Randy Davis Patents/Marathon, and New Energy Power Systems

  • Speaking of patents, here's a very early one mentioning Ni-H. (1991)


    https://patents.justia.com/patent/6248221


    Electrolysis apparatus and electrodes and electrode material therefor

    Jun 1, 1999

    An improved electrolysis system includes a cylindrical anode, a cylindrical cathode, a cathode material including nanocrystalline particles, and an insulator disposed between the anode and the cathode material to prevent contact between the anode and the cathode material.


  • I'm really not sure. But the fact that are slipping LENR/CF patents blatantly described as such past the USPTO is interesting. What they need now I think is cash -like the rest of us.


    The patent is more words than facts and contains nothing of real value.


    If they would have a real process then may be only investors will see it. Selling 3He is a good idea independent of the fact that more or less nothing of it is produced over time - in a small reactor...

  • Agreed......just interested in their motivation nothing more than Focardi's original patenting I guess. Unless they actually do have a working reactor which does what it says on the tin? But if they did it would be like world wide news story.......so another mystery maybe? It's all looking rather bleak for lenr.



    NOTE= post edited to remove allusion to chicanery. These are highly respected individuals known to many in the science world as (at least) sincere. AlAN

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Alan Smith: NOTE= post edited to remove allusion to chicanery. These are highly respected individuals known to many in the science world as (at least) sincere. AlAN ().

  • Examiner argument:


    "The specification is objected to as directed solely to an inoperable device. Specifically, the present invention appears to be derived from the discredited "dry LENR" process embodied by Andrea

    Rossi's "e-Cat" device. As discussed below, claims directed to this mode of fusion have been rife with fraud and fail to measure up to even cursory examination under the generally accepted laws of physics.

    Rossi's e-Cat device is a purported nuclear fusion reactor which exposes nickel powder to hydrogen gas at modest pressure (around 2 bar) and temperature (between 150-500DC).1 According to Rossi, the nickel nuclei absorb protons from the hydrogen gas and undergo ~ decay to form various isotopes of copper.

    Rossi does not propose a theory of operation for the device, but simply reviewing the products and the reactants would cause one of ordinary skill to doubt the operability of the system. First, there is the issue of nickel. Nickel-62, one of the reactant isotopes, has the highest nuclear binding energy of any known isotope.2 In laymen's terms, this means that nickel-62 is the most stable and non-reactive nucleus in the known universe. However, the other common isotopes of nickel (58Ni, 62Ni, 61Ni and 64Ni) share similar binding energies. This relative stability explains why the metal accumulates in stars - even under the most extreme fusion conditions imaginable, nickel will not react with other elements. However, for the sake of argument, we will assume that an unknown mechanism is causing nickel to react with hydrogen."


    Hard times for AR at USPTO


  • We keep assuming that it is nuclear shuffling that is producing most of the energy (some of us even think it's mostly coming from the aether aka vacuum fluctuations *rolls eyes*). Maybe the action is happening with hydrogen bonds to the lower electron orbits of certain atoms and with catalyzed electrical resonant transfer reactions in the keV range? That would explain lower than nuclear energy densities, little to no dangerous particles, higher than chemical energy outputs and atomic property changes that can be debatably interpreted as nuclear transmutation of stable atoms. Even remediation of radioactive isotopes could be just putting a pico-chemical stabilizing lock on the isotope per say, functionally the same. Hence the near instantaneous process with lower than expected energies, including cooling often. If nickel hydrogen energy systems are real the nucleus of the nickel isn't changing, it's the electrons in the lower orbits that are engaging in interaction with the electron and proton of a bonded H.

  • So the patent examiner thought it suspect too......same as Rossi's BS! Oh well back to the drawing board. There are just too many rubbish patents about C.F. Wasting everyone's time.


    You assume too much about these guys based on little knowledge about them. Post edited. Alan

  • Alright, why assume fraudulence so quickly, but all I'm saying is that looking at alternate explanations opens up wider spread solutions. Hydrogen densification and pico-hydride reactions could illuminate that the majority of the stranger data is not explaining traditional nuclear processes with lowered coulomb barriers. Of course the same hydrogen phenomena does enable higher rates of fusion, not denying results that include expected radiation and elemental results for fusion/fission/decay consistently.

    So the patent examiner thought it suspect too......same as Rossi's BS! Oh well back to the drawing board. There are just too many rubbish patents about C.F. Wasting everyone's time.


    You assume too much about these guys based on little knowledge about them. Post edited. Alan


    Good catch Alan, the only problem i see is the assumption of the underlying process without questioning traditional explanations. This is on the part of the examiner and those filing the patent.

    Examiner argument: ...


    ...First, there is the issue of nickel. Nickel-62, one of the reactant isotopes, has the highest nuclear binding energy of any known isotope.2 In laymen's terms, this means that nickel-62 is the most stable and non-reactive nucleus in the known universe. However, the other common isotopes of nickel (58Ni, 62Ni, 61Ni and 64Ni) share similar binding energies. This relative stability explains why the metal accumulates in stars - even under the most extreme fusion conditions imaginable, nickel will not react with other elements. However, for the sake of argument, we will assume that an unknown mechanism is causing nickel to react with hydrogen."


    I also agree the dry powder approach is probably a dead end, a super-chemical approach may not be dense enough for the powder with trace hydrogen absorption to be practical. Correct me if I am wrong.


  • Don't trust USPTO to do science.


    While of course right about AR, the Ni stability argument is here is wrong.


    proton capture by Ni is strongly exothermic in spite of Ni stability, because p or d binding energy per nucleon is (very) low. Adding it to Ni releases energy.

  • Not at all. We have worked with 'hot and dry' systems extensively and got results. And if you think about it, so have Mizuno and Takahashi and many others. .


    Interesting, these accusations of fraud for this particular system probably are based on misunderstanding on both the experimenter and the accusers side. Anyone calculated energy density of reaction based on experimental results compiled from all similar experiments at maximum effectiveness, not based on theoretical assumptions?