UGC Lipinski Replication

I am somewhat concerned that all the attention to Rossi, Parkhomov style replications may have caused neglect of a far more detailed protocol for excess energy. That is the UGC Lipinski work described in well over one hundred pages of patent and patent application literature. Their work is highly professional and the real-time documentation and redundancy of documentation is the best I've seen. Here are the patent and application references, for those who may not have them. I include following that some references for proton sources, since that would seem to be the most challenging aspect of any do-it-yourself (DIY) replicators. Thanks, Longview

Lipinski UGC USPTO 2009 patent linked here:

https://www.google.com/patents/US20090274256

And their WIPO publication dated 27 November 2014, International Application, corrected version linked here:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…il.jsf?docId=WO2014189799

With the WIPO index of documents here:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2014189799&recNum=1&tab=PCTDocuments&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=

Those UGC Lipinski disclosures are remarkably detailed and apparently very complete, showing what works, what works well, and what does not work. Readers may miss that this IS LENR, even though the inventors deny connection to LENR or CF. The very large COPs (well over one thousand under some conditions, one "Q' of 7433 reported from chart on p. 58 of WIPO application) are indisputable evidence of utility regardless of what it is called. Certainly it is not "hot fusion".

Aside for the required vacuum system and suitable chamber, the other challenge that may face replicators -- is how to generate protons of modest energy (say 200 to 2000 eV). I suspect this may be accomplished using a generator based on H2 flow through suitable PTFE (Teflon) tube passing directly in front of the waveguide port of a common microwave oven, perhaps in conjunction with an immediate downstream spin resolver based on one two pairs of strong permanent magnets transverse to the proton stream. Acceleration to the modest voltages shown to be necessary in the Lipinski UGC disclosures is easily accomplished by simple DC potential differences of the same magnitude (200 to 2000 volts). All the microwave based proton sources appear to use an "extraction" potential. It would seem simple to set the extraction potential as 200 to 2000 V to yield the desired energy in the proton beam.

For a completely do-it-yourself outline of proton generator suggestions see this:
http://www.cyclotrons.net/show…-Simple-DIY-proton-source

The above reference is at the level of a DIY effort, but is not a complete guide. To understand the theory and see its application to much higher outputs, please see the following:

With powerful permanent magnets (NdFeB, SmCo) widely available today, there is no need for the power waste of electromagnets, for example see:

A permanent-Magnet Microwave Ion Source for a Compact High-yield Neutron Generator
O. Waldmann and B. Ludewigt linked at
www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1022723

To remove unwanted ions from the beam, one might follow the suggestion of using small amounts of water vapor (~1%) as described here:

Generation of High Purity Proton Beams from Microwave Driven Sources
David Spence and Keith R. Lykke

For a thorough review of the state of the art in 2013 see this CERN Yellow Report:

Celona, L. "Microwave Discharge Ion Sources" linked through arXiv.org here to a Cornell PDF link:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0538

For the following, check your local University library, even though all this was funded publicly, the AIP wants to parasitize viewers of the information at over 3 times the US Federal minimum hourly wage for each article (i.e. $28):

"Development of an all-permanent-magnet microwaave ion source equipped with multi-cusp magnetic fields for high current proton beam production" Tanaka M, Hara S, Seki T, Iga, T
Review of Scientific Instruments 2008 Feb;79(2 Pt 2):02B317. doi: 10.1063/1.2821502.

"Imroved design of proton source and low energy beam transport line for European Spallation Source" Neri, L. et al..
Review of Scientific Instruments 2014 85, 02A723. doi: 10.1063/1.4832135.

"High intensity electron cyclotron resonance proton source for low energy high intensity proton accelerator" Roychowdhury P, and Chakravarty D.P. Review of Scientific Instruments 2009 80, 123305. doi: 10.1063/1/3772786

Any replicator of the UGC Lipinski work would have to acquire, assemble or fabricate quite an array of devices and instrumentation. Including a vacuum roughing pump, a turbomolecular pump, gas analysers, high voltage amplifier, multichannel analysers and so on. Not beyond the good folks here. But it won't happen if no one pays attention to the need, or that no one follows the path to such a replication. I suspect a lot of personal effort is being expended to follow the poorly documented work of Rossi, in lieu of the much more thoroughly documented work by the Lipinskis. And apparently the COPs at UGC are easily far higher than those in Rossi, Lugano, Parkhomov-- as worthy as those efforts may themselves be.

Interesting question. But, off the top there are definitely some differences.

1. Protons are about 1836 times the mass of electrons, even though their charges are equivalent and opposite. So "braking radiation" is going to be that much less impressive, even against a "hard" and massive target (see 3 below).

2. The Lipinski protons are in the range of 100 to 2000 eV. Electrons for X-ray production typically range far above that in energy. A medical x-ray might be at 20,000 volts. But true enough a 200 volt x-ray is at the cusp between extreme UV and soft x-ray, that is around 4 nm wavelength, so one can reasonably expect that these protons have the energy to produce x-rays under the right level of deceleration.

3. Favorable bremstrahlung is produced not from low mass targets such as lithium, but generally the highest mass targets possible, namely tungsten. This favors both the efficient braking of the electron's energy, and it incidentally assures the target won't melt so easily.

4. The proton cross section for nuclear interaction is clearly not "classical" in the Lipinski approach. Electrons are typically 1000 times the diameter of a proton, further the target, that is electronic orbitals are also much larger than the nucleus (again 1000s of times greater). Without expressing that quantitatively, electron / electron interaction is perhaps millions of times more likely than proton / nucleon. And perhaps contributing to answer your question, the proton/ electronic orbital cross section is probably less than 1000th of an electron / electronic orbital. The essence of the Lipinski theory is that at 223 eV there is an anomalous, by classical standards, gravitational factor that overcomes coulomb. I don't know about their theory, but their data are impressive to say the least.

Now that over a year has transpired, and a growing pessimism has descended on the Rossi venture and its advocates, and many new readers are here at the Forum, perhaps it is time to revisit the Lipinski's work and their very detailed description in many distinct implementations. Even though the Lipinski work involves relatively low energy protons--- or in some very effective cases, proton / argon "superacid" moieties, there are many parallels and interesting specific hints as to substantial improvements that could easily be made to thermally excited Lugano / Parkhomov / Rossi devices.

The mention of argon reminds me that the Lipinski UGC WIPO application
also gets to favorable Ar in some of their later experiments. There are
other key differences of course, Lipinski's is protons at modest
energies (100 to 5000 eV) onto lithium targets that are sometimes solid,
some liquid and I believe some as gas or plasma. There is so much there
to digest... it is like reading the Odyssey. I suspect Lipinski is a
lot more historical than those old epics though.

Warnings and advice on reading Lipinski UGC. I would not pay much
attention to their novel Unified Gravity theory (at least not at this
point), it may be interesting to some, but it is a distraction to low
temperature fusioneers like us. Get the original pdf, don't try to read
the Google OCR version. The Google scan is not handling what should be
the very informative tables at all well, at least not the way it comes
to me. The tables may be handled crazily because of the the double
column v. single column switching that goes on in the WIPO document. The
most reliable pdf, for me anyway, has been that from Unified Gravity
Corp itself. Here is that link:

unifiedgravity.com/resources/WO2014189799-PAMPH-330-2.pdf

Do not listen to anything anyone has said about this patent application,
unless they have read and understood every page [of the technical
stuff, the theory is not so important, I think] I see from some of the
conversations on the Web, the "experts" are ridiculously off on the
details of this work. Everyone seems to think they already know
everything--- with the clue to us that they don't agree on anything.
Take the time to read the middle section of pages describing in detail
the acceleration voltages, the bias polarities and voltages, the nature
of the alternating square wave modulation of the biases, the phase
states of the lithium, the pressures, the proton currents (micro amps
generally), the cautions and details with respect to measuring the alpha
fluxes generated, the use of argon and so on. Look at how they measure
alpha fluxes and their energies.

The way they calculate Q so as to be consistent with Herb's 1938 work,
also excludes the energy used to maintain the vacuum as Herb did. They
nicely replicated Herb's result. That showed almost infinitesimal Q
values using highly accelerated (300 to 900 keV) protons to lithium.
They then move on to various experiments showing modest over unity
values and eventually reach the thousands. They give a nifty little
calculation that the theoretical maximum for their main aneutronic
reaction is something over a Q of 64,000. At an eventual 7,000
something, they appear to do fairly well. Lipinski the elder is a UCSD
Ph.D physicist, son a computer whiz, other executive personnel are of
amazing caliber / credentials. These are apparently not fools, at least
they wisely sold cc:mail to Lotus in the late 90's for what must have
been a nice sum. Their initial fusion experimental work was done at
three successive US national accelerator labs. They have worked steadily
to develop their own facility and seem to have that now near Silicon
Valley. That became easier once they found that quite modest proton
energies were the key to making their process work.

They go out of their way to claim that this is not LENR or CF. This must
be part of their IP strategy. Anyone here would recognize that it is
really indistinguishable from CF / LENR, at least in terms of the goals
to which those aspire.

From this Forum, June 3, 2015:

I am somewhat concerned that all the attention to Rossi, Parkhomov style
replications may have caused neglect of a far more detailed protocol
for excess energy. That is the UGC Lipinski work described in well over
one hundred pages of patent and patent application literature. Their
work is highly professional and the real-time documentation and
redundancy of documentation is the best I've seen. Here are the patent
and application references, for those who may not have them. I include
following that some references for proton sources, since that would seem
to be the most challenging aspect of any do-it-yourself (DIY)
replicators. Thanks, Longview

Lipinski UGC USPTO 2009 patent linked here:

google.com/patents/US20090274256

And their WIPO publication dated 27 November 2014, International Application, corrected version linked here:

patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2014189799

With the WIPO index of documents here:

patentscope.wipo.int/search/en…&sortOption=&queryString=

Those UGC Lipinski disclosures are remarkably detailed and apparently
very complete, showing what works, what works well, and what does not
work. Readers may miss that this IS LENR, even though the inventors deny
connection to LENR or CF. The very large COPs (well over one thousand
under some conditions, one "Q' of 7433 reported from chart on p. 58 of
WIPO application) are indisputable evidence of utility regardless of
what it is called. Certainly it is not "hot fusion".

Aside for the required vacuum system and suitable chamber, the other
challenge that may face replicators -- is how to generate protons of
modest energy (say 200 to 2000 eV). I suspect this may be accomplished
using a generator based on H2 flow through suitable PTFE (Teflon) tube
passing directly in front of the waveguide port of a common microwave
oven, perhaps in conjunction with an immediate downstream spin resolver
based on one two pairs of strong permanent magnets transverse to the
proton stream. Acceleration to the modest voltages shown to be necessary
in the Lipinski UGC disclosures is easily accomplished by simple DC
potential differences of the same magnitude (200 to 2000 volts). All the
microwave based proton sources appear to use an "extraction" potential.
It would seem simple to set the extraction potential as 200 to 2000 V
to yield the desired energy in the proton beam.

For a completely do-it-yourself outline of proton generator suggestions see this:

cyclotrons.net/showthread.php/454-Simple-DIY-proton-source

The above reference is at the level of a DIY effort, but is not a
complete guide. To understand the theory and see its application to much
higher outputs, please see the following:

With powerful permanent magnets (NdFeB, SmCo) widely available today,
there is no need for the power waste of electromagnets, for example see:

A permanent-Magnet Microwave Ion Source for a Compact High-yield Neutron Generator

O. Waldmann and B. Ludewigt linked at

osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1022723

To remove unwanted ions from the beam, one might follow the suggestion
of using small amounts of water vapor (~1%) as described here:

Generation of High Purity Proton Beams from Microwave Driven Sources

David Spence and Keith R. Lykke

For a thorough review of the state of the art in 2013 see this CERN Yellow Report:

Celona, L. "Microwave Discharge Ion Sources" linked through arXiv.org here to a Cornell PDF link:

arxiv.org/abs/1411.0538

For the following, check your local University library, even though all
this was funded publicly, the AIP wants to parasitize viewers of the
information at over 3 times the US Federal minimum hourly wage for each
article (i.e. $28):

"Development of an all-permanent-magnet microwaave ion source equipped
with multi-cusp magnetic fields for high current proton beam production"
Tanaka M, Hara S, Seki T, Iga, T

Review of Scientific Instruments 2008 Feb;79(2 Pt 2):02B317. doi: 10.1063/1.2821502.

"Imroved design of proton source and low energy beam transport line for European Spallation Source" Neri, L. et al..

Review of Scientific Instruments 2014 85, 02A723. doi: 10.1063/1.4832135.

"High intensity electron cyclotron resonance proton source for low
energy high intensity proton accelerator" Roychowdhury P, and
Chakravarty D.P. Review of Scientific Instruments 2009 80, 123305. doi:
10.1063/1/3772786

Any replicator of the UGC Lipinski work would have to acquire, assemble
or fabricate quite an array of devices and instrumentation. Including a
vacuum roughing pump, a turbomolecular pump, gas analysers, high voltage
amplifier, multichannel analysers and so on. Not beyond the good folks
here. But it won't happen if no one pays attention to the need, or that
no one follows the path to such a replication. I suspect a lot of
personal effort is being expended to follow the poorly documented work
of Rossi, in lieu of the much more thoroughly documented work by the
Lipinskis. And apparently the COPs at UGC are easily far higher than
those in Rossi, Lugano, Parkhomov-- as worthy as those efforts may
themselves be.

I should add precautions that Dr. Peter Ekstrom has issued here. Essentially, if the Lipinski device and implementations are working as they are claimed, it is my understanding that there should be some hot gammas and other dangerous radiative products secondary to the MeV alphas the Lipinski work claims to be produced, and which they by contrast claim are dissipated completely as themal energy on collision with the vacuum chamber walls contrary to Ekstrom's warning.

Err on the side of caution, please. Dr. Ekstrom has much experience bearing on this issue.