoretical suppositions.

JM: The new version of the E-Cat that was tested this time had an alumina casing on it. Now this as far as my understanding goes acted as an insulator…

Rossi: It has been described in the report. I don’t want to say anything about that. The report has been very well described [elsewhere] – the casing of the reactor.

JM: You brought up the 1MW plant – how is progress going on that? And to be more specific how is the new design superior to the old version, and how long do you think it will take to get to market or, at the very least, be demonstrated publically for people?

Rossi: Well, yes, the new 1MW plant has gotten a strong evolution with [regard] to the older one — mainly under the reliability point of view; under the industrial point of view. The control system is enormously more sophisticated. Basically the plant is governed by a robot. Nevertheless it will take at least one year of operation in the factory of the customer of Industrial Heat, to whom the plant has been supplied…it will take at least one year before they complete the analysis [and] all possible errors have been adjusted. After this year with the permission of the customer, because industry is not a showroom or a theatre, so we cannot just open access to the public and say, “Alright guys, come and see!” It will not be that simple, but selected visits for a person who has title to that will be open – [but] not before we consider the plant absolutely [finished] under an industrial point of view. I suppose it will take about one year…about one year from now I suppose. But when you are in this field you cannot be sure about the scheduling because you can be sure of one thing now today, and tomorrow discover you were wrong and have to change something. This is the first time – and this is important to underline – this is the first time we had the possibility to see in operation 24-hours-a-day continuously the plant because before we could only operate on it for a couple of days or three before [we encountered] a lot of problems. The [past manufacturing facilities that we installed the old 1MW plant were not in full operations]. There was not a load to supply all the energy to. So now in the real industrial operation/situation we can see all the problems that are generated from this real operation.

JM: Now you say you’ve seen it running longer than a few days can you give some idea of how long one has been running, or how long one has been tested for? Are we talking weeks?

Rossi: You know in our factory the one megawatt plant that had been presented in October 2012 — it worked at that time.  Then, we could work with it for some [amount of time], but you cannot put in exercise for long a plant like that if you don’t have a real load and if you do not have a real operation going on.

JM: Can you give us an idea of how many people are working to develop the E-Cat? Obviously you have your hands on it in some capacity, but is this a rather large team or just a small group of engineers?

Rossi: We are working with a complex team where there are specialists for any issue.

JM: Can you give an idea of how many scientists are working on [the project]?

Rossi: I prefer to not answer in detail, but what I can say is that for any single matter, we have a specialist to take care of [that].

JMGetting a bit more personal, I’m sure people are wondering what exactly has driven you all these years, and what do you hope to ultimately achieve by bringing this technology to the world? How do you hope to be remembered?

Rossi: The first stone has been put in the building so, you know, the first industrial plant, not working in an experimental warehouse, but working in the factory of a customer to produce a profit is already in operation. So this process of industrialization has begun already.

JM: What do you hope to accomplish personally?  What drives you to keep pushing this forward?

Rossi:  Well, you know, I just go one step at a time. My biggest aspiration now is to make the 1 MW plant perfect, absolutely and totally reliable, with all the defects corrected.  This is my aspiration now. After this, I do not know.

JM: Briefly, can you speak on your past work with the now-deceased Professor Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna. I think he might be one of the unsung heroes after the story is told, along with many others of course, but he was one of the pioneers in the nickel-hydrogen work, along with [Francesco] Piantelli and others, most notably Italians. How significant in your opinion were his contributions to the genesis of the E-Cat, your work, and just your general thoughts on him?

Rossi: Focardi has been a strong collaborator with me, mainly in the period between 2007 and 2010. I have been lucky to be helped by him with his strong theoretical preparation.  For sure, he has contributed to the development of this work, and we absolutely have to be grateful forever for his precious contribution and he is always present in our memory.

JM: I know he was in a special situation in one sense because he was retired, and though his career wasn’t behind him, he could come out and support controversial work that he might not have been able to do while he was still a teaching professor, and that’s the kind of pressure many academics face in dealing with these new technologies or this new science.  And so, we need people like Sergio Focardi, we need people like Hano Essen, like Sven Kullander, who are willing to stick their necks out for new science to discover something new. Without pioneers, without people taking these kind of risks, both economic on your end, and sociologically, say in the scientific community, on the professors’ end. So I wish people were more open-minded [and] would follow their example. I think a lot of the barriers to people understanding this new technology, this new science, is again the academic pushback, so I am always encouraged by these men of integrity, whether they are sure or unsure of what’s going on, they say, “let’s look”, “let’s investigate”.  That’s why I’m always in inspired by those kinds of people, and that’s why I brought him up.

Rossi:  Yes, I agree with you.

JM: I know you don’t have a lot of time today. We appreciate all the time you afforded to us. I know there are things you can talk about, and things you cannot talk about. So before we go our separate ways, do you have any parting thoughts? Any words of wisdom or anything you think is appropriate?

Rossi: What I can say is that, at this point, we have to focus on the industrial plant in operation, because at this point in the story we are in a situation similar to the one at the dawn of the computers.  At the very beginning it was important to have the theoretical discussion on microchips, etcetera, but at a certain point, the development, and the importance of the computer, has been determined by the market, not by the scientific community.

JM: Absolutely. Thank you for taking the time out of your very busy schedule to speak to us.

Rossi: Thank you very much.  It has been a pleasure and an honor to be with you today.

Conclusion: That does it for today’s episode. Thanks again to Andrea Rossi, Ruby Carat at Cold Fusion Now.org, and thanks to you for listening. Take care, and stay tuned for more episodes in the near future.

* More of Interviews/Essays on Cold Fusion/LENR & other topics can be found at Q-Niverse.

 

Status Report – Rossi Pending US Patent Application

Photo: New model E-Cat in operation from the report Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel [.pdf]

Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel [.pdf]

This is an update on the status of the above patent application. A previous comment on that US filing was made on ColdFusionNow – here.

This filing in the United States is descended from an original filing made in Italy on April 9, 2008. That Italian filing served as a priority filing for a PCT application, PCT/IT2008/000532, filed August 4, 2008, claiming the benefit of the earlier Italian filing date. (The original Italian filing resulted in the issuance of an Italian patent just before the Italian patent law was changed from a non-examination system to an examination system).

Following the procedures of the Patent Cooperation Treaty – PCT, the International PCT application was delivered to the US as a national entry filing on September 16, 2010. This application was duly published as serial number 12/736,193 and was placed in the queue for examination. As reported in the earlier ColdFusionNow article, a US Examiner’s Office Action issued on March 26, 2014. As is typical, this Office Action was an initial rejection, giving the applicant, 3 to 6 months to file a Response overcoming the Examiner’s objections. Such a Response, dated September 25, 2014, was filed on September 29, 2014. This posting reports on that Response.

Before addressing the Response in detail, the covering letter expresses thanks to the Examiner for the opportunity for Dr. Andrea Rossi and the attorney to have had a personal interview with the Examiner on April 22, 2014. Apparently no decisions were reached between the parties at that interview.

The Examiner’s Office Action of March 26, 2014 included a number of rejections:

Invention Inoperable

The Examiner asserted that “there is no evidence in the corpus of nuclear science to substantiate the claim that nickel will spontaneously ionize hydrogen gas and thereafter ‘absorb’ the resulting proton”. He went on to say that the nuclear conversion of nickel 58 into copper 59, while known, has only been observed experimentally “in the context of an accelerated (proton) beam into a nickel target. The element of acceleration is necessary in this matter as the only way for the proton to overcome the basic Coulomb repulsion between the proton and nickel nuclei.” The Examiner also observed that if the reaction were possible, as claimed by Rossi, it would also occur spontaneously in nature.

The Examiner also made a perfunctory further objection that, since the invention was inoperable, the disclosure that was provided was necessarily insufficient to enable workmen after the patent expired to reproduce the invention. The Examiner then requested evidence that the invention actually worked.

In the response by Rossi’s attorneys no evidence of operability was filed. Instead, the attorneys asserted that the Examiner had failed to establish a basis that would justify a request for evidence of operability. Citing In re Mitchell R Swartz, a year 2000 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the attorneys submitted that the Examiner had failed to follow the Guidelines for Examination of Applications for Compliance with the Utility Requirement provided by the US Patent Office in its Manual of Practice and Examination Procedure. In particular, the attorneys asserted that the Examiner, in alleging that the utility described in the patent disclosure was not credible, had failed to:

a) provide support for factual findings relied upon by the Examiner in reaching this conclusion, and
b) provide an evaluation of all relevant evidence of record, including utilities taught in the closest prior art sufficient to support the basis for requiring proof of operability.

The attorneys referred to the description of the procedures provided in the patent disclosure for producing the described reaction, saying that no basis had been established for departing from the normal presumption that such descriptions are true and that the Examiner had not pointed out any deficiencies in that description.

Comment: Challenging the right of the Examiner to provide evidence of utility is an alternative to actually providing such evidence. Such a challenge provides grounds for objecting on appeal to the requirement by the Examiner that such evidence be filed. If the Board on appeal agrees that the Examiner’s requirement was legitimate and no evidence was filed, then the application will be rejected. If the Board concludes that the Examiner’s objection was unsupported, it’s unclear whether the application will be returned to examination with instructions for the Examiner to provide a better justification for such a requirement; or whether the application will be allowed to go forward on the basis that such evidence need not be filed, assuming that all other legitimate objections are overcome.

Citation of Prior Art

The Examiner had also issued a rejection based on the assertion that the invention as claimed by Rossi was “obvious” in view of the earlier technology described in a journal article authored by one Butler and others: Butler et al., “Radiative proton capture by Ni-58, and Co-59,” Phy. Rev. v.108 No. 6 pp. 1473-1495 [1957].

Butler describes a process for accelerating protons into a silver-plated nickel target. The attorneys for Rossi pointed out that Claims 1 and 7 as now pending (the only 2 independent claims) stipulated that nanometric nickel powder is exposed in a metal tube to hydrogen gas at high temperature and pressure. This, it was said, was sufficiently different from Butler that the rejection of Claims 1 and 7 on the basis of “obviousness” was not justified.

Claims 1 and 7 as amended and now pending read as follows:

1. A method for carrying out an exothermal reaction of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in that said method comprises the steps of providing a metal tube, introducing into said metal tube a nanometric particle nickel powder and injecting into said metal tube hydrogen gas having a temperature much greater than 150°C and a pressure much greater than 2 bars.

7. A modular apparatus for providing an exothermic reaction by carrying out the method according to claim 1, characterized in that said apparatus comprises a metal tube (2), including an nanometric particle nickel powder (3) and a hydrogen gas at high temperature and pressure.

Comment: If these two claims were valid the dependent claims otherwise present in the patent filing would be irrelevant. Further, apart from the objections of inoperability and obviousness both of these claims are indefinite. Claim 1 refers to: “hydrogen gas having a temperature much greater than 150°C and a pressure much greater than 2 bars”. The words “much greater than” make the claim indefinite. Similarly in Claim 7, the reference to “hydrogen gas at high temperature and pressure” is indefinite. This could easily be corrected in another Response, and the attorneys for Rossi are probably quite aware of this indefiniteness deficiency.

Additionally, both of these independent claims stipulate for the presence of a “metal tube”. In the absence of such a component, a competing construction would not infringe these claims. For example, if a ceramic tube were employed, it would not fall under the language of the claim. Neither would a metallic containment chamber if, for example, a cubic chamber were employed. These distinctions might be described as “loopholes”.

Loopholes cannot be closed by any of the dependent claims. Every dependent claim adopts the limitations of the independent claim to which the dependent claim refers back.

Unusually, the Response terminates by observing that the applicant has filed a petition to suspend prosecution of this application under the provisions of Rule 1.103 of the US Patent Rules. This reference occurs in the Response available at the US Patent Office website, but the documentation in support of this petition is not available over the Internet. This particular Rule provides as follows:

37 C.F.R. 1.103 Suspension of action by the Office.

a) Suspension for cause. On request of the applicant, the Office may grant a suspension of action by the Office under this paragraph for good and sufficient cause. The Office will not suspend action if a reply by applicant to an Office action is outstanding. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must specify a period of suspension not exceeding six months. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must also include:

(1) A showing of good and sufficient cause for suspension of action; and
(2) The fee set forth in § 1.17(g), unless such cause is the fault of the Office.

One can speculate as to reasons that might be provided in support of such a Petition.

Overall Commentary

This Response has the look of a buy-time initiative by the attorneys acting on behalf of Rossi. No attempt has been made to file evidence of operability as requested by the Examiner. If the Examiner simply reiterates his request for such evidence, possibly providing further observations in support, then Rossi will be able to file the evidence in response. If he fails to do so, it is likely that the Examiner will make his rejection of this application final. In such event, Rossi will have the option of filing an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or refiling the application as a “Continuation”. Either initiative will likely suspend disposition of this application for a period of 2 to 4 years.

Although not addressed by the attorneys filing this Response, this application may possibly also be defective for failing to provide a description of how to implement the invention sufficient to “enable” workmen to reproduce the results as claimed. If this were true, it would be fatal to the application, or any patent that might issue thereon in error. It is too late for Rossi to add any subsequently acquired information to this filing. Any further filings will be subject to any novelty limitations that have arisen since 2008.

Top