Publication of a further, 3rd, International Patent Application by Francisco Piantelli – Part II

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.

This is the second of a two-part outline of a recently published patent application originating from Francesco Piantelli. The first part addressed the content of the disclosure of the application. The second part addresses the scope of patent coverage apparently being sought.

Key patent coverage of the third PCT application claims

Every patent has to end with one or more “Claims” which stipulate the scope of control that the patent applicant aspires to achieve. These claims, appearing at the end of every patent document take the form of numbered sentences. Actually, each numbered passage is a phrase which completes a preamble such as: “I claim” or simply “Claims”. The first of the numbered claims always stands alone. Other claims may refer-back to an earlier claim and adopt the features and limitations included in the earlier claim. Accordingly, such dependent claims are “narrower” in scope than the earlier claims to which they refer. This makes the first claim more important.

An initial impression of the scope of coverage of a patent can be obtained by examining simply Claim 1 . In this case, Claim 1 reads as follows:

1. A method to obtain energy by nuclear reactions between hydrogen (31) and a transition metal (19 18 that go), said method including the steps of:

prearranging (1 10) a primary material (19) comprising a predetermined amount of cluster nanostructures (21) having a number of atoms (38) of said transition metal (19) lower than a predetermined number of atoms;

keeping said hydrogen (31) in contact with said clusters (21);

heating (130) said primary material (19) at an initial process temperature (T-i) higher than a predetermined critical temperature;

dissociation of H2 molecules of said hydrogen (31) and formation of H- ions (35) as a consequence of said step of heating;

impulsively acting (140) on said primary material (19);

orbital capture (150) of said H- ions (35) by said cluster nanostructures (21) as a consequence of said step (140) of impulsively acting;

capture (151) of said H- ions (35) by said atoms (38) of said clusters (21 ), generating a thermal power as a primary reaction heat (Qi);

removing (160) said thermal power, maintaining the temperature of the primary material (19) above said critical temperature,

characterised in that

it provides a step (1 15) of prearranging an amount of a secondary material (28) that faces said primary material (19) and within a predetermined maximum distance (L) from said primary material (19),

said secondary material (28) arranged to interact with protons (35″‘) emitted from said primary material (19) by energy-releasing proton-dependent nuclear reactions that occur with a release of further thermal power in the form of a secondary reaction heat (Q2),

such that said step of removing (160) comprises said generated thermal power as said primary reaction heat (Qi) and said secondary reaction heat (Q2).

[End of claim 1

The numbers shown in parentheses in the above claim are those used in the written description to explain the parts shown in the drawings. Further details of the invention are specified in the subsequent claims, most of which are in dependent form. These are all worth reading.

Claim 1 is written in a European style by which it is assumed that, generally, the description preceding the words “characterized in that” covers things or arrangement which were previously known. The claim as a whole must not describe anything that was previously known in order to meet the novelty requirement. This suggests that the very last paragraph following “characterized in that” provides the claim with its required degree of novelty. It would do so by ensuring that the overall wording of the entire claim does not describe anything that was previously available to the public. Effectively, this patent application is directed to the feature of producing energy by the secondary reaction.

Claim 1 is not in the final form that the applicant may choose to present to individual patent offices around the world, once the application exits the PCT system as of October 26, 2013. But it represents the thinking of the patent attorney presently managing this filing. Claim 1 may or may not describe a process that works. However, this claim can be analyzed for certain technical defects that may cause problems for the eventual owner of any patent that may issue.

Challenge of enforcing such a claim

In order for this claim to be infringed, the patent owner must demonstrate that other parties are contravening the wording of the claim. This means demonstrating that an alleged infringer is carrying out each and every step of the method listed in Claim 1. Unfortunately, this claim includes a number of limitations that might be very hard to prove. Examples are:

– the clusters must have a number of atoms of a transition metal e.g. nickel, that is lower than a predetermined number of atoms (This predetermined number, according to the disclosure, is established by the requirement that this is a number “above which the crystals lose the cluster features”. Nothing more is said as to the critical number of atoms per cluster. Accordingly, this stipulation may be inadequately defined in the patent and in the claim.)

– causing dissociation of H2 molecules to form H- ions as a consequence of heating (Note: nickel can cause the spontaneous dissociation of H2 molecules to form H- ions without heating) e.g.:

” Hydrogen molecules are also adsorbed on to the surface of the nickel. When this happens, the hydrogen molecules are broken into atoms. These can move around on the surface of the nickel.

Source.

– orbital capture of H- ions by the cluster nanostructures as a consequence of the step of “impulsively acting” on the clusters (“Impulsively acting” as defined in the disclosure means applying a voltage impulsively but not otherwise defined. This may be another instance of inadequate disclosure);

– capture (presumably nuclear) of the H- ions (presumably those that have already been orbitally captured) by the atoms of said clusters to thereby generate a primary reaction heat (How do you prove that this is occurring?)

– providing an amount of a secondary material, e.g. lithium or boron or a variety of alloys, that faces the primary material and is positioned within a predetermined maximum distance (L) (- defined in the disclosure as corresponding to the average free path that such protons can travel before decaying into atomic hydrogen, e.g between 7 and 8 cm) from said primary material,

– the above steps resulting in the secondary material interacting with protons emitted from said primary material by energy-releasing proton-dependent nuclear reactions that occur with a release of further secondary heat (How do you prove that heat is coming from two different sources?)

It should be apparent that proving that all of these events are occurring in an infringer’s accused energy-generation process may be difficult. This is quite apart from whether or not the above claim describes a process that will work.

This claim is equivalent to defining a recipe for baking cookies in terms of what happens in the oven. This is a very undesirable claim format.

Requirement for invention operability and sufficiency of disclosure

It is an essential requirement of any patent that the invention must work. Furthermore, the description accompanying the patent application must be sufficient to enable knowledgeable workmen to reproduce the invention and produce the promised useful result.

Within the confines of this posting, it is not practical to assess whether the disclosure in this application meets all of these requirements. But as an opening exercise, it will be seen that the premise behind this asserted invention is that proton capture followed by proton emission is at the heart of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction – LENR processes according to Francesco Piantelli.

Future processing of the application

This filing does not have to be presented to an Examiner at a national patent office until after exiting the PCT system. This must occur by month 30 or 31 from the original Italian priority filing date, e.g. by April-May 26, 2013. It is highly likely, and virtually certain before the USPTO, that the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the disclosure in this application delivers what it promises, i.e. heat generated through the process characterized by the above claim.

Apart from Claim 1, Claim 8 represents a separate, independent, characterization of the invention in terms of an apparatus that carries out the process of claim 1. That claim should be reviewed as well. Before national patent offices, the applicant will be entitled to amend these claims further, on the condition that the amended claims are still based upon the original “story” included in the disclosure that became frozen at the time that the PCT filing was made, i.e. April 26, 2011. Accordingly, there will be further interesting developments as this application progresses through the patent system in various countries around the world.

Publication of a further, 3rd, International Patent Application by Francisco Piantelli – Part I

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.

This will be a two-part outline of a recently published patent application originating from Francesco Piantelli. The first part will address the content of the disclosure of the application. The second part to follow shortly will address the scope of patent coverage apparently being sought.

The two prior Piantelli PCT applications

A third International Patent Application has been published naming Francisco Piantelli as an inventor. The first occurred in 1995 as International Application PCT/IT95/00008 entitled: Energy Generation and Generator by Means of Anharmonic Stimulated Fusion, filed August 3, 1995. This application was assigned to Francesco Piantelli, Sergio Focardi and Roberto Habel. The application addressed the fusion of hydrogen and deuterium absorbed on a metallic core that has been heated to above the Debye temperature for the core. The reaction in this disclosure is initiated by vibration and maintained by “a coherent multimodal system of stationary oscillations.” The 1995 International Application was eventually abandoned without issuing to a patent.

Notwithstanding the abandonment of this filing, these three individuals, or at least Piantelli and Focardi, should probably be credited with having pioneered research into nickel-hydrogen systems as a source of LENR effects.

A second application appeared in the Patent Cooperation Treaty system – PCT in 2010. This second application was addressed in an earlier posting of ColdFusionNow. The corresponding Canadian national entry filing to this PCT filing is available here.

The present, third, Piantelli PCT application

This present ColdFusionNow posting addresses the third International Application PCT/IB2012/052100 naming Piantelli as the sole inventor and published under the PCT on November 1, 2012 PCT. Key data on this filing obtained from the World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO PCT website is as follows:

International Application No.: PCT/IB2012/052100
Inventor: Francesco PIANTELLI
Assignees: Silvia PIANTELLI, Alessandro MEIARINI, Leonardo CIAMPOLI, and Fabio CHELLINI, all of Italy.
Title: Method and apparatus for generating energy by nuclear reactions of hydrogen adsorbed by orbital capture on a nanocrystalline structure of a metal
PCT filing date: April 26, 2012
Original Italian priority filing date: April 26, 2011
International classification : G21B3 – physics, nuclear physics/nuclear engineering, fusion reactors, low-temperature nuclear fusion reactors, e.g. alleged cold fusion reactors

Summary of the disclosure: Power is generated by contacting hydrogen with the surface of cluster-nanostructures, e.g. crystals, of a transition metal, at a determined process temperature, by which the following process occurs. An orbital capture reaction of negative hydrogen ions, H- ions, is effected by the clusters followed by a nuclear capture reaction by the atoms of the cluster which is triggered by impulsively acting on the primary material to generate heat (Q1). A secondary material such as Lithium and/or Boron and/or a transition metal such as 232Th, 236U, 239U, 239Pu is positioned within a predetermined distance from the clusters of the primary material facing the primary material. This secondary material interacts with energetic protons that are emitted by/from the primary material and release secondary reaction heat (Q2). This secondary heat is in addition to the primary reaction heat. The heat produced is regulated by adjusting the separation of secondary material from the primary material. (This summary is a paraphrasing of the Abstract accompanying the application.)

The drawings as published in association with this application may be found at the PCT website . While the text of the words of the patent disclosure are available through a hyperlink on the top of the primary PCT page through the link labeled “Description”, in order to see the drawings it is necessary to first link to “Documents” and then link to “Initial Publication with ISR” in order to view all of the Figures. It may be necessary to choose the “download” version in order to view the PDF document.

The actual process occurring by which heat is generated is described more fully in the disclosure accompanying the application and referenced as “Description”. It involves:

– on average there must be at least 109 clusters/crystals per square centimeter of surface
– hydrogen, interstitially adsorbed at the grain boundaries and microfractures of the clusters, are of no importance for the purposes of orbital capture of negative hydrogen ions
– in the course of hydrogen capture, the negative hydrogen ions are transformed into protons
– nucleus capture of a proton causes transmutation, e.g. nickel transmutes into copper
– protons which fail to be captured are expelled with an energy of 6.7 million electron volts, verified by cloud chamber experiments
– subsequent atomically re-emitted protons can react with the adjacent secondary material, e.g. lithium, to produce nuclear transformations, e.g. converting lithium into beryllium and/or releasing helium as alpha particles having energies on the order of 4 – 17 million electron volts
– re-emitted protons can also react with boron to produce beryllium, carbon and/or helium, releasing energy on the order of 1-16 million electron volts
– alpha particles may react with boron to produce nitrogen and 19 million electron volts of energy
– alpha particles may react with nickel to be transmuted into the zinc, releasing 3-5 million electron volts of energy
– the secondary nuclear reactions arising from re-emitted protons can generally double the amount of heat being produced over that arising from the initial proton capture
– the amount of energy arising from the secondary nuclear reaction can be varied/controlled by adjusting the separation gap between the primary and secondary materials

This Description is well worth reading.

It is to be appreciated that these are assertions that have been made by the applicants in this application and do not necessarily reflect what is actually able to occur in the host material. If the assertions of utility are untrue or the procedures for generating energy are insufficiently described, then no valid patent can issue from this application.

For example, the setup as described does not appear to be critically dependent on the degree of hydrogen loading in the primary transition metal. The closest reference appears to be: “The primary reactions, both internal and external, globally occur generating a primary reaction heat, which is the heat that can be obtained according to the method described in WO2010058288,” This is a reference to the second PCT application published in 2010. The procedures of that application are adopted by reference, which is permitted. That application addresses the hydrogen loading ratio in the following terms: “Advantageously, the concentration of H- ions with respect to the transition metal atoms of said clusters is larger than 0,01 , to improve the efficiency of the energy production process. In particular, this concentration is larger than 0,08.” Accordingly, neither of these two references teach the use of a metal substrate which has a substantial hydrogen loading ratio, e.g. on the order of 0.7:1 or higher, as an essential condition for an LENR event to occur.

Additionally, there is no discussion of the effect of the conduction band within the transition metal which forms the clusters. There are a number of clear questions of physics to consider when reviewing this disclosure.

This concludes Part I. Part II will address the scope of patent coverage that this application aspires to achieve.

“President Obama and Cold Fusion LENR” Is an October Surprise Immanent, Eminent, and Imminent? Part 2 U.S. Administration

“Address the Nation: LENR Power and Expansion into Space”

This is an adaptation of a speech given by President John F. Kennedy.

The original speech should be listened to before reading the adaptation. President Kennedy’s speech gives insight into the driving forces behind NASA and our continued space programs. That context is needed to understand the adaptation of President Kennedy’s famous speech.

“On the Nation’s Space Effort”, John F. Kennedy 12 September 1962. Address at Rice University in Houston, Texas (voice recording)

President Obama is the Chief Excecutive Officer of NASA.

President Obama is Commander in Chief of the Navy (research laboratories) and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

LENR/cold fusion power is a matter of national security for both NASA and the Armed Forces. Please study what NASA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Navy know about LENR/cold fusion power. That information is found in the following papers and videos and is essential for a good reading of my adaptation of Kennedy’s Address.

 Navy

“Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System Volume 1: A Decade of Research at Navy Laboratories”  Technical Report 1862 – February 2002 (read)

“Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System Volume 2: Simulation of the Electrochemical Cell (ICARUS) Calorimetry” Technical Report 1862 – February 2002 (read)

Defense Intelligence Agency

Defense Analysis Report – Technology Forecast:

“Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance” DIA-08-0911-003 13 November 2009

  • LENR could serve as a power source for batteries that could last for decades, providing power for electricity, sensors, military operations, and other applications in remote areas, including space. LENR could also have medical applications for disease treatment, pacemakers, or other equipment. Because nuclear fusion releases 10 million times more energy per unit mass than does liquid transportation fuel, the military potential of such high-energy-density power sources is enormous. And since the U.S. military is the largest user of liquid fuel for transportation, LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power. (read)

 

NASA

Sept 22, 2011 LENR Brief @ GRC – J.M.Zawodny “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: Is there better way to do nuclear power?” (pdf)

Sept 22, 2011 LENR Brief @ GRC – Dennis M. Bushnell “NASA and GRC – LENR Workshop 2011” (pdf)

Recommended Follow Up (by NASA)

.

 “METHOD FOR PRODUCING HEAVY ELECTRONS” NASA Patent

United States Patent Application Publication No.: US 2011/0255645 Al Zawodny/NASA Pub. Date: Oct. 20, 2011 (pdf)

“Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook” Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, Langley Research Center (read)

” Abundant Clean/Green Energy” by Joseph Zawodny. (video)

NASA Technology Gateway – LENR

“Welcome to the Technology Gateway. At Langley we have a long history of creating technologies that improve the way we live and the way we work. In the future we would like to enable those technologies to move from the laboratory into the marketplace and we’re going to do that through partnerships.”

 “NASA’s Method for a Clean Nuclear Energy For Your Power Operated Technology.” (Licensing available)

Noteworthy

The NASA – LENR device is on the U.S. marketplace through their Technology Gateway and that the E-Cat is making major design improvements while planning to enter the U.S. market on an accelerated timetable. (Cold Fusion Now – Hot Honeycomb)

The race to LENR power is real.

The following adaptation of the speech by President Kennedy is fiction.

Imagine President Obama giving it or a similar one as an October Surprise. The imminent surprise of cold fusion is which polititian, industry, or company will announce it first?

Oil Industry

Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 2012

“On the Precipice of a New Energy Source?” Go to Page 18  (read)

“Address the Nation: LENR Power and Expansion into Space” 

 

We live in a nation noted for knowledge, in a nation noted for progress, in a nation noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we are in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.

Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this nation’s own scientific manpower is leading the world, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension.

No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man¹s recorded history in a time span of but a half a century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.

Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now with America’s newest spacecraft leaving the solar system we literally reach out to the stars before midnight tonight.

This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the development of new knowledge promises high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.

So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.

If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. From the frontiers of science now comes to us a revolutionary source of energy, LENR power. Inexpensive, clean, and nearly unlimited LENR power developed from early cold fusion research. The world’s conversion to LENR power will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the worldwide conversion to LENR power.

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of LENR power. We mean to be a part of it–we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world will now look forward to LENR power.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world’s leading LENR powered nation.

With LENR power, we can now truly set sail on the new sea of space. All NASA missions unrealized can now be realized because of this inexpensive, clean, unlimited source of energy. LENR power and space are the new frontiers to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For LENR power, space science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether LENR power will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether unlimited LENR power and the new ocean of space will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of unlimited energy and permanent space habitation any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its population will deserve the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, convert to LENR power and expand habitation into space? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 93 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why, 43 years ago, fly the to the Moon?

We choose to convert to LENR power and enable permanent habitation of humanity in space. We choose to convert to LENR power and see humanity expand into space and do other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision to shift our efforts from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

The conversion to LENR power and expansion into space will spur growth, our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. All will reap the harvest of these gains.

However, I think we’re going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don’t think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. It will be done during or past the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of the next two decades.

Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, “Because it is there.”

Well, the unlimited, clean energy of LENR power and the frontiers of space are there, and we’re going to answer the call, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God’s blessing on the most challenging and daring and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.

Thank you

“Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs” Page 4

 

President John F. Kennedy May 25th 1961. Delivered in person before a joint session of Congress announcing aspirations for the Apollo Program (read)

I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals…

     No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space…

     Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully…

     It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space…

     I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months…

     This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities…

     It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel…

     New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further–unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space…

In conclusion, let me emphasize one point: that we are determined, as a nation in 1961 that freedom shall survive and succeed–and whatever the peril and set-backs, we have some very large advantages.

     The first is the simple fact that we are on the side of liberty–and since the beginning of history, and particularly since the end of the Second World War, liberty has been winning out all over the globe.

     A second real asset is that we are not alone. We have friends and allies all over the world who share our devotion to freedom.

–serious conversations do not require a pale unanimity–they are rather the instruments of trust and understanding over a long road.

     A third asset is our desire for peace. –that we seek no conquests, no satellites, no riches–that we seek only the day when “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

     Finally, our greatest asset in this struggle is the American people–their willingness to pay the price for these programs–to understand and accept a long struggle–to share their resources with other less fortunate people–to meet the tax levels and close the tax loopholes I have requested–to exercise self-restraint instead of pushing up wages or prices, or over-producing certain crops, or spreading military secrets, or urging unessential expenditures or improper monopolies or harmful work stoppages–to serve in the Peace Corps or the Armed Services or the Federal Civil Service or the Congress–to strive for excellence in their schools, in their cities and in their physical fitness and that of their children–to take part in Civil Defense–to pay higher postal rates, and higher payroll taxes and higher teachers’ salaries, in order to strengthen our society–to show friendship to students and visitors from other lands who visit us and go back in many cases to be the future leaders, with an image of America–and I want that image, and I know you do, to be affirmative and positive–and, finally, to practice democracy at home, in all States, with all races, to respect each other and to protect the Constitutional rights of all citizens.”

Cold Fusion NASA LENR part three Spacebound and Earthbound Transportation

It is argued that both LENR and Hydrino Capture are not cold fusion, yet for many reasons the term cold fusion exists in popular vernacular encompassing nuclear reactions that happen in environments less hot than the sun. For many people the term has sentimental value as well… that’s the logic of it.

Often what accompanies discovery and truthfulness in science is confusion, anger, and persecution; as is seen in the history of cold fusion research. Yet good science has gotten us this far; cold fusion research has overcome adversity through strict adherence to scientific method and consistent first-rate scientific review.

Thanks to the fact that scientists are basically tenacious creatures, we now have solid cold fusion science and engineering behind the LENR devices entering the marketplace.

The Blood of the Martyrs

‘The Blood of the Martyrs’ is a one-act play by Percival Wilde based on the short story by Stephen Vincent Benet, later adapted by Donald MacFarlane for the radio, and broadcast over station WQXR in New York City, Dec 7, 1938.

The play stars Professor Malzius and is a story about truth in science that sheds relevant light on possible reasons for the falsification of data at MIT and the subsequent persecution and perseverance of cold fusion researchers.

Mr. Wilde summarizes for the press…

  • “Mr Benet is a poet who has brought to his prose writing the spiritual and imaginative qualities that characterize his verse. His conception, in the short story, which became the basis of the present play, may be stated concisely… If the scientist does not teach the objective truth as he knows it, there will be an end to continuity and to science. Many men have sought the truth, but have, in these horrible days, compromised with their consciences so that they may continue to work; but to the true scientist compromise is unthinkable. It is better for him to die at his post than to lend the weight of his authority to the spread of false beliefs, and this is both the tragedy and triumph of Malzius: if there are enough men like him the world will emerge from the quagmire of expedient creed into which the dictators have led it. ‘The blood of the martyrs,’ declared Tertullian, ‘is the seed of the Church.’ In these times the blood of the martyrs is seed of liberalism and science and truth.”

 

For further reflection are the words of Louis Pasteur, in his last speech, given upon being awarded the Diamond Cross of Saint Anne from the Czar of Russia. Louis Pasteur addresses his words to the students in the crowd, his voice ringing with conviction…

  • “You young men, doctors and scientists of the future, do not let your selves be tainted by a barren skepticism, nor discouraged by the sadness of certain hours that creep over nations. Do not become angry at your opponents, for no scientific theory has ever been accepted without opposition. Live in the serene peace of libraries and laboratories. Say to yourselves first: ‘What have I done for my instruction?’ and as you gradually advance: ‘What am I accomplishing?’ until the time comes when you may have the immense happiness of thinking that you have contributed in some way to the welfare and progress of mankind.” (Vallery-Radot 1901, vol. 2, pp. 297–298)

 

Cold Fusion – LENR Engineering

NASA states that the science and engineering encompassing cold fusion LENR is “not a narrow band set of physical phenomena” and that “devices are being engineered in real time”. (link)

With 3-D printing and nano engineering being utilized to create the lattice; we will see many unique devices entering the marketplace, both thermal and electrical (hardy, robust, and scalable), for every imaginable application.

One might posit that two categories of ‘cold fusion’ devices will gain hold in their respective markets:

  • LENR/Thermal – heat without a carbon footprint
  • LENR/Electric – electricity without a generator

 

Co-generation (where both heat and electricity is needed) will likely utilize LENR thermal devices along with electrical generators. Waste heat will be utilized for environmental needs.

LENR Marketplace

Ecat.comdefkalion-energy.com, brilliouinenergy.com, and others are poised to enter the LENR/Thermal market.

NASA, blacklightpower.com and others are poised to enter the LENR/Electric market.

LENR/Electric – Transportation Earthbound

Cold fusion electricity without generators is a boon for transportation. It is well known that series hybrid systems (where torque is exclusively supplied by electricity) saves fuel and reduces emissions. Yet few people know the extent that series hybrid systems are currently utilized; electricity is the sole source of torque in oceangoing vessels, trains, hybrid buses, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and the next generation of airplanes.

All these vehicles will benefit from LENR/Electrical devices. They require little engineering for conversion from fossil fuel powered generators and batteries to LENR electrical power.

  • Oceangoing Vessels: “As in most modern cruise ships, Queen Mary 2′s (link) propulsion machinery is electrically decoupled from her propeller shafts and her propulsion arrangement can therefore be more accurately described as “CODAG-electric” (by analogy with turbo-electric and diesel-electric). The diesel engines and gas turbines drive electrical generators, which provide the power to drive four 21,500 kW (28,800 hp) Alstom electrical motors located inside the podded propulsors (and thus entirely outside the vessel’s hull).” 
  • Trains: “The main reason why diesel locomotives (link) are hybrid is because this eliminates the need for a mechanical transmission. By going with a hybrid setup, the main diesel engine (3,200hp) can run at a constant speed, turning an electrical generator. The generator sends electrical power to a traction motor at each axle, which powers the wheels. The traction motors can produce adequate torque at any speed, from a full stop to 110 mph (177 kph), without needing to change gears. This 270,000-pound (122,470-kg) locomotive is designed to tow passenger-train cars at speeds of up to 110 miles per hour (177 kph). The diesel engine makes 3,200 horsepower, and the generator can turn this into almost 4,700 amps of electrical current. The four drive motors use this electricity to generate over 64,000 pounds of thrust.” 
  • Hybrid Buses:  “San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom states that Muni hybrid buses (link) are essentially electric buses just like Muni’s electric trolley buses. Rather than get their electricity from overhead wires, they use a small diesel engine (5.9 liter Cummins ISB found in pick-up trucks) to turn a generator that, together with traction batteries, supply the necessary electrical energy to move the bus through the streets of San Francisco. Muni’s hybrid buses are “series hybrids” meaning there is no mechanical connection between the engine and wheels.”
  • Cars: “Top 10 Electric Car Makers – United States 2012 EV Market Leaders (link)
  • Motorcycles: “Electric motorcycles (link) include the Zero DS, Brammo Empulse, Native S, Moto Czysz E1PC and Vectrix scooter. Electric motorcycles, though still in their infancy, are starting to gain a foothold in the marketplace.” 
  • Bicycles: “Electric bicycles (link) are part of a wide range of Light Electric Vehicles (LEVs) that provide convenient local transportation. Generally designed for one person and small cargo capacity, electric bike range, speed, and cost are moderate.” 
  • Planes: Cold Fusion – NASA – LENR Part ll Flight (link)

 

NASA Offers LENR/Electric Technology to Private Companies 

In this technology roadmap by NASA, LENR is targeted as an energy source.

DRAFT Launch Propulsion Systems Roadmap Technology Area 01 (pdf)  For LENR see page 18

Langley’s Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Technology Available (link)

  • “The advantages of the present invention are numerous. Devices/systems made in accordance with the present invention control the frequency of the SPP resonance and its uniformity over large surface or volume regions. This will allow an entire device to participate in heavy electron production and ensuing energy generation.”
  • “The present invention is adaptable to a variety of physical states/geometries and is scalable in size thereby making it available for energy production in a wide variety of applications (e.g., hand-held and large scale electronics, automobiles, aircraft, surface ships, electric power generation, rockets, etc.)” from patent, line [0032]… NASA’s patent to Produce Heavy Electrons with LENR (patent)

 

LENR/Electric – Transportation Spacebound

In 1958, the “SPACE HANDBOOK: ASTRONAUTICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS” (link), by the Rand Corporation, was presented to the President at the birth of NASA. It clearly states that electricity produced without generators through some unknown nuclear process will enable astronautic transport with advanced electric drive.

  • “The primary consideration in obtaining useful thrust from ion or plasma rockets is the construction of lightweight electric power supplies. A gross reduction in electrical generation equipment, as compared with the most advanced of present equipments, is required to make the electric rocket really interesting for flight in the solar system.”
  • “It is contemplated that some type of nuclear fission (or fusion, farther in the future) could be used to supply the energy for the electric powerplant, although this step would still not eliminate the need for heavy electrical generators, unless direct conversion of fission to electrical energy in large quantities be came practical.” 
  • “2,100 kilovolts of electric power to produce 1 pound of thrust, assuming good efficiency. Optimistic estimates of electric-power-supply weight in dictate that the power unit would weigh about 8,500 pounds.” (or 4 lbs for each kilovolt using old technology)

 

Cold fusion electricity without generators is a boon to astronautics; for both launch and space drive. Electricity is the sole source of thrust for acceleration in advanced propulsion technologies.

Thrust and the energetics of acceleration can be understood as G – Force. Electricity provides more thrust than any other known vehicle propulsion technology.

  •        3 g –  Space Shuttle, maximum during launch and reentry
  •   7.19 g –  Apollo 16 on reentry
  •    100 g –  Sprint missile
  • 1,800 g –  Quicklaunch Maglev

 

Launch Platforms

Magnetic Levitation and Beamed Energy Launch platforms both have large electricity requirements. Low cost LENR electricity will enable utilization of these platforms for space flight.

Maglev Launch

The inventors of magnetic levitation, Dr. James Powell (bio) and Gordon Danby (bio), are the folks behind the Startram Project.

Vacuum Maglev Test Train Breaks Speed Record (link)

  • The test model of the vacuum maglev train was able to run in trial use at a speed equal to the speed of a plane, between 700 and 1,200 kilometers per hour. According to Science Pictorial, the Maglev trains would be even able to run –theoretically- at speeds of 20,000 kilometers per hour in vacuum tubes.”

 

Amazing Magnetics (video)

The Startram Project (link)

Beamed Energy Launch

  • “Lasers and microwaves are among the beamed-energy propulsion concepts the Advanced Space Transportation Program is pursuing. If the energy to propel a spacecraft doesn’t have to be carried on board the vehicle, significant weight reductions and performance improvements can be achieved. Beamed-energy propulsion uses a remote energy source — such as the Sun, a ground- or space-based laser or a microwave transmitter — to send power to the vehicle via a “beam” of electromagnetic radiation. Presently, beamed energy is the most promising technology to lower the cost of space transportation to tens of dollars per pound. Research into this technology is a joint effort of the Marshall Center, the Air Force Research Laboratory Propulsion Directorate at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Troy, N.Y.” (link)

 

Lightcraft Technologies, Inc. (link)

  • A Lightcraft is a 1kg launch vehicle, made from high temperature ceramic materials, that flies into space on a megawatt laser beam.
  • The Lightcraft, shown here in flight, is both a single-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle and a satellite. (video)

 

Electric Space Drive

Ion Propulsion (link) is an electric space drive. Lightweight and dense, LENR/Electric devices will enable the use of stronger ion motors.

  • “The ion propulsion system’s efficient use of fuel and electrical power enable modern spacecraft to travel farther, faster, and cheaper than any other propulsion technology currently available. As new power sources become available, higher power thrusters will be developed that provide greater speed and more thrust.”

 

30KW Hall Ion Thrusters are in use today and high-powered thrusters are in development.

Ion Propulsion — 50 Years in the Making (link)

Benefits of Power and Propulsion Technology for a Piloted Electric Vehicle to an Asteroid (pdf)

Summary

LENR/Electric and LENR/Thermal will ultimately transform the energy marketplace for transportation and environmental heat and electricity. This will take place quicker than any other technological revolution. I predict that by the end of the year Pesident Obama will announce the emergence of LENR engineering and that his administration, if elected, will do everything in its’ power to usher in nearly free  non-polluting LENR power and a newly empowered NASA charged with assisting humanity’s colonization of space. This will become a major plank in his election platform.

President Obama is the top excecutive in the hierarchy  of NASA.

National Space Policy – Commerce  (link) 

NATIONAL SPACE POLICY of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA (pdf) 

  • “Fifty years after the creation of NASA, our goal is no longer just a destination to reach. Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite. And in fulfilling this task, we will not only extend humanity’s reach in space—we will strengthen America’s leadership here on Earth.” —President Barack Obama, April 15, 2010

 

 

 

 

 

Cold Fusion Symposium at Williamsburg LENRS-12 1-3 July, 2012

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.

This posting is about an event that occurred over the week of the Fourth of July celebrations. It is not an attempt to report on the science or physics presented on this occasion, but rather to remark on the special atmosphere that exists when proponents and researchers in the Cold Fusion field gather to address their favorite topic.

Over July 1-3, 2012, a group of some 40 to 50 Cold Fusion researchers and advocates assembled for a Symposium held at the University of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. The title of the event was: International Low Energy New Nuclear Reactions Seminar, ILENRS-12. The object was to exchange experiences and knowledge in the Cold Fusion field. The list of attendees was impressive. Included were: Beverly Barnhart (DoD); Jean-Paul Biberian (CINaM, France); Dennis Bushnell (NASA, LRC): Peter Hagelstein (MIT); David Nagel (GWU); Mike McKubre (SRI International); George Miley (UIll) and Mahadeva Srinivasan (BARC- retired, India), as well as many other significant participants in the field.

I arrived early, driving down from Ottawa, Canada, and was therefore sufficiently rested to attend the Sunday night, July 1, opening event: registration combined with a cocktail reception on the William & Mary campus. This was an important initial gathering which was attended by almost everyone.

From the very beginning there was a feeling of camaraderie and egality in the air at this event. While not a Solvay Conference, the importance of the subject and the potential for imminent breakthroughs that might be shortly occurring was in the air. Everyone had a sense of anticipation that perhaps someone amongst the gathering might one day be a Nobel Prize winner.

These opening social exchanges are an important part of any conference event. With only 40 – 50 participants, 10 or so of whom were to be presenters, the atmosphere was very collegial. People assembled in groups of two, three and four, changing circles every 15 or 20 minutes. Everyone present was entitled to listen-in with a certainty that if you stood by for a minute or two you would be find yourself being introduced all round and accepted into the discussion. From that moment on you would be judged by your sharing of intelligent observations and your attentive listening. There was no expectation that you would be a serious expert in the field. Everyone was there to learn.

The next day opened with short introductory remarks followed immediately by presentations by Beverly Barnhart from the Department of Defense, essentially present as an observer, and then by Dr Peter Hagelstein of MIT. Peter is continuing to carry the torch for the original Pons & Fleischmann premise that deuterium atoms can be fused together in a condensed matter environment to form helium without producing high-energy particles or electromagnetic radiation. Peter reported that he is getting close to a mathematical model which would allow direct coupling of the energy from excited atomic nuclei to be transmitted to an adjacent crystal lattice. This could help explain the “miracle” of the absence of high-energy particles or electromagnetic radiation.

Further presentations followed from George Miley who reported on the detection of ultra-high-density hydrogen/deuterium nano-clusters in metal defects; Liviu Popa-Simil who reported on his concepts for a fusion-based battery; Denis Bushnell who summarized initiatives at NASA to study the LENR phenomenon; Mike McKubre commenting on the results of exploding fine nickel wires that have been loaded with hydrogen and deuterium and others who names will eventually be provided, as well as the content of their remarks, in the report on the Symposium.

It was clear by the end of the first day of presentations that there is still no clear theory yet to explain the phenomena of “unexplained excess energy – UEE”. There were no extensive references to the Widom & Larsen theory of electron capture, with the focus being more directed towards experimental data and alternate ideas rooted in a fusion phenomenon.

After the first day’s presentations, everyone was transported by bus to the site of Yorktown on the peninsula between the York and James Rivers where General Cornwallis surrendered his British Army to the encircling French and American armies commanded by George Washington. The noise level from talking in the bus on the way out was incredible. This evening dinner event by the river provided another social occasion for people to discuss face-to-face the questions that concerned them most, and share what they could contribute to answering other people’s questions. The noise level in the bus on the return was quieter, but lots of people were still talking.

The format for the second day was, after a few presentations, a series of moderated panels in which the panelists responded to questions put to them by the moderator, or raised by the audience. The effect was in keeping with the overall objective of the entire event, to address people’s concerns and help everyone better understand what has been achieved in closing-in on the mystery of Cold Fusion, or UEE.

The best part of an event of this character is that the contributions of speakers was generously given and warmly received even though the presentations may not have been perfect. Nobody provided a report that some great breakthrough had been achieved. Great leeway and forgiveness for imperfections can always be expected when the content has potentially great value. This is not to say that the presentations were deficient. The questioning was polite and an air of geniality, graciousness and polite behavior permeated the room in which an intense desire to understand was a commonly shared objective.

Some of the arcane information shared was that permeability of Palladium containing silver reaches a maximum at a silver content of 31% ; – would this be relevant to enhancing the prospects for precipitating an UEE event? And an even more arcane observation made was that the power output in the core of the Sun is less than 1 milliWatt per cubic centimeter. This observation invoked generous laughter when it was combined with the declaration that, by comparison, contemporary Cold Fusion researchers are achieving “stellar results”.

(Support for this reality can be found in this document: CPEP: Online Fusion Course , referenced in Wikipedia, here. This figure is also supported by NASA data on the energy output of the Sun obtainable from the Marshall Space Flight Center website on solar physics.)

The reality is that the Sun is not a perpetually exploding hydrogen bomb or even a furnace of unimaginable magnitude. It is a heat-containing body that has had 4.5 billion years exposure to a trickle of core-generated energy that will not stop but which takes a long time to work its way out through the 700,000 km trip to the Sun’s surface. There are many more cubic centimeters of volume in the core of the Sun than there are square centimeters of Sun surface area to radiate this energy. This explains the Sun’s apparently modest power output on a cubic centimeter basis. Cold Fusion researchers by comparison truly are achieving stellar performance.

I personally gave a short presentation on Patents and Cold Fusion, making the point that a patent will not be available for the person who eventually provides the theoretical explanation for this phenomenon. They may qualify for a Nobel Prize, but a patent requires the identification of an apparatus or arrangement which produces a useful result.

Many patents are being filed for Cold Fusion and the US PTO as a matter of policy is requiring applicants to demonstrate that the promised results can be produced by following the instructions provided in the patent applications. I was challenged to identify a case where such evidence was successfully presented, resulting in a patent issuing in this field. I could not answer the question directly and now have my homework set out for me. I will now have to read some several dozen of the patents that I have referred to in my earlier postings as being classified under “nuclear fusion”. When I find such a reference, I will definitely share the results with everyone.

More on USPTO reluctance to patent Cold Fusion

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 the eternal issue of concern for Cold Fusion fans: Why the US Patent Office is reluctant to issue patents in this area, I have been referred a link to the following article: Cold Fusion & Patent Office. This article by Hal Fox, President, Fusion Information Center is dated August 8, 1999 and reports on an investigation being carried out by Special Agent Kimberlee Taylor of the Office of the Inspector General, Commerce Department. Apparently this lady was assigned to investigate complaints that the Patent Office was rejecting patent applications for Cold Fusion, or low-energy nuclear reactions, as a matter of general policy.

The article identifies believed sources of resistance to this new technology and ends with a plea for readers to: “WRITE THE MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM YOUR DISTRICT AND BOTH SENATORS FROM YOUR STATE” and copy Ms Taylor.

It is apparent from a short reading that this reference is from somebody who is greatly in favor of, and believes in, Cold Fusion technology. No matter how sincere that belief was in 1989, we are now 23 years later and still have not seen a solidly recognized commercial demonstration of a working Cold Fusion apparatus. This is actually a consideration in addressing the policies and behavior of the United States Patent Office.

Before leaving this document it is apparent that it was written by someone who has a prejudice in favor of the granting of patents. The following statement made in the document is a telling indication:

“The big issue is the denial to U.S. inventors of their constitutional rights to the protection of their inventions!”

There is no “constitutional right” for inventors to obtain protection for their inventions. The U.S. Constitution grants powers to the Federal Government to create exclusive rights under the terms and conditions that the Federal Government chooses to impose. Article 1, Section 8(8) of the U.S. Constitution states:

“The Congress shall have power…To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;”

The Constitution does not create a right to obtain a patent. The Constitution creates a power in the Federal Government to grant patents on such terms as the Federal Government sees fit.

Quite rationally, the Federal Government does not want to be issuing patents for things that do not work. The problem is that persons can file for patents and if the patent is granted, members of the public may assume that this is an endorsement that the invention works. This is far from the truth.

In the case of most patents, the Examiner does not question whether the invention will work. The Examiner does not question whether the claims made in the application as to the usefulness of the invention under various conditions are all true. An applicant may file for a glue that it alleges will hold a car attached to a cable 10 feet above the ground. Perhaps the statement is true if the car is some micro-vehicle. But it might not be true if the car is standard weight. The Examiner never gets into arguing with the applicant whether these kinds of statements are true.

In all cases, the Examiner is concerned whether the exclusive rights that the applicant is requesting will interfere with anything that was previously available to the public. This is the Golden Rule of patent law. A patent may not issue for anything that was previously “available to the public”. This phrase includes not only everything that was disclosed or done before, but also includes obvious variants on all such things. Obvious variants are in the class of things previously “available to the public”. Collectively, this summarizes the famous novelty standard of patent law.

While Examiner’s focus on this novelty issue in reviewing every patent application, only in a few cases do Examiner’s undertake to question whether the statements of usefulness made in a patent application are true. In the case of perpetual motion machines, applicants are asked to file proof that their invention works. Filing a working model would be totally acceptable. This class of invention is so clearly impossible that it would be an embarrassment to the Patent Office to issue a patent for such technology.

Patents addressing Cold Fusion issues are a little different, but are treated in the same way as patents applications that purport to deliver a perpetual motion benefit. The Examiner does not refuse the application. He says to the applicant: “Prove it”; and then gives the applicant an opportunity to file papers by way of proof.

The above referenced article mentions 35 pounds of paper filed by Dr Mitchell Swartz in order to support his application to obtain a patent in the Cold Fusion field. Both the Examiner handing the Swartz filing and the Board of Appeals in the US Patent Office did not think that these 35 pounds of paper proved that the arrangement presented by Mitchell Swartz worked in accordance with his representations. Therefore they refused to grant him a patent. Perhaps they were wrong, but it would take a major effort to sort it out.

Mitchell filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. It is not the job of this Court to review 35 pounds of paper and they said as much in dismissing this appeal. They only look to see whether the Board of Appeals at the US Patent Office made a mistake in principle or were outrageously irresponsible. They ruled that Mitchell Swartz had not shown them that his situation fell into any of these two categories. Therefore they rejected his appeal to the Court.

This scenario has occurred repeatedly before the US Patent Office. Applicants can say almost anything they want in a patent application, but they have to accept the consequences. The claims have to pass the novelty test. And in respect of certain classes of invention, the Patent Office insists that evidence be filed demonstrating that the application passes the utility test and the sufficiency of disclosure test. The latter test requires that the patent application tell others how to achieve the benefits of the invention.

Try and see this situation from the viewpoint of the US Patent Office. Up until 1836, patents were granted without any review whatsoever, whether they were new or not. They could be canceled before a Court if they were not new. But people would actually go to the Patent Office, copy an existing invention, file for a patent on that same invention and obtain a certificate signed by the President of the United States stating that they had obtained a patent. They would then go out and pressure manufacturers who apparently infringed the claims of these patents, demanding licenses on the threat of forcing such companies into litigation. This was very oppressive. This is the reason why in 1836 the United States Patent Office was established with a mandate to carry-out an examination procedure.

Here is the danger. Today, if a company were to obtain a patent purporting to cover a Cold Fusion technology, i.e. a patent representing that its special procedures could produce unlimited amounts of energy, electricity, etc., through a low-temperature fusion effect, then many investors would buy shares in the belief that the issuance of a patent was evidence that the technology was true. In a sense, the US Patent Office might be in a situation where they are facilitating a fraud. In the case of Cold Fusion technology, as well as perpetual motion machines, the USPTO has drawn a line. If you wish to address these types of technologies, then they say that you have to prove that your invention works.

Is that so unreasonable?

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 bydirect email. In particular, he would like to learn what people need to know in order to better understand patents.

Top