New Brillouin Energy USPTO patent application

1st Official Post

    Energy Generation Apparatus and Method - US Patent Application 20150187444 - July 2, 2015



    Abstract


    A practical technique for inducing and controlling the fusion of nuclei within a solid lattice.
    A reactor includes a loading source to provide the light nuclei which are to be fused, a lattice
    which can absorb the light nuclei, a source of phonon energy, and a control mechanism to start
    and stop stimulation of phonon energy and/or the loading of reactants. The lattice transmits
    phonon energy sufficient to affect electron-nucleus collapse. By controlling the stimulation of
    phonon energy and controlling the loading of light nuclei into the lattice, energy released by
    the fusion reactions is allowed to dissipate before it builds to the point that it causes
    destruction of the reaction lattice.


    http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20150187444.PGNR.&OS=dn/20150187444&RS=DN/20150187444

    • Official Post

    Very interesting patent.
    The claims are quite general and just propose to create phonons by different way, and evacuate heat ...
    however in the description there are many more details, playing with electric pulses, that would allow replication.

    • Official Post

    It is the interest of all actors in LENR, even competitors, to have clear evidence of LENR, even if it is proprietary or protected technology.


    The pope of science only need to be convinced, so that business and agencies fund LENR.
    There would be so much need, so much market , that competition will be non-sense...


    it is like being afraid your competitor empty the ocean after proving the bucket works.

    Well, you gotta keep your bullshit going, otherwise it is came over. Infinite energy guys have always been amazingly resilient throughout the history, must give them that.


    But of course, no actual results, ever. Of course not, because it is hillybilly physics at best, a deliberate scam at worst.

    • Official Post

    What I concede is that in that story there is true believers.
    question is who is believing in invisible pink unicorn.
    I'm still waiting for a paper that critics F&P without being refuted by experimental evidence like the only 4 that are public. (most critics are void, like theory or failures. It seems pretended skeptics have problem with tristate logic, and even with statistic).


    the evidence are accumulating to LENR. its started with successful experiments like F&P, Oriani, McKubre, Miles, Bockris, the evidence of misconduct of MIT leaked by their editor, the clear incompetence of the caltech, MIT prominent failed replicators, facing experienced experts like fleischmann, Bockris, and newcomers of national labs who changed of method to eliminate claimed artifacts, like mcKubre, Miles, oriani...
    The evidence of peer review manipulation when Oriani paper was rejected despite positive peer review, of MIT fraud not being acknowledged despite the opinion of the editor. the rejection of papers lik report 41 without any review.
    the refusal to correct errors in caltech and MIT papers.


    To those evidence the skeptics say nothing, not even serious rebuttal. they just ignore to prevent innocent observers to consider what cannot be accepted if you consider it.


    Then there is the time for weaker non scientific evidence... Rossi call for doubt and even play with it, but Tom Darden entry, SRi confirmation of Brillouin, Japanese or Airbus moves, Duncan moves from sincere ignorant skepticism to dynamic acceptance... All that should at least push skeptic to moderate their positions, from 100% certainty to usual call for prudence.


    when I hear pretended skeptics use arguments of "evidence" "conspiracy" "pink unicorn" "improbable" "moving target", I applaude, while I am shocked by the fact they perfectly mastering the tools of logic they cannot even use it to evaluate their own theories.


    It is clear that the theory of the skeptic is a soup mixing in an impossible way, depending on their desperate need to justify their belief (a method that usual skeptic bash with courage when facing anti-vaxxer or alike), explanations based on conspiracy, fraud, errors, incompetence, carefully avoiding to put any theory in perspective with the other.


    I concede that the situation is messy, complicated, plagued with errors, lack of data inducing doubt and opening hypothesis, but most of all it demand some intelligence that is very hard to mobilize in a brain that use all it's energy to prove the opposite of reality. When one put all data in perspective, even just all E-cat tests with evidence from Ferrara/Lugano the result is at least very intriguing and anyone claiming he is sure it is not real is clearly deluded and biased.


    I am shocked, but not surprised (thanks thomas Kuhn) to see people who simply say "there is no evidence" while you show them evidence, that respect all their criteria (peer reviewed, high sigma, replicated, big labs), and take as evidence things that respect all their own criteria for fraud (negative results, theory, frauds, bad sigma, incompetence in the domain, inverted Popper logic).
    I woudl accept some doubt on some evidences, but the general "it does not exist" "it is void" is simply a clear psychiatric denial.
    People analysing seriously LENr critics should observe the lack of subtleties of the denial.


    You can compare with the sincere skepticism of Abd Ul Rahman lomax who is prompt to spot any weakness, but who can concede points. LENR Scientists like Michael McKubre, Ed Storms, were the first to spot the weak points of recent tests and experiments, yet they know by experience that the phenomenon exist.


    In fact thomas Kuhn explained that one key things in a paradigm is the definition of what is an evidence and what is not.
    It is clear that a peer reviewed paper, replicated by corporate , national, and private labs , is not an evidence for LENR skeptic.


    What is an evidence is a negative result from fraudsters (MIT) or incompetent team (Caltech) that confirm a theory (particle physics) that does not apply to the domain (material science), and which is incoherent with knowledge in electrochemistry and proven false by following experiments.
    The definition of a bad evidence is "evidence from someone that have or is supporting any LENR claim" .
    This is LENR skeptic paradigm. It is self coherent, not with modern logic, but it can answer any question.
    In medieval period people were using a logic based on antiquity reference book, and grammatical analysis, not using what we call mathematical logic today.
    To face QM and GR people used "realism" arguments like twin paradox, schrodinger cat... another logic.
    tLogic , as the definitiaon of what is true or false, real or not, and what can be infered is a variable , and Kuhn explains it is an essential part of a paradigm.
    Today theory is a condition to accept reality, and consensus replace the book of Ptolemee and academic societies replace the opinion of the Pope expert team.


    Nb: I just found this article which complete the usual one I cite
    http://www.theguardian.com/sci…d/2012/aug/28/thomas-kuhn

    Nice review Alain. Thanks. (After due consideration I decided "Anti-vaxxers" were those opposed to vaccinations. I've been logged onto this Forum so much, I missed some terminology talk elsewhere, I'm sure.)


    I wonder if a modest operating rule could be in put force here. Please note that every post by "p" is accompanied by the same link out to its own pathological site. Perhaps that can be systematically blocked. It is essentially free advertising here, for something likely not constructive.


    Perhaps the rule would be "no repeated linkouts" -- and to be generously fair, make that "no repeats of the same linkout, beyond the level of 2 consecutive, and 4 total in any given year."

    Quote from AlainCo

    By the way is there someone interested in replicating this patent ?


    Actually Tom Claytor of Los Alamos National Labs did his own first principles test of the hypothesis. Was able to reliably generate tritium 12 out of 12 times using this method. His pulses were too wide to generate helium as a primary end product.

    • Official Post

    Ah,


    I imagine this is in line with that work of 2002 ?
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClaytorTNtritiumpro.pdf


    Quote from T. N. Claytor D. D. Jackson and D. G. Tuggle


    TRITIUM PRODUCTION FROM A LOW VOLTAGE DEUTERIUM DISCHARGE ON PALLADIUM AND OTHER METALS
    T. N. Claytor, D. D. Jackson and D. G. Tuggle Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545


    ABSTRACT Over the past year we have been able to demonstrate that a plasma loading method produces an exciting and unexpected amount of tritium from small palladium wires. In contrast to electrochemical hydrogen or deuterium loading of palladium, this method yields a reproducible tritium generation rate when various electrical and physical conditions are met. Small diameter wires (100 - 250 microns) have been used with gas pressures above 200 torr at voltages and currents of about 2000 V at 3-5 A. By carefully controlling the sputtering rate of the wire, runs have been extended to hundreds of hours allowing a significant amount (> 10’s nCi) of tritium to accumulate. We will show tritium generation rates for deuterium-palladium foreground runs that are up to 25 times larger than hydrogen-palladium control experiments using materials from the same batch. We will illustrate the difference between batches of annealed palladium and as received palladium from several batches as well as the effect of other metals (Pt, Ni, Nb, Zr, V, W, Hf) to demonstrate that the tritium generation rate can vary greatly from batch to batch.


    or maybe it is more recent work (I could not watch that video, hope it is recent?)


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.



    Is there more recent work ?

    Quote from BEC


    Actually Tom clay tour of Los Alamos National Labs did his own first principles test of the hypothesis. Was able to reliably generate tritium 12 out of 12 times using this method. His pulses were too wide to generate helium as a primary end product.


    @BEC, I'm going to make a leap of logic from your small number of high quality postings here and not-so-subtle choice of handle that you are associated with Briollouin Energy Corporation. I would like to know what you think of the Parkhomov/Rossi replication efforts ongoing by many of us amateurs and if you would like to see more Brilouin style replication efforts? Would you be willing to assist MFMP in a Briollouin style replication? Are you waiting for patents to be granted before you encourage more open replications?


    I apologize if my leap of logic was incorrect.

    Quote from Pathoskeptic

    Well, you gotta keep your bullshit going, otherwise it is came over. Infinite energy guys have always been amazingly resilient throughout the history, must give them that.


    But of course, no actual results, ever. Of course not, because it is hillybilly physics at best, a deliberate scam at worst.


    The topic here is "First Brillion Replication At Los Alamos" The brillion boiler and Mill's theory that explains it,' is totally bogus made up science with no proof.

    The Brillouin patent seems to me well better founded than Rossi's one. It claims clearly the Cold Fusion and CMNS domain. It claims an explicit and detailed control of the process. It explains the weak of theory in cold fusion but the confidence in experiments.
    Because these differences, the protection of Rossi is too weak and unavailable. The protection of Brillouin seems well better, but we must wait.

    Quote from Rical

    The Brillouin patent seems to me well better founded than Rossi's one. It claims clearly the Cold Fusion and CMNS domain. It claims an explicit and detailed control of the process. It explains the weak of theory in cold fusion but the confidence in experiments.
    Because these differences, the protection of Rossi is too weak and unavailable. The protection of Brillouin seems well better, but we must wait.


    I have just now looked over the new Brillouin US Patent Application (it is not a patent at the link given). It is exactly what Thomas Clarke incorrectly accused the Lipinski UGC WIPO Application of being. Unlike Lipinski, this IS a "speculative patent" application. At numersous points the wording is tentative (would, will, could etc). There is little or no description of operational details, in complete contrast to the UGC Application. It is, to be sure, quite different from the Rossi patent application now denied patent status.


    The Briillouin / Godes patent appears to fully adopt some version of a cold neutron from proton via electron. Of course this is essentially a form of Widom-Larsen. Nothing wrong with that--- provided one can actually show the transmutations that have been made. Perhaps that was presented earlier in the application process and now withdrawn. If so, it is certainly contrary to my understanding of the purpose of a patent, that is: To enable one schooled in the art to replicate the device and its performance. Unlike Lipinski UGC, there is only the "hand waving" style of theoretical framework, no data from working devices, that I can see, at anywhere near the level required to replicate. I guess we cannot be surprised, since this is simply a patent application--- But not a convincing one, relatively speaking.


    The wholesale adoption of Widom-Larsen (Srivastave?) without apparent attribution is curious. It is as though Godes believes he already knew this or that it was somehow "prior art"-- but even in that case the prior art should be cited.


    Even though the title mentions "generation" of energy through cold fusion. It is apparently mainly focused on control, with down-regulation means and methods emphasized repeatedly. Far more details on actual implementation of down regulation is given, with the repeated assertion that this is necessary to prevent the lattice from self destruction. Little detail on how specifically to upregulate the thermal or "phonon" output of the "lattice"-- where the reactions are apparently claimed, but not sufficiently mechanistically detailed, to occur. I am curious why a patent application would be so titled as to give it the appearance of being a means to generate excess energy via a low temperature process, when actually the details clearly describe a number of ways of preventing runaway in such a process. For Godes, it appears that external phonons and internal self generated phonons are manifestations of thermal processes. That in spite of the mention and detailing of ultrasound as the mechanistic explanation for at least one of the stimulatory processes, the mechanism devolves and evolves via "phonons". I suspect this may be an attempt ot avoid some issues with the "perpetuum mobile" or perpetual motion machine issue long a rationale for the USPTO to reject CF and LENR type patents.


    No mention is made of how one coordinates the longitudinal ultrasonic field motions with the transverse photonic ones. There is little to compare with Rossi here. It has been awhile since I read Rossi's application. I don't want to look at it again... too devoid of disclosures to be even considered as a patent in the US. At least this Brillouin document has some promise as a disclosure of PART of the process at this point, in my opinion of course.


    Godes and his IP attorneys should really examine the Lipinski Application to see how it should be done.


    I am sure some are wondering if I have any connection to the Lipinskis or to UGC. I have no connections at all. No acquaintences there, no relatives there, no investment with any of the principals or with Unified Gravity Corporations itself. I have never spoken or communicated with them or any of their representatives. I learned of their WIPO application here at the LENR Forum. I have to say it stands far above any other application in this field that I am aware of. And once again, I caution that their Grand Theory, while it may be interesting or even valid, is not the important thing in their work. It is their diverse and frankly fascinating results of many many experiments with many manipulated variables in a rather simple system.


    I to was impressed with UGC & their data & mentioned it to Robert who said he was not & pointed out at least one concern he had which I don't recall but can look up if anyone is interested further. It would be nice to have a Godes replication effort set up to provide data lacking so far elsewhere. Think I'll send these comments to UGC to see if we can get them to respond.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.