USPTO Patent Application: HYDROGEN-LITHIUM FUSION DEVICE

  • United States Patent Application -- 20160118144 -- April 28, 2016


    HYDROGEN-LITHIUM FUSION DEVICE


    Abstract: The Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Device (HLFD) includes a plasma generator that
    generates proton-lithium plasma within a reaction chamber. The plasma generator includes
    a proton source and lithium source. In one implementation, bias voltage is applied within
    the reaction chamber. The bias voltage enables protons to fuse with lithium ions in the
    proton-lithium plasma, whereby energetic helium ion fusion byproducts are produced.
    Multiple configurations of reaction chambers containing protons and lithium ions under
    conditions that yield proton-lithium fusion are disclosed.


    http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220160118144%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20160118144&RS=DN/20160118144

  • Now this is interesting!!!


    Extract:
    The Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Device (HLFD) includes a plasma generator that generates plasma containing protons and lithium within a reaction chamber. The plasma generator includes a proton source and lithium source. In one implementation, bias voltage is applied within the reaction chamber. The bias voltage enables protons to fuse with lithium in the plasma, whereby energetic helium ion fusion byproducts are produced. Multiple configurations of reaction chambers containing protons and lithium under conditions that may yield proton-lithium fusion are disclosed.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • I've written about this at the LENR Forum a dozen times or so. Glad to see someone else has finally noticed!
    It is by far the most interesting CF / LENr result I have seen, mainly because of the very detailed disclosure and large data sets in the orginal 2014 WIPO application. The energies involved are more accessible than any in conventional hot fusion (the best results are from proton energies between 100 and 200 eV in the WiPO data set).


    It is safe to say that this is a form of CF / LENR, even though the inventors are reluctant to identify it as such.

  • It is incredible that this is not further taken away by the Hot fusionists. If it is so easy to build a working reactor, why further invest billions in something that will probably hardly or never generate excess energy like ITER?
    It is about time main stream scientists open their eyes and be a little bit more open for experiments by scientists that dare to research phenomenon beyond the leading theory!

  • It is incredible that this is not further taken away by the Hot fusionists. If it is so easy to build a working reactor, why further invest billions in something that will probably hardly or never generate excess energy like ITER?
    It is about time main…


    Many of those here know that this fusion concept, which I believe is a form of Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion that was originally conceived by the man who invented the electronic television, Philo T. Farnsworth and updated by Hirsch and then Bussard. The point is that it is extremely easy, relatively speaking, to do fusion and make copious amounts of neutrons this way. High school students have done it. I read (Tom Ligon) that up until the late 90's, these 'Fusors' actually performed better than the existing Tokamaks. The Hot fusion folks decided early that this concept would never break even so they abandoned it. Too bad. But it's making a comeback. I do consider it a form of 'hot' fusion because the equivalent temperatures for the thousands of Electron volts is millions of degrees. It's not 'Low Energy' but it certainly is orders of magnitude easier than building the Magnetic Confinement or Inertial Confinement systems that get all the money.

  • I've studied the earlier patent at length. Their results are simply spectacular in that they have triggered fusion between protons and lithium at very low energies. In fact, they have determined a sweet spot of 200eV for the proton energy. According to…


    The inventor insists on using his own rather wierd theory of gravity which is probably why people tend to ignore him. Also, he claims to have run many hours achieving a COP of 16 with the power drag of the pumps included. If he set that up in any DOE lab he'd be a Nobel winner for sure which is why I'm a bit skeptical.

  • The Unified Gravity Corporation patent details how they used many different methods to make protons impact lithium. They were able to detect enormous rates of alpha particle production through a one millimeter aperture covered by a thin layer of mylar. What I also find interesting is that they create the most power when the input is pulsed via square waves!


    Did they also detect an enormous rate of gammas and neutrons from reactions between the 9 MeV alphas and Li?
    I agree with Contrarian that the theory looks fishy!

  • I would recommend not attending to their theory for the time being, unless Bessel functions are your kick. Their theory can be seen liberally mentioned between pages 12 and 20 of their WIPO application referenced here. After page 19 there are about 50 pages of abundant, very detailed and interesting experimental methods, data and refinements of same.


    Below from the Lipinski-UGC WIPO "Corrected Version" published 27 November 2014 as International Publication Number WO 2014/189799 A9. Linked here:


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


    ["Fair use" selected quotations below are from the above publication]:


    "[0005] The most comprehensive summary of prior research in proton-lithium fusion is offered by Herb, R.G., Parkinson, D.B., Kerst, D.W., "Yield of alpha-particles from lithium films bombarded by protons", Physical Review 48, 118 (1935). Herb's paper cites 3 previous experiments involving proton-lithium fusion as well as their own experimental results and concludes that at proton energies in the region of the conventional Coulomb barrier (comparable to those used by these inventors during early experiments in Huntsville Alabama and Lafayette Louisiana), very little fusion takes place."


    "[0006] At 300 keV input energy per proton, Herb's experimental data show a proton-lithium fusion efficiency of 3.34 X 10^-6 % {0.000003 %} compared to 100 % for perfect fusion -- that is for every 30,000,000 proton only one combines with lithium to produce detectable helium ions."


    "[0057] FIG. 42 displays a computer screen image that records data from test 33 in series #22 of experimental tests. The particle detector software shows two distinct particle peaks at 1.7 MeV and 2.3 MeV. The helium leak test mode of the Residual Gas Analyzer shows an increase in He-4 partial pressure to 5.2 X 10^-8 Torr."


    "[0087] Fourth, the production of nuclear energy typically is accompanied by undesirable side effects. For example, current fission facilities produce nuclear waste whose radioactivity dissipates only after thousands of years. Most fusion reactions produce dangerous particles such as neutrons and gamma rays. The inventors' approach is completely 'clean'. The only materials used are hydrogen and lithium. The only outputs from the reaction are energetic helium ions."


    "[0096] The HLFD {Hydrogen Lithium Fusion Device} does not require any additional protective shielding beyond a reaction chamber. The laboratory rooms used for experiments conducted by the inventors included an x-ray/gamma/beta radiation detector and neutron detector as radiation safety devices. In experimental tests using a proton gun or bias voltage, all radiation measurements during fusion stayed at background levels. Also the HLFD does not initiate fusion through heat, thus thermal issues arising in current hot fusion research programs are not present"


    "[0081] The inventors {Lipinskis-UGC} have tested two techniques for imparting kinetic energy to protons. In one technique, a proton beam of specific energy was created that travels through the reaction chamber and fuses with atomized lithium in the chamber atmosphere. The second technique involved the creation of proton-lithium plasma in a reaction chamber with a positive bias voltage that accelerated the protons and results in fusion with atomized lithium in the chamber atmosphere. A number of other techniques are described in this application that remain to be tested."


    "[0179] It may be possible to use the lithium hydride instead of hydrogen gas in the reaction chamber by sputtering lithium hydride from the lithium source with argon plasma. When lithium hydride sputtering takes place, the lithium and hydrogen ions disassociate. This method of introducing the reactants into the plasma provides a lithium-hydrogen ion ratio of one."


    "[0184] A total of 114 fusion tests were performed using alternating negative and positive bias voltages applied to the lithium source at a specific frfequency and waveform. Preliminary tests prior to the main fusion tests indicated that a square waveform produced on average the largest particle counts. Positive voltages over 250 volts produced large particle counts."


    "[0187] The particle count data graphed in FIG. 28 show a steady increase in the particle counts as the bias voltage pulse frequency increases. The pulse frequency that produced the largest particle counts was about 1400 Hz."

  • Taking a couple of items by their Lipinski-UGC WIPO application paragraph numbers above, I would hope to initiate some discussion about some of the implications of at least a few of the many experiments reported there. Taking their results at face value and ignoring for the time being their unusual theoretical construct of "Unified Gravity", and recognizing that these folks are not exactly lightweights, Hubert is a Ph.D. physicist with considerable experience, and his son is at least a competent technician and engineer, and the corporate personnel are enviably accomplished. The work was conducted at several regional accelerator facilities.


    One key result, to me, that upsets tentative dogma I had established at least for myself, is that the process appears to work in an all gas and/or plasma phase. For example from [0081} above: The second technique involved the creation of proton-lithium plasma in a reaction chamber with a positive bias voltage that accelerated the protons and results in fusion with atomized lithium in the chamber atmosphere. Thus unlike many other examples of CF / LENR, there are good examples here where neither the proton source nor the target are in any condensed phase (that is not solid or liquid). This appears to take away necessity of a lattice, it also removes one phase state generally recognized to be necessary for Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) and thus throws into question the necessity for such in this form of fusion.


    A curious note here might be whether lithium gas is actually in the form of Li2, as many other gases are, (all gases except the inerts are diatomic under "ordinary" conditions) alkali metal vapors may be expected to be diatomic:
     http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpu…s/55/jresv55n2p83_A1b.pdf


    This is just as hydrogen itself is in its stablest meso-thermic state.


    The claimed successful and even optimal usage of full square wave excursions [0184] and [0187] is interesting to me. If true, it reinforces ideas kicked around before, that is oppositely charged entities, such as a hydride anion and lithium cation, or perhaps more appropriately a naked proton and a lithium diatom relatively easily bearing a superfluous negative charge, would see opposing accelerations AND would have coulombic attraction added in. Could that be enough to cause fusion?


    Longview

  • It's not 'Low Energy' but it certainly is orders of magnitude easier than building the Magnetic Confinement or Inertial Confinement systems that get all the money.


    20 – 2000 eV is low energy in comparison to the kinds of energies involved in plasma fusion.


    Taking their results at face value and ignoring for the time being their unusual theoretical construct of "Unified Gravity", and recognizing that these folks are not exactly lightweights, Hubert is a Ph.D. physicist with considerable experience, and his son is at least a competent technician and engineer, and the corporate personnel are enviably accomplished. The work was conducted at several regional accelerator facilities.


    The theory of "Unified Gravity" is obviously wrong to my mind, calling into question for me their mastery of physics. In this context the PhD doesn't do anything for me. I am interested in their experimental results and would like to see some independent validation. I got the impression that the testing, while done at various facilities, was conducted by Lipinksi et al.


    One key result, to me, that upsets tentative dogma I had established at least for myself, is that the process appears to work in an all gas and/or plasma phase. For example from [0081} above: The second technique involved the creation of proton-lithium plasma in a reaction chamber with a positive bias voltage that accelerated the protons and results in fusion with atomized lithium in the chamber atmosphere. Thus unlike many other examples of CF / LENR, there are good examples here where neither the proton source nor the target are in any condensed phase (that is not solid or liquid). This appears to take away necessity of a lattice, it also removes one phase state generally recognized to be necessary for Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) and thus throws into question the necessity for such in this form of fusion.


    The dogma about LENR requiring a solid state substrate has bugged me for several years. It seems to have been an assumption adopted early on that has since been codified as a requirement for LENR, due to a lack of imagination and systematic exploration of other possibilities and claims. Note that once we set aside a need (in some cases) for a solid state substrate, the camel that is Joseph Papp's device pushes its nose under the tent.

  • The theory of "Unified Gravity" is obviously wrong to my mind, calling into question for me their mastery of physics. In this context the PhD doesn't do anything for me. I am interested in their experimental results and would like to see some independent validation. I got the impression that the testing, while done at various facilities, was conducted by Lipinksi et al.


    I won't, or can't, criticize their theory, I just don't think it is necessary at this point to even attempt to understand it. Their data and datasets are what are very important (in the 2014 WIPO application, at least). The fact that their very extensive data don't completely support their theoretical predictions is actually a good sign that they were honestly looking at the phenomena rather than seeking a few examples to support the theory. There are plenty of results reported that are only moderately impressive. The effect of positive target bias voltage, the effects of dynamic bias changes, the effects of lowered proton energy, the effects of chamber pressure and heavy inert gas components therein are explored very well and provide a wealth of material for other, and perhaps more conventional theoreticians.


    Since physics has at its core some very serious unresolved "issues", it is not useful to be tarring upstart theories as "unphysical".


    The proton energies, the electronic equipment and other features of the Lipinski experiments are readily accessible to amateur "replication". The regional accelerator labs provided some of the requisite safety, some of the expensive monitoring equipment and first allowed them to replicate the experiments seen in the 1935 Herb Phys. Rev., that were high hundreds of keV proton impacts on solid lithium-- with miniscule fusion yields.


    But now thanks to their high level of "working" disclosure (unlike many other LENR patent applications), it should be relatively easy to replicate much of the more important (CF / LENR like) parts of what they report to the level required in any enforceable patent, that is to allow replication by "any of those skilled in the relevant arts".

  • The dogma about LENR requiring a solid state substrate has bugged me for several years. It seems to have been an assumption adopted early on that has since been codified as a requirement for LENR, due to a lack of imagination and systematic exploration of other possibilities and claims. Note that once we set aside a need (in some cases) for a solid state substrate, the camel that is Joseph Papp's device pushes its nose under the tent.


    Plasma electrolysis (Parkhomov) "hydrino -process" R.Mills are also two samples where no condensed matter is needed. The third one is the mysterious light balls which also cause transmutations.



    But now thanks to their high level of "working" disclosure (unlike many other LENR patent applications), it should be relatively easy to replicate much of the more important (CF / LENR like) parts of what they report to the level required in any enforceable patent, that is to allow replication by "any of those skilled in the relevant arts".


    The Mills process is also very well documented and should be easy to replicate. His work does not only include hydrogen as a fuel, like the more well known plasma electrolyses experiments, he also work with other catalytic elements. (Ag, Cu, Fe..)


    For me its a shame that no large (public! the armies do it for sure..) and well equiped lab is doing serious work, helping to find a theory.

  • Recall that the number of target lithium nuclei in a laboratory setting of a solid surface may be on the order of 10^21 per square cm (assuming a cm squared target and a one cm "e-folded" proton penetration depth at such low energies as 200 eV. Even a one ppm fusion rate from a fluence of one milliampere of protons (6.25 X 10^15 per second) would amount to 6.25 X 10^9 fusion events per second in such a reaction volume. At an average of say 17 MeV (see references to aneutronic fusion) per event, the net power seen would be expected to be merely 100s of microwatts. So clearly, a useful level of fusion may be imagined to be far higher than this assumed one ppm event rate, even though that itself is 30 times the level reported in 1935 by Herb. Further, 100s of microwatts per cubic centimeter is well above one credible calculated energy output of the most central part of the core of our Sun:


    277 watts per cubic meter ->
    equals 277 watts per 10^9 cc ->
    equals 0.277 microwatts / cc


    Reliably measuring such heat might be difficult or tedious and subject to the usual dismissals, but measuring the final energetic alpha flux from Li-7 + p --> Be-8 at 17.2 MeV should be "easy"; which also promptly gives Be-8 -> 2 He-4 at 2 X 46 keV should also be easy.


    Other aneutronic reactions might show "windows" of unexpectedly low activation analogous to the Lipinski-UGC apparent results. See the "never-to-be-trusted for controversial issues" online encyclopedia or other sources by searching Google at "Aneutronic Fusion".

  • I find it interesting that Rossi may be using square waves. Unlike sinusoidal wave forms, I think they provide a much stronger kick or jolt to the active components of the charge. Also, we know that Songsheng Jiang used DC power. When he turned off the…


    It isn't necessarily all about high voltage. If the magnetic fields are important you should be thinking about high current heater coils - since field strength is proportional to ampere-turns.


    I too have seen evidence of LENR activity centered around the 2-second (0.5Hz) cycling on and off of DC heater coils switched by a PID temperature controller. Square wave edges again. But as you may know, I am doing a lot of work on this aspect of the tech.

  • Reliably measuring such heat might be difficult or tedious and subject to the usual dismissals, but measuring the final energetic alpha flux from Li-7 + p --> Be-8 at 17.2 MeV should be "easy"; which also promptly gives Be-8 -> 2 He-4 at 2 X 46 keV should also be easy.


    What do you mean by the highlighted part of the last sentence?

  • @Peter Ekstrom


    The usual online sources are fairly clear that the aneutronic yield of Li-7 + p is 17.2 MeV. Perhaps that 17.2 includes the subsequent fission, but I doubt it. I took Norman Holden's 1995 revised table value from the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 76th Ed., p. 10-39, which gives "2alpha / 0.046 MeV" for the decay of Be-8. If you can provide other sources or data, I could make the second number simply 46 keV. If that is the only issue, it makes little difference to the overall energy yield in Lipinski's claims. Nevertheless, I, and I'm sure others here, would certainly be interested to know more about such reactions and the reported yields.


    I hope that answers your question. Thanks for the interest.

  • @Longview and @Peter Ekstrom
    I use the data from this site:
    https://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vcharthtml/VChartHTML.html


    I have:
    Li7+p -> Be8 + 16.74[MeV]
    Be8 ­->2 He4 + 0.09184 [MeV]


    @Longview
    My theory suggests actually what you say: “There is no need for a lattice”. A hydride lattice is only convenient because it provides a dense source of hydrogen nuclei.


    @Eric Walker
    I share with you the impression that their Unified Gravity Theory is wrong.


    @everyone
    I think we should appreciate the openness and the honesty of the Lipinskys.


    During the weekend I wrote to Stephen and Hubert Lipinsky suggesting an experiment I had suggested already to Iwamura last summer (2015): accelerating low energy protons (up to a few hundred [eV]) against a ZrO2 target, and look for EUV and soft gammas. According to the numbers I get, ZrO2 should be the best material for a dense and stable Nuclear Active Environment, with a low proton energy requirement. Other choices are possible. Non-metallic Lithium ( Li(I) ) is one possibility. But it should require protons with roughly double the energy.


    Stephen Lipinski answered promptly declining very politely the suggestion “because we are pursuing other technologies and patents predicted from the MEE gravity theory”. They seem very busy working in the direction suggested by their theory.

  • Perhaps
    that 17.2 includes the subsequent fission, but I doubt it. I took
    Norman Holden's 1995 revised table value from the Handbook of Chemistry
    and Physics, 76th Ed., p. 10-39, which gives "2alpha / 0.046 MeV" for
    the decay of Be-8.


    I think you are misinterpreting the data. If the 2 alpha decay channel
    were not available 4Be would have been the stable nuclide with A=8. But it isn't:
    http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.se/toi/listnuc.asp?sql=&A1=8&A2=8


    The alpha decay of 8Be ground state has indeed the Q-value of 92 keV:
    B.E.(1) = 56499.506 ± 0.037 keV
    B.E.(2) = 28295.673 ± 0.005 keV
    B.E.(3) = 28295.673 ± 0.005 keV
    Q-value from masses:
    91.84 keV
    That is, if you prefer, 46 keV for each alpha.


    The problem is that you should not see the problem as a decay but as a reaction:


    1H + 7Li --> 4He + 4He
    B.E.(1)= 0.0 ± 0.0 keV
    B.E.(2)= 39244.526 ± 0.473 keV
    B.E.(3)= 28295.673 ± 0.005 keV
    B.E.(4)= 28295.673 ± 0.005 keV
    Q-value: 17346.82 keV
    Uncertainty: 0.473 keV (ignoring correlations)


    The very large Q-value comes from having two poorly bound nuclides
    before and two very tightly bound nuclides after the reaction. All
    energy from the reaction ends up as kinetic energy of the two alphas
    going in opposite directions sharing the energy equally. I.e. E(alpha) = 8.67 MeV.


    The masses and Q-values are from http://nuclear.lu.se/database/masses/


    Bonus information:
    That the 8Be ground state is very close to 2 alpha in mass is important
    for the first step in the triple alpha process to make 12C in old stars.


    End of Nuclear Physics 101

  • /* My theory suggests actually what you say: “There is no need for a lattice”. A hydride lattice is only convenient because it provides a dense source of hydrogen nuclei. */


    Just because you don't know details of hydrogen-lithium fusion. The patented reaction has been described long time ago, so I'm sorta surprised, it gets patented right now.
    On the contrary, this fusion provides very nice support and demonstration of lattice enhanced cold fusion reaction.

  • What I don't understand well is if H2 is separated by Ni how H begins just a proton without electron ?


    @DF: Here some brain food about Ni and other metalhydrides!


    An extensive reference about NiH chemistry in batteries: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2502&context=theses


    More hard core: https://smartech.gatech.edu/bi…kim_kichul_201008_phd.pdf
     
    One to try:
    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ty_of_the_Mg2NiH4_hydride
    Oxide reducation by H:
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10…b04313?journalCode=jpccck