Patenting Cold Fusion Inventions before the US Patent & Trademark Office – Part 1

The following is a paper prepared by David J French in support of a Poster Presentation at ICCF-18, the 18th International Conference on Cold Fusion held in Columbia, Missouri over July 21 – 27, 2013. The paper as reproduced on ColdFusionNow is divided into two parts. Part 2 is available here. Part 1 now follows.

Patenting Cold Fusion Inventions before the US Patent and Trademark Office – USPTO

Part 1

This paper is about the challenge of obtaining a patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office – USPTO. The USPTO has developed a reputation for refusing applications directed to “Cold Fusion” technology. There is a general belief amongst the Cold Fusion community that some staff members at the USPTO have been hostile to granting patents in this field. In fact, the experience of almost every applicant in this field is that Examiners have a strong prejudice against granting patents for Cold Fusion inventions.

However I had some personal exchanges with the USPTO in the fall of 2012 that ended with a declaration that the USPTO will issue properly drafted patents which are directed to new technology in the field of Cold Fusion/generation-of-unexplained-excess-energy if accompanied by a proper disclosure and a demonstration that the asserted procedures will work as represented. The communication from the USPTO stated:

“As you noted in the email, Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) is the subject of intense study and interest of many. Clearly, further investigation into this area could be useful and will hopefully one day will provide a major source of energy.

“You note that the USPTO can require patent applicants to provide evidence that the invention works and that the disclosure is sufficient to enable others to make and or use the invention. The United States Code requires as much, and defines the requirements for patentability in 35 U.S.C sections 101, 102, 103 and 112. Particularly, the enablement requirement, which refers to the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph that states the specification, must describe how to make and how to use the invention. The invention that is defined by the claim(s) of the particular application is the invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and or use. (See MPEP 2164) This is the requirement of law in order to obtain a valid patent. These requirements are applied to all inventions whether they are ground breaking technology or incremental improvements.

“We also thank you for your suggestion to have a message that “The USPTO is open for business in the field of Cold Fusion for properly prepared patent filings” before the Cold Fusion revolution arrives. This is already the case. Any non-provisional application, including those in the area of Cold Fusion, is eligible for patenting also long as it meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. Sections 101, 102, 103 and 112.” [end quote]

The basic requirements for the granting of a patent as referenced are that an application must address:

1. Proper subject matter for patenting,
2. A technology that works in the sense of being useful for humanity in some way,
3. A disclosure that will enable knowledgeable but uninventive workers to reproduce the invention, and
4. A stipulation (in the form of one or more Claims) as to what will be controlled by the exclusive rights to be granted, rights that must apply only to things that are new.

Many patent attorneys add a further requirement namely that the patent must be directed to something which is inventive, or in the terms of the statute, a feature that is “not obvious”. Non-obviousness is judged in view of what has been known previously. I like to include that requirement as really being a sub-characteristic of being “new”.

New US Law from March 16, 2013

As from March 16, 2013 the requirement for being “new” under US patent law is that the thing being patented must not have been “previously available to the public”. This means previously available anywhere in the World, at any time, in any manner whatsoever. The United States has finally joined Europe and the rest of the world in defining patent entitlement in this manner. If you think about these words, you will probably agree that this means that your invention must be “pristine on the planet Earth”! Never having been made available to the public anywhere not only requires that your applied technology be new, but it also must not be obvious in view of what was previously known. That is how inventive character or non-obviousness can be included under this new definition and requirement for patent novelty.

Patent novelty item 4 above, is a big issue. It cannot be addressed in this paper. But the remaining numbered items are relevant to “cold fusion” inventions and will now be addressed.

Subject matter for patenting – Science vs Technology

Patents are about technology rather than scientific discovery. In Europe under the European Patent Convention (EPC Article 52) and under the international Patent Cooperation Treaty – PCT inventions must be “susceptible of industrial application” in order to be patentable. This expression is further defined in EPC Article 57 which provides: “An invention shall be considered as susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture.” This emphasizes that patents are not about theories. Patents are about technology. The difference between science and technology is that science delivers understanding – from the Latin scienter, “to know”, and technology delivers something that is useful for human beings. Often, technology is the application of science.

In the past, it has been thought in the United States that there must be something tangible or mechanical about an invention. However, the US definition for something which is patentable, called “patentable subject matter” is: “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement”(35USC101). In the last 20 years we have seen an explosion of patents in the world of business activities and relating to human behavior in general. These patents have issued on the premise that inventions in these fields can be characterized as “processes”, now often called “methods”. The argument is still ongoing as to whether this opening-up of patenting to non-tangible arrangements that focus on human behavior, eg “business methods”, fits within the patentability requirements of the US statute. But for purposes of the Cold Fusion community, patenting has to focus on a technical, that is a mechanical or chemical, arrangement or procedure that is useful and reproducible.

The next two issues address why Cold Fusion patents have been encountering serious difficulties at the USPTO.

Utility and Disclosure Requirements

For an invention to be useful, it must “work”. This means that it has to deliver a useful result.

Not only does the invention have to work but the application has to describe how others can build something useful that works. The written document accompanying a patent filing must include a description that will “enable” competent workmen, after the patent expires, to carry out the instructions and obtain the promised useful result. The disclosure must “enable” others to obtain the benefits of the invention. The disclosure must provide a “recipe” that is complete.

If the instructions are inadequate, then a patent application will be refused. If the patent slips through it can still be canceled before a Court on the grounds that it should not have been issued in the first place.

You must write the Specification so that your invention may be practiced by a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) without undue experimentation. This individual is assumed to be knowledgeable, but he/she is not inventive. If the invention either intrinsically does not work, or the instructions to create it are inadequate, then a patent application will be refused.

What are the lessons to be learned from these points? One lesson is that it is a false triumph to slip something past the Patent Office. Any oversights of an Examiner can be addressed by a Court. The test of litigation is a very hot furnace. Only the sturdiest steel can take the heat. So you want to obtain your patent on a legitimate basis and do it right at the very beginning. Consequently, if you assert that you have a method for delivering unexplained excess heat based on what you believe to be a “Cold Fusion effect”, you must be absolutely certain that you are achieving this result. Furthermore, you have to provide a description that will reliably allow others to achieve the same result.

Warning: there is a deadline to get the “story” right in the Disclosure. Once a final patent application has been filed, the “story” contained in the disclosure cannot be changed. You can change your claims as long as they are restricted to things already described in the original filing. But you cannot make changes to the text in order to upgrade your description, your “recipe”, for making the invention work.

Reproducibility

The history of ColdFusion is shot through with examples of intermittent replication right from the very beginning, starting with Fleischmann & Pons. I am not focusing on the failure of various illustrious institutions to duplicate the Fleischmann and Pons test results. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons had trouble duplicating their experimental demonstrations themselves. James Patterson in the 1990’s until his death in 2008 represented that he produced remarkable results from plastic, glass or ceramic micro-spheres coated with various layers of hydrogen-saturated metal, including both nickel and palladium. That was with his first batch of spheres. But when he subsequently prepared further batches he did not get the results he got before. Patterson obtained patents anyway, several in the US including No US 5,607,563 entitled “System for Electrolysis” issued on March 4, 1997, now expired. Other Patterson patents can be located through the hyperlinks in this reference. But these were never tested in Court. Shaky results have arisen in laboratory results around the world over the last 23 years. They are still happening today. This is part of the part of the mystery of this science. How does this affect patenting?

It is pretty clear that the USPTO should not be issuing patents for things that do not work. A little thought is required as to whether they should issue patents for things that work only some of the time. There are many technologies that might fall into this latter category. When you strike a flint on a bar of iron to create a spark and start a fire, it does not work with every blow. But the invention is profoundly useful. Similarly, in the field of pharmaceuticals medicines may exist that only work some of the time, but are well worth administering when there are no other alternatives and there is a real prospect that they may work in an individual case. Vaccines fall into this category.

On the other hand, I would not consider a heart valve to be useful if it has any substantial incidence of failure once installed in a patient. I am referring to failure due to a design fault such as accumulating scar tissue. Still, patents have issued for mechanical hearts that have kept Patients alive for only a limited period of time. In truth, the utility of an invention covered by a patent is highly dependent upon the representations made in the patent disclosure document as to what the invention will achieve.

This is leads to a big message. The utility requirement under patent law does not require that an invention be better or superior. It does not require that it deliver high-value. Anything that is “useful” to some degree will pass the utility requirement. But if an inventor extols the benefits of their invention, they are creating potentially serious problems for the validity of their patent. If you represent that your invention delivers a certain result claiming exclusive rights in such an outcome, and it does not indeed deliver that result, then such claims might possibly be invalidated for failing to meet the utility standard. At a minimum such defaults will be emphasized before a jury. You set the standard yourself in claiming rights over something that you say you can deliver. The conclusion is: Do not try to claim rights in more than your invention will deliver! In fact, as a general policy it is preferable to avoid making any more representations than the minimum needed to obtain a patent grant.

The utility requirement for an invention is met if you simply state an instance where it can be used to produce a useful result of even modest value. Do that, but go no further.

Example of Success

It is time for an example. Assume you have an experimental setup that produces unexplained excess heat. Rather than representing the technology as a solution to mankind’s energy requirements, it is sufficient to describe your invention as an assembly of hardware which demonstrates how excess heat can be produced from an artful combination of Palladium and deuterium. Just because you have described your invention as a demonstration apparatus does not mean that your patent claims cannot cover the use of the same apparatus to supply heat for your house indefinitely in the winter or heat for your air-conditioning system indefinitely in the summer, so long as the same principles are being used in the scaled-up system. But do not promise house heating and air-conditioning unless you also disclose how to build what is needed to do the job.

Here is an example of a successful patent granted on an invention for which Melvin Miles was a co-inventor:

United States Patent 7,381,368 issued June 3, 2008

Title: Palladium-boron alloys and methods for making and using such alloys

Inventors: Miles; Melvin H. (Ridgecrest, CA), Imam; M. Ashraf (Great Falls, VA)

Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy (Washington, DC)

And here are the key claims:

Claims:

1. An alloy comprising palladium and boron;

wherein at room temperature the alloy has a two-phase structure, comprising crystallites of a first phase and crystallites of a second phase;

wherein both the first phase and the second phase are solid solutions of palladium and boron;

wherein the crystallites of the first phase and the crystallites of the second phase are free of hydrogen;

wherein the first phase and the second phase have the same crystal structure;

wherein the first phase and the second phase have different lattice parameters;

wherein the alloy is free of palladium-boron intermetallic compounds; and

wherein the alloy is free of hydride compounds.

11. The alloy of claim 1, wherein said alloy is in the form of a membrane.

12. A method of hydrogen purification comprising the steps of: providing the membrane of claim 11, providing a gaseous sample comprising hydrogen on one side of the membrane, providing a vacuum on the other side of the membrane, and allowing the hydrogen to pass through the membrane.

13. The alloy of claim 1, wherein said alloy is in the form of an electrode.

14. A method of generating energy comprising the steps of: providing the electrode of claim 13, connecting the electrode to a cathode, immersing the electrode and the cathode in water containing deuterium, and applying a current to the electrode and the cathode.

Based on the above claims, anybody who has possession of the alloy described by claim 1 and uses it for any industrial purpose will violate the claim. There are multiple uses for this alloy. Claim 12 addresses using the alloy as a hydrogen-pass filter to permit hydrogen to enter a vacuum. Claim 14 addresses a clear example of generating energy by carrying out a Fleischmann & Pons type of procedure.

Note that there is no theory of operation included in the claims. If fact there is no theory of operation included in the patent. Why would you want to include theory that might not be right? And including the theory in the claims creates a terrible problem: to enforce the claim you would have to prove that the process being carried-out by an infringer complies with the theory. These are good crisp claims, directed to what they should be: a description of assembled hardware or processes for manipulating tangible substances. If you have described something that works, you do not have to explain why.

How did this application get through?

In the course of the prosecution of this application the Examiner never challenged the application on the basis that it is addresses a Cold Fusion invention. This may be for several reasons. One reason may be that the Examiner was working in an art where he was not accustomed to receiving Cold Fusion inventions. A further possibility is that the application focused on other uses for the alloy, mentioning the generation of energy as a collateral utility. In the case of a new compound, if it has an acceptable utility, the fact that the inventor believes it might also be the useful for other purposes, e.g. cold fusion, is not a bar to patentability. Once you patent an article or compound for one purpose, an article or compound that is new, then you are entitled to control its circulation in commerce no matter how it is used. A further possible reason for the easy treatment of this application is that it was filed on behalf of the Department of the Navy. And the last possible reason is that the application was generally well drafted, without making any extravagant claims or assertions of extraordinary benefits. This last possibility is to be contrasted with how many other applications directed to Cold Fusion innovations are drafted by attorneys, with the cooperation of or under pressure from the inventors.

This ends Part 1 of a paper prepared in support of a Poster Presentation at ICCF-18, the 18th International Conference on Cold Fusion held in Columbia, Missouri over July 21 – 27, 2013. Part 2 follow as a subsequent posting on ColdFusionNow.org here.

November 9, 2014May 16, 2016

Andrea Rossi 2nd US Patent Application Published 6 Nov 2014 at USPTO

The United States Patent Office has published a further patent application by Andrea Rossi on November 6, 2014.

This application was filed in the US on April 26, 2014 claiming priority from three earlier US applications made on May 2, May 3 and May 10, 2013. No changes can be made to the disclosure as from April 26, 2014. It will still take another year for the US Examiner Tu Ba Hong to search the invention and issue a first Office Action.

This filing was paralleled by a separate application made under the Patent Cooperation Treaty – PCT on April 26, 2014. The PCT filing claims the benefit of the same three US priority filings and probably has the same text as the US application made on the same date. Like the US application no changes can be made to the PCT disclosure as from April 26, 2014.

In both cases the original applicant was Industrial Heat, Inc. of 111 E Hargett St, Ste 300, Raleigh, North Carolina. This name was corrected before the USPTO on October 6, 2014 to IPH International BV of the same address and an assignment of the application to Leonardo Corporation was entered on the same date. The US application as published on November 6th shows Leonardo Corporation of 1331 Lincoln Road, Suite 601, Miami Beach, Florida as the applicant.

While the US filing will not be searched for a year the PCT application as published was accompanied by an International Search Report – ISR. No relevant references were found by the PCT Searcher. Three references were cited as being of interest but not damaging to the application: the 2011 US published application corresponding to Rossi’s first PCT filing, the Fleischmann & Pons PCT application of 1990 as filed by the University of Utah and a Russian reference RU 2267694 by Chabak Aleksandr Fedorovich published January 10, 2006. The PCT search was carried out in Moscow by the International Search branch of the Russian Patent Office. The only class searched was a single international class F24J 1/00. By way of contrast the corresponding US application was tagged for searching in a number of classes, including the International Class for Cold Fusion technology.

Before addressing the content of the disclosure in this new, published, 2nd Rossi US application, some further observations will be made about the “tombstone” data associated with this filing. The American firm acting on behalf of the original applicant, Industrial Heat, Inc., is NK Patent Law of 1917 Water’s Edge Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina. This firm has 5 patent professionals, 4 of whom are attorneys and one patent agent. They also have offices in Durham, North Carolina. At the same time, Rossi is pursuing his 1st application in the US using the New York firm of Hedman & Costigan PC. One possible reason for separate firms being involved is that the applicant, Industrial Heat, Inc. in the 2nd filing may have chosen the firm to have carriage of the 2nd application.

The fact that the 2nd application has been transferred from the name of Industrial Heat, Inc., (changed to IPH International BV), to Leonardo Corporation as recently as October, 2014 suggests that the original applicant may have withdrawn from being associated with the application. Leonardo Corporation was originally formed by Andrea Rossi. Presently, there is no reason for Rossi to change the patent firm designated for that 2nd application as no substantial expenses are imminent. It may be that they will agree to continue acting on a pro bono or on a deferred remuneration basis. Certainly it would be cost efficient for Rossi to consolidate the 2 applications in a single firm. It will be interesting to see which one he chooses.

The fact that the search was carried out at the Russian Patent Office is not especially relevant. They can do competent searches. But the limitation of that search to a single class is of more concern. To be fair, searches are supposed to be directed to the subject matter of the claimed invention. This invention has a number of claims that are likely to be amended in the course of examination. It would be highly desirable for the scope of search in respect of this application to be broadened. There is a prospect that this may occur when the US Examiner reaches the US application. But if the US Examiner chooses to reject the application as being based upon the unproven phenomenon of Cold Fusion, he may skimp on the search. That kind of rejection is often an easy way out for US Examiners who are on a tight schedule. There may be a template for rejecting Cold Fusion applications circulating amongst the Examiners at the USPTO.

Now we can turn to the substance of the disclosure in the pending US application.

It is important to appreciate that, with the amendments to the US patent law of 2013, it is now true around the world that no-one can obtain a valid patent for an arrangement that has been “made available to the public” prior to the filing date of an application. Something is “available to the public” if disclosed in any way or if it is “obvious” based upon everything that is known. If you delay filing for a patent then you are playing Roulette with the system.

If it is too late to obtain a patent for a key feature of an arrangement under these rules then no-one can obtain a patent on that specific feature. Keeping a concept secret at that point is likely to only provide a limited period of protection from competition. Secrets will out, eventually.

The fundamental principle of the free market is that everyone is free to copy whatever is not specifically protected under Intellectual Property laws.

Even if Andrea Rossi has discovered an effect for which he deserves a Nobel Prize, he will not be entitled to obtain a patent unless the patent documents as filed have been properly prepared. This means that the invention has to work (also a requirement for a Nobel Prize), and that the disclosure accompanying the application as filed must be sufficient to allow persons skilled in the field to achieve the benefits of the invention. The disclosure must be “enabling”. Then as the applicant he must develop language for one or more patent claims that specify arrangements that contain a feature which is both new and unobvious.

Referring now to the present application, while the claims look ridiculous as a first impression, at the time of filing claims can be merely placeholders. Claim 1 as filed reads:

“1. A reactor device comprising: a sealed vessel defining an interior; a fuel material within the interior of the vessel; and a heating element proximal the vessel, wherein the fuel material comprises a solid including nickel and hydrogen, and further wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized gas when in an initial state before activation of the heating element.”

Is this new? Is it unobvious? Does it describe something that works? Dynamite in a can along with nickel and water vapour meets this definition when thrown in a fire. Water contains hydrogen, doesn’t it? A claim should include enough context to focus it on a structure that works, is new and is unobvious.

Deficiencies in the claims at the time of filing are not fatal. The issue is whether there is “meat” in the disclosure sufficient to support claims that are valid and have real value. Claims can be presented at a later date so long as they are “supported”, ie, address structures sufficiently outlined in the disclosure at the time of filing. What, therefore, is disclosed in this patent application?

Here is a sample of what is asserted in the disclosure:

“[0046] Experimental investigations of heat production in layered tubular reactor devices according to several embodiments have been conducted. In each example, the reactor device was charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder. An exothermic reaction was initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor device. Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high-resolution thermal-imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor device. Electrical power input was measured with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. While all three experiments yielded interesting results, the reactor device 100 was damaged during the first of the three experiments. The latter two experiments were conducted without equipment failure, and data was collected in the latter two experimental runs for durations lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively. Heat production was indicated in both experiments. The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without an active charge present in a dummy tubular reactor device. In the case of the dummy reactor device, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electrical input.”

What is the structure that makes this work?

[0048] …… In a reactor device disclosed herein, an exothermic reaction is fueled by a mixture of nickel, hydrogen, and a catalyst. In the embodiments detailed in these descriptions, thermal energy is produced after the reaction within an inner-most tube of a layered tubular reactor device is activated by heat produced by a set of resistor coils located outside the inner-most tube but inside the layered tubular reactor device.

[0170] Each reactor device, according to these descriptions, includes a reaction chamber in which nickel powder and hydrogen react in the presence of a catalyst……

I don’t want to go any further. These are the only two references to a “catalyst” appearing in the application. No reference is made to a “catalyst” by name in the claims. How can this be an enabling disclosure?

For clarification as to patenting requirements in the United States here is an excerpt from the US Patent Act:

35 U.S. Code § 112 – Specification

(a) In General.— The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

How can the best mode requirement be met when a catalyst is required and that catalyst is not disclosed? How could this application even have been filed?

Others can search through this disclosure for ostensibly useful technical information, but as a patent filing this application will encounter great difficulties.

October 12, 2014May 16, 2016

Status Report – Rossi Pending US Patent Application

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invention Inoperable

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation of Prior Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall Commentary

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

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

October 8, 2014October 14, 2014

New E-Cat Report Positive, 1400C+ and Isotopic Changes in Ni+Li

New E-Cat Report Download Here

Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device
and of isotopic changes in the fuel

This test was performed by the same group as the previous test with the following names on the paper:

Giuseppe Levi
Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
Evelyn Foschi
Bologna, Italy
Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Hanno Essén
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

This 760 hour test is the longest running example of controllable LENR/Cold Fusion and at an excess of 5825MJ it is also the most powerful.

The Temperature peaked at above 1400C, hot enough to be extremely practical as an energy source. The measured COP was between 3.2 and 3.6 with the authors hinting they could have pushed the device further but were cautious due to the huge energy gains when they initially turned it up a bit.

The fuel was analyzed before and after the test and showed significant changes in the elemental profile including shifts to Ni62 and depletion of other Ni isotopes as well as a shift in Lithium isotopes.

Listen to Andrea Rossi discuss the results with John Maguire here.

May 15, 2014

Borealis LENR Patent – Elektron is the Greek Word for Amber

The Borealis family of companies could convert popular cold fusion (LENR thermal) energy to desired electrical current at 50% to 80% Carnot efficiency with their Power Chips. This matches, and may nearly double, known industrial electricity production efficiencies.

Then with their Chorus group of advanced polyphase induction motors they can provide every range of torque needed; more efficiently, with decreased size and weight, and with an increase in reliability in both low rpm and high temperature conditions.

Take into account LENR thermal energy at 1000X greater than chemical, plus the thermal/electrical conversion at an amazing 50% to 80%, and then figure in the “harmonic 12 phase” motors with up to 30% improvements in size, efficiency, and safety, and you will see that the Borealis affiliates are roaring and ready to join LENR energy engineers as they race to market a new energy era.

LENR open source projects may benefit from a Borealis relationship as well.

Here is a recent patent abstract from Borealis on LENR thermal electric conversion.

“A system and method are provided for generating electric power from relatively low temperature energy sources at efficiency levels not previously available. The present system and method employ recent advances in low energy nuclear reaction technology and thermionic/thermotunneling device technology first to generate heat and then to convert a substantial portion of the heat generated to usable electrical power. Heat may be generated by a LENR system employing nuclear reactions that occur in readily available materials at ambient temperatures without a high energy input requirement and do not produce radioactive byproducts. The heat generated by the LENR system may be transferred through one or more thermionic converter devices in heat transfer relationship with the LENR system to generate electric power.”

Ancient cultures around the Mediterranean knew that certain objects, such as rods of amber, could be rubbed with cat’s fur to create static electricity. In 1600, the English scientist William Gilbert coined the New Latin word electricus ‘of amber’ or ‘like amber’ from ήλεκτρον [elektron], the Greek word for amber. This association gave rise to the English words ‘electric’ and ‘electricity’ which made their first appearance in print in Thomas Browne’s Pseudodoxia Epidemica of 1646.

“Industrial electricity production at present is done primarily with gas and steam turbine technology. Absolute conversion efficiencies with these technologies are in the range of 30%-40%…” see pg. 9 of ‘Thermal to Electric Energy Conversion‘, by Dr Peter Hagelstein of MIT.

In light of this, one could venture to say that the Borealis proposal to the LENR energy community, at an impressive 50% to 80% thermal electric conversion, is like a precious energetic gem of amber (elektron).

Electricity is one of the wonders of our times, enabling the second industrial revolution as well as the information and space age. How dense will the proposed Borealis LENR electricity be at 60% Carnot? Let’s look at the size of the 6 kilowatt LENR thermoionic electrical generator (75 cubic centimeters). It is quite small compared to the size of a typical 6 kilowatt natural gas home electrical generator, 48L x 25W x 29H (Inches).

From the Borealis LENR Patent

An illustrative reactor core with a volume on the order of about 50 cubic centimeters (cm3) can use a few grams of nickel or other metal powder and a very small amount of hydrogen to safely produce about 10 kilowatts of heat.

…and can continue to produce this amount of heat for six months or more.

…and the thermionic converter preferably may have a longest dimension in the range of about one inch (2.2 cm), the overall size of the present high efficiency electricity generating system can be quite small.

The size of the system can be increased by connecting modules of LENR system reaction vessels and thermionic converters.

Power Chip efficiency: Power Chips can achieve in excess of 50% of Carnot (ideal) efficiency, compared to a maximum of 36% for single stage power plants, 50-60% in conventional two stage power systems, and 5-8% for thermoelectric devices.

The Borealis affiliates have worked hard to master these technologies. Recent breakthroughs have come to them through advanced techniques of nano engineering. Their discoveries within the world of nano particles has lead to atomic architecture designed for specific quantum effects. For a complete representation of their expertise in the field peruse their sites portfolio of patents granted and google Borealis Technical for recent patent activity.

“The new technology results from the discovery that quantum interference, which reduces quantum state density at a material’s surface, can be achieved on a macroscopic scale. Simply by modifying the surface texture of a material in precise ways, using methods commonly applied in the manufacture of semiconductor devices, engineers should be able to exploit this Avto Effect (TM) and transform existing materials into materials with precisely engineered properties for many new applications. When we fully understand the Avto Effect, we could possibly be able to custom design work functions for multiple different applications.” – Borealis CEO – press release

From the Borealis Power Chip Patent

The present invention utilizes a wafer bonding technique to create the conditions required for thermoelectric conversion. This involves bringing two conductive planes to within 10-1000 nm without causing electrical or thermal “shorts”. Silicon on insulator techniques are widely used to bond two silicon wafers with thin oxide layers in between. However, the thermal leakage of a 10 nm SiO2 layer is 4-5 orders of magnitude too large for effective thermo-electric conversion.

This can easily be mitigated by not bonding the entire surface. If a small particle is trapped in between two silicon wafers, due to the mechanical properties of silicon, a non-bonded area (void) of 5000 times the size (height) of the particle is created. For example, if a particle of height Z is trapped between two silicon wafers, a void with an area of approximately 5000Z2 is formed. Consequently, if two particles are spaced a distance apart, whereby the size of the distance is less than 2×5000 the size of the particles; an even larger void is created. Using this idea, it is possible to form small “spacers” that maintain a gap between the wafers.

This invention sets and maintains a gap between the electrodes of a thermotunneling device without the use of active elements, and therefore problems of thermal conduction between its layers are reduced or eliminated.

Furthermore, using this method to create gap diode devices is inexpensive as it does not require active elements such as piezoelectric actuators to create and maintain the gap.

Furthermore, this invention discloses methods for manufacturingthermotunneling converters on a large scale, thus reducing costs and increasing possibilities for potential applications.

The mechanical properties of silicon are such that if a small particle is trapped in between two silicon wafers, a non-bonded area (void) of 5000 times the size (height) of the particle is created. For example, using a 3-dimensional axis of coordinates X, Y and Z, a particle of height Z leads to a void in the X and Y dimensions of approximately 5000 Z in each of X and Y. Therefore the spacers consist of a dot of silicon oxide topped by a protective layer and will have the effect of keeping the two silicon wafers at a desired distance without the use of active elements.

This forms a structure in which the thermal flux across the assembly is reduced by the ratio of surface area of these spacers to the remaining surface area. A spacer of about 1 micrometer height leads to a gap with a diameter of approximately 5000 times that size, namely, 0.5 cm. These approximations are effective for typical 4 inch diameter silicon wafers, with a thickness of about 525 micrometers. It is understood that the invention is by no means limited to these measurements or approximations, and they are mentioned merely by way of example.

The layers on the active wafer can be introduced using approaches commonly used in the art. For example, an active layer can be introduced on to the electrode by vacuum deposition, using materials such as zinc, lead, cadmium, thallium, bismuth, polonium, tin, selenium, lithium, indium, sodium, potassium, gallium or cesium. Another possible method is sputtering, using materials such as titanium and silver. In a further example, an active layer such as copper is grown electrochemically onto the silicon layer. In another example, an electrically conducting paste, preferably silver, may be applied onto the electrode, or a thin film may be introduced using MEMS techniques. It is to be understood that the invention is in no way limited to these specific methods and they are mentioned only by way of example. Accordingly, any other suitable method may be used.

Manufacturing of electric cars, ships, and aircraft will surge with an electric power plant of this density available; one that requires no fuel tanks or refueling for 6 months!

These manufacturers may also gain an edge with the use of Borealis advanced harmonics control and the ensuing advantages within motors. The following is from the Borealis website.

The Chorus Difference

“The Chorus Motor’s patented employment of electrical drive harmonics unlocks a power-to-weight ratio of almost 10:1 over conventional AC induction solutions. This incredible power density, and the use of patented control logic, allows the motor to function efficiently in both low-speed/high-torque and high-speed/low-torque configurations. In other words Chorus handles very fast starts and ‘power jumps’ as well as smooth, continuous high-speed operation with equal elegance.”

“As a high-phase order motor, the amount of current running through each phase is reduced, enabling a 20-30% reduction in the size and weight of the power electronics module.”

From the Borealis Chorus Motor Patent

The most important result of the method of the present invention is that the use of many phases reduces substantially the problems associated with harmonic rotating fields. Specifically, in a fashion novel to the art, the use of many phases causes harmonic fields up to a number equal to the number of phases to rotate in synchronism with the fundamental rotating field. Both spatial harmonic rotating fields and temporal harmonic rotating fields are still developed, but such rotating fields add beneficially to the fundamental rotating field of the machine. Harmonics of higher order than the number of phases still excite non-synchronous rotating fields; however such high order harmonics are in general very weak. Thus motor efficiency losses associated with harmonic rotating fields are reduced.

The method of the present invention allows for the use of drive wave-form with high harmonic content, and in an embodiment of the present invention, square wave inverters are used in place of the more complex and expensive sine wave inverters to drive the induction rotating machine. The method of the present invention allows for the use of high saturation levels, and in an embodiment of the present invention high voltage is used to produce high flux densities, thus increasing the overload output capabilities of the induction rotating machine.

An advantage of the present invention is that rotating machinery with low pole counts, and thus greater efficiency and capability, can be used where high pole count machines are currently being used.

An advantage of the present invention is that the use of multiple inverters will enhance system fault tolerance. Should an inverter leg fail, only a single motor winding will cease to function, and most of the motor capacity will remain available.

An advantage of the present invention is that currently available inverter technology may be used to enhance the efficiency and performance of electrical rotating machinery.

It is an object of the present invention to enhance the stall torque and reduce the stall power consumption of electric motors.

An advantage of the present invention is that a given size electric motor will be more capable of starting inertial loads. When operated as a generator for regenerative braking purposes, a given size induction machine will be more capable of stopping inertial loads.

An advantage of the present invention is that inertial loads will be more quickly brought up to running speed.

An advantage of the present invention is that less energy will be dissipated when starting and stopping electrical rotating machinery.

An advantage of the present invention is that a smaller motor may be used on large inertial loads, allowing the motor to operate much nearer to full power after said inertial load is accelerated to operational speed. This will enhance the efficiency of such systems as motors are more efficient when operated nearer to full power.

It is an object of the present invention to reduce the zero load power consumption of electric motors.

An advantage of the present invention is that motor operation will be more efficient, especially so at low duty factors.

An advantage of the present invention is that stator heating will be significantly reduced.

It is an object of the present invention to provide greater reliability through redundancy in drive electronics.

An advantage of the present invention is that the motor and drive system will continue to function although a single inverter may fail.

An advantage of the present invention is that the winding copper is more effectively used.

Patents Sourced

Borealis LENR Patent - Published Nov. 14, 2013
Method and System for High Efficiency Electricity Generation Using Low Energy Thermal Heat Generation and Thermionic Devices

Borealis Power Chip Patent - Granted Sept. 24, 2013
Thermionic/Thermotunneling Thermo-Electrical Converter

Borealis Chorus Motor Patent - Granted April 25, 2000
Polyphase Induction Electrical Rotating Machine

Poetry

All over the world, engineers hold the “Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer” in high regard. It was written and presented by Kipling in the early 1920 ‘s, at the request of a group of seven retired presidents of the Engineering Institute of Canada. They had decided that there needed to be a ceremony and standard of ethics for graduating engineers. The Corporation of the Seven Wardens administers the oath to this day.

“The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer has been instituted with the simple end of directing the young engineer towards a consciousness of his profession and its significance, and indicating to the older engineer his responsibilities in receiving, welcoming and supporting the young engineers in their beginnings.” — Rudyard Kipling

Advances in well engineered physical constructs have improved living conditions since the time of Kipling. Excellence in engineering has become the standard of our day. Recent social constructs have also improved life since the days of Kipling. His poems often reflect the harshness of life before the advent of the 40 hour work week, minimum wage standards, and workplace safety and child labor laws.

Perhaps with the era that cold fusion ushers in we will see our social engineers making the quantum leap that our physical engineers are making today. They did so in the Victorian era.

Honoring those who ensure that all things are in working order and engineered correctly; penned during the writing of the “Ritual of the Calling of the Engineer”.

This poem alludes to the the division of the labor and privileged classes of his day.

The Sons of Martha – by Rudyard Kipling

The Sons of Mary seldom bother, for they have inherited that good part;
But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of the careful soul and troubled heart.
And because she lost her temper once, and because she was rude to the Lord her Guest,
Her Sons must wait upon Mary’s Sons, world without end, reprieve, or rest.

It is their care in all the ages to take the buffet and cushion the shock.
It is their care that the gear engages; it is their care that the switches lock.
It is their care that the wheels run truly; it is their care to embark and entrain,
Tally, transport, and deliver duly the Sons of Mary by land and main.

They say to mountains, ‘Be ye removed’. They say to the lesser floods, ‘Be dry’.
Under their rods are the rocks reproved – they are not afraid of that which is high.
Then do the hill-tops shake to the summit – then is the bed of the deep laid bare,

That the Sons of Mary may overcome it, pleasantly sleeping and unaware.
They finger death at their gloves’ end where they piece and repiece the living wires.
He rears against the gates they tend: they feed him hungry behind their fires.
Early at dawn, ere men see clear, they stumble into his terrible stall,

And hale him forth like a haltered steer, and goad and turn him till evenfall.
To these from birth is Belief forbidden; from these till death is Relief afar.
They are concerned with matter hidden, under the earthline their altars are;
The secret fountains to follow up, waters withdrawn to restore to the mouth,

And gather the floods as in a cup, and pour them again at a city drouth.
They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose.
They do not teach that His Pity allows them to leave their work when they damn-well choose.
As in the thronged and the lighted ways, so in the dark and the desert they stand.

Wary and watchful all their days that their brethren’s days may be long in the land.
Raise ye the stone or cleave the wood to make a path more fair or flat:
Lo, it is black already with blood some Son of Martha spilled for that:
Not as a ladder from earth to Heaven, not as a witness to any creed,

But simple service simply given to his own kind in their common need.
And the Sons of Mary smile and are blessed, they know the angels are on their side.
They know in them is the Grace confessed, and for them are the Mercies multiplied.
They sit at the Feet – they hear the Word – they see how truly the Promise Runs:

They have cast their burden upon the Lord, and – the Lord He lays it on Martha’s Sons.

History

Thales, the earliest known researcher into electricity

Long before any knowledge of electricity existed people were aware of shocks from electric fish. Ancient Egyptian texts dating from 2750 BC referred to these fish as the “Thunderer of the Nile”, and described them as the “protectors” of all other fish. Electric fish were again reported millennia later by ancient Greek, Roman and Arabic naturalists and physicians. Several ancient writers, such as Pliny the Elder and Scribonius Largus, attested to the numbing effect of electric shocks delivered by catfish and torpedo rays, and knew that such shocks could travel along conducting objects. Patients suffering from ailments such as gout or headache were directed to touch electric fish in the hope that the powerful jolt might cure them. Possibly the earliest and nearest approach to the discovery of the identity of lightning, and electricity from any other source, is to be attributed to the Arabs, who before the 15th century had the Arabic word for lightning (raad) applied to the electric ray.

Ancient cultures around the Mediterranean knew that certain objects, such as rods of amber, could be rubbed with cat’s fur to attract light objects like feathers. Thales of Miletos made a series of observations on static electricity around 600 BC, from which he believed that friction rendered amber magnetic, in contrast to minerals such as magnetite, which needed no rubbing. Thales was incorrect in believing the attraction was due to a magnetic effect, but later science would prove a link between magnetism and electricity. According to a controversial theory, the Parthians may have had knowledge of electroplating, based on the 1936 discovery of the Baghdad Battery, which resembles a galvanic cell, though it is uncertain whether the artifact was electrical in nature.

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin conducted extensive research on electricity in the 18th century, as documented by Joseph Priestley(1767) History and Present Status of Electricity, with whom Franklin carried on extended correspondence.

Electricity would remain little more than an intellectual curiosity for millennia until 1600, when the English scientist William Gilbert made a careful study of electricity and magnetism, distinguishing the lodestone effect from static electricity produced by rubbing amber. He coined the New Latin word electricus (“of amber” or “like amber”, from ήλεκτρον [elektron], the Greek word for “amber”) to refer to the property of attracting small objects after being rubbed. This association gave rise to the English words “electric” and “electricity”, which made their first appearance in print in Thomas Browne’s Pseudodoxia Epidemica of 1646.

Further work was conducted by Otto von Guericke, Robert Boyle, Stephen Gray and C. F. du Fay. In the 18th century, Benjamin Franklin conducted extensive research in electricity, selling his possessions to fund his work. In June 1752 he is reputed to have attached a metal key to the bottom of a dampened kite string and flown the kite in a storm-threatened sky. A succession of sparks jumping from the key to the back of his hand showed that lightning was indeed electrical in nature. He also explained the apparently paradoxical behavior of theLeyden jar as a device for storing large amounts of electrical charge.

Michael Faraday formed the foundation of electric motor technology

In 1791, Luigi Galvani published his discovery of bioelectricity, demonstrating that electricity was the medium by which nerve cells passed signals to the muscles. Alessandro Volta’s battery, or voltaic pile, of 1800, made from alternating layers of zinc and copper, provided scientists with a more reliable source of electrical energy than the electrostatic machines previously used. The recognition of electromagnetism, the unity of electric and magnetic phenomena, is due to Hans Christian Ørsted and André-Marie Ampère in 1819-1820; Michael Faraday invented the electric motor in 1821, and Georg Ohm mathematically analysed the electrical circuit in 1827. Electricity and magnetism (and light) were definitively linked by James Clerk Maxwell, in particular in his “On Physical Lines of Force” in 1861 and 1862.

While the early 19th century had seen rapid progress in electrical science, the late 19th century would see the greatest progress in electrical engineering. Through such people as Alexander Graham Bell,Ottó Bláthy, Thomas Edison, Galileo Ferraris, Oliver Heaviside, Ányos Jedlik, Lord Kelvin, Sir Charles Parsons, Ernst Werner von Siemens, Joseph Swan, Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse, electricity turned from a scientific curiosity into an essential tool for modern life, becoming a driving force of the Second Industrial Revolution.In 1887, Heinrich Hertz discovered that electrodes illuminated with ultraviolet light create electric sparks more easily. In 1905 Albert Einstein published a paper that explained experimental data from the photoelectric effect as being the result of light energy being carried in discrete quantized packets, energizing electrons. This discovery led to the quantum revolution. Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921 for “his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”. The photoelectric effect is also employed in photocells such as can be found in solar panels and this is frequently used to make electricity commercially.

The first solid-state device was the “cat’s whisker” detector, first used in 1930s radio receivers. A whisker-like wire is placed lightly in contact with a solid crystal (such as a germanium crystal) in order to detect a radio signal by the contact junction effect. In a solid-state component, the current is confined to solid elements and compounds engineered specifically to switch and amplify it. Current flow can be understood in two forms: as negatively charged electrons, and as positively charged electron deficiencies called holes. These charges and holes are understood in terms of quantum physics. The building material is most often a crystalline semiconductor.The solid-state device came into its own with the invention of the transistor in 1947. Common solid-state devices include transistors, micro processor chips, and RAM. A specialized type of RAM called flash RAM is used in flash drives and more recently, solid state drives to replace mechanically rotating magnetic disc hard drives. Solid state devices became prevalent in the 1950s and the 1960s, during the transition from vacuum tube technology to semiconductor diodes, transistors, integrated circuit (IC) and the light-emitting diode (LED).

April 7, 2014April 7, 2014

Commercial Developments presented at 2014 MIT Cold Fusion Conference

The recent 2014 Cold Fusion/LENR/LANR conference from March 21st to March 23rd at Massachusetts Institute of Technology happened to overlap with the 25th anniversary of the announcement of the discovery of cold fusion at the university of Utah. Against all odds, huge strides in understanding the phenomenon were made in the last 25 years. Recently, groups have shown that this is more than a lab curiosity, it can be engineered and harnessed to safely solve the worlds energy problems. This is an overview of some commercial groups which presented at the 2014 MIT conference.

Jet Energy operated by Dr. Mitchel Swartz was the organizer of the conference and also presented some very interesting findings. They have been working with very small devices which can be used as a demonstration unit or operated in a huge array to produce commercial levels of heat. Dr. Swartz has been active in the field since the very start and is constantly improving on his device, the newest generation being called the Nanor. Dr. Swartz’s devices are unique because the loading and operation stages of the device are separated, allowing for simple plug-and-play operation which greatly simplifies use by groups trying to study the effect. Jet Energy has published cold fusion research since the late 1980s, Jet Energy’s recent developments involve using a magnetic effect to boost the output of his devices, which have seen COP’s of 100. This reinforces the recent developments in understanding the effect, magnetism is seems to play a role in both the cause and effect aspects of cold fusion. Dr Hagelstein of MIT made an interesting comment during one of Dr. Swartz presentations, “I can’t for the life of me understand why graphs showing gains of over 100 are being rushed through”. This is a symbol of how much things have improved in the last 25 years. We are moving from just trying to prove the effect really exists to starting to understand the cause of the phenomenon and develop commercial units from the technology.

MIT Conference video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBDImkDZ4h8

Clean Planet, a Japanese group with Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno as the lead scientist made their debute at the MIT conference, represented by Hideki Yoshino. Mizuno is a household name in the Cold Fusion field and has developed many well referenced experiments. It appears he has found the financial backing required to attempt to bring a commercial reactor to market. At the conference, Clean Planet showed off their proof of concept reactor which operates at a COP of 1.9 as well as some other reactors being built which are made to operate at the 1kw and 10kw power level. Their reactor is simple and an amazing spectacle to watch. Using normal nickel mesh, they create a brilliant plasma to sputter the surface of the metal, cleaning it and creating surface nanostructures which kick off the Cold Fusion effect. Preparing their material inside of the reactor may solve some of the material consistency issues other commercial groups are struggling with. They have a well equipped lab with gamma and neutron radiation detection, although they have not seen any consistent hard radiation outside their reactor during excess heat, they have some some occasional bursts. Clean Planet also presented mass spectroscopy results which confused many scientists and has started a wave of speculation regarding theory. In the mass spectroscopy results, higher masses decreased during excess heat at the expense of lower masses, opposite to what would be expected of fusion events. Clean Planet was quick to point out that these results should be seen as preliminary, their equipment can not separate deuterium and helium so until their outside gas analysis comes back they don’t have solid information. Japan is in dire need of this technology and has historically been supportive of cold fusion research, we can expect Japan to have a serious presence in the Cold Fusion commercialization race. While Mizuno skyped in, his group was represented at the conference by multiple businessmen, they look to have all the resources they need and attracting funding and talent should not be an issue. This is a company to keep an eye on, they could quickly develop a foothold at the head of this field.

MIT Conference video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB_MRUX4mo0

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries research program, headed by Dr. Yasuhiro Iwamura had some big developments since their last presentation 8 months ago at ICCF18. They are focusing on technology which maximizes transmutation using a gas permeation process, previously reporting that they were able to use the cold fusion effect to transmutate cesium to praseodymium, essentially producing a valuable material from a radioactive waste. While transmutation in this field has been a proven reality, a well funded drive to engineer this effect could lead to enormous advances in many fields of technology. Transmutation could solve both issues with nuclear contamination as well as material scarcity, including exotic isotopes. A research program at NRL failed to replicate these results, at ICCF18 Dr. David Kidwell spoke the same day as Dr. Imawura about NRLs failure to replicate the results, he was overly aggressive and had a very mocking tone, accused them of improper use of equipment, sloppy work and accidentally spiking samples after apparently finding praseodymium contamination in their lab. While the motives behind the NRL bullying were foggy, they ate crow pie a few months later when Toyoto affiliated labs published results showing that they had replicated the transmutation effects in this experiment. MHI originally they used gas permeation through a palladium film ion-implanted with cesium to trigger the effect and transmutate the cesium to praseodymium. At MIT, Dr. Imawura showed new developments in their transmutation research, they started developing modular experiments so they can scale up the device to commercial levels. Dr. Imawura revealed that they had began hybrid electrochemical experiments where they are using cesium in a liquid solution. This may not only be more effective due to the known electrochemical methods of triggering the effect, but it will also have engineering benefits such as cooling and scalability. This is an enormous breakthrough if it can transmutate Cesium in a liquid solution at high yields. Considering water contaminated with cesium is the main contamination at Fukushima, this technology could not only clean up the radiation but also generate heat as a side product. The potential here is enormous, not only for Japan, but for the world, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is quickly moving forward.

MIT Conference video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzZl9l8nn1c

Permanetix Corporation is a new startup which was announced at the conference, President Nikita Alexandrov, in his mid twenties, is one of the youngest researchers involved in this field. Permanetix Corporation is developing tools and experiment techniques to better study the cold fusion effect. He explained how low cost tools and new scientific instruments can help solve the cold fusion problem in the same way that they revolutionized the human genome project. He presented a robust radiation sensor which can be placed in a gas loading experiment, detecting all the low energy radiation that does not pass through the reactor walls. They detected alpha radiation testing the device, meaning that they should also be able to use this as an internal tritium detector, since tritium also emits soft radiation. Nikita Alexandrov also spoke about the challenges of real time helium detection technology and how to design a low cost helium isotope analysis system. While they have prototypes of new tools, they also presented their long term research plan, involving the mass testing of precisely created materials for the cold fusion effect using advanced versions of their tools. Both companies developing reactors as well as researchers interested in the basic science could benefit from the discovery of new materials. But since Permanetix is not making reactors, it is a challenge to fund until cold fusion is a household word. Brian Ahern, who funded many research projects during his time at DARPA, spoke up after the presentation, “You are obviously leading, or ahead of the field so funding will be a challenge”. Permanetix technology could lower the barrier to entry for research companies starting in this field. If they prove themselves and can attract the large amount of funding required for a mass materials screening project, there is no doubt their approach could pay off tremendously.

MIT Conference video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsR4rrP22Uc

The LENR Industry Association was represented by Steve Katinsky and presented their plan forward at the MIT conference. This trade group will position itself as a facilitator of cold fusion technologies, involved in the education and adoption of cold fusion technology worldwide. This is an important step because it shows that even in such a highly competitive field, groups are willing to work together to do what it takes in making this technology a reality. Already over two dozen groups have pledged membership to this association, involving entities such as Naval Research Lab, two branches of NASA, as well as SKINR, commercial groups and other international research entities.

MIT Conference video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMNSl-nrFXQ

SKINR is one last non-commercial group is worth mentioning. Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance at University of Missouri was formed by a large private investment, absorbing one of the most successful cold fusion companies at the time (Energetics) into the university. Even though they are not a commercial entity, they are possibly the most well funded and equipped research group operating today. SKINR had an excellent presentation summarizing their work in the field, available here. They are currently running many experiments in collaboration with other groups, recently adding industry giant Aerospace Corporation, a move which shows that industry leaders are biting off on Cold Fusion. SKINR is funded for the next 4 years and have constantly been innovating and learning more and more about the science behind the cold fusion effect. Recent developments include a method of surface analysis which can predict if a material will be active as well as new experiments to detect low energy radiation. Their parting message was that if low energy radiation is used as an indicator of cold fusion, it is possible to detect events down to the femto-watt level of excess heat! With multiple groups developing new experiments and techniques for studying the effect, it is expected that huge strides will be made in understanding the cold fusion effect in the coming months and years.

MIT Conference video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWL6VUPSqKQ

Many groups were not represented at the conference, with some of the largest commercial players absent. Defkalion was registered but pulled out last minute, which is unfortunate because researchers were very curious about the huge magnetic anomalies present in their reactor which they mentioned briefly at ICCF-18.

Leonardo corporation, the company formed by Andrea Rossi which is leading the field in terms of commercialization was of course absent. They have not presented at any recent conferences and are more focused on rapid commercialization. Recently partnering with some powerful American backers, it is rumored that they will release third party test long duration test results in the next few weeks, if the results are anywhere near as positive as the previous published tests, this field may see an explosion of interest and may finally get the recognition it deserves.