Hmmmm ... If no big bang, what?
Not exactly steady state ... ?
New Patent Filed by Leif Holmlid
-
-
I'm not judging whether he's right or wrong, it's just a matter of form (hence, minor observation). There do not seem to be explicit or implicit indications in this paper that there are alternative explanations for the neutron star issue or that they could be solved within the ultra-dense hydrogen/Rydberg matter framework. As far as I am concerned, since transient forms of ultra-dense hydrogen with neutron density may exist ("quasineutrons"), they could possibly be even explained with that.
Why give more ammo to reviewers and skeptics alike to reject the paper, however? Among other things, it's probably already going to be demoted for citing the one from PLOS ONE retracted by the editors, even if Holmlid did not agree with the retraction.
-
Of course this paper must be infuriating to most mainstream Astrophysics and Cosmologists.
The main problem is that that many fields of physics are dominated by mathematicians that have no clue about "real physics". Astronomy has been tied to general relativity, a theory that in its original version can describe nothing else than empty space with a central point mass - "very close to reality". It's also a model nobody fully understands - at least not how to apply it to reality.
E.g. the formula used to calculate the LIGO sensitivity was based on the empty space stress force what is absolutely silly and only proves that LIGO even 10000X larger will never measure any gravitational waves. LIGO works with a central steel tube that holds the LASER in a vacuum. But steel cannot be compressed by gravitation for this you need an EM force...
-
The main problem is that that many fields of physics are dominated by mathematicians that have no clue about "real physics". Astronomy has been tied to general relativity, a theory that in its original version can describe nothing else than empty space with a central point mass - "very close to reality". It's also a model nobody fully understands - at least not how to apply it to reality.
E.g. the formula used to calculate the LIGO sensitivity was based on the empty space stress force what is absolutely silly and only proves that LIGO even 10000X larger will never measure any gravitational waves. LIGO works with a central steel tube that holds the LASER in a vacuum. But steel cannot be compressed by gravitation for this you need an EM force...
What you mention is true but also rooted in the serial incapacity of recognizing that base assumptions did not hold to scrutiny and, instead of accepting this, new series of assumptions were created to accomodate data, until it has become self incoherent and everyone involved is acting as if all were fine.
-
-
I know that watching the process of review of a patent application is even less exciting than watching paint dry on a cloudy day, but I have been following the European Patent process of Holmlid’s patent and at one moment I was fearing the patent had been withdrawn, as the search report of 07/07/2020 raised objections that IMHO were a bit spurious but gave 6 months to answer, and those expired in 07/01/2021, I checked daily for updates and on 08/01/2021 I thought it was over as no response had been filed, but on 13/01/2021, (don’t know if timely enough) the Norront lawyers seem to have reacted and a payment and a notice of continuance of the application was filed, along with a letter of notification of the answer requested by the EPO to the objections. The letter can be seen here:
https://register.epo.org/appli…17870991&lng=en&npl=false
but the accompanying document was not uploaded, I hope it will be uploaded eventually as I really want to know how Holmlid is answering to the lack of independent replication, which is EPO’s main point for refusing to accept the patent. -
A new (Oct 2020) open-access paper from Leif Holmlid:
Muon-catalyzed fusion and annihilation energy generation supersede non-sustainable T+D nuclear fusion
A slightly revised version was recently posted here:
https://www.researchgate.net/p…ainable_TD_Nuclear_Fusion
but the accompanying document was not uploaded, I hope it will be uploaded eventually as I really want to know how Holmlid is answering to the lack of independent replication, which is EPO’s main point for refusing to accept the patent.
I think it was just this 1-page document:
-
A slightly revised version was recently posted here:
https://www.researchgate.net/p…ainable_TD_Nuclear_Fusion
I think it was just this 1-page document:
I saw the updated version, I asked Holmlid what happened with the version at Researchsquare and he seems to be a bit in a bad mood.
About the patent, I read that, but then attorneys must have filed the answers to the objections risen by the priority search. I am hoping that gets uploaded eventually.
-
From the latest documentation at https://register.epo.org/appli…ber=EP17870991&filter=ALL it does not seem that the patent office received anything indicating a longer response.
I think Norront submitted the minimum necessary to keep their application alive.
EPO demanded:
Norront responded:
In the revised paper I linked above it is anyway maintained that:
QuoteThe patent description [29] is complete and can be repeated easily by anyone knowledgeable in the fields of vacuum and chemical catalysis. A complete description of the science and technology behind the production of ultradense hydrogen [1] will soon be published [39]. The importance of carbon surfaces for the formation of Rydberg species at surfaces was known long before 1998, when the key reference [40] was published. Another useful review is found in [41]
-
can , this is the document that contains the objections that I am waiting to be answered, not that I agree with them, but so far these have not been answered by Holmlid other than saying the objections have no merit, with which I agree, but he needs to convince the EPO, Not me.
-
I should probably state that I have messaged directly to Holmlid about these matters more than a month ago or so, as I was worried the patent was going to be declared withdrawn, and he made very clear to me he totally disagrees with the declaration EPO that is impossible to do a search, but I don’t know how he pretends to solve the objections. I am perfectly aware that Olafsson and Zeiner-Gundersen have replicated it, but the EPO considers them not independent.
-
As long as Norront is paying the fees, I don't think the application will be withdrawn, but it will not proceed until the patent examiner receives an answer fulfilling the stated requirements.
Without a completely independent replication published on a reputable peer-reviewed journal in support of the results, probably the patent application would have to be rewritten and stand up on its own legs without referring to external publications by Holmlid and coworkers.
-
As long as Norront is paying the fees, I don't think the application will be withdrawn, but it will not proceed until the patent examiner receives an answer fulfilling the stated requirements.
Without a completely independent replication published on a reputable peer-reviewed journal in support of the results, probably the patent application would have to be rewritten and stand up on its own legs without referring to external publications by Holmlid and coworkers.
I am not so sure it’s just a matter of continue paying fees, the communication sent here:
https://register.epo.org/appli…17870991&lng=en&npl=false
clearly demands the objections raised be answered within the 6 months period and that’s why I am waiting to see them uploaded, as failure to address the objections was one of the conditions that would make the application be considered withdrawn. -
A slightly revised version was recently posted here:
I saw the updated version, I asked Holmlid what happened with the version at Researchsquare and he seems to be a bit in a bad mood.
I missed this before, but it looks like it is also on ResearchSquare as a different article than the one previously posted, even though it's just a revision. So, the reviewing process can be followed here as well, although judging from last time it's probably not going to be particularly eventful. Perhaps it might be of interest to compare the two versions, though.
-
I missed this before, but it looks like it is also on ResearchSquare as a different article than the one previously posted, even though it's just a revision. So, the reviewing process can be followed here as well, although judging from last time it's probably not going to be particularly eventful. Perhaps it might be of interest to compare the two versions, though.
I think this version is what resulted from the review of the first version, it has minor changes. I was just watching this, what a coincidence!
-
Unfortunately, and as I feared, the EPO has notified that it considers the patent to be withdrawn due to lack of response to the objections raised.
Very Sad. -
I assumed that the patent attorney knew what he was doing, but apparently it was not the case.
But maybe there's still time? ("Means of redress", etc.)
-
Unfortunately, and as I feared, the EPO has notified that it considers the patent to be withdrawn due to lack of response to the objections raised.
I proposed them to do the same measurement with UDH as R. Mills did...
May be they have some technical hurdles to do it. But UDH is stable and they simply could take it out of the reactor.
-
If my understanding of the patent system is correct, one can generally not patent stuff that is in the public domain ("prior art"). Is Holmlid/Norront's abandoned patent now considered prior art, creating a hurdle for someone else to patent this in the future?
-
If my understanding of the patent system is correct, one can generally not patent stuff that is in the public domain ("prior art"). Is Holmlid/Norront's abandoned patent now considered prior art, creating a hurdle for someone else to patent this in the future?
It´s not abandoned yet, but if it will the patent application will be prior art.
Holmlid published quite a number of scientific articles that also contain the principles of muon generation as claimed in the patent application (mostly published after filing date of course). These publications are already prior art for new patent application attempts.
