... and not a prime mover
NASA: New Paper about Experimental Progress
-
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.
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."
I view all LENR patents (and a lot of non-LENR patents) as PR - how can you patent something that no-one has made work? And if it worked, the world and this site would be very different...
Fresh air, because the screening enhancement stuff is real science discovering new things, and sometimes that is serendipitous. If there are strange effects that lead to extraordinary no signs of nuclear activity neclear reactions then it has as good a chance of uncovering them as anything. And if not it is still interesting science.
-
So nobody accepts the ultra sense H\D or hydrino theory i.e. neutral nuclei as yet? Maybe the NASA patent was being too specific, Brillouin Energy Corp have been granted much less specific patents for their work. This is why replication of Holmlid's work by groups like NASA is vital and I would have thought the new replication by Gunderson and further patenting by Norront etc. should have stimulated similar work at NASA looking for muon release by laser irradiation. This would be the only way of substantiation their neutral nuclei proposals, without such work they are wasting their time trying to patent fusion without first establishing the theory.
-
Display More
So nobody accepts the ultra sense H\D or hydrino theory i.e. neutral nuclei as yet? Maybe the NASA patent was being too specific, Brillouin Energy Corp have been granted much less specific patents for their work. This is why replication of Holmlid's work by groups like NASA is vital and I would have thought the new replication by Gunderson and further patenting by Norront etc. should have stimulated similar work at NASA looking for muon release by laser irradiation. This would be the only way of substantiation their neutral nuclei proposals, without such work they are wasting their time trying to patent fusion without first establishing the theory.
Yes sir! They could end up looking for the wrong markers or optimizing the wrong variables if they overlook a potencial process. Ultra dense hydrogen could potencially explain a lot. Different research groups are coining their own jargon for the same phenomina and claiming the theories are incompatible because the math is different. If multiple interpretations lead to a conceptually overlapping archetype maybe it'
s the same underling phenomina.
-
Isn'!t it obvious? UDH/hydrino dense hydrogen states would be equivalent to 'neutral nuclei'?
-
This is what has already happened to Ruggero Santilli. He provided third party data (lab tests results) as evidence that the invention could do what the patent claimed, but as no theoretical basis was provided that could be derived from prior art, or that was widely accepted (Santilli has self published most of his work) his application was rejected all the times and in all instances. He claimed anyone could do it following the patents, but the patent offices disagreed.
Ryushin Ohmasa Received a similar answer with the rejection of his transmutation patent, the USPTO rejects his claims as unreconcilable with known art. In his case is worse because his apparatus is already patented by himself and he is trying to patent a new use of it. They don’t deny the data that Ohmasa presents as examples of the invention, but they claim no one skilled in the art could expect or derive the results from current existing knowledge, so they say the patent application violates that part of the requirements for patentability (the reproducibility by a person skilled in the art). I disagree because transmutation induced by cavitation has been reported in academic literature enough times for more than fifteen years, but Ohmasa did not provide that literature in his prior art. -
DW has stated long ago that Dept of the Navy experience stopped after a thorium spill-over/contamination, and indeed reimburse followed.
[why pay for testing a stopped radiological source?]
Yes indeed. The USN's SPAWAR branch reportedly shut down their LENR program in Dec 2011:
https://www.mail-archive.com/v…0eskimo.com/msg59243.html
And you show them still cutting contracts with Larry Forsley's Global Energy Corp. in 2013. Looks as if LENR research continued in another division of the Navy.
-
Goble wrote a good timeline of the US governments involvement in LENR, including NASA:
-
You would have thought that NASA would have had at least a prototype reactor working by now based on these patent proposals,, maybe a fission-fusion hybrid? Seems like a lot of experimental work bombarding deuterated metal targets with high energy gammas and electron beams without much to show for it other than the already known result that electron screening reduces the Coulomb barrier to nuclei fusion. If only Holmlid was on the NASA team we might see some progress!
-
You would have thought that NASA would have had at least a prototype reactor working by now based on these patent proposals,, maybe a fission-fusion hybrid? Seems like a lot of experimental work bombarding deuterated metal targets with high energy gammas and electron beams without much to show for it other than the already known result that electron screening reduces the Coulomb barrier to nuclei fusion. If only Holmlid was on the NASA team we might see some progress!
I must admit that many things do not add up with the NASA/SPAWAR/GEC story. They supposedly had a working Genie LENR Hybrid Generator ready to sell to Guam back in 2012. Now it is back to R/D as if they never had anything back then. Lots of strange stories like that in LENR...unfortunately.
The kind that give people like seven_of_twenty the ammunition they need to make fun of the field. And honestly, some of it we deserve. That is why we keep a few token skeptics around...to keep us honest.
-
The problem, I think, stems from trying to do LENR from a classical fusion theoretical background. The other problem is that some times rumors grow legs and distance themselves from the truth by far.
And also, and this is something that can be only speculated upon, as the evidence is all indirect, it may seem that some of the LENR “dark projects” background poses so complex implications (a sort of Pandora box) that every effort is taken to get that part of the science as hidden as possible, which seems is not easy to do beyond a certain point of understanding. Again, this is just speculation.
-
One very obvious problem (both sides guilty of it) is imagining that USPTO can possibly either validate or refute scientific theories! It is no way their job nor can they have relevant expertise.
-
That is why we keep a few token skeptics around...to keep us honest.
Or as PR to help you seem honest?
-
I had a look, but couldn't find this posted anywhere. From Oct 2019.
Gamma energy evaluation for creation of 111m Cd, 113m In, and 115m In isotopes
NASA Glenn Research Center is investigating nuclear reactions in deuterated materials exposed to bremsstrahlung photons with kinetic energies from 1-3 MeV. Recent experiments used a continuous beam Dynamitron electron accelerator with a braking target. Electron beam energy loss verification was desired and experiments using cadmium and indium were completed which are known to transition to excited metastable states after exposure to bremsstrahlung photons. The gamma spin-up of 111Cd, 113In, and 115In are with photon beam energies of 1017 keV, 1024 keV, and 941 keV respectively. Recent tests corroborated published gamma energies using a beam energy loss of 62 to 74 keV.
