world
word?
I guess Thomas has higher priorities than deuterium collisions with palladium or
slow neutron liaisons with deuterides.. perhaps the Google money ran out?
world
word?
I guess Thomas has higher priorities than deuterium collisions with palladium or
slow neutron liaisons with deuterides.. perhaps the Google money ran out?
"word"
So I just took a look at Investigation of light ion fusion reactions with plasma discharges, an arXiv paper later published in 2019 in the Journal of Applied Physics. This is a Google-funded investigation by Thomas Schenkle and others at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory into a 2005 study, DD reaction enhancement and X-ray generation in a high-current pulsed glow discharge in deuterium with titanium cathode at 0.8–2.45 kV, by Lipson, Rusetskii, Karabut and Miley, all of whom are pretty well-known in LENR circles.
In the 2005 paper, Lipson and the others reported a screening potential in the glow discharge regime of Ue = 610 ± 150 eV for dd reactions. This is the correction you would need to apply to the formula for fusion of bare deuterium nuclei to account for the rate of reactions they were seeing. By contrast, according Schenkle et al., the screening expected for fusion in a plasma would be Ue = 27 eV.
Schenkle et al. report an even larger screening potential of 1000 ± 250 eV in their own glow discharge experiment than Lipson et al.'s value of 610 ± 150 eV. In contrast to Lipson, Schenkle and the others did not see evidence of tritium in their ex situ (after the fact) measurements of the palladium and titanium cathodes. They estimate that the ratio of 3He to t production from the different dd reaction pathways to be close to the value of 1 reported over the years.
Despite not seeing tritium, the LBNL study is a replication of the Lipson screening potential reported in 2005, with an even higher value than that calculated in the 2005 study. Schenkle et al. did not have the instruments to go down to as low a voltage as in the Lipson paper, and Schenkle reported fusion results only in connection with palladium cathodes and did not mention results for titanium cathodes, in contrast to Lipson et al., who used titanium cathodes. Schenkle and the others want to measure the tritium more carefully in a future experiment.
I think Ahlfors wants to call into question the neutron measurements that the LBNL team used to derive their screening potential of 1000 ± 250 eV, which is not something I can comment on.
The 2005 report by Lipson, Rusetskii, Karabut and Miley is technically LENR, in the sense that the energies that are being used are pretty low. But the experiment is basically a normal fusion experiment using lower energies and bears little obvious resemblance to the Pons and Fleischmann experiment and other LENR experiments with cathodes, electrolytes, transmutations and so on that people may be more familiar with. Nonetheless I think it's pretty cool that the Lipson paper received some amount of confirmation 14 years later by the LBNL group.
Ahlfors wants to call into question the neutron measurements that the LBNL team used to derive their screening potential of 1000 ± 250 eV, which is not something I can comment on.
1000eV is the so called proton 4D magnetic resonance resonance energy. Others (Ivelev) see it to.
We don't need neutrons to show that fusion happens as neutrons can also be a resonant spalation product with no fusion at all...
Ruby Carat published about Vitaly Kirkinsky et al CF results(~2002..2016) in 2019,,
Weak with geology, everything is grasped at the top. The core of the planet consists of plasma, not an iron core, it's time to remember, and the subduction zones descend hundreds of kilometers into the mantle and core, where hydrogen is constantly supplied !!!! And if the oil is cold nuclear fusion, then there are no high temperatures, no more than 600 degrees Celsius!
Ruby Carat published about Vitaly Kirkinsky et al CF results(~2002..2016) in 2019,,
It could still be chemical technically, that's in the order of core ionisation energies and dense hydrogen/hydrinos..
Physical Separation of H2 Activation from Hydrogenation Chemistry Reveals the Specific Role of Secondary Metal Catalysts
Aiko Kurimoto, Ryan P. Jansonius, Aoxue Huang, Antonio M. Marelli, David J. Dvorak, Camden Hunt, Curtis P. Berlinguette
An electrocatalytic palladium membrane reactor (ePMR) uses electricity and water to drive hydrogenation without H2 gas. The device contains a palladium membrane to physically separate the formation of reactive hydrogen atoms from hydrogenation of the unsaturated organic substrate. This separation provides an opportunity to independently measure the hydrogenation reaction at a surface without any competing H2 activation or proton reduction chemistry. We took advantage of this feature to test how different metal catalysts coated on the palladium membrane affect the rates of hydrogenation of C=O and C=C bonds. Hydrogenation occurs at the secondary metal catalyst and not the underlying palladium membrane. These secondary catalysts also serve to accelerate the reaction and draw a higher flux of hydrogen through the membrane. These results reveal insights into hydrogenation chemistry that would be challenging using thermal or electrochemical hydrogenation experiments.
A new U.of Cal./Google/U. British Columbia USPTO patent application --
United States Patent Application 20210151206 May 20, 2021
Apparatus And Method For Sourcing Fusion Reaction Products
Abstract
An apparatus and method for sourcing nuclear fusion products uses an electrochemical loading process to load low-kinetic-energy (low-k) light element particles into a target electrode, which comprises a light-element-absorbing material (e.g., Palladium). An electrolyte solution containing the low-k light element particles is maintained in contact with a backside surface of the target electrode while a bias voltage is applied between the target electrode and an electrochemical anode, thereby causing low-k light element particles to diffuse from the backside surface to an opposing frontside surface of the target electrode. High-kinetic-energy (high-k) light element particles are directed against the frontside, thereby causing fusion reactions each time a high-k light element particle operably collides with a low-k light element particle disposed on the frontside surface. Fusion reaction rates are controlled by adjusting the bias voltage.
https://appft.uspto.gov/netacg…0151206&RS=DN/20210151206
This is a continuation of a earlier patent application --
Apparatus and method for facilitating nuclear fusion
Rejection
Conceptual reduction to practice [from 62/937716 provisional for 16/806760 >>> US20210151206]
United States Patent Application 20210151206 May 20, 2021, obviously.
United States Patent Application 20210151206 May 20, 2021, obviously.
Is not that obvious because The date on The first page says application filed in 2013. Thanks for clarifying it.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Just let the cat out of the bag
....
Is not that obvious because The date on The first page says application filed in 2013. Thanks for clarifying it.
It was confusing, as the USPTO examiner in Ahlfor's patent rejection link, states "the present application, filed on or after March 16 2013, is being examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA". But then the rest of the rejection letter clearly refers to more recent times, and the Team Google patent Lou posted.
Same old Catch 22 from the USPTO from what I read. Paraphrasing what the examiner says:
"The description makes it obvious this is "cold fusion". As such, a skilled artisan would find this preposterous, because LENR (and "this present invention") are inconsistent with the scientific literature, and not waste his/her time".
Lots more said after that, but all revolving around the same theme IMO.
This is a very qualified, well grounded, mainstream team, yet they got the same treatment as everyone else before them. I would have thought with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) backing the patent:
"This invention was made with government support under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy. The government has certain rights in this invention"
...the USPTO would have given it better treatment.
Schenkel's patent continuity data and priority
...the USPTO would have given it better treatment.
Shane, patent offices are independent legal entities. You can't have better treatments or worse treatments.
The many rejections come from the fact that cold fusion is still stigmatized because of the F&P effect.
The other reason of course is that there is no suitable theory, or theories yet and proof that matches it/them.