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.

  • An X-Ray generator uses an electron beam fired at a spinning metal target to generate x-rays from bremsstrahlung radiation. I am not a physicist but why would a proton beam cause fusion and not have a lot of its energy dumped in X-Rays as it makes "small direction changes" as it scatters through the lithium?

  • 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.

  • You are absolutely right ! I do not understand how their theory and recent patent has not triggered a scientific revolution ! Beside the fact that their experiments seem to actually work, the gravity theory in itself makes sense ! for example, seeing the Coulomb force as a gravity effect between pseudo photons is quite exciting. Many time I personnaly though that way when reading papers on Feynmann interactions charts. I do believe that official science is wrong then they are restricting the Sschrödinger an Hilbert représentations to pure theorical and mathematical Tools. I think that if these Tools work so well, this is because...they are describing the reality ! Matter doesnt exist really we are perceiving only the variations and interactions of the electromagnetic and gravity fields. Stopping to see everything as particles (objects) makes things more understandable. The Lipinsky theory do not violate any accepted model. It just complete it ! and the interactions between the Fabric of Space and the fields in a General relativity context, just explains that This dawn Coulomb barrier is not preventing fusion Under special conditions.
    As soon as Official science will get back to the Fundamentals, Humanity will get access to infinite energy.
    We should definitely make a lot of noise around this theory !

  • 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.

  • @Longview
    I agree with you, Lipinsky-like experiments should be very convenient for investigating the LENR mechanism. They are simple and "clean", however they need some specialized equipment and are not the cheapest experiments one can think of.
    Following my theory I have suggested accelerating protons against a ZrO2 or OsO2 target, and looking for EUV.
    I suggested this to Iwamura and the Lipinsky themselves. While I don't know if Iwamura will perform any experiment in this direction, the Lipinsky told me they are definitely not interested.
    I hope someone will follow your and my suggestions and explore what happens when low energy protons meet good NAE (Os, Ca, Pd, Ba, K, Zr, Li, ...). My theory suggests a list of the best atoms-NAE. The same list contains many atoms present in High Temperature Superconductors. It could be that the mechanism at the origin of HTSC is the same of LENR.

  • I hope someone will follow your and my suggestions and explore what happens when low energy protons meet good NAE (Os, Ca, Pd, Ba, K, Zr, Li


    Andrea, your published theory is pretty far beyond my level of possible comprehension. Is it possible to explain in simple terms why these apparently unrelated elements should make the best substrate?

  • 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 just read the patent, and found it very interesting, especially the accounts (and results in summary) of the tests carried out at various NASA establishments. The equipment required is - if not impossible - rather daunting, especially as I can think of a few more things not listed here.


    Good work - thank you for directing my attention to it.

  • @George Hody
    The essence of my theory shouldn’t be that complex. Your comment tells me I haven’t been able to describe it clearly.
    My theory assumes that the nuclear force is an electromagnetic effect instead of being due to a residuum of the strong interaction, as the Standard Model suggests (it is actually a so far unproved assumption of the SM).
    If that is the case, the electron could feel the nuclear force as well, and be attracted towards nuclei. Evidently this almost never happens. One necessary condition for the attraction to manifest is that the electron has to “rotate” around the proton at a specific frequency. Electron orbitals can provide this rotational frequency. This frequency, turned into an energy, is higher than the energies of binding orbitals: it is 85[eV]. Valence orbitals, which reach up to a few tens of [eV], are what chemistry is all about. The core orbitals instead have energies up to several hundreds of [keV]. So 85[eV] is just inside in the realm of core orbitals.


    Core orbitals have no chemical meaning, and do not differentiate one element from the other in chemical terms.


    The precise energies of core orbitals in bound systems of atoms depend on the orbitals above them, because these partly shield the nuclear charge. The external orbital of a free ion (which determines the ionization energy) is more bound than an orbital in a chemical system because the nuclear charge of a free ion is less shielded. However I took the ionization energies of free ions as a proxy of the core orbital energies in chemical systems.


    I took the ionization energies of all atoms from the NIST database (partly made of experimental values and part of theoretical values) and looked for the atoms with the energies nearest to the coupling value of 85[eV]. The elements listed on page of 30 of my presentation are those with the ionization energies nearest to the value of 85[eV].


    You correctly say that the atoms are unrelated, because there is no chemical similarity between them. The fil rouge is instead the energy of one of their core orbitals.


    This is the main reason why top-class chemists from all around the world haven’t managed in 27 years to improve substantially the yield of their experiments. And this is also the reason why many totally different substances (in solid, fluid, or plasma state) have been seen producing excess heat and other strange phenomena. Everyone looks for a Nuclear Active Environment in chemical terms, whereas there is nothing CHEMICAL in it!


    Please feel free to ask again any detail about my theory which is not clear to you.

  • Thanks Andrea, to this Newtonian physicist that actually made a lot of sense.


    Is there any potential evidence that the inital assumption involving the strong force is valid, or is it more of a hunch/conjecture?

  • @george Hody,
    the assumption is about the nuclear force, which should NOT be due (at least mainly) to the strong interaction (which keeps nucleons, kaons, pions, ... together). The suggestion comes from some publications of Valerio Dallacasa and Norman D. Cook, and dates back to the '80. I am in contact with them and we are still discussing it. The proposal is clearly against the Standard Model.