Year: 2011

Posted on

Regarding belief

Since there is a new movie coming out soon on the cold fusion scene called ‘the Believers,’ I thought I would talk a little about belief.  This exposition does not necessarily have much to do with the movie, since I have neither seen nor heard anything about it.  It does, however, have something to do with how one might look at the movie, giving tools for how one might look at belief.

I see there as being two different ways of looking at belief. “Belief that,” and “belief in“. These two different ways are not actually quite separate from each other, but we will start off with this distinction.

“Belief that” is propositional knowledge.  One has (1) a believer, (2) a belief stated in the form of a proposition, and implied is (3) a warrant (or reason) for that belief. It is necessary that the belief is in the form of a proposition so that it might be expressed in the form of a claim or statement of fact.  That proposition is either true or false, and hence the belief in its content is true or false.  If that belief is false then the reason behind it must not be valid or, in other words, applicable.  The belief is true in this limited sense of being a true proposition if it is an adequate idea, in other words, an idea that is “equal to” the thing that it is meant to match.

For example, I believe that 2+2=4, I have a reason for believing this because of the rules of mathematics.  Any ordinary elementary school student could tell us that 2+2=4.  It seems like a “no brainer.”

However, I could be wrong and 2+2 could equal 11, if we are dealing with a base 3 number system.  Implicit in my initial judgement is the fact that we usually only deal with base 10 arithmetic.  It is not wrong that 2+2=11 and it is not wrong that in a base 10 system, 2+2=4, it is just that model of a base 10 system which is implicit in our everyday calculations is not valid or applicable for the base 3 calculation of 2+2=11.  Normally, however, most of our reasons for believing a propositional belief go unexplored, and normally that matches up quite well to the way the world works.  If it looks like a duck, chances are, it is a duck.

“Belief in” is not about the truth or falsity of a propositional claim.  The biggie of this kind of belief is the belief in God.  Belief in God is not a propositional belief that God exists.  One believes in God not because of the sum of the evidence, but because one reads the evidence in a certain particular way, from a certain perspective.  It is a way of structuring everything else, or rather, everything else in a certain ‘realm.’  That particular perspective reinforces itself, whether it is belief in religion or in science, or belief in little Joey.  A lot of “belief in” claims are vaguely defined and for good reason too.  ‘So you believe in science?’  Which type of science?  The basis for looking at the world from a perspective of Physics is quite different than the basis for looking at the world from a perspective of Chemistry or Biology.  How much or how little does your belief in science rely on mathematics?  The answer that one ‘believes in’ God or science, or little Joey is not the end of the questions, but rather often the beginning.

Philip K. Dick said that, “reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”  I am not a scientist, but to me there is enough evidence and testimony from various scientists to convince me that there is something persistent about cold fusion, something that “doesn’t go away” regardless of sceptics.  This not due to societal delusion, the inquiry into cold fusion has been a sincere interest of too many scientists from different parts of the world, for too long of a time.  It is not that there is cold fusion because people believe, but rather that we believe (or disbelief, it matters not the phenomenon) because there is a nascent phenomenon that, in our search to understand it, we call cold fusion.

I have suggested earlier that maybe cold fusion is a gift and maybe it is so.  Maybe there is no “downside” to cold fusion once it is developed.  A golden age is an attractive option, but I am more of the opinion that regardless of how good of a thing cold fusion will be, it cannot cure human nature.  We cannot see the problems, but that doesn’t mean that they are not there (careful: double negative).  Human nature will be that we will push things as far as they can go, and then a little further until they break.  No matter how great cold fusion will be, I have quite a bit of confidence that mankind will find a way to muck it all up.  That is not a reason to reject cold fusion (or anything else for that matter), mankind has that capacity with everything else as well.

btw ‘the gift’ is a topic of postmodernists like Derrida and Marion.

*************************************************************
Related Posts

cold fusion as a gift by John Francisco April 14, 2011

Persecution of (Early) Philosophers by John Francisco March 27, 2011

Posted on

Review of Cold Fusion patents – Piantelli PCT #2

The following is the second 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.

August 21, 2011 –In the previous posting in this series we identified the two patent applications filed by Francesco Piantelli. We provided links to the applications as published under the Patent Corporation Treaty – PCT. Adventurous readers will have visited those links and explored the patent documents as filed.

In this posting, we will review the second, more recent, Piantelli PCT application in greater detail. Here is a link to that document: (here). (For links in this posting to work it may be necessary to switch from the e-mail version to the Cold Fusion Now web site – here.)

The second Piantelli filing

The second filing is very much relevant as it is still in position to result in the granting of patents in some 130+ countries. The date for exiting the PCT by making national entry filings in individual countries was May 24th, 2011. The national entry filing made into Canada is already available over the Internet: (here)

From the records of the Canadian filing there is an indication that some party having over 50 employees has an interest in this application. This is not a certainty and the identity of such a party, if one exists, need not necessarily be disclosed to the patent office.

Claim coverage of the second filing

Focusing on this most recent filing, a key issue is the scope of monopoly being sought. This is best determined by examining only the independent claims and particularly claim 1 which is always independent. Based on the PCT application, claim 1 of this filing reads as follows:

1. A method for producing energy by nuclear reactions between hydrogen and a metal, said method providing the steps of:

– prearranging a determined quantity of crystals of a transition metal, said crystals arranged as micro/nanometric clusters having a predetermined crystalline structure,

– each of said clusters having a number of atoms of said transition metal less than a predetermined number of atoms;

– bringing hydrogen into contact with said clusters;

– heating said determined quantity of clusters up to an adsorption temperature larger than a predetermined critical temperature, and causing an adsorption into said clusters of hydrogen as H- ions, after said heating step said hydrogen as H- ions remaining available for said nuclear reactions within said active core;

– triggering said nuclear reactions between said hydrogen as H- ions and said metal within said clusters by an impulsive action on said active core that causes said H- ions to be captured into respective atoms of said clusters, said succession of reactions causing a production of heat;

– removing heat according to a determined power from said active core and maintaining the temperature of said active core above said critical temperature.

Patent claims are a list of have-to-have-it features that must be present for something to infringe. Therefore every word is important. I have highlighted in bold some words that I considered to be important. Words used in the claim should be defined somewhere in the disclosure. In this case the precise phrase “impulsive action” is not defined per se in the disclosure, although examples are given of several “triggering” actions. If a claim is unresolveably ambiguous, it will be invalid. But generally, the courts will interpret the claims in view of what is said in the disclosure in a manner that is seeking to understand the actual intention of the inventor.

This claim defines the limits of infringement. If someone else were to create a cold fusion effect without falling within the scope of the entire text of the above claim, then they would not be liable to Piantelli and his co-applicants for patent infringement. We are presently examining an application. The above proposed claim is just that: proposed. Claims with other wording may issue in a final patent.

In fact, a claim as general as Claim 1 above will likely be rejected as violating the novelty rule of patent law: a claim must not describe anything that was previously available to the public. The examiner will make an initial assessment for claim validity, but if he makes a favorable ruling, that will not be conclusive. A patent, or a claim of the patent, issued in error can be invalidated after it has been granted.

Another rule recognized in many countries is that every configuration covered by a claim must operate to deliver what is promised. It is said that a claim must be “operative” across the full range of its coverage. This is a very onerous requirement. The above claim is likely going to be rejected on at least one of those two bases. This is particularly true when you read the broad range of meanings given to the various words in the written disclosure. Is it true that every transition metal will work?

The dependent claims in the pending application that refer back to claim 1 are all pre-designed to serve as fallback alternatives if claim 1 were to fail. It is likely that during patent prosecution before various patent offices that some attempt will be made to modify claim 1 by adding the further limitations of some of the dependent claims to claim 1 in order to obtain an approval for its grant. This will shrink the scope of monopoly rights being granted. But the prospect for the claims to be valid will be increased.

Claim 14 is also an independent claim – check the above link to view it. Everything said about claim 1 applies to claim 14. Both of these claims are a check-off list for infringement. Both of these claims remain to be examined and may not represent the final coverage of any future patent. Typically claims as finally granted are different from those as filed or published during the application stage.

PCT preliminary written opinion

In the course of the processing of the PCT application a preliminary, non-binding, written opinion on claim validity was issued by the PCT search and examination authority. In the case of this application, this authority was the European Patent Office. According to that report (issued late, on May 24th 2011 and available at the PCT link above at the end of the printed PDF patent disclosure), claims 1 and 14 were assessed as being novel in the sense that they don’t describe the prior art exactly; but these claims were nevertheless held to be obvious and therefore unpatentable. At the same time, some of the other dependent claims that refer-back to claims 1 or 14 adding further details and limitations were held to be both novel and inventive. For those claims, this preliminary validity report is favorable. But such approved claims may be very narrow. They can be reviewed at the link, above.

Rejection of claims 1 and 14

As might be expected, claims 1 and 14 have been rejected because they come very close to describing material present in the earlier Piantelli PCT application (which had become published 18 months after its filing date). In support of the obviousness rejection, the examiner also cited a German patent application DE 40 24 515 A1: (here or  Google PatentDe translation here – look for DE4024515A1 (low-quality machine translation); or enter that number here to see figures).  Also cited was data posted on two websites: Azonano.com and Nanoword.net.

The German patent application is shown at the German patent office website as having a corresponding Japanese patent application. No other corresponding applications in other countries (which might use English for the full document) are shown. They might exist, but they have not been shown at the German patent office website. Nevertheless, available particulars in English on the German application from the German patent office are as follows:

Title: Cold fusion of neutron-contg. hydrogen nuclei – by contact with micro-clusters of subordinate gp. element atoms.

 Hydrogen nuclear fusion is effected by contacting pairs of neutron-contg. hydrogen nuclei with microclusters of 3-100000 subordinated gp. Element atoms produced from high temp. ultra-finely divided particles by cooling using a carrier medium. Pref. the microclusters pref. contain 5-200, esp. a magic number of atoms and pref. consist of Pd and/or Ti, opt. alloyed with Ag. The ultra-finely divided particles are formed by evapn., pref. by laser beams or by using particle beams contg. the hydrogen nuclei. Microclusters may be applied to a substrate layer contg. Si, Ti, Gd, Sm or other rare earth which is electrically conductive or which is converted to insulating form pref. by oxidising or nitriding. ADVANTAGE – Process provides reproducible supply of energy for peaceful use by cold fusion of deuterons and/or tritons.

Google has provided a machine translation of the full German specification which is not of high quality. From the German patent office reference, 13 figures are present and Figure 5 is of interest as it shows the carbon molecule C60, “Buckminsterfullerene”. I have not reviewed to find out why this molecule may be important.

This German application was originally filed February 8, 1990 by a German inventor and, apparently, has not issued to a patent. Nevertheless, its disclosure is relevant to the second Piantelli PCT application in limiting the scope of potential patent claim coverage. This application is important for what it discloses and not what it claims.

Not cited in respect of the second Pianitelli filing was an even earlier Piantelli patent application IT 1266073  (B1) that was filed in Italy on March 26, 1992 that never left Italy and never issued to a patent. Those who can read Italian might wish to report on it.

A lot more can be learned by reviewing the disclosure portion of the second Piantelli filing. The negative opinion of the PCT Searching Authority on patentability of some of the principal claims is not binding. But it should be given some weight. The scope of coverage that may eventually arise from this application remains to be resolved by various patent offices around the world.

Piantelli’s further initiatives

Meanwhile, what can be said is that Piantelli aspires to deliver the benefits of excess energy through Cold Fusion based on hydrogen in the gas phase in a manner similar to that of Andrea Rossi. He may have partners in view of the other named individuals designated as applicants on his PCT application. As his initial Italian filing was made in November, 2008, this group has had time to develop the concepts further. According to Ivy Matt in an August 16, 2011 posting on Cold Fusion Now, the Italian patent office has reported that two new filings have been made by Piantelli as of April 26 and July 14, 2011. Assuming these filings to be part of a related series, the applications will not be published until 18 months from the filing date of the earliest application of the series.

Multiple patent filings for related inventions are often made in the year following a first filing which establishes a first priority filing date. This year is called the “priority year”. These multiple filings are then consolidated as of 12 months from the original filing date to make a final filing. If this is completed within one year, then priority can be claimed from the original priority date. This final filing would typically, though not necessarily, be made under the Patent Cooperation Treaty – PCT. A PCT filing allows a further 18 months beyond the end of the priority year before national entry filings have to be made in individual countries. No change to the text of the “story” of a PCT application can be made once a PCT filing has been initiated. Conveniently, the PCT system publishes all applications as of 18 months after the earliest filing date of the patent series.

Assuming Ivy Matt got his recent Italian filing data from the Italian patent office, this office appears to publish “tombstone” data directly after an application is filed. Some countries do this. But until 18 months from the original filing date, the full text of applications will not be available to the public.

Piantelli PCT filing of 2008, continued

Returning to the PCT filing of 2008, not enough time has passed for all of the national entry filings that have been made to be recorded either at the PCT office or on the websites of individual countries around the world. At least a national entry filing was made into Canada. We can expect that one was also made in the United States and another before the European patent office. Quite likely national filings were also made in other important countries around the world.

This second application is of interest not just for the exclusive patent rights that may possibly flow from the pending application, an issue yet to be resolved before individual patent offices. A careful reading of the disclosure will give a good impression of what the inventor thinks is required in order to achieve a Cold Fusion reaction. This disclosure is not necessarily complete. If it contains defects, this will cast a shadow over any prospective patent based on that application. This provides some incentive for the original inventor/applicant to tell the true story as best they know it in order to obtain valid patent rights. If they have made mistakes in a filing, they can make further filings, but the claims of any further filings will have to be restricted to new material.

Prospects for a “Master Patent”

Valid patent rights in respect of Cold Fusion cannot be obtained for anything that has been made previously available to the public. It may be that somewhere in the world the secret of reliably effecting Cold Fusion has already been discovered and published. If so, it is not likely that a “Master Patent” (such as that on the telephone) can issue in this field. But if somebody does establish an important trick, a have-to-have-it feature or procedure which is different from the prior art, a difference which makes a difference, then that lucky person will have something which is nearly akin to a Master Patent.

Persons wishing to make comments on this posting are invited to visit the Cold Fusion Now website where this article is posted – here.

Posted on

Review of Cold Fusion patents

The following is the first 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.

August 18, 2011 –This first review will address two patent applications filed based on inventions by Francesco PIANTELLI of Italy.  Ivy Matt on August 16, 2011 in two posting on Cold Fusion addressed the recent initiatives of Piantelli, making extensive reference to Piantelli’s most recent published patent application filed in 2008, as well as further unpublished applications of April 26 and July 14, 2011 (link here – transfer to homepage may be needed to make links work). This present posting will go to the beginning, comparing Piantelli’s earlier work with his more recent patent initiatives.

Piantelli was one of the earlier researchers who, in 1995, pioneered combining hydrogen with nickel to produce anomalous excess energy. The two published patent references identifying him as an inventor are as follows:

1) Title: ENERGY GENERATION AND GENERATOR BY MEANS OF ANHARMONIC STIMULATED FUSION filed initially 27.01.1994 in Italy (link here)

World applicant (except US): UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI SIENA, Italy

2) Title: METHOD FOR PRODUCING ENERGY AND APPARATUS THEREFOR, filed initially 24.11.2008 in Italy

World Applicants (except US): Silvia and Francesco PIANTELLI, Luigi BERGOMI, and Tiziano GHIDINI, all of Italy (link here)

Both of these applications are PCT filings. That is they are world filings made under the Patent Cooperation Treaty and do not represent patents. Rather, they are applications that have been filed through a central patent application processing mechanism, the PCT.

These applications started with an initial filing in each case in Italy. Within 12 months corresponding upgraded applications were filed within the PCT system. Both applications were published as of 18 months from their Italian filing dates. As of 30 months from the original filing date, it’s required to exit the PCT and make national entry filings in individual countries. Today some 130+ countries can be accessed in this manner. Once a patent application has been prepared (which can cost $5000-$25,000 plus) an application can be filed in the PCT for around $10,000. One benefit of a PCT application is that it will delay the deadline for making national filings until the 30th month from the earliest world filing date.

The first Piantelli filing

The first of the above applications eventually did produce national filings in Canada, Czechoslovakia, the European Patent Office, Finland, Mexico, New Zealand, Romania and Sweden. Patents were actually granted in New Zealand and by the European Patent Office but the corresponding application was refused in Czechoslovakia. In other countries the applications may have been granted, refused or may have been abandoned during their pendency. The disclosures in all of these filings were identical to the PCT published disclosure.

This list of countries is certainly different from what you would normally expect. Significantly absent is a filing in the United States. The Canadian filing was abandoned in 2003.

Significance of filing and/or grant of a patent

Not a lot of credit should be given to the fact that a patent application is filed or that a patent has been granted in terms of the legitimacy of the disclosure. Patent offices evaluate patent applications on whether they claim something which is new. Normally, they do not evaluate whether the inventions are good or even whether they work. The only exception is when the inventor proposes to patent something that a national patent office suspects will not function at all, e.g. a perpetual motion machine. Presently, the US Patent Office requires proof that Cold Fusion has actually been obtained if a patent application states that it has achieved Cold Fusion. If the requisite evidence is filed, then this objection to patenting can be overcome.

The first Piantelli filing, continued

The first application was filed in the name of an Italian university. Presumably, the sole inventor, Francisco Piantelli was a faculty member at the University at the time. Accordingly, he had probably agreed to transfer his rights to the University.  The decision to file is likely to have been made by the University. Similarly, the decision to abandon filings or applications was also likely made by the University.

This first filing is not relevant today for what it claimed as being a new invention in 1994.  But it is relevant for what it discloses. Anything disclosed in an application once it has been published can no longer be patented by anybody, anywhere in the world. That is a fundamental requirement for the granting of patents everywhere: that they be focused on a feature which is new in the sense that the claimed feature has never previously been made “available to the public”.

This standard bars patenting for anything to which the public has already had access, whether it was available in writing, posted in an electronic database, or accessible through public use or sales. This is called the “prior art”. A patent applicant is also barred from claiming any obvious variants on the prior art.

To limit the length of this posting, we will review the second Piantelli filing in the next posting. Meanwhile, readers will find it interesting to examine both patent documents by clicking on the links provided above. Explore the screens that these links will take you to. The PCT authority provides links to the description of the patent document and to the status of the application as it proceeds through the system. Of particular interest are the “claims” which the applicant wishes to eventually have approved for inclusion as part of a final patent.  Claims define the scope of the exclusive rights granted under the patent.

The claims as sought on filing rarely correspond to the claims as finally granted. An examiner in each national patent office will do a search and criticize the application, requiring corrections and changes. No changes can be made to the “story”. But the claims can be re-worded so that they are in proper form. To be in proper form, a claim must not describe anything that was previously available to the public.

Patents often appear overwhelmingly complex to someone who is examining a patent for the first time. But once you get used to the experience, there is a vast world of valuable information available for those who are not intimidated.

To help people understand the “story” in these Piantelli patents, reference can also be made to the second August 16, 2011 Cold Fusion Now posting of Ivy Matt concerning Roy Virgilio (link here).

The next posting will address the second patent application and the further unpublished filings made by Piantelli in April and July of this year.

Posted on

New (?) Piantelli group patent

The title of a patent application recently filed by the Piantelli group has been revealed on the Italian Patent and Trademark Office website:

metodo e apparato per generare energia mediante reazioni nucleari di idrogeno adsorbito per cattura orbitale da una nanostruttura cristallina di un metallo

That is, “Method and Apparatus for Generating Energy through Nuclear Reactions of Hydrogen Adsorbed by Orbital Capture to a Metal Crystalline Nanostructure*”. If you’re feeling a sense of déjà vu, it’s because the Piantelli group filed a patent application on April 26 of this year with the exact same title. This newer patent application was filed on July 14. Presumably it covers a different aspect of the Piantelli group’s work than the April patent. Or perhaps it’s an amendment to the April patent. Because the contents of either patent are unknown, it’s difficult to say. The April patent will be published on October 27, 2012. The newer patent will be published on January 15, 2013. In most countries patent applications must be published 18 months after they are filed.

Also, as mentioned in an update to my last post, Peter Gluck is reporting that Francesco Piantelli and Roy Virgilio are collaborating on a book titled Galileo e il metodo scientifico attraverso i secoli, or Galileo and the scientific method during the ages.

*My translation, made for this post. After taking the time to read through the hypothesis proposed in Piantelli’s 2008 patent application, however, I feel that the phrase “hydrogen adsorbed by orbital capture” is incorrect, because the adsorption is a process that happens before the orbital capture. Any corrections by those who speak Italian are welcome.

************************************************************
Related posts:

Viareggio Cold Fusion conference: science, politics, and an Italian competitor — Ivy Matt July 23, 2011

Roy Virgilio releases more details on Piantelli’s research — Ivy Matt July 25, 2011

Roy Virgilio on Piantelli, plus the 2008 Piantelli hypothesis — Ivy Matt August 16, 2011

Posted on

Roy Virgilio on Piantelli, plus the 2008 Piantelli hypothesis

After a vacation of several weeks, Roy Virgilio has returned to the EnergeticAmbiente Forum to answer some more questions on the work of Francesco Piantelli’s group. The following is a summary of his answers, translated from Italian with much help from Google Translate and Yahoo! Babel Fish:

  • The old cells were self-sustaining for some time, maybe a few days, and they were eventually made to stop, or the reaction would have gone on.
  • The new joint-stock company will be a subsidiary of Nichenergy.
  • The expected increase in the energy gain factor from 2 or 3 to 200 will be achieved primarily by the exploitation of theoretical insights Piantelli has had recently, leading to the most efficient preparation of the nickel, as well as different and more suitable materials and configurations used in the construction of the cell. The actual amount of excess energy produced by the new cells is not known, but will be determined soon with the new tests.
  • Nearly all the materials used in the older patents have changed. For example, the newer cells use high-tech ceramics.
  • The present stage of development involves prototypes in a variety of configurations undergoing various tests. Those configurations that give the best results will go on to the pre-industrialization stage.
  • Piantelli says the reaction that occurs in his cell is not nuclear fusion, but is exclusively a protonic reaction, so to speak, that involves nuclear transmutation and a series of primary and secondary decays, and which is exothermic.
  • There will be several other patents filed.
  • Piantelli and Focardi share the same basic knowledge of the hydrogen-nickel technology, but at the time Focardi left Piantelli to follow after Rossi, his knowledge was not as extensive or as up-to-date as Piantelli’s.

Unless Andrea Rossi is bluffing, it appears the Piantelli group is still playing catch-up with regard to the industrialization of their device. Whether their professed superior knowledge of the hydrogen-nickel reaction will allow them to surpass Rossi in the energy output and/or reliability of their reactors remains to be seen.

In their favor, however, the Piantelli group has proposed a rather elegant hypothesis in their 2008 patent application that might just explain what is going on in the hydrogen-nickel reaction. The details may not be quite the same as those of the paper that is due to be released by the University of Siena, but the essential idea has probably not changed, going by the title of the group’s patent application of April of this year: “Method and Apparatus for Generating Energy through Nuclear Reactions of Hydrogen Adsorbed by Orbital Capture to a Metal Crystalline Nanostructure”. The Piantelli hypothesis is highly reminiscent of the known nuclear processes of electron capture and muon-catalyzed fusion. Piantelli insists it is not nuclear fusion. If it is to be regarded as a completely new type of nuclear reaction, perhaps it might be called “anion capture”, although a cursory Internet search reveals that the phrase is already in use to refer to extra-nuclear processes.

The process involves molecular hydrogen (H2) being adsorbed onto the surface of a crystalline transition metal that has a partially-filled electron shell. Under the right conditions the H2 molecules dissociate and pick up valence electrons from the metal, becoming hydrogen anions (H−), also known as hydrides. The H− ion consists of a proton with two electrons. As protons and electrons have equal and opposite charges, the H− ion has a net negative charge.

According to Piantelli’s hypothesis, under the right conditions a H− ion can replace an electron of a transition metal atom, just as a muon replaces an electron in muon-catalyzed fusion. Due to its relatively large mass, the H− ion continually falls to lower electron levels, causing the emission of X-rays and Auger electrons. As it has a net negative charge, there is no Coulomb repulsion to hinder its progress toward the transition metal nucleus. At the lowest level the H− ion is close enough to be captured by the nucleus. After capturing the H− ion, the unstable nucleus releases energy and eventually expels the anion in the form of a proton.

As expounded in the 2008 patent application, the hypothesis lacks a number of details, hard data, and experimental evidence, although the protons expelled from the nuclei are said to have been experimentally detected in a cloud chamber. It would also be interesting to see if the hypothesis could be extended to explain deuterium-palladium reactions. Still, it is a good overview, which is perhaps the most that can be expected from a patent application. Hopefully the paper to be released by the University of Siena will go into much more detail on this new kind of nuclear reaction.

UPDATES:

Just a note: in calling the above hypothesis the “2008 Piantelli hypothesis”, I only mean that it is the hypothesis included in the patent application filed in Italy in 2008. I am not certain exactly when the idea first came to Piantelli, or when he first mentioned it publicly.

On a related note, I would be remiss if I did not link to Peter Gluck’s recent post detailing Piantelli’s academic papers and patents over the years.

Peter Gluck also reports that Piantelli and Virgilio are collaborating on a book titled Galileo e il metodo scientifico attraverso i secoli, or Galileo and the scientific method during the ages.

As an addendum to my summary of Piantelli’s hypothesis above, perhaps I should also add that the expelled protons apparently have sufficient energy to engage in more conventional proton-metal reactions with nearby metal nuclei, resulting in nuclear transmutations.

Finally, just because it’s too cool not to include, I made a link to a YouTube video of a cloud chamber in my post above. Check it out.

************************************************************
Related posts:

Viareggio Cold Fusion conference: science, politics, and an Italian competitor — Ivy Matt July 23, 2011

Roy Virgilio releases more details on Piantelli’s research — Ivy Matt July 25, 2011

Posted on

Rossi – Defkalion : The Split Remains

Andrea Rossi
August 12th, 2011 at 3:05 AM
Dear H. Visscher:
Again, and for the last time:
IT IS TOTALLY FALSE THAT WE AND DEFKALION ARE TOGETHER AGAIN.
THE PRESS RELEASE THAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY EFA SRL ON AUGUST 6TH 2011 HAS ALREADY EXPLAINED THE SITUATION.
WE WILL NOT RETURN ON THIS ISSUE.

This comes from – http://ecatnews.com/?p=701 (Original link below)

It appeared on the surface, and through translation, that yesterday perhaps Andrea Rossi and Defkalion were back together according to Greek media.

But looking closer at the content of what was said and the history of clever word play and detachment tactics which Defkalion employs, coupled with no confirming statements from Rossi, there were still major question marks whether they really were back together.

According to the above entry  from Rossi which originated here – http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=12#comment-61210  nothing has changed, and The Split Remains.

As our own Ruby has been road tripping, and spending the last few days in Salt Lake City, at the university where the controversy turned drama more or less began, isn’t it something that 20 plus years later, the Song Remains the Same.

As a comment in the above thread says:

Utterly fascinating …. Expect annoucements, denunciations, red herrings, partnerships made and broken….who needs to watch the soaps, this is miles better!

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4FvKM29TqU&w=425&h=349]

Top