Ecat – Page 2 – COLD FUSION NOW!

January 13, 2015January 13, 2015

Interview with Yuri Bazhutov by Peter Gluck

This is a re-post of an article written by Dr. Peter Gluck of Ego Out in Cluj, Romania.

The original article can be found here.

SHORT INTERVIEW WITH YU. N. BAZHUTOV by Peter Gluck

I had the privilege to ask a few preliminary questions from the leader of Russian LENR researchers Yuri Nikolaevich Bazhutov. They call the field Cold Nuclear Transmutation and I think this name is more realist than Cold Fusion.

Yuri Bazhutov is an ’89-er cold fusionist (excuse me) a well known member or our community, a reputed author, with 15 papers 1982 to 2014 in the LENR-CANR Library, an organizer and participant at our meetings, CNT strategist, a personality..

Q
It is encouraging to see and easy to observe how closely and seriously are followed, discussed and theorized the developments in CNT/LENR in Russia. What is the strategic thinking beyond this and the main targets?

A
After more, than 25 years of theoretical, experimental pilot studies in Cold Nuclear Transmutation in Russia we have arrived to a stage when we think about patents, demonstration devices, search for investors for realization of industrial devices. We are at a different, higher level now.

Q
Your very personal opinion: how do you see the scientific aspects; how these new developments, can they be explained theoretically and what do you and your collaborators intend to do for the experimental part?

In essence is it new science or new application (s) of already known science?

A
As co-author of the Model of the Erzion Catalysis (MEC), I believe that it explains the nature of CNT. All my experiments made in 25 years confirm this model.

MEC is built on orthodox representations of the Physics of Elementary Particles including as the main part, Quantum Chronodynamics (QCD) and, therefore it is also the new Section of Nuclear Physics

Q
The Lugano experiment despite its over-complicated thermometric calorimetry is a harbinger of a really wonderful/powerful energy source, MWhours from grams. Unfortunately, the Testers were shocked by the analytical results.
What do you think about those unexpected isotopic shifts and the dynamic processes that make these possible

A
Starting with the first experiments made by Rossi and Focardi up to the very Hot Cat tested in Lugano, MEC gives generally fine explanations and I have published about this in RCCNT&BL Proc., and in the Russian Inventing magazines (No. 1, 2012) and ISCMNS J. (No. 13, 2014). However I believe that our option of Russian E-cat on the basis of Plasma Electrolysis gives a much better perspective- heat generator at close realization still having a very high output specific power (MWhours from grams common water).

Q
On December 25, 2014 at a CNT seminary-Alexander Parkhomov and you have presented an experiment confirming the Lugano experiment using a realistic-cut-the Gordian knot simple calorimetry inspired from your experience. A very positive event.

However, after more than 50 years in and around research i have learned the cruel 1=0 rule-1 single experiment can’t generate absolute certainty. Nor Lugano, neither Parkhomov; so I ask-was the experiment repeated in house and when will the new report be published?

A
Parkhomov now works on lengthening of time of continuous work of a cell then to do atom spectroscopic and mass spectroscopic analyses of change of chemical structure and of the isotopic composition of fuel.

Peter Gluck – This was just a first discussion, I hope to continue. Bazhutov added: see and read more– and I have translated the paper.

http://vpk.name/forum/s188.html
The revolution in energetics was accomplished! The place of organic fuels was taken by the Cold nuclear Transmutation.
By A.A. Rukhadze, Yu.N. Bazhutov, A.B. Karabut, V.G. Koltashov

The era of oil burning has arrived to its end. The revolution in CNT (Cold Nuclear Transmutation) opens the way toward a new economic transformation, to the triumph of robotics, to cheaper production and the transition of the world’s economy in which Russia should not be disadvantaged.

On October 8, 2014 in the prestigious Los Alamos electronic publication Arxiv.org it was published the report of an independent group regarding the testing of the heat generator- Hot Cat created by Andrea Rossi. Six well known scientists from Italy and Sweden have tested for 32 days the functioning of the generator that allows obtaining cheap energy on the basis of a new scientific principle.

In the absence of the author of the invention (A. Rossi) there were measured all the possible parameters of the “energetic cat” After that, for an half year the scientists have processed the results in order to get comprehension. And their verdict was univocal: the Rossi generator works and produces an incredible amount of energy- the energy density is millions times greater as by burning the same quantity of any kind of organic fuel and is 3.7 times greater than the input electric energy. In the same time it is changed the isotopic composition of the fuel materials.

No nuclear radiations from the reactor could be observed during the test.
The first demonstration of working of an E-cat prototype was performed already at January 14, 2011 in Bologna, at the Physics Dept. of the University. During this demo the scientists and the journalists have seen a functioning reactor with the power of 12.5 kW at output. This works on the principle of cold nuclear transmutation as have related the authors, Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi.

Sergio Focardi, professor at the Bologna University – has performed even 20 years earlier the mechanism of hydrogen-nickel interaction in cooperation with the professor of the Siena University, Francesco Piantelli. These studies were done in the frame of a new physical phenomenon, cold fusion discovered by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in the year 1989.

At October 28, 2011 Andrea Rossi has already shown his first 1 Megawatt reactor sold to his first customer. Engineers and scientist were present, verifying how it works. Due to some imperfections, the reactor has produced 470 kWatts working for 5.5 hours in self-sustaining mode. There were used 100 reactor modules each with 3 branches- the whole complex of 300 reaction chambers.

The orthodox physicist overall have again ignored Rossi. According to all the canons of physics, something like this- nuclear boiler on the table- cannot exist! Amplification of energy almost 10 times is pure non-sense! And only few “heretics” of science, working for cold fusion (CF) have supported him.

Rossi had an unpredictable behavior but not so that he could be called a rogue and a charlatan as the orthodox have accused him. He has not asked money from anybody, on the contrary he has sold his house to be able to start this research. He has not chased popularity in the press; he refused interviews and has worked more with businessmen than journalists.

Rossi also has not tried to open a dialogue with the scientists – the luminaries of the nuclear physics: “The best proof of my truth will be the commercial device on the market”- he says.

The attitude toward this inventor has gradually changed- when after a dozen conferences nobody could show he cheats, secretly brings electricity to the device.

After that NASA took Rossi under its protection. Rossi could not refuse. It is clear he is safer in the US than in Italy. But NASA is only the visible part of the wall built by USA around Rossi and his invention.

It can be confirmed that the US tries to obtain complete control of the new sources of energy, the one who owns it, will be the far leader in technology.

Signals at the APEC Summit Show Big Changes Ahead
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1187686?ref=feeds%2Flatest
and gets rid of the oil gas dependence.

The US hopes not only to manage the flow of finance but also, on the basis of new technologies, having almost free, clean, limitless energy to perform export-oriented industrialization.

Other countries will remain behind if they will not also try to change. For this reason, in India after the ATEC summit where this issue was discussed ( see the CNN link) governmental actions were initiated to finance the development of new energy see please: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/17/indian-government-urged-to-revive-cold-fusion-research-program/

It is for sure to say that Rossi’s invention cannot be kept under lock for long. In dozens of laboratories worldwide, the scientists are trying to guess the secret of the “silent Italian”, to find out his catalyst, to develop a theory of the process. In meantime, preparations are made for bringing the generators on the market. If the transition in industry, trade and transport rising humankind to a new level of automation- needs hundreds of thousands “Cold Cats” (actually they are warm or hot, N.T.) the start of these new industries will bring the oil industry in the abyss by thousands of ways – very bad for the economies that depend on hydrocarbons. It will become obvious the futility of investing in oil and its long term purchase.

In the near future we can expect a rapid development of the Cold Nuclear Transmutation (a new and more correct name than Cold Nuclear Fusion) both regarding theory and experiment, great investments will lead to breakthroughs in the related fields of science and technology. U.S. already relies on the revolution in the energy sector and may soon get its winnings. Civilization is near to a new era and we know in advance that it will be grandiose.

Russia is still among the leaders in research in Cold Nuclear Transmutation even in the absence of targeted funding, due to the still strong post-Soviet educational, theoretical and experimental research basis of its enthusiasts. The country has a Coordinating Council on the issue of Cold Nuclear Transmutation, held annual conferences and monthly seminars, in spite of the strong resistance of its orthodox-minded opponents. The Russian researchers in Cold Nuclear Transmutations have presented copyrighted theoretical models for CNT, more than 500 publications at the 25th anniversary of the discovery of CNF by Fleischmann and Pons. Based on the principles of CNT there had been created dozens of patents for the creation of new energy. A part of the researchers had been able to get small funding, others, unfortunately were forced to work abroad.

The “war of sanctions” from 2014 has shown that the US sees Russia as a threat to its dominance in Europe and world hegemony. Rossi’s success gives them a chance to retain the role of the global financial and industrial center, undermining the position of the other strong players. But the long-term decline in prices in the oil market will not necessarily mean a catastrophe for the Russian economy. With a favorable state’s attitude toward science, we will be able to recover the leading position as it was in the ‘50-‘60 years of the twentieth century. We will be able to participate in the new industrial revolution, going forward to terminate the humiliating position on the raw materials periphery of the world.

A.A. Rukhadze Chairman of the Coordination Council of the SFA on the problem of Cold Nuclear Transmutation,
Academy of Natural Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Georgia, Honored Scientist of Russia, Doctor of Science, prof., Institute of General Physics “AM Prokhorov”

Yu. N. Bazhutov member of the International Executive Committee on the issue of Cold Nuclear Transmutation, organizer of (1-21) Russian Conferences on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and the problem of the 13th International Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation (Dagomis 2007), Deputy. President of the Cold Nuclear Transmutation Committee (RFO), PhD, MN, IZMIRAN

A. B. Karabut AB, winner of the International Award Cold Nuclear Transmutation them. “Giuliano Preparata”for 2007.,
Laureate of the State Prize of the USSR for 1982. Member of COP Cold Nuclear Transmutation (RFO), PhD, MN, SNA “Luch”

V. G. Koltashov, head of the Center for Economic Research Institute of Globalization and Social Movements, Ph.D.

Translated by Peter Gluck, Jan 13, 2015

END RE-POST

January 13, 2015January 13, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

Q&A with Jack Cole and Nikita Alexandrov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 30, 2014December 31, 2014

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

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

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

Mathieu Valat (L) of MFMP and Francesco Piantelli (R) of Nichenergy discuss partnership.

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

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

Where are visioneers?

Bill Gates (far left) listens to Dr. Vittorio Violante at ENEA. — Bill Gates (far right) listens to Dr. Vittorio Violante at ENEA.

Bill Gates‘ visit to ENEA labs, one of the leading institutions in the world on LENR materials science, was investigatory. How much he was told, we do not know. No further information was forthcoming from ENEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A little support could make a big impact

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

Gates and Khosla both support Terra Power for next-generation nuclear technology.

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

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

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

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

Figure emerges from ground

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

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

Follow the action:

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

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

Donate to Live Open Source Science with MFMP

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

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

Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project

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

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

David Niebauer

Brillouin Energy Corporation

The Explanation of LENR

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

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

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 14, 2014October 28, 2014

The Ultimate Hot Tub

“I have never been an optimist or a pessimist. I’m an apocalyptic only. Our only hope is apocalypse. Apocalypse is not gloom. Its salvation.” –Marshall McLuhan

Apocalypse – Old English, via Old French and ecclesiastical Latin from Greek apokalupsis, from apokaluptein ‘uncover, reveal,’ from apo- ‘un-’ + kaluptein ‘to cover.’ –Google

A report released Wednesday on a test of the E-Cat Energy Catalyzer concludes a large amount of heat was generated using a fuel of one gram of nickel powder, with no radiation detected at all.

The authors describe details of the equipment, the experimental set-up, and how heat measurements were taken, along with an analysis of the outer shell material and fuel, in the paper Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel [.pdf]

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

The paper was authored by scientists who had performed tests on an earlier version of the E-Cat, releasing the report Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder [.pdf] last year. During one November, 2012 experiment, the E-Cat generated so much thermal power, it melted the steel inner core body and the ceramic casing. This second test purposefully kept the input power moderate to ensure a longer life for the newly designed E-Cat.

As in the previous test, David Bianchini monitored radiation from the unit “before, during, and after operation”. No radiation was reported from the E-Cat, or from the fuel charge.

Over the last year, E-Cat intellectual property and licensing rights were acquired by private company Industrial Heat, LLC, an affiliate of Cherokee Investment Partners, with investment in the project reported at over $10 million. The group has retained inventor, designer, and Chief Engineer of the E-Cat, Andrea Rossi to lead the development of the energy generator.

Andrea Rossi participated in the experiment by fueling, starting the E-Cat, stopping the E-Cat, and removing the fuel from inner chamber. At these times, members of the evaluation team were present, and observing the activity.

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

The report was organized into sections with the lead authors writing the Abstract and main body of the report. Five other authors contributed four appendixes describing radiation monitoring and fuel analysis, including scanning electron microscope SEM and x-ray spectroscopy studies.

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

Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Reactor characteristics and experimental setup
3. Experimental procedure
4. Data analysis method
5. Analysis of data obtained from the dummy reactor
6. Analysis of data obtained from the E-Cat
7. Rangone Plot
8. Fuel analysis
9. Summary and concluding remarks
Acknowledgements
References

Appendix 1
Radiation measurements during the long-term test of the E-cat prototype.
D. Bianchini
Bologna

Appendix 2
Alumina sample analysis
Ennio Bonetti
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Bologna

Appendix 3
Investigation of a fuel and its reaction product using SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS
Ulf Bexell and Josefin Hall
Materialvetenskap, Hogskolan Dalarna

Appendix 4
Results ECAT ICP-MS and ICP-AES
Jean Pettersson
Inst. of Chemistry-BMC, Analytical Chemistry
Uppsala University

Comparing E-Cats

E-Cat HT on support frame from December test — E-Cat HT on test bed November 2012

The E-Cat has undergone many design changes since 2011 when the public got their first glimpse of the Energy Catalyzer.

Last year, the E-Cat appeared as a smooth, silicon nitride ceramic shell cylinder 33 cm in length and 10 cm in diameter, painted black. Inside was a second cylinder made of corandom, which contained resistor coils to heat the reactor with an “industrial trade secret waveform”. The innermost cylinder was made of steel, 33 mm long and 3 mm in diameter and contained the fuel charge of treated nickel powder with the secret catalyst.

E-Cat on scale, February 2014 — E-Cat on scale February 2014

This year, the E-Cat is less than two-thirds the length, appearing as “an alumina cylinder, 2 cm in diameter and 20 cm in length, ending on both sides with two cylindrical alumina blocks (4 cm in diameter, 4 cm in length), non-detachable from the body of the reactor…”

The outer surface of the body of the E-Cat is no longer smooth, but “molded in triangular ridges, 2.3 mm high and 3.2 mm wide at the base, covering the entire surface and designed to improve convective thermal exchange…”

Design changes allowed for improved features, says the report. This year’s 2014 model E-Cat thermal generator can attain higher temperatures, while avoiding internal melting of the powder.

To initiate and control the reaction, resistor coils surrounding the inner fuel cylinder heat up from “specific electromagnetic pulses”. The authors report the reactant is a micron-sized nickel-powder mixture and that once heated, “it is plausible” that a lithium hydride delivers the hydrogen fuel for the reaction.

Last year, the E-Cat had a cyclic input power, which appeared to regulate the heat-producing reaction. On one end of this year’s new bone-shaped generator, a hole that allows for re-charging of the reactant also holds a temperature sensor that sends data to the controller. If the inner chamber gets too hot, the pulse is dialed down.

Measuring E-Cat Heat

Previous model E-Cat HT from 2013 report

As in the previous test, heat was measured by thermal imaging and computing the convection away from the surface of the generator.

Two thermal image cameras mapped the heat data of the generator across its surface as the E-Cat operated. Thermal imaging is a well-developed technology with a strong track record in many applications, but not in the field of cold fusion, which has relied on calorimeters and direct contact thermocouples.

New model 2014 E-Cat in operation. — Optical photo of new model E-Cat in operation.

The authors of the report state that they wanted to use a thermocouple, but that “the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.”

An empty E-Cat played the dummy to check that power in would match power out, as was observed.

The infrared camera’s temperature readings were converted to radiant power in watts by the Stephan-Boltzmann formula, an equation with parameters dependent on the emissivity ε of the material as well as the temperature. The outer shell of 99% alumina was divided into sections, and ε assigned to each area.

The issue of emissivity of alumina is still under discussion in the scientific community. Some believe there may be a larger source of error in the value ε. Aware that the emissivity of Alumina is temperature-dependent, the authors plot the emissivity ε over temperature saying that ε “has been measured at +/- 0.01 for each value of emissivity; this uncertainty has been taken into account when calculating radiant energy.”

E-Cat Power and Energy

Plot 6: Net thermal power produced by E-Cat

Plot 6 shows a graph of the Net Power Out. The horizontal axis marks every two days and the vertical axis showing average Watts produced.

Net Power Out is the power produced by the E-Cat, minus the power inputs, and shows the amount of watts generated solely by the E-Cat.

As described in the report, after the first ten days, the input power was lowered by the controller. The team then decided to increase the input power about 100 Watts, which over six minutes, activated a large jump in temperature, equating to a net thermal power output of about 2.3 kilowatts. At peak usage, a large home may require 1-3 kilowatts electrical power.

The area under the graph over the next twenty-days represents just over 1 Megawatt-hour of energy. According to the report, the total energy produced over the month of testing was a remarkable 1.5 MWh generated from 1 gram of nickel-powder fuel.

Thus, E-Cat energy density – 1.6 billion +/- 10% Watt hours/kilogram – is much greater than any energy derived from the chemical burning of gasoline, oil, or coal.

Compare energy densities of traditional fuels modified Rangone chart by Alan Fletcher:

Last year, E-Cat test COPs at or below three, with values of 2.9 +/- 0.3.

This year, COP was computed as well over 3, even though the device was said to not have operated at maximum output.

It has been stated many times that a COP > 3 makes a commercially-viable energy technology.

Read David French’s explanation of COP here.

Fuel Analysis

SEM of fuel Particle 1 — SEM of fuel “sample granule” Particle 1

Of the 1 gram total in the reactor, a 10 mg sample was removed from the reactor and analyzed for content.

Materials analysis revealed natural nickel grains of a few microns in size as the bulk of the material. Other elements included Lithium, Aluminum, Iron, and Hydrogen. “Large amounts” of Carbon and Oxygen were also found.

But after the reaction, the ash had a “different texture than the powder-like fuel by having grains of different sizes”, and there was an unusual and unexpected shift in isotopic composition for the Nickel and Lithium grains.

Quoting from the report:

The Lithium content in the fuel is found to have the natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %. This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place.

The shift in Nickel is reported as:

Another remarkable change in the ash as compared to the unused fuel is the identified change in the isotope composition of Ni. The unused fuel shows the natural isotope composition from both SIMS and ICP-MS, i.e. 58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni (26.2%), 61Ni (1.1%), 62Ni (3.6%), and 64Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%). We note that the SIMS and ICP-MS give the same values within the estimated 3% error in the given percentages.

Possible reaction pathways to these stunning results are provided in the report, but the authors caution that “reaction speculation above should only be considered as an example of reasoning and not a serious conjecture.” There is as yet no explanation for these findings.

What to think

The E-Cat has attracted financial investment, and inventor Andrea Rossi has given rights to the technology to private company Industrial Heat. They are in to win. Engineering changes are improving control of the reaction and the E-Cat is shrinking in size, now down to a breadstick.

While discussion of procedure and parameters continues, it won’t change the fact that we are within epsilon of a revolution in energy technology. Whether it is the front-running E-Cat, or another start-up that finds the right recipe, the E-Cat test report gives a peek at what is possible to achieve.

On multiple occasions, the E-Cat has publicly demonstrated steam, heat, and energy, once producing one-half megawatt power. Even if the net power out were 50% less, this E-Cat test run would still be making excess heat.

Global research, as presented at these conferences here and here, is focused on understanding the science, and finding a theory to describe this newly discovered phenomenon. Swedish research and development institute Elforsk, a partial sponsor of the test along with the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, will begin a ‘research initiative’ as stated by Elforsk CEO Magnus Olofsson.

Companies like Industrial Heat and men like Andrea Rossi are pushing the frontiers of engineering to create a product to re-make the world. Safe, non-polluting, with the energy-density to free a planet from the present destructive paradigm, there is nothing that will change our world more than new energy technology.

Renewing a civilization by empowering local communities, restoring our wildspaces and the wildlife that lives there, powering the hot tub in my backyard (that’s not my backyard in the picture), we are at the break-boundary. Are you ready for Apocalypse???

Cold Fusion Now!

“The most important thing that can be learned from the work that we are doing is that we will overcome any critical moment, so in this difficult moment for everybody, if anybody works, believing in what he does, and works with all his efforts, we can build up a new, strong economy.” —Andrea Rossi in interview with James Martinez December 2011

Ask questions of the authors at LENR-forum.

Related Links

Status Report – Rossi Pending US Patent Application David French October 2014

US Examiner Addresses Andrea Rossi US Patent Application David French March 2014

Raleigh investor Darden still bullish on controversial nuclear technology Bizjournal.com October 2014

Mats Lewan Interview E-Cat, Andrea Rossi, & An Impossible Invention John Maguire May 2014

Rossi E-Cat HT energy density off the chart Ruby Carat May 2013

Andrea Rossi in James Martinez interview [.mp3] December, 2011

E-Cat test: One-half Megawatt Self-Sustained Ruby Carat October 2011

Videos: Rossi’s “One Megaatt Plant” + New E-Cat Test (via NYTeknik) Eli Eliott September 2011

E-Cat World Frank Acland

March 29, 2014May 16, 2016

US Examiner Addresses Andrea Rossi US Patent Application

The US Examiner at the United States Patent Office has finally reached the patent application of Andrea Rossi. That application was first filed as an Italian filing on April 9, 2008. It was translated into English and up-graded into an application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty – PCT on August 4, 2009. And it finally arrived at the US Patent Office as of September 16, 2010.

The text of the disclosure in this application became frozen as of the date of the PCT filing, August 4, 2009. It is not permissible to amend the story after the “final” filing of a regular patent application, which is how a PCT application is treated. Therefore this application represents Rossi’s understanding of his invention as of August 4, 2009.

As is usual with a first initiative by a US Patent Office Examiner, this Office Action rejects the application. Rossi now has three months from March 26, 2014, extendable upon fee payments up to six months, to file a Response. That Response must overcome the Examiner’s objections or the application will go abandoned, unless Rossi pays fees for Continued Examination or files an appeal.

The key claim that Rossi was endeavoring to obtain reads as follows:

“1. A method for carrying out an hexothermal 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 a hydrogen gas having a temperature much greater than 150.degree. C. and a pressure much greater than 2 bars.”

“Hexothermal” is spelling error for “exothermal” which can easily be corrected. This claim is supposed to identify a new method which will produce excess heat.

While the application explicitly states, in para [0065]: “the invention actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion”, the Examiner’s Office Action does not use the expression “Cold Fusion” to criticize the filing. Instead, the Examiner expressed doubt that the described invention would be able to provide the heat as alleged and claimed. He therefore concluded that, unless shown to the contrary, he was going to rule that the invention does not work, i.e. it is “inoperable”. An invention must be useful to qualify for a patent. Therefore, unless Rossi can prove the contrary, this application will be rejected for failing to meet the utility requirement of Section 101 of the US Patent Act.

While Rossi cannot add any further text to the disclosure in this application by way of amendment, if he can show that, following the recipes set-out in his original disclosure, the results as promised can actually be achieved, then the Examiner may withdraw this objection. Rossi would have to provide authoritative evidence to this effect, probably from an independent source such as a Research Institute or an established Engineering firm in order to be sure of satisfying the Examiner. That may cost a substantial amount of money.

Unfortunately, any outside evaluator would be required to follow the procedures described in the application based on knowledge as it existed as of the date of the PCT filing on August 4, 2009. This may prove a barrier to demonstrating utility.

As an additional ground of rejection, the Examiner has also alleged that the disclosure is inadequate as failing to meet the requirements of Section 112 of the US Patent Act which reads as follows:

“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 of carrying out his invention.”

Rossi faces the challenge that he must not only prove that the invention as described in the application actually works in the manner as promised, but also that the disclosure is sufficient to enable others to achieve such useful results.

The Examiner did not refer to this specific passage in the disclosure of the Rossi patent application:

“[0025] In applicant exothermal reaction the hydrogen nuclei, due to a high absorbing capability of nickel therefor, are compressed about the metal atom nuclei, while said high temperature generates internuclear percussions which are made stronger by the catalytic action of optional elements, thereby triggering a capture of a proton by the nickel powder, with a consequent transformation of nickel to copper and a beta+ decay of the latter to a nickel nucleus having a mass which is by an unit larger than that of the starting nickel.”

The feature of using catalyzing material is addressed in one of the dependent claims as follows:

“8. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyze materials are used.”

Claim 8 could never go forward. There is no description in the disclosure identifying what constitutes the specific catalyzing materials. Nothing can be claimed that it is not supported by an enabling disclosure in the body of the patent specification.

Furthermore, applicants are expected to describe the: “best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention”. If the applicant knows of special catalytic materials that make the invention work better, then he is required to disclose them in the application. Having acknowledged that such materials exist and having failed to identify them, this application violates the requirements of Section 112 and could be rejected on that basis. The Examiner may raise this point in a future Office Action if prosecution continues.

This is a serious deficiency in this application.

Another example of inadequate patent drafting is the following statement in the disclosure:

“[0062] The above mentioned apparatus, which has not been yet publicly disclosed, has demonstrated that, for a proper operation, the hydrogen injection must be carried out under a variable pressure.”

If it is known that a mandatory procedure must be employed in order to make a claimed process operate properly, then that procedure has to be included in the principal claim, Claim 1. In this case, such a limitation has not been incorporated into Claim 1. This claim could have been rejected on that basis alone.

One of the depending dependent claims does provide as follows:

“4. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen is injected into said tube under a pulsating pressure.”

Being a dependent claim, Claim 4 overcomes this deficiency of Claim 1 in that it does incorporate a feature asserted to be essential in the disclosure. The limitations of Claim 4 are therefore directly available to be added to Claim 1 in an attempt to repair its deficiency.

However, claims must also be definite and an Examiner would typically ask for limitations to be included in the claim that characterize the types of pulsations suitable to ensure that the claim covers a fully functional procedure. If a Response were to be filed, it would be appropriate to search through the disclosure for ranges and other limitations on pressure pulses to be incorporated into Claim 1 in order to ensure that Claim 1 describes a method that actually works.

There are no references in the disclosure as to the nature of the pulsations: their strength, frequency, duration, waveform or other parameters. If the Examiner were to raise this type of objection the consequences would be fatal to the application

There are therefore many grounds for the Examiner to have rejected this application. Not all were applied in this first Office Action. Instead, the Examiner relied upon lack of operability as the primary objection. In addition, he also made a novelty objection based on the assertion that Claim 1 describes something that had been done before, referring to published experiments wherein nickel was converted to copper by ionic bombardment using a linear accelerator. This is a pretty lame objection. A reading of Claim 1 will show that there is no stipulation in the claim that a nuclear transmutation will occur. Rather, it is in the discussion of theory in the disclosure that such allegations are made. The Examiner is wrong in criticizing Claim 1 on this basis. The Examiner was simply confused or inattentive in making this objection.

The disclosure contains an extended discussion of theory which, rather than helping an applicant will usually only get an applicant in difficulty. It’s not necessary to describe a theory why something should work. It’s essential to describe a procedure by which an actual operating version of the invention can be implemented. Any description of a theory is superfluous. Indeed, it is dangerous to suggest a theory; the theory might be wrong. As has occurred here the Examiner has seized upon flaws in the theories recited to justify his skepticism that the invention actually works as promised. It would have been much better, for patenting purposes, not to have included any discussion of theory.

One can only speculate how a patent application such as this was originally drafted and managed to go forward. It must have cost the applicant tens of thousands of dollars, including translations from the Italian, to get to this stage. Was this done intentionally, knowingly that the application was deficient? This is not logical. It’s more likely that the original patent attorney simply wrote down the material as reported to him by the inventor without giving feedback and guidance on the inadequacy of the disclosure. This happens all too often.

Inventors should be more aware of what is really expected to produce a patent application that will support a valid patent grant. This is quite apart from the separate issue of producing a valuable patent which is meaningful and effective. To minimize the risks of spending money futilely, in the case of important inventions, it would be appropriate to get a second opinion from a second attorney. This should be done well before the end of the initial priority year in time to make adjustments and corrections before the one-year deadline arrives.

This application by Andrea Rossi has been available for public examination for several years. If it describes a working invention one would presume that others would have followed the instructions in the disclosure and achieved the promise of excess energy. Though not proof of the inadequacy of the disclosure, such validating demonstrations have not been publicly disclosed. One can only speculate why this has not occurred.

Andrea Rossi is entitled to file further applications containing an improved disclosure so long as his claims focus on material that is new, i.e., are limited covering only things not previously available to the public. Such applications are not published until they have been pending for 18 months from the earliest, original filing date. It is possible that Mr. Rossi has a follow-on application that has already been filed but is not yet published. We can only wait in order to see if this is true.