Tag: LENR

Posted on

Cold Fusion NASA LENR – part two Flight

Cold Fusion – NASA – LENR Part II Flight

 

The vision of Earth provided by NASA lunar missions is a powerful image; possibly the most potent archetypal image of our times. This image brings to mind the beauty of the biosphere, our world and life-as-we-know-it, surprisingly small against the vast starlit darkness of space.

NASA sees LENR energetics in concert with advanced computer and flight technologies as, “The key to supersonic transports and neighbor-friendly personal fly/drive air vehicles.” (NASA)

This technology could replace much earth bound transport; roads and their inherent environmental damage would become obsolete.

NASA realizes the fragility of our biosphere and seeks to limit atmospheric damage from aeronautics and transportation in amazing ways:

  • Turbo-electric Distributed Propulsion (NASA pdf)
  • The SUGAR Program (SUGAR – Subsonic Ultra Green Aeronautics Research) was initiated in 2008 as a challenge to four that received contracts, Boeing, GE Aviation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Northrop Grumman. The goal is a deep reduction in harmful emissions from airplanes and to decrease their noisome irritation. “Hybrid electric engine technology is a clear winner because it can potentially improve performance relative to all of the NASA goals.” (Boeing)
  • The SUGAR Volt design utilizes electric turbo fans; which are candidates for LENR electrical power. SUGAR VOLT http://www.boeing.com/stories/videos/vid_06_sugarvolt.html
  • NASA Green Flight Challenge – “NASA has awarded the largest prize in aviation history, created to inspire the development of more fuel-efficient aircraft and spark the start of a new electric airplane industry. The technologies demonstrated by the CAFE Green Flight Challenge, sponsored by Google, competitors may end up in general aviation aircraft, spawning new jobs and new industries for the 21st century.” (NASA) Green Flight Challenge Sponsored by Google – (Final Results 2011)
  • “Faster and Greener– Pocket Airports” (NASA GFC pdf)
  • Here Comes the Electric Plane http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwrel&NR=1&v=E7u-JX6AAKo
  • Txchnologist The Future of Transportation – “Mapping Out the Future of Flight” (GE)

ON A FALLEN TREE ACROSS THE ROAD (To hear us talk) by Robert Frost

The tree a tempest with a crash of wood

Throws down in front of us is not to bar

Our passage to our journey’s end for good,

But just to ask us who we think we are,

 

Insisting always on our own way so.

She likes to halt us in our runner tracks,

And make us get down in a foot of snow

Debating what to do with an ax.

 

And yet who knows obstruction is in vain:

We will not be put off the final goal

We have hidden in us to attain,

Not though we have to seize earth by the pole

 

And, tired of aimless circling in one place,

Steer straight off after something into space.

 

Rocket Toxicity

 

Over 4,000 (Wiki) recorded space launches and an unknown number of missile launches have burned hundreds of millions of tons of the following propellants, oxidants, and rocket elements.

Ammonium-perchlorate, kerosene, ammonium-nitrate, hydroxyl-terminated-polybutadiene, polyurethane, aluminium, polyisocyanate, ammonium-dinitramide, acrylonitrile, iron-oxide, glass, carbon, boron, phenylenediamine-terephthaloyl-chloride, poly-paraphenylene-terephthalamide, cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine, nitrocellulose, nitroglycerine, Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane, polybutadiene-acrylonitrile, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, dinitrogen tetroxide, and others not accounted for.

Who knows how these recombine after combustion, with each other and with atmospheric elements?

The engines powering the Space Shuttle’s initial liftoff boosters may have been the most polluting engines ever operated by mankind. For each kilogram of payload, the shuttle’s main boosters burn 30 kilograms of  fuels and oxidizers.

During 135 missions 122,472,000 kilograms (135,002 tons) of this highly toxic fuel was burned in the solid fuel boosters of the Space Shuttles.

Approximate Amount Burned (tons)

  • 94,365   Ammonium Percholate
  • 5,600    Powdered Aluminum
  • 9,450    Iron Oxidizer Powder
  • 16,204   Polybutadiene Acrylic Acid Acrylonitrile
  • 2,646    Epoxy-curing Agent

 

21st Century Timeline of U.S. Rocket Fuel Pollution Scandal (read)

Perchlorate is a powerful oxidant that has been detected in public drinking water supplies of over 11 million people at concentrations of at least 4 parts per billion (ppb). High doses of perchlorate can decrease thyroid hormone production by inhibiting the uptake of iodide by the thyroid. Thyroid hormones are critical for normal growth and development of the central nervous system of fetuses and infants.

A Summary of NASA and USAF Hypergolic Propellant Related Spills and Fires (pdf)

The fuel is monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) which is similar to ammonia. Both fluids are highly toxic, and are handled under the most stringent safety conditions. Hypergolic propellants are used in the core liquid propellant stages of the Titan family of launch vehicles, and on the second stage of the Delta.

The Space Shuttle orbiter uses hypergols in its Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem (OMS) for orbital insertion, major orbital maneuvers and deorbit. The Reaction Control System (RCS) uses hypergols for attitude control.

NASA is hoping to reduce launch emissions for space flight with LENR.

Cold Fusion – NASA – LENR Part Three Earthbound and Spacebound Transportation

 

Posted on

More on USPTO reluctance to patent Cold Fusion

The following is a further posting in a series of articles by David French, a patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review patents of interest touching on the field of Cold Fusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that so unreasonable?

David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services. Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property. For more information visit: www.SecondCounsel.com.

David French is prepared to address questions included as commentaries to any of his postings or bydirect email. In particular, he would like to learn what people need to know in order to better understand patents.

Posted on

Exponential production using LENR, LENT, and 3D Printing

Exponential Growth is an immensely powerful concept. To help us grasp it better let us use an ancient Indian chess legend as an example.

The king was a big chess enthusiast and had the habit of challenging wise visitors to a game of chess. One day a traveling sage was challenged by the king. To motivate his opponent the king offered any reward that the sage could name. The sage modestly asked just for a few grains of rice in the following manner: the king was to put a single grain of rice on the first chess square and double it on every consequent one.

Having lost the game and being a man of his word the king ordered a bag of rice to be brought to the chess board. Then he started placing rice grains according to the arrangement: 1 grain on the first square, 2 on the second, 4 on the third, 8 on the fourth and so on.

Following the exponential growth of the rice payment the king quickly realized that he was unable to fulfill his promise because on the twentieth square the king would have had to put 1,000,000 grains of rice. On the fortieth square the king would have had to put 1,000,000,000 grains of rice. And, finally on the sixty fourth square the king would have had to put more than 18,000,000,000,000,000,000 grains of rice which is equal to about 210 billion tons and is allegedly sufficient to cover the whole territory of India with a meter thick layer of rice. At ten grains of rice per square inch, the above amount requires rice fields covering twice the surface area of the Earth, oceans included.” ( http://www.singularitysymposium.com/exponential-growth.html ).

Exponential Growth is a difficult concept to imagine, but it is extremely powerful. This paper is devoted to utilizing three technology to achieve exponential production. The conceptual framework I am constructing is not just abstract, but reality based and achievable. In other words, this paper is a prescription for an almost unimaginably powerful result.

The three factors of production required for industrialization are capital, labor, and land. In other words, goods devoted to the production of other goods, activity that provides the goods, and raw materials.

“As opposed to traditional “subtractive” methods of carving or sculpting, 3D printing is an “additive” method of manufacturing that builds up solid objects one thin layer at a time. The basic concept is the same as an inkjet printer, only instead of spraying ink onto paper, 3D printers use liquids that solidify or set. Liquid plastic or resin are the usual materials, but there are others: for example, industrial 3D printers can make metal objects by laying down a pattern of metal powder and then fusing it with a high-powered laser or electron beam. You can 3D print in ceramic, glass, or concrete or other composite materials by depositing layers of sand or gravel and then spraying a binding agent…Truly revolutionary advances often come quietly at first, and I believe this is one of these. 3D printing as a technology is in its very early stages, but even in what it’s accomplished so far, we can glimpse the contours of the future.”
(http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/weekend-coffee-the-3d-printing-revolution). 3D printer technology is the quintessential “goods devoted to the production of other goods,” a virtual magic lamp.

Low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) is a clean, very cheap, and super abundant energy technology using (for instance) nickel and hydrogen. It has been estimated that evaporating hydrogen in a nickel lattice, applying heat, pressure, and a vibrational wave (i.e. “Q-wave”) produces 355,000 times the heat from hydrogen than an equal amount of gasoline. Furthermore, hydrogen and nickel are very plentiful elements in our universe. Such plentiful energy utilized by mechanical devices would fuel the activity that provides the goods.

Finally, low energy nuclear transmutation is a technology to turn one element into another. In the nickel lattice of a LENR reactor, hydrogen atom protons and electrons collide forming ultra-low momentum neutrons. Those neutrons are absorbed by surrounding atoms. Those surrounding atoms that have absorbed the extra neutron(s) shed heat and transform into other elements. Such a method for producing one element from another would allow the production of any needed raw material.

Sounds like science fiction. To digress slightly, I first was clued into the practicality of 3D printing when I was researching a new Nobel gas engine: “They recently purchased a 3-D printer in order to build the proper pipe sizes on which to wind the coils that go on their cylinders (and to play around). The 3-D printers only cost $5000. I remember back when we paid that much for a regular copy machine,” he said. ( http://theeestory.ning.com/forum/topics/inteligentry-manufacturers-gearing-up-for-noble-gas-engine-roll ). The main content of the article (about an engine that runs on “plasmic transition” process using noble gases to create the plasma) is amazing enough, but I didn’t realize how far 3D printer technology had come.

“President Obama’s nationwide push for innovation in manufacturing reaches across agencies from the National Science Foundation to the Department of Energy, and now it’s reaching all the way into the Pentagon where $60 million is being set aside for investment in 3-D printing technologies. The DoD will fund a network of agencies, academic institutions, and companies to build on 3-D printing tech with the overarching goal of building aerospace and weapons technology faster.

Of that $60 million, half will be allotted to researchers between now and fiscal 2014, with more than half of that–some $18.8 million–being handed over in fiscal 2012 alone. That means, adjusting for the usual bureaucratic waste, there should be somewhere between many and many-many millions spent to advance 3-D printing tech this year alone under a framework that will hopefully push for the meeting of meaningful benchmarks.

Three-dimensional printing (or additive manufacturing, or rapid prototyping) is of course a fairly nascent technology that nonetheless holds great promise. While private companies like Makerbot, Stratasys, and even Hewlett-Packard have pushed the boundaries of the technology by developing less-expensive and more accessible printing systems to more people, the industry on the whole hasn’t really benefited from a huge injection of investment or a meaningful mandate from a body like the DoD–one that, when it puts its mind and money to something, can actually enable technological leaps forward.

The 3-D printing industry was already doing fine–some analysts expect it to grow to $3.1 billion by 2016–but a little help from Uncle Sam can’t hurt.”
( http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-05/pentagon-investing-millions-advance-future-3-d-printing-tech ).

While the “overarching goal of building aerospace and weapons technology faster” is a short term goal that is easily achievable, a much more powerful goal would be for 3D printers to produce other 3D printers, increasing production capacity exponentially.

Suppose for example a 3D printer and toner were to be transported to an asteroid. The printer can start manufacturing equipment to mine for fuel and raw materials, and as production was scaled up could duplicate the production economy. One production economy, two, four…limited only by time and the land. By the way, 3D printers are transforming digital data into goods, so innovation and adaptation from afar can be input via telecommunications, re-directing a production economy to produce different goods (like space craft to transport a spare 3D printer and toner to another piece of extra-terrestrial land to repeat the cycle).

This is where I go off the deep end. Remember we started this paper with a story of Exponential Growth (“And, finally on the sixty fourth square the king would have had to put more than 18,000,000,000,000,000,000 grains of rice which is equal to about 210 billion tons and is allegedly sufficient to cover the whole territory of India with a meter thick layer of rice.”):

“In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe…” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter )

I am making the following outrageous and totally unintuitive claim: using the above suggestion for exponential production, the dark matter could plausibly be spaceships filled with aliens. That is how powerful Exponential Growth is (both in terms of population and production).

To summarize, Exponential Growth is an immensely powerful concept. The three factors of production required for industrialization are capital, labor, and land. Using 3D printing, LENR, and LENT, exponential production potential can be achieved. While each of these are fairly nascent technologies, they nonetheless hold great promise. Furthermore, you can expect in the future that each of these technologies will have directed at them tremendous R&D resources – and a little help from Uncle Sam can’t hurt. Finally, using the concept of Exponential Growth you can even plausibly explain such inscrutable things as Dark matter. We really are primarily limited by our imagination.

The future is so bright we’ll have to wear shades – the only catch is we have to believe.

Posted on

Patenting Cold Fusion technology – Navigating Patent Office Classification – Part 2 –

The following is a further posting in a series  of articles by David French, a patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review issues of interest touching on the field of Cold Fusion.

As a preliminary matter, I have been asked why I am doing these postings.  I have a message.  That message is: 

“Patents are a vast resource for learning about what is going on.  Read them.  Understand them.  And you will make better inventions yourself.”

The present posting continues with that objective.

In Part 1 of this posting we examined how Cold Fusion applications and patents are classified under the traditional United States patent office classification system.  Patents are also classified by another system, extensively in use in Europe and elsewhere and also used as a secondary classification system within the US patent office.  This is the system of the International Patent Classification – IPC sponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO in Geneva. WIPO is the same organization that operates the Patent Cooperation Treaty – PCT.

Currently, US patents are simultaneously classified both under the US classification system and under the IPC.  This has not been true in the past, but it is true today.  And through back-classification, US patents from about 1902 onwards are now also classified under the IPC. 

The IPC is an intuitively designed method for classifying inventions. The first number of the class is always a letter of the alphabet that corresponds to one of the following:

International Patent Classification 

Section A — Human Necessities

Section B — Performing Operations; Transporting

Section C — Chemistry; Metallurgy

Section D — Textiles; Paper

Section E — Fixed Constructions

Section F — Mechanical Engineering; Lighting; Heating; Weapons; Blasting

Section G — Physics

Section H — Electricity 

The section that concerns us is: G-Physics. Subsection and further subsections that concern us are: 

G21

NUCLEAR PHYSICS; NUCLEAR ENGINEERING

G21B

FUSION REACTORS (uncontrolled fusion, applications thereof G21J

 G21B 3/00

Low-temperature nuclear fusion reactors, e.g. alleged Cold Fusion reactors [8]

(enter the subclass on the IPC Home page in the left-side box under “Current symbol” to view subclass)

In the case of the IPC there is an actual category for a “low-temperature nuclear fusion reactor”.  The full classification code is: G21B 3/00.  With this code, searches for patents can be carried out in various patent offices around the world.  Here are some results for searches at the European Patent Office – EPO.

 EPO Search 

In the EPO there is a single database that includes both applications and patents.  A document that contains the letter “A” in its reference number relates to an application.  A document that contains the letter “B” in its reference number refers to an issued patent.

Searching in the EPO patent and patent application database using the IPC classification G21B3/00 (on the date of this search, May 15, 2012) as the search term produces 93 results.   Here  is the resulting list of viewable documents identified in the search.

We can carry out this search a second time combining the specific class with additional terms.  Here are the results when searching for the combination of:  “Cold Fusion” in the full text of a document and G21B3/00 as the IPC classification – 12 results found.  Here are the results of that search.

It is pretty clear from these search results that the European Patent Office is at least receiving applications that are directed to Cold Fusion related inventions.  Due to the delays in examination that can amount to 4, 5 and 6 and more years, few of these applications have issued patent.  (An issued patent has a number with B-in-a-bracket following.)  But it is often advantageous for an applicant to have the actual grant of a patent delayed.

IPC searching at the US PTO

Returning to the US patent office, searches can be done amongst pending applications and issued US patents using the IPC classification system.  Here are some of the results on the patent side, done around May 15, 2012:

USPTO Search

Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
ICL/G21B3/00: 31 patents.

Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
(ICL/G21B3/00 AND fusion): 23 patents.

Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
(ICL/G21B3/00 AND “Cold Fusion”): 19 patents.

Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
(ICL/G21B3/00 AND “excess heat”): 15 patents.

 Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
((ICL/G21B3/00 AND “Cold Fusion”) AND “excess heat”): 12 patents.

 The above searches were done amongst issued US patents using the IPC classification system.  Here are some of the results on the application side:

Results of Search in AppFT Database for:
ICL/G21B3/00 and “Cold Fusion” and “excess heat”:   7 applications.

And here is an actual list of pending applications that meet the above search criteria:

PUBLISHED APP. NO.                                             Title

1.  20120069945 INTERACTIONS OF CHARGED PARTICLES ON SURFACES FOR FUSION AND OTHER APPLICATIONS 

2.  20110142183 Multiring apparatus and method to measure heat released by a sample loaded with hydrogen 

3.  20100303188 Interactions of Charged Particles on Surfaces for Fusion and Other Applications 

4.  20100195780 Apparatus and process for thermal gradient-driven metal catalyzed fusion reactor 

5.  20100008461 Cold Fusion apparatus 

6.  20090122940 LOW TEMPERATURE FUSION 

7.  20080205572 Apparatus and process for generating nuclear heat 

(Hyperlink access to these applications is available here.)

While the titles provide some indication of the content of the documents, the above results do not necessarily mean that these patent applications actually address Cold Fusion.  It only means that this term or phrase was used somewhere in the document, along with “excess heat”. They have, however, been classified by a classification examiner in International Class G21B3/00.

Furthermore, even if a patent issues on any of these applications, this does not mean that a useful process for delivering unexplained excess heat has been described.  Many times examiners choose not to challenge an applicant to prove utility.  It is possible to file a patent application that is totally erroneous, and sometimes it will slip through, surprisingly, more often than not.

Additionally, if a patent application describes a process that could possibly be useful to provide excess heat through Cold Fusion, but only claims a collateral arrangement which is apparently operative, then the patent will issue.  This is because the patent is not directed to controlling the generation of heat through Cold Fusion.  Patents are classified according to what they claim.

 Where is the breakthrough patent?

 Almost certainly many other patent offices around the world have been receiving applications relating to Cold Fusion. Most of these applications will eventually be paralleled at the US Patent Office. These applications may describe a valid process, or not.  Anyone can search and review such documents once they are laid open to the public.  If anyone has filed an absolute winner patent application that describes how to make it happen, we would almost certainly know about it once 18 months have passed from the original filing date.

 Most countries in the world allow private research to be carried out notwithstanding the existence of an issued patent.  Furthermore, applications cannot be used to disrupt even full-out commercialization up to the point when a patent is granted.  Once a patent issues, compensation can be required for pre-grant use, and an injunction may issue.  But with some 150 countries around the world, it is unlikely that any person obtaining a controlling patent in the field of Cold Fusion will be able to shut-down everywhere the exploitation of the knowledge provided in a patent application that describes a working process.  This is just as true concerning Cold Fusion as it is true concerning the alleged 100 mile per gallon carburetor.

 Accordingly, there is good reason to believe that the breakthrough knowledge to solve the Cold Fusion riddle and provide the world with its stream source of energy has not been addressed in a patent filing, unless it is amongst those applications still pending in their 18 month secrecy period..

 

Posted on

LENR and Transmutation: It is going to happen sooner than you think

Change one element into another using a fission reactor is a fact. Nuclear transmutation inside a fission reactor produces some really valuable elements.

For instance, “In 1972, Russian scientists found that the lead shielding of an experimental nuclear reactor near Lake Baikal in Siberia had unexpectedly turned to gold!

Unfortunately such gold is likely to be radioactive, and would decay back to stable lead, whilst releasing dangerous radiation.

A possible route to gold would be from mercury. If mercury of its various naturally occurring isotopes could be made to capture neutrons, the resulting nuclear decay chains would eventually yield gold-197, the most common naturally occurring gold isotope, and perfectly stable.

The neutrons used in this process would need to have an energy of at least 9 MeV in order for a complete transmutation of the mercury to occur. These energies are well within the capabilities of nuclear reactors.” ( http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects2002/crabb/modern.html ).

One way to avoid the transmuted elements from being radioactive is to use a LENR reactor:

Analyses of the nickel powder used in Rossi’s energy catalyzer show that a large amount of copper is formed.

“For copper to be formed out of nickel, the nucleus of nickel has to capture a proton…Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.” ( http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece )

Sorry to subject you to this physics lesson, but it is necessary to proceed:

“Atoms are comprised of negatively charged electrons whirling around a relatively small nucleus of neutrons and positively charged protons. Protons have a mass 1836 times the mass of electrons. A neutron is a combination of an electron and a proton with zero net electrostatic charge. An atom’s number of protons and its equal number of electrons determine its type of element. Only when a positive ion (such as a proton or nucleus of a helium atom) penetrates an atom’s nucleus does the atomic nucleus become another element (or another isotope of the same element) or becomes unstable and splits (fissions) into two or more elements.” ( http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/2010/02/low-energy-nuclear-transmutationl.html ).

In other words, an element becomes another element when neutrons bombard it. Inside a fission reactor, it comes out radioactive, but inside a LENR reactor, in comes out non-radioactive. This is what happens inside a LENR reactor:

“A tiny amount of hydrogen protons are converted into neutrons. These newly produced neutrons are soon captured by hydrogen ions or other atoms in a metallic (e.g. nickel) lattice near to where the hydrogen ions were converted to neutrons. The captured neutrons generate heat because the new atoms that are one neutron heavier shed excess binding energy as heat to the lattice…” ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-LENR-Machine-is-the-Best-Yet.html )

This bears repeating: hydrogen is consumed by emitting neutrons (remember, a neutron is a proton and an electron). Everything near is bombarded by these neutrons. Some is absorbed by the remaining hydrogen, and some is absorbed by nearby nickel atoms, and some could be absorbed by any element we choose to place nearby, transmuting it into a much more valuable element.

That was the science, but this is the analysis: LENR can easily be used for transmutation. This means that there is very little lead up time before we are going to see the market flooded with rare earth minerals and other valuable elements like platinum or gold.

The real gem is that this rather simple application of a LENR reactor doesn’t need the normal years of certification and commercialization – companies are just going to be creating tons of valuable minerals and putting them on the market! Wow – every LENR company can have an additional revenue stream.

Posted on

LENR and Alchemy

Alchemy is a form of chemistry and speculative philosophy practiced in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and concerned principally with discovering methods for transmuting baser metals into gold. The word “alchemy” calls up the picture of a medieval laboratory in which a wizard broods over the crucible that is to bring within his reach the Philosopher’s Stone, and with that discovery the formula for the transmutation of metals.

That is why I was surprised to read Mitsubishi ( a Japanese multinational conglomerate comprising a range of autonomous businesses which share the Mitsubishi brand, trademark and legacy) hopes to go beyond just low energy nuclear reactions to low energy nuclear transmutations.

“These transmutations will be an energy source that will be portable, will produce rare earth materials, and will have the capacity to transmutate radioactive waste. They’ve changed the acronym from LENR to LENT. And, unlike competitors such as Rossi and Defkalion, they plan on using resources other than palladium, platinum and nickel.” ( http://cleantechauthority.com/defkalion-announces-lenr-date-mitsubishi-enters-lenr-market/ )

Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) using nickel and hydrogen is a clean, very very cheap, and super abundant energy technology, but can it also be used for transmutation? Nuclear transmutation is the conversion of one chemical element into another.

“Artificial transmutation may occur in machinery that has enough energy to cause changes in the nuclear structure of the elements. Machines that can cause artificial transmutation include particle accelerators and tokamak reactors. Conventional fission power reactors also cause artificial transmutation, not from the power of the machine, but by exposing elements to neutrons produced by a fission from an artificially produced nuclear chain reaction. Artificial nuclear transmutation has been considered as a possible mechanism for reducing the volume and hazard of radioactive waste.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation )

In February 2011 scientists were given access to a sample of pure nickel powder which had been used in a LENR reactor for 2.5 months. Their analysis showed that the powder contained several other substances, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. ( http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece )

According to Robert Godes LENR is not a nickel-hydrogen fusion reaction. Nickel is merely a catalyst, and it is the hydrogen that yields heat.

““A tiny amount of hydrogen protons are converted into neutrons. These newly produced neutrons are soon captured by hydrogen ions or other atoms in a metallic (e.g. nickel) lattice near to where the hydrogen ions were converted to neutrons. The captured neutrons generate heat because the new atoms that are one neutron heavier shed excess binding energy as heat to the lattice, resulting in a dramatically clean, low-cost, hi-quality heat output.”

…Evidence suggests this reaction involves the synthesis of neutrons, which accumulate on hydrogen dissolved in a matrix (lattice), which progresses to deuterium, then tritium and on to quadrium that decays to helium.” ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-LENR-Machine-is-the-Best-Yet.html )

To summarize, it is a fact that conventional fission power reactors cause artificial transmutation by exposing elements to neutrons. Furthermore, according to Godes, the LENR Ni-H reaction occurs when hydrogen protons are converted into neutrons and captured by hydrogen ions or other atoms in the nickel lattice. Finally, evidence for LENR transmutation is the sample of nickel powder used in a LENR reactor for several months which showed several other substances, including copper and iron.

Can Mitsubishi discover the formula for the practical transmutation of metals, fulfilling the dream of mankind since the Middle Ages? We already strongly suspect that LENR transmutes nickel into copper and iron, so alchemy suddenly doesn’t seem so speculative anymore.

Top