New Patent Filed by Leif Holmlid

Quote from Curbina

The EPO is stating that it considers the patent to be withdrawn, due to lack of response.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A withdrawn patent I think It’s not the same as an abandoned one, at least in my country a withdrawn patent is considered as if it was never filed.

For prior art it doesn't matter whether an application is withdrawn or abandoned.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

Quote from can

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.

Quote from can

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.

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

Quote from can

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%,

Quote from Wyttenbach

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.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

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

Quote from Wyttenbach

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.