Google (UBC/MIT/LBNL) post Nature updates.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Rob Woudenberg

    Shane, patent offices are independent legal entities. You can't have better treatments or worse treatments.

    Maybe so Rob, but I cant help but wonder if a big name on a patent...Einstein for example, would cause the examiner to give more consideration before rejecting? And also having the DOE backing, I would think might make the examiner think twice before rejecting the patent on the same grounds they dismiss most LENR patents.


    And let us not forget that until a few years ago, LENR related applications were discriminated against, and treated differently through their then secretive "SAWS" program. The program is officially gone now, but the reasoning they fall back on to reject is not.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Shane D.

    Maybe so Rob, but I cant help but wonder if a big name on a patent...Einstein for example, would cause the examiner to give more consideration before rejecting? And also having the DOE backing, I would think might make the examiner think twice before rejecting the patent on the same grounds they dismiss most LENR patents.


    And let us not forget that until a few years ago, LENR related applications were discriminated against, and treated differently through their then secretive "SAWS" program. The program is officially gone now, but the reasoning they fall back on to reject is not.

    I understand you perfectly Shane D. , the irony in this case is even stronger, the USPTO rejection of anything LENRish always quote the same DoE report from 2004 that echoes the scathing one from 1989, but in this case failed to see the incoherence as the funding comes from the DoE itself.


    • Official Post
    Quote from Curbina

    the irony in this case is even stronger, the USPTO rejection of anything LENRish always quote the same DoE report from 2004 that echoes the scathing one from 1989

    Adding to irony is that the DOE funded, or "supported" it as they say, the research for this patent. So the USPTO references the 2004 DOE report as an excuse for rejecting the patent, without noting they support this one in 2021.

    Award DE-AC02-05CH11231is an umbrella one, from "Heterobimetallic Complex With an Unsupported Uranium(III)–Aluminum(I) Bond" to "An algorithmic framework for the optimization of computationally expensive bi-fidelity black-box problems".

    • Official Post
    Quote from Ahlfors

    Award DE-AC02-05CH11231is an umbrella one, from "Heterobimetallic Complex With an Unsupported Uranium(III)–Aluminum(I) Bond" to "An algorithmic framework for the optimization of computationally expensive bi-fidelity black-box problems".

    I believe it may a Management and Operating Contract for the DOE's "Office of Science", to fund the LBNL? If so, it probably funded many projects...including Team Google's. From what I read, each and every one has to provide a research proposal first, and then are graded on how well they executed that research through a complicated scoring system.


    Long story short, IMO it still means the DOE was involved in the oversight, therefore one could conclude the DOE was aware of this research. Could be wrong though. This bureaucracy stuff is complicated.

    Perhaps of interest - a new preprint --

    Experimental Study of Neutron Formation in X-Ray Discharge:

    Is There a Challenge to Standard Model?

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2105/2105.09941.pdf


    -- coauthored by Ross Koningstein, one of the Google inventors cited in the USPTO patent application (above) --

    Apparatus And Method For Sourcing Fusion Reaction Products

    https://appft.uspto.gov/netacg…0151206&RS=DN/20210151206

    Quote from Lou Pagnucco

    Experimental Study of Neutron Formation in X-Ray Discharge:

    Is There a Challenge to Standard Model?

    "we find no support for neutron formation in

    Sternglass’ original experiment."


    Sternglass didn't have google $ to do the experimental checks.

    But Zamilov persisted with time and $

    to do them

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…clusive-Proof-of-LENR.pdf

    20 keV input is not LENR..Max knows that

    but it is part of the journey....like his accent

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    My accent is my fingerprint:

    I was born in Smolensk.

    My accent is my memory:

    I lived in Moscow.

    My accent is my enemy:

    I am (I was?) from Russia.

    My accent is the sunburn

    I got in Oklahoma.

    My accent is the scar

    I earned in Pennsylvania.

    My accent is my privilege:

    I write from Florida with love.

    My accent is my passport:

    I am American.

    "A handful of data points to date indicate enhanced tritium production, and a strong change in the branching ratio of the D-D fusion reaction in the combined electrochemistry and low energy ion experiments."


    [...]


    "We collect tritium and see activity consistent with 10 million tritium atoms in the solution. But the normal D-D cross section at the ion energy of 0.4 KeV is <1 pico barn, so we would expect only a few thousand fusion reactions and tritium atoms."


    A little bit of interesting colour on Schenkel's previously published work. Comports with what Ball had reported (that Schenkel was seeing tritium).


    I recall Yet-Ming Chiang saying that they regarded Schenkel's work as reliable enough to be considered a reference experiment. So it seems that they now have a successful, reliable replication?

    Quote from Shane D.

    One of these days Ahlfors , I am going to ask you how you get this stuff. :) Last I heard BTW, Hagelstein was on the IH team. Any reason you do not put this on that thread also?

    I am also a bit puzzled why this is posted in this thread. There doesn't seem to be a link with Google.

    The referred patent application has Florian Metzler as owner (applicant).

    The WO patent application, as part of the application family, has a complete description and drawings, giving a good overview. The principle claimed seems unique, at least I haven't seen similar claims from other researchers.

    Maybe this deserves a separate thread.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Ahlfors

    No reason. I am lazy and basically unruly - move it where you want. It is very plausible that the up-to date not openly available applications are IH related. Anyway, the machine is not a basament one, or one at the Industrial Heat everyday level - I see it very well in Thomas Schenkel hands.

    Yes, you were always the rebel, but lazy you are not! :) Copied the 2 posts to the IH thread. Now go and find us some more stuff.

    Quote from Ahlfors

    No reason. I am lazy and basically unruly - move it where you want. It is very plausible that the up-to date not openly available applications are IH related. Anyway, the machine is not a basament one, or one at the Industrial Heat everyday level - I see it very well in Thomas Schenkel hands.

    The claimed principles are completely different from the D or H ion beamed Li-6/Li-7 targets.

    I mentioned Metzler as applicant (owner) so it's not related to IH (at this moment). The role of Hagelstein as inventor is unclear.


    Basically this is about creating high energy phonons within a partially under stress metal lattice being transferred to a Co-57 target. The C0-57 target undergoes transmutation to Fe-57 in several steps, emitting energetic X-ray photons.

    I need to take some more time to read the details whether this is feasible as it is not clear whether there is excess energy generated in the device shown. At least there is a practical implementation, not only a theoretical model or just paper ideas. Metzler has an impressive number of university degrees.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Rob Woudenberg

    There is dedicated Marvel Fusion thread at LF.

    Marvel focusses on 11B + proton fusion. Not 7Li / 6 Li.

    We should not mix them up. 11B + proton fusion is supposed to be initiated by CPA lasers, while 7Li / 6 Li + p is supposed to be triggered by an proton ion beam.

    Ok. Moved some of the posts to that thread. Left a few here so we keep a paper trail. Don't see where Hagelstein fits in, but left the 2 posts I copied to the IH thread where they are...just in case.

    Quote from Ahlfors

    ... "an interdisciplinary team of >40 scientists and engineers who design and build electrochemical reactors to power the planet. We are seeking highly motivated, self-driven individuals to join a sub-group that studies nuclear fusion at low energy in solid-state materials."

    So, It seems team google never really ceased to exist, was just looking for more funding. This is interesting. I wonder if they had submitted a proposal to the Arpa-e FOA.

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

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.