New Patent Filed by Leif Holmlid

  • 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.

    The EPO is stating that it considers the patent to be withdrawn, due to lack of response. I really don’t know if there’s a way to reverse this decision, hope there is, but doesn’t seems to me that it could be.


    A withdrawn patent I think It’s not the same as an abandoned one, at least in my country a withdrawn patent is considered as if it was never filed.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • The EPO is stating that it considers the patent to be withdrawn, due to lack of response. I really don’t know if there’s a way to reverse this decision, hope there is, but doesn’t seems to me that it could be.


    A withdrawn patent I think It’s not the same as an abandoned one, at least in my country a withdrawn patent is considered as if it was never filed.

    For prior art it doesn't matter whether an application is withdrawn or abandoned. What counts is that it has been published.
    The prior art date is in that case the filing date of the published patent application. In case a provisional application has been filed the filing date of the provisional application has to be taken into account as well.

  • A new open-access paper on the annihilation reactions from ultra-dense hydrogen just got published. It can be regarded as an expanded version of the appendix provided in the latest version of the paper recently uploaded on ResearchSquare.


    Energy production by laser-induced annihilation in ultradense hydrogen H(0)

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0360319921004080


    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.01.212 (DOI not available yet)


    Quote

    Highlights

    • Laser-induced annihilation processes exist in ultra-dense hydrogen H(0)
    • The energy balance from two baryons is closed within an uncertainty of 2 MeV
    • The energy efficiency from mass to useable energy is around 46%.
    • The energy loss is to neutrinos. Ordinary hydrogen gives 1.1 TWh energy per kg
    • H(0) gives nuclear power without direct neutron emission and with no nuclear waste
  • A new open-access paper on the annihilation reactions from ultra-dense hydrogen just got published. It can be regarded as an expanded version of the appendix provided in the latest version of the paper recently uploaded on ResearchSquare.


    Energy production by laser-induced annihilation in ultradense hydrogen H(0)

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0360319921004080

    Quote

    ...our present first-generation annihilation reactor under construction...

    This could be a simplified version of the MK1 prototype reactor Norrønt describes on their website, without the D-D fusion reactor vessel and replacing the 6 muon reactors by an annihilation reactor.

    B.t.w. the MK1 drawing has been removed from that webpage.


    Interesting to see Holmlid is now emphasizing annihilation energy from UDH after apparent focus on muon catalyzed D-D fusion. Something I support wholeheartedly.

  • Rob Woudenberg

    This is just my hypothesis, but possibly, even if it would not have to be transported and used from elsewhere, the slow accumulation of tritium as well as neutron emission from D+D fusion could be inconvenient for fast commercialization, even if a muon-catalyzed fusion system might be more straightforward to build than the proposed annihilation reactor.

  • Tritium and neutrons are a significant concern of the original MK1 prototype indeed.
    The other concern might be that Holmlid´s muon generator patent application might be rejected soon.

    The annihilation reactor probably gives way for new IP generation.

  • The European patent office basically wants more tangible and independent evidence of the existence of an ultra-dense phase of hydrogen before it can award patents for methods or apparatuses improving its production and usage. So, perhaps a more efficient way for building an IP portfolio would be focusing on aspects that are useful or novel on their own, before any UDH involvement.

  • The European patent office basically wants more tangible and independent evidence of the existence of an ultra-dense phase of hydrogen before it can award patents for methods or apparatuses improving its production and usage. So, perhaps a more efficient way for building an IP portfolio would be focusing on aspects that are useful or novel on their own, before any UDH involvement.

    Their challenge is to circumvent the mentioning of UDH and use the proton-antiproton annihilation principle as a starting point for new IP.

  • Actually the best thing might be to forget UDH altogether and patent an 'Apparatus and Method for Producing Spontaneous Particle Emission'.

    My advice would be not to patent an apparatus. It is often quite simple to circumvent claims that describe an apparatus and come up with a different construction that also works or even works better.

    Its much wiser to patent a process or method, e.g. "method(s) for harvesting energy from proton-antiproton annihilation".

    A brief description of an example of an apparatus could be included as an example to clarify the method(s).

    The advantage of patenting a method is that it allows in general for defining very wide applicable claims.

  • Energy production by laser-induced annihilation in ultradense hydrogen H(0)

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0360319921004080

    Holmlid always make the same error in believing that a proton just decays as he learnt...To crack a proton you need 53 MeV's not just a laser. Also Pions do only occur as a follow up particle of a Kaon...


    The only reaction that really works is 9H --> 2 4-He + K+/K0. So this paper is just marketing with a false claim of a 43% gain where in fact it is roughly 1/9 = 11%,

  • Holmlid always make the same error in believing that a proton just decays as he learnt...To crack a proton you need 53 MeV's not just a laser. Also Pions do only occur as a follow up particle of a Kaon...


    The only reaction that really works is 9H --> 2 4-He + K+/K0. So this paper is just marketing with a false claim of a 43% gain where in fact it is roughly 1/9 = 11%,

    Wyttenbach , can you comment in the paper? This would be a very interesting discussion with Holmlid.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Holmlid always make the same error in believing that a proton just decays as he learnt...To crack a proton you need 53 MeV's not just a laser. Also Pions do only occur as a follow up particle of a Kaon...


    The only reaction that really works is 9H --> 2 4-He + K+/K0. So this paper is just marketing with a false claim of a 43% gain where in fact it is roughly 1/9 = 11%,

    Very valuable translation into your model.
    I guess you meant 46% of mass converted to energy in Holmlid´s claims.

    But according your model 11% conversion of mass to energy would be fantastic as well.

    Just for clarification can you specify the 11% a bit more in details?

    My understanding is that 1 out of 9 H is converted into a positive or neutral Kaon, which further decays.

  • conversion of mass to energy

    mass already implies energy


    Unlike love and marriage

    where despite the 1955 song .>love does not imply marriage.
    And vice versa :)


    Since Einstein, the mass-energy concept has been talked about loosely

    however a modern conception of mass as light speed[AFAIK] rotation of magnetic flux

    Is less loose

    "

    In dense space most matter/energy is represented by rotations.
    In SO(4) we may have 4 symmetric independent rotations, that – for simplifcation - can be mapped to two
    disjoint 3D tori, where each rotation is represented by the individual base radii of the two tori.

    . Wyttenbach ..2020 Pg7

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ics-Main-achievements.pdf


    The laser -induced proton -to -kaon transition is on Pg31 of the Wyttenbach 2020..proton resonances paper

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…context=ProjectUpdatesLog



  • The only reaction that really works is 9H --> 2 4-He + K+/K0. So this paper is just marketing with a false claim of a 43% gain where in fact it is roughly 1/9 = 11%,

    The proof of this pudding will be in the tasting.
    If Holmlid is implementing a reactor that triggers UDH by a laser anticipating proton-antiproton annihilation but detects significant amounts of 4He he will have to revise his publication on this.

    In fact, if true, Holmlid would have detected 4He in his earlier UDH experiments.

  • Does the above explanation account for the fact that the initially formed pions and kaons—in the order of 1013 emitted per laser pulse—are suggested from time-of-flight and decay times to have a kinetic energy (i.e. excess energy) up to almost 100 MeV?



  • An important challenge, IMHO the most difficult, is to harvest the energy generated by the spallation of the hydrogen. The products of the reaction are relativistic and hard to stop in order to capture their kinetic energy through any energy loss mechanism, e.g. nuclear scattering. See Particle-Interaction-Matter-upload (1).pdf from CERN

    for an excellent introduction to particle interactions with matter and stopping power.


    Also, Holmlid claims that each laser pulse can annihilate 10^13 hydrogen atoms. That's a large number. To say the least. If converted to muons, a small reactor would generate as many highly penetrating muons per second as the whole surface of the earth is receiving per second. Not good for human health. Meaning that energy generation through UDH spallation becomes scalable only if the products are stopped early, otherwise not only hydrogen would be annihilated but also the human race. Playing with a new technology that generates an energy level that is 100 times higher than current most highly energetic technology (fusion, that we still don't master...) does not come without risks.

  • It's interesting to put those numbers in perspective. It is easy to normally assume that the number of cosmic muons reaching the Earth's surface would instead be many orders of magnitude larger, in comparison.


    I suspect Holmlid et al. might be planning a system where the generated mesons and muons would be scattered and stopped by layer of UDH surrounding the laser target, but whether this would be materially feasible (i.e. possible to develop into an actually useful product) within short timetables is not clear to me, even if technically it should be.

  • can

    It is postulated (and shown experimentally) that many types of Mesons (maybe 60 or so) exist. Also we have both positive and negatively charged Muons. Do you think this problem has been addressed by Holmlid? Presumably it would make a big difference to how energy is created from emissions?


    ETA..


    A positive muon, when stopped in ordinary matter, cannot be captured by a proton since the two positive charges can only repel. The positive muon is also not attracted to the nucleus of atoms. Instead, it binds a random electron and with this electron forms an exotic atom known as muonium (mu) atom.

    Decays into: ; e, ν; e, ν; μ (most common)

    Mean lifetime: 2.1969811(22)×10−6 s

    Composition: Elementary particle