US Navy new LENR patent application (25/03/2021)

Non-final [but very scathing] rejection builded on 371 pages of no-way literature on cold fusion

Security order has been rescinded

Quote from Ahlfors

Non-final [but very scathing] rejection builded on 371 pages of no-way literature on cold fusion

I guess the USPTO can cut and paste as effectively as the Navy.

... both not terribly bright

Quote from Ahlfors

... both not terribly bright

Oxymoron:Military Intelligence

Not all patent clerks are Einsteins..

Recombination regurgitated .. Morrison 1993..

"

The recombination explanation is hardly new.. first mooted around 1989.. and does not explain why

Staker ,2019.. only observed a huge excess effect with palladium/D2O and not with platinum/H20."

Post

RE: Ultra-dense hydrogen and Rydberg matter—a more informal general discussion thread

(Quote from Curbina)

Although Galushkin references many authors he leaves out M. Stakers methodical replication(2019) of the FPE results
Although there may be some novel comparison with thermal runaway in Nicad batteries
Galushkin' s 2020 explanation is a rejuvenated recombination explanation for the excess heat
. that D2O electrolyses to D2, which accumulates in the Pd lattice and then the accumalated D2 recombines with oxygen
in short bursts to release heat
…

RobertBryant

Mar 29th 2021

How could recombination increase COP? Perpetual motion anyone? So let’s just build an electrolysis device and recombine oxygen and hydrogen since efficiency is >1! Let us all put windmills on our cars while we are at it. SMH.

Yes, it's well know, for example, Slobodan Stankovic does interesting works in this way.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…on_and_Oxyhydrogen_Plasma

Quote from Max Nozin

One of the most detailed speculations on atomic H and ZPE https://chavascience.com/en/hy…cess-energy-from-hydrogen

Quote from RobertBryant

Recombination regurgitated .. Morrison 1993..

"

The recombination explanation is hardly new.. first mooted around 1989..

Recombination was mentioned in "Morrison's Cold Fusion Update No.8" (1), as indicated in the USPTO non-final rejection. This update concerns "the work that Fleischmann and Pons published in Physics Letters A", that is the 1992 boil-off experiment, and in particular "the excess rate of energy production […] four times that of the enthalpy input"-

There is no doubt that recombination is the wrong explanation for this specific F&P's claim. The alleged excess heat is actually a consequence of the miscalculation of the energy balance during the last 600 s of the boil-off period, caused by having ignored the presence of the foam accumulated inside the cell.

In 1993, the lab videos of the 1992 experiments weren't yet released (they were published by Krivit in 2009 and by Rothwell in 2015), so Morrison had no opportunity to closely examine those videos. If he had had the possibility to do so, he most likely would have realized by then the amazing artifact which allowed F&P to claim an inexistent excess of heat, and the CF story would probably have been much shorter.

(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/DROM/cfu8.shtml

Quote

One of the most detailed speculations on atomic H and ZPE

Yep, it's my reference source too - particularly because it emerged well before various hydrinos and H(0) theories, which I personally consider a misleading route of research.

Quote from Max Nozin

from the article "However Lee did two simple experiments. Firstly he operated the cell with the anode and cathode very close together as F&P so that there was a chance that the hydrogen and oxygen emitted by the two electrodes could mix and possibly recombine - assuming no recombination, he calculates that he had then observed excess heat. He now moved the anode and cathode apart, and as he did so the apparent excess heat vanished. This he interpreted as evidence that recombination was occuring in the F&P - type conditions and could be falsely interpreted as excess heat."

Lee Hansen may have detected some excess heat attributable to recombination, but I guess (I haven't read his paper) that the difference between the two cited experiments was very small, on the order of a few percents. But recombination cannot explain the 400% excess heat claimed by F&P in 1992. Morrison tried to explain such a huge gain by a combination of an underestimation of the electrical input, due to the large voltage oscillations during the final 600 s, and a recombination phenomena. This explanation is wrong.

The videos of the 1992 boil-off experiments provide the simple and straightforward answer to the enormous mistake made by Fleischmann and Pons: foam inside cells. But these videos were not publicly available in Morrison's time.

Quote from Max Nozin

This he interpreted as evidence that recombination was occuring in the F&P - type conditions and could be falsely interpreted as excess heat."

Quote from RobertBryant

The recombination explanation is hardly new.. first mooted around 1989.. and does not explain why

Staker ,2019.. only observed a huge excess effect with palladium/D2O and not with platinum/H20."

The Staker 2019 results were not available to either Fleischmann or Morrison three decades or so before..but they are available now..

The replication by Staker dispels a few contrary explanations that have persisted for some time.

Although Fleischmann and Pons and Staker used electrolysis to generate deuterium

the US Navy patent does not use electrolysis and newer LENR technogies appear to be using prepared gaseous deuterium

rather than (D2O plus electrolysis.)

In fact some of the more successful technologies are using very low pressure D2,,, much lower than might have been available from

electrolysis.

Deserving step on their part, but once again I will say that it takes talent above all before money.

A big US internet company has spent money on LENRs essentially following the initial P&F, path, likewise the European project HERMES which have no knowledge of Lenr, only in opportunism of '' have taken advantage of European funds. They will also do P&F.

I do not denigrate work from founding fathers but above all the lack of talent, next, to change things.

Quote from Shane D.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-w…on-once-taboo-cold-fusion

In this new analysis, Brett Tingley at "TheDrive" greatly expands on the article https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech…y-researchers-reopen-case that started this thread. Good read.

A) http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi…0090752&RS=DN/20210090752

B) https://patents.justia.com/inventor/carl-gotzmer

C) https://www.researchgate.net/p…299bf173674c8f2e/download