The Streetlight Effect and Cold Fusion

By David J French

Sometimes an iconic article is written that makes a change in how our society views important issues. One possibly iconic article is that published in Discover Magazine in July – August, 2010 by a contributing journalist, David H Freedman. Freedman coined the expression “The Streetlight Effect”. The idea is old but the name is rich with meaning; this concept now has a Wikipedia page.

The article explored how scientists everywhere when they undertake research often start with a focus which is driven by their own comfort and convenience. They acknowledge that there’s a puzzle to be solved and they aspire to make a contribution. They have specialized equipment available in their labs and graduate students who are trained in a specific field. Possibly, they may also have access to funding which is slanted towards a certain type of research. So it’s natural that they make a proposal to use their existing resources to address the specific scientific problem. Can this be wrong?

This is the essence of the “Streetlight Effect”: researchers tend to do the kind of research that’s easy, convenient and accessible. They have an aversion to going where no researcher has gone before if it means going where they must acquire new resources and/or undertake a major learning exercise to equip themselves appropriately. Instead, they pursue the easy path.

How does this relate to the scientific mystery colloquially called “Cold Fusion”? This July will see the 18th annual meeting of Cold Fusion researchers from around the world in Columbia, Missouri, attending ICCF-18. Sponsored by the University of Missouri, ICCF-18 will allow dozens of Cold Fusion researchers over a period of five days to present their findings in this field. The field of Cold Fusion is remarkable for the reality that while the miracle of unexplained excess energy has been demonstrated over and over again, more than 1000 times since 1989, the source of this energy is still not accounted for. Nobody understands clearly what is happening.

Since Fleischmann & Pons made their first ill-fated announcements in March, 1989 at the University of Utah, the field of Cold Fusion, also now called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions – LENR, has been in general disrepute in the broader scientific community. The failure by many major institutions in 1989 – 1990 to replicate the Fleischmann & Pons effect and produce meaningful amounts of unexplained excess heat at significant temperature levels has caused an unfortunate prejudice to persist in the scientific community.

This prejudice was entrenched by the publication of several highly critical books such as “Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion” by Gary Taubes, and “Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century“ by John R Huizenga. Even though subsequent developments have negated most of the criticisms leveled by critics at the Fleischmann & Pons effect, there is still a general belief in many physics departments, and indeed in government agencies, that Cold Fusion simply is not real.

Well something about it is real. There’s no question that moderate amounts of heat have been generated from sources that cannot be chemical and cannot be attributed to experimental artifacts; heat has persisted long enough that the effect cannot be ignored. But no theory has been presented so far that can conclusively explain the source of this energy.

Now enter the “Streetlight Effect”. What are we going to expect of the experimenters who make presentations at ICCF-18?

Most of them will be reporting on the experimental results that they have achieved. A large number of these results have been will have been carried out in electrolytic cells, in the liquid phase. This is true even though there have been definite demonstrations of the LENR effect in the gas phase, both in the case of Palladium saturated with deuterium as well as nickel saturated with hydrogen. Indeed, even other hydride-forming metals have been shown to demonstrate the unexplained release of excess heat.

Experiments are still being done in the liquid phase even though the gas phase has much greater commercial potential simply because of many of the experimenters have laboratories that are well equipped for electrolysis and the researchers themselves have spent years immersed in this field. But now even the gas phase is finally being explored more extensively. This may open up new opportunities.

These experiments have all been invaluable in order to assemble data on what gives rise to the LENR effect. But the amount of data that has been generated, while almost overwhelming, has not yet lifted the veil on what is actually happening. We have to give credit for all this work that has been done, and indeed it is invaluable in providing a foundation for further thought and analysis. But something more is needed.

Where are the “killer” experiments that will lift the veil and finally provide understanding for what is really going on? Will there be a Milliken attending to describe the measurement of electric charge on oil drops? Or a Rutherford who provides results on alpha particle scattering? Examples of such key experiments in the history of science could be extended indefinitely. But will such a corresponding experiment be proposed at ICCF-18, an experiment that will solve the LENR Mystery? Possibly, but not probably.

We can expect to hear at the conference from researchers who have assiduously been collecting data using the apparatus that they have on hand, attended by their previously recruited graduate students who are focused on their supervisor’s field of expertise and funded by sources who are able to comprehend the proposed research for which they are providing money. Is this the best way to crack the nut that will explain this potentially revolutionary phenomenon?

This work has all made its contribution and more along such lines will still have to be done. It may be that the “Streetlight Effect” is unavoidable. But is it too much to hope that someone, or the consensus of this assembled wisdom, will be able propose an experiment, or series of experiments, which will be so telling that finally a basis will exist to shine light on a robust theory that will explain what is really happening?

ICCF-18 will be a gathering of people knowledgeable in the field. There will be plenty of exchanges of information and insight. Perhaps the “killer” experiment has already been done and may finally see the light of day. But if not, rather than continuing to pursue pet theories, a tremendous opportunity is available for those who know how to do experiments to discuss the key types of tests that should be done. This may, however, require them to depart further away from their streetlights and explore possibilities that will finally bring truth from the darkness. Let us hope this will happen.

The Believers – the Movie

A local Association devoted to Product Management who is considering showing the the above film at their final monthly meeting in June asked me if it would be appropriate material within their theme of supporting the cause of Product Management. Along with providing a private showing of the film to the Board of Directors, I also prepared the following Synopsis of the movie for possible distribution to members.

__________________________________________________________

Synopsis

Released in October, 2012 The Believers is a documentary that tracks the dark side of the March 1989 announcement at the University of Utah that two respected chemists had solved the world’s energy problems. They had discovered “Cold Fusion”. Within days Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons were on the covers of numerous magazines worldwide. But three short months later their science has been discredited and their reputations ruined. The established community of physicists refuse to accept the alleged experimental results. Retreating to France the two pioneers pursue their researches for another five years before retiring into twilight. Meanwhile “Cold Fusion” has become synonymous with “pathological science” within the general scientific community.

There could not be a better modern example of a combination of hubris and bad public relations for a product launch. Understanding what went wrong makes this story worthy to be the central focus of courses in marketing, or more precisely bad marketing, for years to come.

Meanwhile, twenty-three years later, laboring under the disdain of their peers, a small group of faithful scientists still persist in trying to resolve the un-answered Mystery of where the incontrovertible unexplained heat of the Fleischmann & Pons Effect comes from. Once solved, this scientific breakthrough may yet become the salvation of civilization providing an unending supply of low-cost energy.

The movie is not, however, so much about the science as it is about the tragedy of the personal lives of the two original discoverers. It is also about the tragedy of the rejection by established institutions of the opportunity to pursue a discovery of unparalleled importance. This assumes that its riddles can be solved and the science applied to produce its potentially vast technological rewards. But the Believers themselves are not organized. Without the presence of overseeing management and meaningful financial resources, they are all struggling with their individual theories and personal myopic experiments leaving little hope that a breakthrough is imminent.

No one can leave the theater without asking themselves: “How could this have happened?”
__________________________________________________

The movie, a documentary, is definitely focused on the tragic impact of the unfolding scenario on the lives of the two original scientists. In fact, the movie is rather dark. Martin Fleischmann is shown in his declining years suffering from Parkinson’s disease. He is also caught in moments of reflection that are quite poignant. This is particularly true when he ponders how to answer the question: “What happened between you and Stanley Pons?” He never does answer that question properly, but the look in his eyes as he stares off into the distance searching back in his memory is telling. We see the panorama of opportunities lost and dreams dashed. In Martin’s stare we can imagine the closeness that must once have existed between these two collaborators, and the gulf that now separates them.

Fleischmann until his death in August 2012 was living in England and Pons is presently, 2013, living in the South of France. In one short scene while being interviewed with his wife, Pons seriously contemplates giving-up his American citizenship.

But the movie is not just about these two individuals. It is also about the tragedy of the lost opportunity to resolve the challenge of understanding the “Fleischmann & Pons effect”. And it is indeed remarkable that in our present times with all the tools and acquired knowledge available, that those still researching in the Cold Fusion field have not determined how to reliably produce heat at a level that will boil a cup of coffee.

No doubt the scientists assembling for the next annual world conference for the Cold Fusion community, ICCF-18 to be held in July, 2013 on the campus of the University of Missouri in Columbus Missouri, will wince at the description that they are all “struggling with their individual theories and personal myopic experiments”. Unfortunately, I cannot help but lean towards that colorful image in my personal struggle to answer the question: “How could this have happened?” Why has there been no breakthrough even after 24 years?

It may well be that the puzzle is indeed complex. But there is a vast amount of data available for those who wish to accept a challenge. Reported experiments in the field showing the generation of unexplained excess heat must by now have exceeded the millennium level. A half a dozen potentially practical theories already exist and a dozen more less- credible concepts regularly float up into the air. But surely there’s enough information assembled now for some genius to hit upon the solution. What is the source of the excess energy – heat – that flows from Cold Fusion experiments??

There is an analogy in history. In 1898 Pierre Curie and his wife isolated for the first time a quantity of Radium. To their great surprise, 1 gram of radium produced heat apparently endlessly! (Ra226 half-life: 1601 years; 1000 joules per gram per year when pure.) It was not, however, until 1938-39 when Lise Meitner, an Austrian Jew exiled to Sweden by Nazi politics, solved the source of the heat based experimental results for uranium reported to her by her former associate, Otto Hahn. She identified the source of this heat as: Nuclear Fission and the mass difference of the nuclei. The elapsed time was 40 years. But that was in the first half of the 20th century. Surely in the last and first decades spanning the 20th and 21st century a similar unexplained source of energy, albeit intermittent and unreliable, should have been explained by now.

The movie The Believers is not just about Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. It’s a story about the failure of the scientific community to resolve the puzzle that these two electro-chemists presented to the world. The movie depicts the toxic condemnations that descended on the heads of these two gentlemen, primarily because many laboratories could not duplicate their results, and additionally because the theory that nuclear fusion was the source of the energy was incompatible with nuclear fusion as understood by the physicists. The physicists believed that if fusion were occurring then there had to be an associated emission of high-energy particles. In the case of Cold Fusion, there was no substantial demonstration of energetic particle emissions associated with the process. The fact that there was an unexplained supply of heat, a phenomenon that would otherwise violate one of the most fundamental laws of thermodynamics, the Conservation of Energy, was simply ignored. This is a travesty of the highest order.

The movie ends with a tone of despair expressed by one of the eminent theoreticians laboring in the field: Dr. Peter Hagelstein of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Peter, with the demeanor of a defeated man but probably intending ironic humor, speculates that when the present generation of Believers has passed on (most of them are elderly having adopted this as their career back in 1989-1990), the field will fall into neglect only to be discovered at some future date by scientific archaeologists. These are the words of a man holding tenure at MIT who nevertheless has no grants to spend and no students to do experiments. That is the burden that these Believers labor under.

While these observations are in keeping with the tone of the movie, exploring a theme which is dark and depressing, there is hope. So many favorable experimental results have now accumulated that a breakthrough in theoretical understanding in this field must occur in the near future. At least that will be the hope of all those attending ICCF-18 this coming July. In expressing such expectations and hopes myself, I have disclosed my own membership in a group that I’m sure one day will be honored for their loyalty to the cause, – The Believers.

Electron capture by a proton – Where would the energy come from?

Library David standing IMG_1798
In this posting, David French makes excursion outside his field: patent law, to speculate on possible aspects relating to the physics and mechanism of the cold fusion phenomena.

One of the theories to explain the ColdFusion excess energy effect is based on the premise that a proton can capture an electron, become a neutron, and then all sorts of magical things can happen. However, a neutron is heavier than the combined weight of a proton and an electron. The relative masses are:

Neutron = 1
Proton = 0.99862349
Electron = 0.00054386734

When you do the addition and subtraction it works out that a neutron is heavier than the proton-electron combination by a mass-energy equivalent of about 780 kilo electron volts ( keV). This amount of mass-energy must be found to make a neutron out of a proton and an electron. Here are some thoughts on that point.

Structure of an Atom
Structure of an Atom
A neutron does not have a proton and electron within it. The basic structure of a neutron is three quarks: 1 up, 2 down. A proton has three quarks: 2 up, 1 down. An up quark and a down quark are not the same thing. A neutron is a new entity. And it requires energy to produce it from combining a proton with an electron, or does it?

When an electron falls from infinity towards a proton it acquires 13.6 electron Volts of energy to reach the ground state “orbital” around the proton. I have always wondered why it does not go all the way. Apparently, its Debroglie wavelength has to fit” around the “orbit radius” for it to occupy a stable state.

Perhaps another explanation is that an electron can only arrive in an atom and occupy an orbital by dissipating its arrival energy in the form of a photon. All the light we see originates from electrons settling into an empty slot in the shell of permitted orbitals around nuclei. If atomic dynamics do not permit the emission of such a photon, then an electron cannot settle into a stable orbital but must move on.

But what if an electron acquired enough energy to crash through the base orbital and proceed onward into a proton? How much more energy could the electron acquire hurtling towards the nucleus of a hydrogen atom? I have a suspicion that this might be a very large value if the radius of a proton is small enough.

Let us start by an analogy. Here is the formula for gravitational potential energy for a small mass “m” coming in from infinity to arrive at a radial distance “r” from a large mass M:

E = – GmM/r

This formula has an extraordinary consequence: if a mass were to fall to a point source where “r” drops to zero the energy would be infinite! This does not happen in the Sun, or even in the case of a penny being dropped down a very deep hole in the Earth. This is because as you go below the surface of the Sun or Earth the mass above you starts to cancel the gravitational force below you. Newton showed that there is no gravitational force at the center of the Sun or the Earth. The formula stops working when you reach a surface.

Let us turn to the potential energy associated with an electrical field. By integrating the energy acquired as an electron falls in from infinity, the amount of energy that it acquires as it approaches a proton is given by the following formula:

E = kQq/r

where Q and “q” are the sizes of the respective charges and “k” is a constant.

It will be seen directly that this formula parallels the one for energy acquired through gravitational attraction.

Again we are presented with the possibility that “r” might go to zero. Why is this important?

Well, Widom & Larsen postulate that an electron can be captured by a proton in order to become a neutron. But this requires approximately 780 keV, the mass difference between a neutron and the total mass of a proton and electron.

(I note that it has been said in Wikipedia about electron capture: “A free proton cannot normally be changed to a free neutron by this process; the proton and neutron must be part of a larger nucleus.” No reference is given for this statement.)

This large energy gap which is based on the mass difference between a neutron and a combined proton and electron has always seemed to me to be a barrier to electron capture by a proton. Since an electron only acquires 13.6 V falling from infinity to its ground state, it has got to acquire a lot more energy to get up to 780 keV. On the other hand, when “r” gets small, this kind of energy could be acquired quite quickly if the formula for potential electrostatic energy does not break down.

The gravity we experience from the Sun is the accumulation of force from the distributed mass contained in a body having substantial dimensions. It is not a point source. (Maybe a black hole is a point source!) But a proton is very nearly a point source. What does this size say about the potential energy that could be associated with the electrical attraction that extends between a proton and electron? Now let me take you on a little excursion concerning Blacklight Power and Randell Mills.

Randell Mills has his theory that electrons can occupy orbitals that are below the normal base orbital for a hydrogen atom. Randell calls such a special hydrogen atom a “hydrino”. Perhaps he has part of the explanation. I have met with Randell back in 1980’s and here is what he explained to me.

Electrons cannot fall below the base level in the normal hydrogen atom because they cannot emit a photon on their own. For his hydrinos to form there has to be a resonant absorption of energy from a nearby atom in order to permit an electron to drop below the normal base state. When falling through energy levels into an atom from infinity, an electron emits a photon to dissipate its acquired energy.

Apparently, once an electron reaches the base orbital, it is no longer capable of emitting photons as a way of losing energy. But according to Randell if a nearby atom is able to eject an electron, acting as a “catalyst”, it may serve to allow a proximate electron that is in the base orbital of a proton to fall to a lower energy level, closer to the proton. The energy that is associated with the electron falling through the electric field towards the proton is released through the resonant absorption of that energy by the nearby “catalyst” atom which disposes of the energy by ejecting one of its electrons. Here is a description of his theory from the web:

“According to Dr. Mills, when a hydrogen atom collides with certain other atoms or ions, it can sometimes transfer a quantity of energy to the other atom, and shrink at the same time, becoming a Hydrino in the process. The atom that it collided with is called the “catalyst”, because it helps the Hydrino shrink. Once a Hydrino has formed, it can shrink even further through collisions with other catalyst atoms. Each collision potentially resulting in another shrinkage.”

From the same source:

“For those of you with a mathematical bent, the formula is ((2 x n) -1) x 13.598 eV, where “n” is the level number. (BTW the maximum level number is certainly no larger than 137, and may well be less than that, not least because when a Hydrino gets very small, it may undergo fusion reactions with other atoms.) Of course, the numbers can be added up. IOW if you start with a Hydrogen atom, and end up with e.g. a level 5 Hydrino, then you get a total of 41 + 68 + 95 + 122 = 326 eV. The total for any level can be calculated with the formula (n^2 -1) x 13.598 eV.”

[End of quotation]

Well, 137 x137 = 18769 electron Volts and (n^2 -1) x 13.598 eV gives 18769 – 1 × 13.598 = 255,207.264 eV.

This is a value which is well on its way to 780keV!! I do not know why the limit in the above formula is 137, but let us accept that for the moment. Using the formula for the potential energy that becomes available when two electrically charged bodies are brought into close proximity to each other, namely E = kQq/r , it may be that this requisite energy condition is within reach of some force or effect originating from within the proton. At that moment, the magical conversion into a neutron may occur.

Maybe having fallen to level 1/137 an electron is able to fall further into a proton, eventually contributing the additional energy that it acquires into a quark conversion that changes the proton into a neutron of higher mass, and then the electron simply disappears!

On the other hand, there may be some other principle or limitation that would forbid such an event. Still, it is interesting to muse on the consequences an energy formula that includes the remarkable factor: 1/r.

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

The US New Patent Law: March 16, 2013

Library David standing IMG_1798The 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.

I have been hesitating posting on advances in ColdFusion – LENR because I am still in learning mode as to what is going on. But a new topic has come up in which I do feel I have some strength. Key amendments to the US Patent Law signed by President Obama on September 16, 2010 will come into effect on March 16, 2012. This posting is to provide guidance to those who fear that some kind of revolution or collapse is likely to occur.

These US Patent Law amendments are often represented as a change from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system for handling conflicting filings. This is part of the truth. However this feature in itself is not going to affect most patent applicants. First-to-file has been the law in Europe for essentially 100 years. Canada adopted this style of law in 1989. Not much changed in Canada after the transition. Conflicts occur in less than 1% of filings, significantly less, in both countries.

Of greater significance will be the standard of world-wide novelty tied to the filing date. Applications filed at the US Patent Office before March 16, 2012 will only be valid if directed to things:

1. Not described a printed publication issuing anywhere in the world
2. Not in public use in the United States, and
3. Not on sale in the United States

Such event must not have occurred before the inventor’s date of invention and certainly for not more than one year before the US filing date.

Under the new law, patent filings will only be valid if directed to things not previously “made available to the public” anywhere in the world, in any manner whatsoever, before the applicant establishes a patent filing date describing how to build what they have invented. This type of patenting requirement is called “Absolute World Novelty”. In terms of newness, your idea will have to be pristine on the planet Earth in order to obtain a patent.

Under the previous system inventors were misinformed if they thought that merely thinking of an idea reserved their right to obtain a patent for a year. Only inventors who communicated to someone else a complete idea with a disclosure that would allow the idea to be put into effect qualified as having conceived an invention. And then you had to follow-up expeditiously to either build a prototype or file a patent application. These requirements were traps in the old system, now to be left behind, that many innocent inventors did not appreciate.

In place will be the new requirement that you have to make your disclosure in a patent filing. Once this understanding is established, inventors will be far more likely to base their patent applications on written documents that will support truly valid patent rights. The new system will require inventors to sit-down and figure out what it is exactly that they want to patent. For $175 they will be able to place a Provisional application on file at the US Patent Office, reserving their right to file a better and more elaborate “story” within the following year. Once the final patent application is filed by the end of that year, the “story” will be frozen. Therefore inventors should understand that they had better get it right, and they only have a year to do so.

Here is a good practice procedure for inventors to follow. Plan on using a patent attorney. Even if you prepare and file an initial application yourself, please consult with one to make sure that you are not wasting your time and to ensure that you have someone to fall-back upon when you need to do the final document.

Search, search, search to determine the feature of your idea that is new. You always patent a feature that must be new even though it is described as being part of a machine or process or article. The critical feature is the difference that makes your idea new. You need to know what has been done before so you do not waste time and money trying to patent something that cannot be patented. Even if you manage to get by the patent Examiner, your patent will be invalid if it fails to address something that is new.

Furthermore, that difference which makes it new should make a difference in terms of the relevance of your invention. This is not a topic your patent agent will raise with you on his/her own initiative. It is up to you to decide whether your idea has market value. It is up to you to find out whether your potential patent rights will be worth the $10,000 – $20,000 you will be spending on them. Your patent will have no value if your invention does not succeed.

Once you have the search results, if you think you have a feature that is new, write the whole story of how to build something that works that includes that feature. There is no harm writing it in the form of a patent disclosure, although that is not essential to make a US Provisional filing. But the template recommended by the US Patent Office for a patent disclosure will get you focused on only writing things that are relevant to getting a patent. Do not promote your ideas as being better; do not make promises that are not needed.

You only have to describe how to build something that works so others can do so later when the patent expires. If you are filing for a Cold Fusion invention, the Examiner will ask you to prove that your invention works and that your disclosure is sufficient. And you must ensure that there is a feature present in what you have described that makes the overall process or article or machine new. File that write-up as a Provisional application at the US Patent Office; cost: $175.

Now do something that may hurt. Send that written description to a professional Searcher and have them do a search. This could cost reasonably $800- $1000 dollars for an invention that is not too complicated. If you use your attorney, they will add another thousand dollars to interpret the results of the search. But either way, you should read the results of the search very carefully. The search will have succeeded if it locates a disclosure of your not-so novel idea. You want all the bad news to come out now, at the beginning. But if you do receive bad news, it is not over.

Read all the references that the Searcher produces. Every prior inventor is a mentor and coach available to provide guidance to subsequent inventors. Understand what they thought was new and useful in your field. Think about your idea and how to modify it. There is no invention that cannot be modified. And if you are lucky, you can modify your invention both to make it better and to focus it on a different novel aspect that does have a prospect of being patented.

If you carry-out this process carefully you will understand your invention better and almost certainly will have some further good ideas. Re-file another application, at the cost of another $175. Every time you think of a really good new idea re-file the application adding the idea to the prior document. There are many cases where applicants have filed 20 and 30 times during the year following the initial filing. This is what Randell Mills does. Then at the end of the year pull everything together into one document that you take to your patent attorney, with two months to go, and work with your patent attorney to do the final filing papers.

Once the final application is on file, there is nothing more the inventor can do to improve that filing. Further filings will be possible, but they will have to address different ideas. You have to get it right in that first year; it will be your last chance for the basic idea.

That is enough guidance on understanding how to respond to the new US Patent Law. Many many inventors waste a lot of money on patents, and on inventions that are never going to pay-off. But if you learn to understand the basics, hardly more than what is set out in this post, you will be well on the road to both making inventions that count and obtaining patent rights that can potentially be very profitable.

Conclusively Demonstrating the “New Energy Effect” of 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 and other matters touching on the field of Cold Fusion.

This is a report of the technology presented at ICCF-17 but released in the spring of 2012 following demonstrations held at MIT over January 30-31, 2012. I personally attended those demonstrations and can confirm that the graphic outputs referenced below and in the ICCF-17 presentation of Dr Peter Hagelstein were in fact generated on that occasion. This may be the technology that demonstrates Cold Fusion in a way that can be observed by anyone around the world.

Breaking the Dam of Disbelief

The year 2013 will be the year in which the dam of disbelief respecting the Fleischmann & Pons phenomena will finally break. This will start with the recent successful showing of the film “The Believers” in Chicago on October 16 and its follow-up presentations. The press will gradually notice the issue. Enough courageous journalists will demand from their editors page-space to expose the shabby treatment of this phenomenon that has occurred over the past 22 years.

Sufficient demonstrations of unexplained excess energy have been repeated in laboratories around the world to shatter the paradigm that Cold Fusion is a pathological science. The result will be a demand for experiments that can be reliably duplicated by persons, agencies, laboratories and businesses around the world interested in re-examining this New Energy Effect.

Need for a Commercially Vendible demonstration of Cold Fusion

An opportunity exists to sell and distribute widely electronic data acquisition and presentation equipment in conjunction with a practical set-up that demonstrates Cold Fusion. Such an arrangement should:

• not rely on the presence of pressurized hydrogen or electrolyte fluids
• operate at moderate temperatures
• provide ready access to the reactor center for easy experimentation
• allow ready substitution of reactive elements for repair and alternate testing procedures
• impose minimum power requirements
• clearly demonstrate a Cold Fusion/LENR effect
• allow a variety of experiments to be conducted by users.

All of these experiments should both serve to demonstrate the Cold Fusion effect and allow researchers to better understand and advance the exploitation of this phenomenon

Opportunity presented by the JET Energy Inc’s “Nanor”

JET Energy Inc. is a company established just outside Boston, Massachusetts by Dr Mitchell Swartz. Mitchell Swartz was one of the original experimenters in the field of Cold Fusion; he became involved directly after the Fleischmann & Pons effect was demonstrated in 1989. Mitchell Swartz has been working with Dr Peter Hagelstein, a professor at MIT and one of the eminent theoreticians in this field. The following information is taken from a paper presented by Dr Peter Hagelstein on behalf of Dr Mitchell Swartz and Jet Energy Inc at ICCF-17. The paper for this presentation will form part of the final report of the ICCF-17 proceedings.

The reactor

JET Energy has developed a demonstration Cold Fusion reactor that relies on a simple core element that is essentially the size of an ohmic resistor. This “Nanor” ™ contains nanostructured pellets of Palladium embedded in zirconium oxide insulation that are pre-loaded with high pressure deuterium and sealed into a small cylinder with electrical connections at the respective ends. The similarity in outward appearance to an ohmic resistor is exact.

For purposes of demonstrating the Cold Fusion effect and quantifying the excess heat being generated, this small cylindrical element, the “NANOR™”, is utilized in conjunction with a “control resistor” bonded along side. The bonding agent is a thermally conductive but electrically insulative glue. Both elements provide easily accessible independent electrical leads at their respective ends.

These components are contained in a thermally isolated environment. Optionally the assembly can be placed inside a traditional calorimeter, but this is not essential. Temperature sensors are bonded to the system which, in conjunction with the control resistor can function equivalently to a calorimeter.

To achieve a Cold Fusion/New Energy effect Dr Swartz passes a low-level current through the Nanor, e.g. 10 milliwatts. Perhaps there are other features included in the control circuit and wave form applied. Whatever special tricks are used, the result is to produce more than a minimal amount of excess energy that conclusively demonstrates this new energy effect. To quantify the results, the following arrangement is employed.

Before activating the Nanor, a small current is first passed through the control resistor adjacent to the Nanor. Due to the ohmic resistance in the control resistor the temperature in this resistor, along with that of the Nanor which is glued close by, rises by a small amount, e.g. 1-2 Centigrade degrees. The amount of current and voltage across the resistor are noted, giving the amount of power needed to create this rise in temperature. After the temperature rise generated by the control resistor has relaxed to its starting value, power is applied in turn to the Nanor.

Sufficient current is fed through the Nanor to produce an approximate rise in temperature equivalent to that just achieved in the control resistor. Remarkably, far less power need be applied to the Nanor to achieve this effect, i.e. less power is required to reach a similar temperature to that established using the control resistor. Put alternately, when comparable energies are applied to the Nanor, a greater temperature rise occurs in the Nanor than occurs in the control resistor. These experiments demonstrate the unequivocal generation of unexplained excess energy.

The display

The power circuitry incorporates a control system that alternates between first heating the control resistor with a known amount of electrical power and then applying a lower level of electrical power to the Nanor. The temperature rise generated first in the control resistor and then in the Nanor as detected by the temperature sensor is shown graphically on the screen of a computer. Using this arrangement the Nanor has demonstrated gains on the order of 800 to 1600%, i.e. a coefficient of performance – COP of 8-16. The graphic display showing this effect can be seen here.

The gain is represented by the ratio of the respective heights for the normalized temperature of the Nanor, indicated by “delta-T/pin” curve, with respect the height of the stepped trace for “input power”, both on the right-side of the display. Here, it is important to note that “normalizing” the delta-T (dividing the measured delta-T by the measured applied power) has the effect of removing the step-like response of the delta-T to the step-like application of input power, resulting in a “flat” response of the control resistor, and a “flatter” response of the NANOR. Note that this normalized gain falls off somewhat with increasing power for the Nanor.

From the graph it is demonstrated that providing lower power to the Nanor will achieve the same temperature excursion as that demonstrated by the control resistor using higher power. While the effect is not being monitored at a constant temperature, the temperature excursions are very small, e.g. 1-2 centigrade degrees. Therefore results nearly equivalent to having a complex constant-temperature calorimeter are achieved. Essentially, the energy output of the Nanor is inferred by comparing the temperature change achieved to that produced by the control resistor. With the high COP’s being achieved, the result is unmistakable.

The temperature rise of the Nanor-control resistor combination is conveniently presented on a computer display in which the temperature traces are arranged graphically directly following each other. The cycle is carried-out repeatedly, with a relaxation delay in between, to provide interlaced graphic demonstrations of the generation of unexplained excess heat next to a calibration curve. As this effect continues for many days, the only possible conclusion is that the excess energy is arising from some form of nuclear effect. Hence this apparatus demonstrates the reality of “Cold Fusion” or some nuclear process the mechanism of which is not yet conclusively established.

Stepped power increases

In order to produce more information in the computer display, the electrical circuitry supporting the demonstration applies power to both the control resistor and the Nanor in steps of regularly increasing applied power. Each time the power rises by a step, the temperature of the system rises by a related step. The correlation is not precisely even. Further this feature demonstrates that the Nanor exhibits differing gains when driven at different power levels. Importantly, the Nanor can be over-driven, providing a COP which is reduced from the maximum possible once the optimum power input is exceeded. This is readily apparent from the display.

Packaging the kit

The Nanor demonstration apparatus is very compact. The Nanor and control resistor pair would, by themselves, fit in a very small insulated box if the decision were made to dispense with the standard surrounding calorimeter apparatus. A surrounding calorimeter apparatus could be employed as a back-up to demonstrate that, over time, you can measure the accumulating excess heat that is being generated. In fact, only a small insulated box is required if it is accepted that the temperature excursion demonstrated by the control resistor can serve to calibrate the amount of heat envolving when the Nanor is operating.

Dispensing with the traditional calorimeter allows the reactor box to be hardly larger than a package of cigarettes. Coupled to the wires leading out of this box are a power supply and a data acquisition device. The data acquisition device provides an output that generates the display on the screen of a personal computer. The device so presented would fit, together with its data acquisition device and cables for linking to a PC, into a standard briefcase. Indeed, the briefcase could also include the PC since there would be enough room to fit it in!

Since the reactor can be contained in a relatively small volume it would be easily accessible to install substitute replacements or alternate arrangements which are instrumented according to the desires of a researcher. By providing pre-instrumented variations in the Nanor a variety of experiments could be carrying my users. In every case, the object would be to determine the ways in which it is possible to modulate the Cold Fusion effect. Anyone purchasing the kit would have the advantage of a quick-learning tool to get up-to-speed on the principles of this new and extremely important phenomenon. Universities could buy multiple units for their undergraduate students.

Possible experiments

Some of the experiments that could be conducted include:

• varying the applied DC field to determine the effect on gain or COP. This means identifying the “sweet spot”, also known as the “Optimal Operating Point”
• varying the “relaxation” time between initiating a repetition of excess heat events to determine the effect
• carrying-out the various processes at differing ambient temperatures for the Nanor
• applying an AC component of varying frequencies and strength to the applied DC field
• encircling the Nanor with an insulated wire and applying a co-axial magnetic field while carrying-out the repertoire of other manipulations
• placing a pair of collateral electrostatic plate electrodes on either side of the Nanor and applying varying electrostatic fields, both DC and AC to determine the effect on the excess heat event
• attaching ultrasound transducers to the side of the Nanor to determine the effect of ultrasound on the excess heat effect
• carrying-out experiments with the Nanor having various levels of loading
• carrying out the experiments with twin or triple Nanors surrounding the control resistor, each instrumented with temperature sensors to establish the relative consistency of behavior of the respective Nanors.

Opportunity for Commercialization

JET Energy’s Nanor represents a demonstrated, operational system for researchers to explore the Cold Fusion effect. It is ideally adapted to being integrated into a unit suitable for sale to universities and laboratories, indeed to high schools, as a demonstration device confirming the existence of the Cold Fusion/LENR/New Energy Effect phenomena. Indeed, this demonstration can operate with a normal home PC on the kitchen table top.

This is an ideal system for introducing this new science to the world. JET Energy Inc. is presently working to improve the Nanor and develop a vendible package. Who is going to be the first to step forward and boost JET Energy’s innovation to the forefront of the coming wave of commercial applications that will rely on this wonderful new discovery for humanity?

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.

Top