Display MoreA handful of chained tricks
- Electron screening
- Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping process
- Tunnelling
Inelegant ...
If it works it works. Collective emergent effects abound in scientific reality. Three different things working collectively doesn't equal inelegance.
... inelegant for sure, and very risky
The human brain's consciousness and life itself require so many things to work at the same time for the phenomena to come through yet it works consistently every single day. Engineering based on intuitive awareness of the whole picture can solve problems that we wish only had one clean explanation. Very few highly optimised technologies do though. Example: microchips with integrated circuits. It is not a gamble just extremely detailed interdisciplinary application, maybe based off of a mistake, but that's where some of the most precious things come from. All I'm saying is you may have to cover the whole floor, I don't expect compact clean nuclear energy to compose less than two subatomic effects.
In this respect it is particular noted that neither provides the present application for any unconfutable evidence of the formation and existence of "neutral nuclei" of deuterium and tritium,
Inconfutable..
there are no shortcuts to inconfutablility in nuclear physics... time and money are prerequisites.. and lots of them
cleverness is a bonus
European Patent Office rejection of NASA/Pines application - not exactly "a breath of fresh air".
"It is underlined that the actual existence of "neutral nuclei" of in particular deuterium and tritium, which is essential to the definition of the invention for facilitating the nuclear reactions, forcedly needs the step of generating these neutral nuclei in order to obtain the essential "deeply screened" nuclei state (i.e. for allowing to overcome the Coulomb force), breaks with generally accepted technical and scientific knowledge.
"breaks with generally accepted technical and scientific knowledge"...That excuse as we all know, is commonly used to reject LENR/LENR related patents, but I thought NASA would be an exception. Especially so with such a large, and highly accomplished group of authors listed on the application.
Will see what the USPTO says, although from what Ahlfors showed us above, it appears the USPTO declared the patent was abandoned this month (12 05 2019)?
USPTO says more and worse
The patent examiner did not sugar coat it...it sounds like that patent is as good as dead. Unless that is, the NASA team can show them a working device. The same predicament others before have encountered, who ended up taking whatever they found to the grave. Of course NASA has almost unlimited resources, and this should not impede them from continuing on with the the research as it has those before them.
Makes me wonder why anyone would waste their time, and money trying to get a patent approved? If NASA can't get a "Cold Fusion" (as the examiner pointed out to them) patent, who can?
Brings up another observation talked about before; no patent = no IP protection = no investors = no R/D = no product. That is not to say there has not been some investment money flow into the field; i.e. IH, Clean Planet, LENRInvest, etc. But it looks as if they will need a strategy to make their investments pay off without IP protection.
Good thing we have some humanitarian, pure research, no strings attached money enter the field by way of Gates, and Google. Although not looking very good on those fronts after the Nature paper, and not hearing from Duncan (Texas Tech/Seashore Research LLC) for over 3 years now.
The patent examiner did not sugar coat it
Sergei contending with the Euro patent office for seven years...re deuterium/titanium
with much less resources than NASA..my sympathy..
my experience with just the NZ patent office in 1988 invokes empathy
Reminds me of the USPTO's "SAWS" program. For those of you unfamiliar; it was a secret policy that barred LENR -along with any free energy, patent approvals, which was rescinded/cancelled after it came to public light. I think that was in 2014? It may no longer be official policy, but their actions speak otherwise.
Display MoreEuropean Patent Office rejection of NASA/Pines application - not exactly "a breath of fresh air".
"It is underlined that the actual existence of "neutral nuclei" of in particular deuterium and tritium, which is essential to the definition of the invention for facilitating the nuclear reactions, forcedly needs the step of generating these neutral nuclei in order to obtain the essential "deeply screened" nuclei state (i.e. for allowing to overcome the Coulomb force), breaks with generally accepted technical and scientific knowledge.
Of course, the division does not categorically exclude the possibility that new scientific discoveries and theories can invalidate existing knowledge leading to fundamentally new inventions. However, previously accepted technical and scientific knowledge, the higher are the requirements on the extent of the technical and scientific information and explanations to be given in the patent application, so that the ordinary person skill in the art, which is just familiar with the available "conventional knowledge", is enabled to carry out the invention.
In this respect it is particular noted that neither provides the present application for any unconfutable evidence of the formation and existence of "neutral nuclei" of deuterium and tritium, nor can this be found in the prior art available to a skilled person.
Therefore, since the description neither provides for the missing evidence of the actual formation of such "neutral nuclei" of deuterium and tritium, nor it discloses at least one specific working embodiment for indeed forming them, the application is not disclosed in a manner not sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art (Art. 83 and Rule 42(1)(e) EPC).
Because of what reported above, the present application fails to such an extent to comply with the EPC, that it is impossible to carry out a meaningful search regarding the state of the art for all the subject-matter claimed."
Hmmm neutral hydrogen isotope nuclei, sounds familiar conceptually to ultra dense states of hydrogen. Since most space between the electron and the nucleus is "empty". Guys i really hope someone has got a handle on this with all these patents and experiments with no third party verified usable prototypes. Thankful for the academic and academic-ish research.
"The closest scientific research suggests that net energy production from fusion is at best an unproven theory."
So much for ITER.
Anyway, their main complaint is that the description does not allow "one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention" to actually make one.
As I have said before, most of the things that Holmlid has been doing with his publications is build a peer reviewed theoretical and experimental base for their IP. Cardone et al has been doing the same. This way the patent offices have no way to dismiss the patents for their theoretical impossibility, which they do even if experimental data is provided when no theoretical background rooted in accepted science (even if shallow rooted).
most of the things that Holmlid has been doing with his publications
All in all in real money and time Holmlid has invested a lot more than Pines et al at NASA..
at least half a life is what it takes for paradigm shifting and in fact many lives
All in all in real money and time Holmlid has invested a lot more than Pines et al at NASA.
I still do not know much about Vladimir Pines, of Pinesci. He seems to be a prime mover (along with Forsley) in the NASA/GEC LENR hybrid project. On the SPAWAR JWK LENR and the claims made by Global Energy Corporation (GEC) thread, we occasionally tried to fit him into the picture, but never quite succeeded.
So who is this guy, and how did he come to be a figure in LENR land...via NASA? Too bad Gregory Byron Goble disappeared on us. Good nose for getting to the bottom of a story.
https://www.collierreporting.c…i-consulting-avon-lake-oh
he or his wife probably wing by LF every so often
looks to have expertise in heat transfer, materials engineering ~1990
