Yep, and that's why I consider blaming the (USPTO) patent system for lack of commercial advancement an excuse.
For sure… Industrial Heat don’t seem to have too many problems getting their patents, for example.
ARPA-E LENR funded projects news and updates
-
-
By the way, I've surveyed the slides of this workshop.
Very interesting, especially about methodology, instruments, burden of evidences...
About Google it was painful but fair to read the competent failure of Google replications. It is challenging, and should make us more modest...
https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021LENR_workshop_Fork.pdf
About methodology, the problem of ambiguity explains well the difficulty to convince with LENR results https://arpa-e.energy.gov/site…LENR_workshop_Metzler.pdf
Many elements to help someone design a good research program.
I imagine the teams fo Hermes and CleanHME have re-read it many times.
Bitter taste for me... Much to do.
-
About Google it was painful but fair to read the competent failure of Google replications. It is challenging, and should make us more modest...
NO NO !
Personally it makes me more ambitious again and again. Google has highly argued that above all the field needs brains rather than especially money....
Google's brain was Mc Kubre in this way, i will not impressed for example, about the future Hermes "discoveries" that make mc kubre's like...
-
About Google it was painful but fair to read the competent failure of Google replications.
The Letts non-replication paper is at http://coldfusioncommunity.net…2018/08/1_JCMNS-Vol20.pdf
-
Google has highly argued that above all the field needs brains rather than especially money....
Google's brain was Mc Kubre in this wayIMOpinion The Google cold fusion team was not being guided by McKubre (NASA perhaps GEC).
Nor was the focus replicating Pons and Fleischman...
Irregardless of what they say.
These patents are what should be discussed, written about, presented replicated and analyzed.
The Google CMNS patents filed show what they are really working on. Believe me... These patents don't disclose all their working details. The Google 'cold fusion' team is a few years further advanced. They obviously don't want to discuss these patents at all. More Google Inc. CMNS energy tech patent iterations are already filed, hidden/awaiting the publication date.... Or perhaps being reclused.
The Google Inc CMNS Patents
Enhanced electron screening through plasmon oscillations US10566094B2
US10566094B2 - Enhanced electron screening through plasmon oscillations - Google Patents
Abstract
Enhanced Coulomb repulsion screening around light element nuclei is achieved by way of utilizing electromagnetic (EM) radiation to induce plasmon oscillations in target structures (e.g., nanoparticles) in a way that produces high density electron clouds in localized regions of the target structures, thereby generating charge density variations around light element atoms located in the localized regions. Each target structure includes an electrically conductive body including light elements (e.g., a metal hydride/deuteride/tritide) that is configured to undergo plasmon oscillations in response to the applied EM radiation. The induced oscillations causes free electrons to converge in the localized region, thereby producing transient high electron charge density levels that enhance Coulomb repulsion screening around light element (e.g., deuterium) atoms located in the localized regions. Various systems capable of implementing enhanced Coulomb repulsion screening are described, and various nanostructure compositions and configurations are disclosed that serve to further enhance fusion reaction rates.
Target structure for enhanced electron screening US10264661B2
US10264661B2 - Target structure for enhanced electron screening - Google Patents
Abstract
Enhanced Coulomb repulsion (electron) screening around light element nuclei is achieved by way of utilizing target structures (e.g., nanoparticles) that undergo plasmon oscillation when subjected to electromagnetic (EM) radiation, whereby transient high density electron clouds are produced in localized regions of the target structures during each plasmon oscillation cycle. Each target structure includes an integral body composed of an electrically conductive material that contains light element atoms (e.g., metal hydrides, metal deuterides or metal tritides). The integral body is also configured (i.e., shaped/sized) to undergo plasmon oscillations in response to the applied EM radiation such that the transient high density electron clouds are formed during each plasmon oscillation cycle, whereby brief but significantly elevated charge density variations are generated around light element (e.g., deuterium) atoms located in the localized regions, thereby enhancing Coulomb repulsion screening to enhance nuclear fusion reaction rates. Various target structure compositions and configurations are disclosed.
-
You are right these patents are very relevant.
However i was only and especially how to say.. perturbed by too much money spent by the famous "calorimetry".
I share here a recent private reply from a great great Lenr Actor .
The reason real green energy solutions like LENR are not really existing yet is due to the unscientific approach adopted by most researchers. Scientists have been randomly tinkering with parameters in the hope of getting rich and famous quick with some anomalous heat producing technology. This strategy has failed. After 32 years we have no idea how to reproduce the anomalies reliably, no idea what the underlying heat producing reactions are.
We need theoreticians to clearly state how their models can be tested. We need experimentalists to verify those models and identify the underlying nuclear reactions. We will not identify reactions with calorimetry, which is error prone, insensitive and slow. Sorry to put it so bluntly but the lack of progress is frustrating. -
I agree with you Cydonia, it seems that everybody including TG is jumping onto the same bandwagon of scaling both theory and experimental in cold fusion down to the nano-scale level whereas larger-scale experiments are too expensive for individual scientists to conduct. Fortunately large scale studies by NASA groups etc have all been done and if one accepts Leif Holmlid's theoretical and experimental work, at least we can say there has been significant progress in the last 32 years. So it is a matter of deciding on a final design of a large-scale prototype based on all the facts gained in this research. All interested scientists should work together on this without seeking any economic advantage, which is ridiculous anyway given the ecological disasters we are all facing as a human race which desperately needs clean energy.
-
IMOpinion The Google cold fusion team was not being guided by McKubre (NASA perhaps GEC).
Nor was the focus replicating Pons and Fleischman...
Irregardless of what they say.
I have it from the horse's mouth that the Google team wished to remain 'uncontaminated' by interacting closely with the cold fusion pioneers. To that end they AFAIK only discussed (for example) calorimetry with Ed Storms. Beyond that, very little dialogue has been reported.
-
I have it from the horse's mouth that the Google team wished to remain 'uncontaminated' by interacting closely with the cold fusion pioneers. To that end they AFAIK only discussed (for example) calorimetry with Ed Storms. Beyond that, very little dialogue has been reported.
What to make of the interactions had behind NDAs?
-
Display More
The Google Inc CMNS Patents
Enhanced electron screening through plasmon oscillations US10566094B2
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10566094B2/en
Abstract
Enhanced Coulomb repulsion screening around light element nuclei is achieved by way of utilizing electromagnetic (EM) radiation to induce plasmon oscillations in target structures (e.g., nanoparticles) in a way that produces high density electron clouds in localized regions of the target structures, thereby generating charge density variations around light element atoms located in the localized regions.
There is no Coulomb barrier in nature, since there are no "electric charges", no "electric forces", no "electric fields" ... For this reason, there is NOTHING to shield ... There is no repulsion of nuclei in nature ... On the contrary, there is magnetic interaction of nuclei ... It is not "electron clouds" that are created ", And electronic clusters -" temporary magnets "are created ... Electrons, absorbing" photon radiation ", and not" electromagnetic radiation "create a gradient of mass density, not" charge density "... Photon has mass.
-
What to make of the interactions had behind NDAs?
When key players complain bitterly that Google never asked their advice (and ignored/overlooked established protocols because of that) it is reasonably safe to assume that they have not given advice under NDA.
-
If the photon has a mass, should it be correlated with its acceleration ?
Now, how to accelerate again if the photon is moving at speed of light ? Maybe only its frequency increased ?
There is no Coulomb barrier in nature, since there are no "electric charges", no "electric forces", no "electric fields" ... For this reason, there is NOTHING to shield ... There is no repulsion of nuclei in nature ... On the contrary, there is magnetic interaction of nuclei ... It is not "electron clouds" that are created ", And electronic clusters -" temporary magnets "are created ... Electrons, absorbing" photon radiation ", and not" electromagnetic radiation "create a gradient of mass density, not" charge density "... Photon has mass.
-
If the photon has a mass, should it be correlated with its acceleration ?
Now, how to accelerate again if the photon is moving at speed of light ? Maybe only its frequency increased ?
It's simple ... When a photon is emitted by an electron, a mass is emitted ... There is time for the formation of this mass into the structure of a photon ... At the moment when the structure is formed, a FORCE is generated, which accelerates a photon - a light photon, to the speed of light and then the photon moves with this speed evenly ... Thus, we should say that there are FORCES in nature - they are formed by ETHER, which balance the FORCE that moves the photon, and as a result we have uniform motion ... Physicists of the past were storytellers and dreamers - they came up with the expression "rest mass" - but this does not exist in nature - there are no particles that would rest ... Even in the neutron, something inside moves all the time - these are the elements of the ether ...
The mass is never equal to zero ... While a photon is being formed, it has a mass from which this formation occurs, but at the same time, at the moment of formation of its structure, the photon does not move anywhere - its speed is zero - its kinetic energy is zero ... The photon starts from zero speed ... But the potential energy of a photon is the inertial motion of its magnetic fields - its magnetic rings - it is not equal to zero when its structure is formed - on the contrary, when an alternate magnetic ring is attached, the potential energy increases - it is the inertial motion of the magnetic rings that forms the FORCE, which drives the photon.
-
When key players complain bitterly that Google never asked their advice (and ignored/overlooked established protocols because of that) it is reasonably safe to assume that they have not given advice under NDA.
I confess to not knowing what to think. If I recall correctly, Michael McKubre has said on more than one occasion that Google did consult and did listen. That’s not to discount what you’re saying, but it seems like reasonable minds are differing.
-
If I recall correctly, Michael McKubre has said on more than one occasion that Google did consult and did listen. That’s not to discount what you’re saying, but it seems like reasonable minds are differing.
McKubre did say this, but other experts such as Storms complained that Google did not listen. I recall some others such as Miles said they never heard from anyone at Google.
Of course the people at Google may well have read the papers Miles published. You can learn a lot from papers. But I recommend you speak with the authors directly, if they are still among the living. It is easy to overlook something. You might misunderstand a paper. I myself usually misunderstand papers completely at first, and only begin to understand them after several readings. I'm slow . . . but persevering. I have known some brilliant scientists who are quick studies, who seem to understand technical papers "just by rubbing them on their chests." But their quick intelligence sometimes betrays them. They read a paper, assume they understand it, and they don't bother reading it again. They make a mistake and never realize it. I have less confidence in my own abilities, so I check and double check.
To give a small example, F&P used a half-silvered Dewar cell with a clear glass (no silver) "window" at the bottom, below the lowest electrolyte waterline. They explained why they did this, in detail. It is a little difficult to follow their discussion. They don't make it easy for the reader. I have discussed this window with various smart people. I found that some of them did understand the purpose of the window.
(If you want to know the purpose, see p. 11 here: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf)
-
To give a small example, F&P used a half-silvered Dewar cell with a clear glass (no silver) "window" at the bottom, below the lowest electrolyte waterline. They explained why they did this, in detail. It is a little difficult to follow their discussion. They don't make it easy for the reader. I have discussed this window with various smart people. I found that some of them did understand the purpose of the window.
I want to emphasize that this window is only a small part of F&P's papers. It is not critical to understanding the experiment. You could replicate even if you ignore the window. It is small detail, and not complicated.
My point is that even this relatively simple detail sometimes confuses smart people. If smart people can get this wrong, think of how many other, more complicated, more subtle and difficult aspects of the experiment they might also get wrong. Listen to electrochemists discuss a cold fusion experiment, and you will realize you have almost no idea what is going on in the cell. There are a thousand and one aspects of the experiment that they know, but they don't write in the papers. Because the papers would be hundreds of pages long. They would have to recapitulate the Bockris textbook. See:
So, even if you are smart, I think you should discuss the experiments with the authors, to double check your understanding of the papers.
-
This is what Trevithick had to say in his ARPA-E presentation about collaborating with the old guard on Google's Project Charleston:
"The research porfolio included 8 academic groups new to LENR, 10 experienced LENR
researchers/groups, and 8 unsuccessful collaboration attempts"
. -
Were the experiments unsuccessful?
Or
Were they unsuccessful in the 8 attempts to collaborate together?
Did Team Google discuss or present these three patents or their DoE grant at the ARPA-E workshop?
Or the DoD grant awarded Team Google vis a vis Munday Labs, now at UC California Davis?
-
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
[0002] This invention was made with government support under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231
NOTE
Contract Summary
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is managed and operated by The Regents of the University of California under prime contract number
DE-AC02-05CH11231.
-
History LBNL
1931–1941
The laboratory was founded on August 26, 1931, by Ernest Lawrence, as the Radiation Laboratory of the University of California, Berkeley, associated with the Physics Department. It centered physics research around his new instrument, the cyclotron, a type of particle accelerator for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1939.[4] Throughout the 1930s, Lawrence pushed to create larger and larger machines for physics research, courting private philanthropists for funding. He was the first to develop a large team to build big projects to make discoveries in basic research.[5] Eventually these machines grew too large to be held on the university grounds, and in 1940 the lab moved to its current site atop the hill above campus.[4] Part of the team put together during this period includes two other young scientists who went on to direct large laboratories; J. Robert Oppenheimer directed Los Alamos Laboratory, and Robert Wilson directed Fermilab.
1942–1950
Leslie Groves visited Lawrence's Radiation Laboratory in late 1942 as he was organizing the Manhattan Project, meeting J. Robert Oppenheimer for the first time. Oppenheimer was tasked with organizing the nuclear bomb development effort and founded today's Los Alamos National Laboratory to help keep the work secret.[5] At the RadLab, Lawrence and his colleagues developed the technique of electromagnetic enrichment of uranium using their experience with cyclotrons. The calutrons (named after the University) became the basic unit of the massive Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Lawrence's lab helped contribute to what have been judged to be the three most valuable technology developments of the war (the atomic bomb, proximity fuse, and radar). The cyclotron, whose construction was stalled during the war, was finished in November 1946. The Manhattan Project shut down two months later.
1951–2018
After the war, the Radiation Laboratory became one of the first laboratories to be incorporated into the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (now Department of Energy, DOE). The most highly classified work remained at Los Alamos, but the RadLab remained involved. Edward Teller suggested setting up a second lab similar to Los Alamos to compete with their designs. This led to the creation of an offshoot of the RadLab (now the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) in 1952. Some of the RadLab's work was transferred to the new lab, but some classified research continued at Berkeley Lab until the 1970s, when it became a laboratory dedicated only to unclassified scientific research.
Shortly after the death of Lawrence in August 1958, the UC Radiation Laboratory (both branches) was renamed Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. The Berkeley location became Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in 1971,[6][7] although many continued to call it the RadLab. Gradually, another shortened form came into common usage, LBL. Its formal name was amended to Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 1995, when "National" was added to the names of all DOE labs. "Ernest Orlando" was later dropped to shorten the name. Today, the lab is commonly referred to as Berkeley Lab.[8]
The Alvarez Physics Memos are a set of informal working papers of the large group of physicists, engineers, computer programmers, and technicians led by Luis W. Alvarez from the early 1950s until his death in 1988. Over 1700 memos are available on-line, hosted by the Laboratory.[9]
In 2018, the lab remains owned by the U.S. Department of Energy, with management from the University of California. Companies such as Intel were funding the lab's research into computing chips.[10]
