Huge News: E-Cat US-Patent granted! 50% Ni, 20% Li and 30% LiAlH4

From MFMP as follows:

@Ecco

Filing date Nov 27, 2012
Priority date Nov 27, 2011
Also published as US20150162104, WO2013076378A2, WO2013076378A3
Inventors Pekka Soininen

From this patent

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

"[0116] In an embodiment of the present invention styrene catalyst is utilized for enhancing nuclear fusion in a solid state system. The precursor for the styrene catalyst, hematite Fe203, having corundum crystal structure is reduced with hydrogen gas into magnetite FesO i. The precursor (iron oxide) is doped with alkali metal hydroxide comprising lithium hydroxide LiOH, sodium hydroxide NaOH, potassium hydroxide KOH, rubidium hydroxide RbOH and/or cesium hydroxide CsOH or with alkali metal oxide comprising lithium oxide Li20, sodium oxide Na20, potassium oxide K20, rubidium oxide Rb20 and/or cesium oxide Cs20. The alkali metal hydroxide is preferably KOH and the alkali metal oxide is preferably K20. Textural promoters comprising alumina Al203 and/or chromia Cr203 are added to the iron oxide. The said textural promoters are stable in process conditions in hot, highly reducing environment and they prevent the loss of lattice defects that are necessary for storing Rydberg matter and inverted Rydberg matter.

[0123] Industrial catalysts have been optimized for specific chemical processes. For example, formation of coke (solid carbonaceous material) on the catalyst surface is avoided if the process temperature is kept in a specified temperature range. The present invention does not utilize compounds that form coke and temperatures above the normal temperature range for catalytic processes can be used in the present thermal- energy producing reactor. [0124] The probability for obtaining nuclear fusion near a single structural defect of a material is very small. Arranging a very large number of particles with surface and lattice defects to the reaction container increases the probability for nuclear fusion events per time unit within the reaction container to a noticeable and useful level. For example, if a 50 g piece of nickel is converted into 5 nm Ni nanoparticles with about 6000 atoms, about 8.55*1019 Ni nanoparticles is obtained. Each Ni nanoparticle may be in contact with a catalyst nanoparticle that promotes the formation of Rydberg atoms and clusters. Even a very small probability for obtaining nuclear fusion near a single Ni nanoparticle becomes considerable and useful when all the 8.55*1019 probabilities are added together."

In one important way, Rossi's catalytic approach is more powerful than that of Pekka Soininen. Rossi uses up to 100 micron nickel particles which are sintered together from 5 micron COTS powder. The EMF power amplification factor that these various particles produce when aggregated is proportional to the SIZE SPREAD of the particles sizes used. A particle size spread between 100 microns and 1 nanometer produces a EMF power application factor of 10^15 when heat (infrared EMF) is converted to magnetic power.

See this reference for an explanation of how this amplification process works

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1657.pdf

Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale

See this for more detail involving EMF conversion processes

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.0547.pdf

Extraordinary momentum and spin in evanescent waves

Here is next Rossi patent that is describing Hot Cat:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription

Patent is worldwide so we still can replicate it but anybody else can't sell it without license.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Frank on E-catworld.com asked a very excellent question which points out a major inconsistency in the entire Rossi story -- how can the nickel be a catalyst if it is converted *entirely* from Ni-58 to Ni-62 during the Lugano Experiment? Note that the answer is highly evasive, typical for Rossi. The correct answer is "it can't be true" -- either it's wrong in the patent or it's wrong in the experiment report, or, as I suspect, it's wrong in both!

I think I understood Andrea Rossi's reply to my question.

It all depends on the definition of a catalyst and of a fuel (don't forget Magritte : « this is not a pipe »).

The Lugano report could make us consider that Nickel acts more as a fuel than as a catalyst, as more energy is released by Ni than by Li :

« If each 7 Li nucleus releases about 17 MeV we find then that the total energy available becomes 0.72 MWh. This is less than the 1.5
MWh actually produced in our 32 days run, so more energy has to come from other reactions »

and :
« We find then that there is about 2.2MWh available from the Nickel transformations. Accordingly, from Nickel and Lithium together there is about 3 MWh available, which is twice the amount given away in the test run.
Consequently we can conclude that the amount of fuel is probably compatible with the energy release being measured, although a quantitative statement requires detailed knowledge of the prevailing reactions. »

IMHO, both Nickel and Lithium are probably fuel AND catalyst, in a broad sense, according to the various reactor and charge configurations.

I think this is part of Rossi's IP strategy.
His new patent publication (on August 27th) seems to confirm this.

Best wishes
Frederic Maillard

Thanks Alain for enlightening me on the Mary/George defense. Hopefully she/he will stop wasting our LENR Forum space by posting paranoid delusions and wriggle on.

Let's move on to nanoscale hydrogen fusion experiments instead of this attack on Dr. Rossi. Someone previously posted that the vendetta may be the result of an unrequited love affair, maybe fusion related without hydrogen.

"These chemicals uses as fuel are not fundamental to LENR, it is what these fuels produce that results in LENR. Those more fundamental elements are nanoparticles of the proper sizes and aggregations comprised of elements and/or chemical compounds."

Two forms of catalytic activity are present in nanoscale hydrogen fusion when a nickel catalyst is used. Both are transmutations related to proton to helium and nickel isotopic transmutations. A means of producing a molecular beam for injection of the high amu's into the RGA ionizer must be devised for the high amu analysis. I've measured both with a modified RGA.

The insinuation that Dr. Rossi would salt the Lugano Experiment is ludicrous. Suggesting that a scientist of his caliber would take this risk is truly paranoid.
If Mary Yugo is a professed expert in calorimetry as he states why not devote some effort directed at LENR research? If he can get off his paranoid kick.

Thank you for the responses. Now I'm beginning to understand the underlying reasons for Dr. Rossi's popularity. It's unfortunate that these events have had a negative effect on the popularity of hydrogen fusion as an energy source. A form of nickel as a catalyst will cause hydrogen to fuse and basically produce only gamma radiation. The catalyst functions without undergoing any chemical change, transmutation is proton to helium based.

Alain said:
"The Ferrara and Lugano tests, and Tom Darden independent lest done as due diligence to allow funding are of greater importance."

We know of no Tom Darden DD test? We do know (because he said it at ICCF latest) that Darden backs research into LENR that he considers promising. It is long-term backing which is hands off an has no immediate expectation of results. Such backing does not require any DD. Darden could perhaps have believed Rossi a promising researcher taking his evaluation at face value. He could have been convinced by the Ferrara test - see below.

The Ferrara test was conducted by the same people as the Lugano test but was not as well documented. Specifically there was no detail about how the electrical power in was measured. We know from the Lugano test (that is know - not guess) that the combination of Rossi device + testers can result in subtle measurement errors that give false positives. It is entirely possible that some other false positive method contaminated the Ferrara test and that is what any scientist would conclude of a single scintific test, let alone one controlled by an inventor whose company's future funding rests on a positive result. You may think that multiple false positives equal fraud but that need not be true. Somone who is not rigorous in his methodology and tries different things to get an apparent positive will randomly hit false positives and negatives often. If they uncritically accept the false positives while viewing the negatives as error they can truly believe their device works.

Before Mary Yugo has apoplexy let me point out that I'm not interested in whether Rossi believes his devices to work (due to bad methodology and false positives) or whether he knows very well they do not and is laughing at everyone. My views on this matter cohere in either case and I find psychology, human motivation, etc a soft science area where certainties are hard to come by. The line between delusion and deliberation is a narrow one.

Now we come to the most significant test by far, from Lugano. A repeat of the Ferrara test but with tightened protocols meant to produce bullet-proof evidence of excess heat. indeed if Rossi had this it should be pretty easy to show it.

The Lugano test was of a device that Rossi claimed generated large amounts of excess heat. Rossi has been working on such devices for a long time, with consistent claims of easily measurable excess heat. Rossi chose the device to be tested, chose (or encouraged) the test method. Rosi wanted positive results to further his LENR patent application.

The test in fact showed no excess heat - I think even Alain agrees with this. Remarkably the testers (whom I do not accuse of fraud) misinterpreted experimental data to get what they thought was a bullet-proof positive result.

This is a very high level of mistake from the testers and (presumably) Rossi.

Given such blatant error it would be very unwise to expect other extraordinary measurements - the isotopic shift - not also to be error.

These observations would be extraordinary. Extreme fractionation of the sort suggested (98% purity) has never before been observed in any system, and is inherently unlikely. However, if we suppose there is such fractionation (Ni-62 concentrated in outside of grains) there is still no reason for an extraordinary nuclear mechanism. Fractionation as a physical process has been observed and is a good deal less extraordinary than nuclear reactions. there is plenty enough Ni-62 available without any transmutation, if we hypothesise some selective fractionation process that can result in high concentrations.

The zero excess heat observations - which are the independent part of the test - the ash was handled on insertion and removal by Rossi and is clearly not independent - show an electric heater - nothing more.

If we adopt Alain's hypothesis we have a number of implausibilities:
(1) The device given to the testers, who test it with Rossi's advice, for some reason is only an electric heater when it is supposed to generate significant excess energy.
(2) The testers use a method recommended by Rossi that just happens to show a X3 false positive of excess energy - but Rossi does not realise this from his own internal tests.
(3) The 98% Ni-62 has to be an atypical sample of the whole, since otherwise energy balance fails.
(4) The atypical sample could be either novel fractionation, or novel nuclear transmutation. The latter is much more unlikely since unusual fractionation processes have been found in the past, whereas transmutation is extraordinary both theoretically and experimentally. Entirely new.

My hypothesis for the same evidence is more plausible. It does not require fraud: the chance of Rossi getting ash contamination honestly are surely about as high as the chances of him giving a reactor that does not work up for 32 days testing when he has reactors that do work and he hinself said that a spare was available if one broke.

My hypothesis:
The Ni-62 residue comes from contamination. Rossi is on record as saying (a long time ago) that Ni-62 enriched nickel is a required reactant for his process. I know this is inconsistent with what is implicit in these results, and the patent description now. Still, if Ni-62 was so important once it is not unreasonable to think that anything - bags - reactors - etc could be contaminated, on the surface, with Ni-62.

That is the "no duplicity" version of the hypothesis. It is unlikely, but less unlikely than what Alain requires.

The "duplicity" version - and note that duplicity is not legally or morally identical to fraud, though it could amount to fraud - is that Rossi swapped samples. There are three ways this could happen:
(1) sleight of hand on sample insertion
(2) sleight of hand on sample removal
(3) reactor swapping between dummy and active tests

None of these are ruled out - the profs were not expecting or checking for any duplicitous action from Rossi, so such would be easy.

I find these repeated debates - about Rossi's devices - frustrating.

The facts are that the best most independent test of Rossi's device shows no excess heat. Isotopic analysis from samples handled by Rossi show inexplicable and unexpected complete isotopic shift. The isotopic shift coincidentaly happens to be identical to that you get from easily purchasable isotopes. Careful radiation detection showed no high energy particles.

It is not necessary - and unhelpful for the matter at had - to speculate about Rossi's motives and therefore distinguish between incompetence/delusion and fraud. Yet that is what most people - both Mary yugo etc, and AlainCo - seem to be obsessed with.

Speculating about motives inflames the argument. Were I an investor in Rossi perhaps such a matter would be important. But for us the matter is whether the data shown is an example of LENR+ or a big distraction with null content. We resolve that argument better by leaving the matter of fraud/not fraud alone, and looking at the evidence.

The matter of Rossi's motives etc is interesting as a human drama - and I share that with others. To me that is less interesting, and certainly less important, than decoding the hard science. I always expect experiments to have unusual anomalous error mechanisms. From personal experience - things go wrong, and they do so in mysterious ways. Decoding that takes a lot of effort.

I don't see that effort in any of the positives Alain quotes, or in any of Rossi's tests except Lugano. There however the excess heat evidence (which had a better than usual amount of documentation) was in fact negative. The mistake the authors made could never have stood had their methodology been better. Lack of control reactor test, lack of control temperature measurement, except at much lower temperatures, all is a departure from commonly accepted standards of experiment and IR temperature measurement. Had they done such double checking they would have realised themselves that their temperature calculation was wrong and perhaps corrected it. The concept they missed was the distinction between band emissivity and total emissivity - simple when you realise it.

Others here may perhaps begin to agree with me when they consider the various mistakes made in the attempted replications. MFMP deserve credit for sticking to the topic, and you can be sure they have no positive results that stand up - but they are certainly looking for these! In the process we discover many ways that these types of measurements can be anomalous. None of this error is likely to be fraud.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I find these repeated debates - about Rossi's devices - frustrating.

The facts are that the best most independent test of Rossi's device shows no excess heat. Isotopic analysis from samples handled by Rossi show inexplicable and unexpected complete isotopic shift. The isotopic shift coincidentaly happens to be identical to that you get from easily purchasable isotopes. Careful radiation detection showed no high energy particles.
....

These so called fact you are referring to is your own interpretations of a limited data set, and are not really "facts" at all.

It may come as a big surprise to you, Thomas Clarke, that some people might find your arrogant selection of information and consequent quasi analysis as quite frustrating as well, to express it in a diplomatic way. But you have showed you true face before, and your pathoskeptic nature is evident.

Hence I ignore your I'll informed prose, or usually so. Making this exception, just to inform the readers of this forum, that you are clueless as to what the real facts are in this matter, as you do not have neither the data nor the basic inclination to treat this subject fairly.

George,

What would be the purpose to engage you or Thomas Clarke in a discussion about what is wrong with your ill informed opinions of a whole field of physics. Seriously, I don't care about your constant drivel any more. It is utterly useless to engage you, Thomas Clarke, or any other pathoskeptic on this matter. Mind you, it is not a lack of trying. But it is useless and a complete waste of time. And infact, it is what you want. So no, there will not be a prolonged inane debate about the value of Thomas Clarke's "pièce de résistance".

Both you and him are undeniably very odd characters, spending so much time writing your, amusing at best, prose in a forum like this, where the absolute majority are informed individuals who has looked into the scientific evidence, found it to be both abundant and compelling, and certainly of credibility, and thus being forward looking in their minds. You are but the twig on the path, an obstacle easily surpassed and ignored.

You may find Thomas Clarke's analysis both compelling and thoroughly built. What a surprise. Be my guest to enjoy that moment of your common truth. Reality is that you both, as with all who reject new emerging ideas, that you cannot, even with a solid scientific education, accept that what goes beyond your preconceived notions, and hard wired learnings, even with the compelling and abundant facts that is present, accumulated over 25 years.

You, George, are so easy to ignore, because you bring nothing to the table. Thomas Clarke atleast make some efforts in trying to motivate his opinions at time, however futile and misguided they may be.

Patent NO.: US 9,115,913 B1 is a worthless document.

Serves to illustrate why the Inventor Andrea Rossi is useful as a scapegoat for undermining the utilization of hydrogen fusion as an energy source. Household use will have to wait until Big Oil has full control of the situation.

Call up ( US 9,115,913 B1) for review if you have a strong stomach for extreme Lawyerese. The FIG. illustrations are comical and may be worth the effort.

FreeThinkerLenr2, my ramblings on hydrogen fusion have some basis for support. I've run a nickel compound reactor with extreme heat output in my lab. when fusing hydrogen to produce helium. This was in no way a "Rossi's" device.

"How much power did your reactor make in excess of input? How did you measure it? Have you thought about publishing your result in at least an LENR-friendly journal (no! not Rossi's)?"

The thermal runaway at 830 C. for my NiO reactor destroyed the chromel/alumel couples. Ruined my data collecting capability. Protocol I've posted on this forum. My experiment goes back 50 years when the serendipitously assembled reactor fused hydrogen and ruined the NiO/Al2O3 catalyst. The breathtaking beauty of the reaction needs no repetition, I've seen it already. Certainly not new, it's star energy.

With the world wide postings related to nickel catalyzed hydrogen fusion there is no doubt that p+p->He is real. This almost free source of energy is on the horizon if you stand on a tall mountain looking at the horizon.

Mary, when are you going to use your knowledge of calorimetry to measure this reaction?