One aspect that came into my mind is the the gas they used for the glow discharge. Although I did not read it in the article, I believe it must have been argon, because some metal of the nickel mesh was sputtered on the palladium electrodes.
The initial gas was D2 and/or H2. See http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTposterform.pdf
It took many hours to generate nano structures this way. Later he may have been using Argon when he got the right equipment.
Interesting to see they observed Rossi's granted US patent without mentioning him.
In addition it is remarkable to see Mizuno's direction towards nickel nano particles on Pd. In the past he used nickel nano-structures on nickel by bombarding smooth nickel surface with protons. At that time I made a suggestion to him to use Argon, as generally is used by nickel sputtering methods, to be more efficient to produce nickel nano-structures, which he tried but did not have a suitable HV power supply available at the time. Now, it looks like he is applying nickel sputtering on PD surfaces.
Nickel will have a different Deuterium absorption rate/ratio as Palladium. Since Deuterium absorption will cause metal lattices to expand (can be up to 120% of the original volume), local nano-scale mechanical tension will be created, possibly followed by nano-cracks (Ed Storms will like this).
This also shows some similarities with the Constantan wire concept of Francesco Celani. Constantan alloys have nickel and copper lattice clusters sitting next to each other, but each have their own Hydrogen/Deuterium absoption rates/ratios.
Thanks for the translation effort Jed, very valuable.
Support does not explicitly mean funding.
Interesting suggestion.
I wonder whether the normal detection signals (focus error, tracking error, HF) of a DVD pickup unit could be used to trace the radon caused tracks.
If so, this would make it a very nice method for detecting radon tracks.
Rob Woudenberg - I have 2 questions.
1. Why isn't there more interest in this in the replication community? It is different than what has come before, but would appear a much more tractable research problem than the LENR experiments.
2. If you did have some amount of D(-1), would this pose a "proliferation risk", i.e. the weaponization of such a material is an unpleasant thought
My thoughts:
1. Holmlid's detectors + processing electronics are not simple, cheap, devices and in addition he uses types of lasers that aren't cheap either.
2. (actually not a question): Holmlid's papers have conflicting data on the lifetime of UDD and UDH as far as I observed. Short lifetime of UDH or UDD could complicate replication. But if lifetime isn't a problem, UDD or UDH could be part of weapons, which indeed is a rather unpleasant thought.
ok I know all the history, have been following been following this field for years..
My question is about Homlid. His work stands is stark contrast to everything else done since Pons&Fleischman. The implication is that he has a direct path to…
So, what is your question?
Please, keep in mind that Prof. Em. Holmlid seems to have a cooperation with Bernhart Kotzias, who currently is employed by Airbus Defense & Space (according to some recent publications, see https://www.linkedin.com/group…32340-6132874986727231489, or if you don't have a LinkedIn account: http://scitation.aip.org/conte…dva/6/4/10.1063/1.4947276)
Very sad to hear this.
But sometimes you have to first fail before you can be successful.
Let's hope the initiators Didier, Michel and Angelo will pickup initiatives again when time is right.
Both De Bellis and Rossi (in a certain patent application) talk about a "neutron cloud" or that "neutrons are liberated" under certain conditions with a high voltage potential.
I think that in the highly dynamic environment of sonicated powder there could be conditions arising for electrons to be accelerated and knock out neutrons from hydrogenated particles as in portable neutron generators. But what would happen at the higher temperatures where LENR experiments typically occur?
My focus is more on Holmlid rather than on Rossi or Bellis. Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen is relative unknown, but maybe key. Holmlid has shown that Inverted Rydberg matter can easily be split into high energy particles (e.g. protons that may alter into neutrons). I recall that Soininnen's patent application (e.g. page 8 ) also refers to one or more articles of Holmlid.
In fact, the presence of local high electrical fields can produce high energy protons from the hydrogen present, which in turn can cause the split of Inverted Rydberg hydrogen into high energy particles.
I'd like to see independant confirmation of the work of Holmlid though to be 100% convinced.
QuoteIf Pekka Soininen of Etiam Oy has not changed his mind his reactors should be based on the theory of Rydberg matter. I don't think he can change this without compromising his patent.
According to his patent application atomic hydrogen is used as a step to produce Rydberg matter (in fact Rydberg hydrogen). See Fig. 19 of the application.
Meanwhile he might use new methods that he may have filed as new patent applicaton recently. We can only observe those 18 months after the date of filing.
About your second remark: I have no clue.
My earlier remark refers to local relative high voltage as described in Pekka Soininnen's patent application. He suggests several solutions to provide this; piezo-, pyro- and/or magneto-electric materials.
Quote..... I can add more details about Etiam theory if someone interested (reading article needs paid account in their service).
Argon: I sent you a PM
Part of Soininen's patent application describes the importance of generating local high static electric fields in order to easily split molecular Hydrogen into atomic Hydrogen. Only atomic Hydrogen is able to penetrate metal lattices. Using piezo electric materials (e.g. SiO) having sufficient grain size will generate these electrostatic fields at nanoscale activated by sound waves which in turn cause pressure waves which in will cause mechanical pressure on the piezo electric grains material.
Some of you guys mix up Brilliouin with Brilliant Light Power (former BlackLight Power) it seems.
this forum can be erased from the internet no trace the stakes are high . the block chain allows the inventor and contributors to get a reward from their work without being taken advantage of by attorneys ,advisers or special interest ..
Just to finalize some comments on using blockchain technology to share knowledge:
Firstly, you suggested to put the knowledge in the form of a blockchain contract (e.g. using Ethereum). Present blockchain contracts are in the form of a programming language. The only option is to add knowledge text as comments in the original contract. However that comment text is removed when the contract is compiled before sending it off to the blockchain.
Secondly, one could bind a digital knowledge paper to blockchain using a digital notary. But in that case the knowledge paper itself is not stored on the blockchain ledger but only its hash result. This hash result acts as a digital fingerprint that is tight to a specific moment in time (the time of storing such hash on the blockchain). The digital document remains in the hands of the author. If he loses that digital documents (e.g. by a hard disk crash), all information is lost and cannot be recovered unless the author creates a new digital document containing his knowledge, in which case there will be a new timestamp binding this knowledge allowing for individuals to patent identical knowledge in between. The alternative is that the author shares the digital document with other people. But would that make any sense if one can just post the same digital document on a public site?
Already mentioned by others, the content of this forum will not just disappear when it's server is taken down. In particular if a crucial piece of information is published, people will simply copy its content, e.g. by making a screenshot. For legal proof one only need two independent copies of such page to prove its existence. In addition such screenshot will included the time stamp of the posting itself.
Although blockchain evangelists forecast that blockchain technology can replace current IP system, it will take at least 5 - 10 years before anything like that will appear and gets recognized.
That will not help users like Me356 right now.
In addition to what I wrote on preventing technology misuse by generating prior art by publishing your knowledge openly in any form at a public spot, you can also go for the formal IP route and choose for a zero royalty policy. In essence you compose a patent application describing what you want to prevent to be patented by others and file that at e.g. the USPTO, WIPO, EPO (one registration suffice). That patent application will be published after 18 months and will be treated as prior art from the date you filed the patent application onwards. You then stop the patent application process. This means no extra cost for further patenting steps. This also means you only pay for the filing of the patent application. In this way your knowledge is formalized and 'rubber stamped'. You have to identify yourself however, which may be a disadvantage.
There are a few examples of patent strategies that use this way of handling knowledge. I will give you two examples:
Why would Toyota and Tesla do such thing after they payed a serious amount of money on patenting these technologies at first (40 - 90 K$ each patent for world coverage)?
The answer is simple: there is a technology war ongoing in the car industry (hydrogen/fuel cell <> Lithium ion batteries). By freeing up patented technology, more (car) companies will choose for royalty free technology and thus more market push for that particular car technology. Tesla started the royalty clearance on battery technology; Toyota responded quickly, because there is a lot at stake for them if battery powered electrical cars would gain market share.
Drop me a PM if you need more advise.
@me356 a blockchain contract is the only reliable way for you to store protect your invention and your self by now . if what you are describing is true it becomes a national security issue for multiple countries stolen Ip should be the least of your worries .alone you will not be able to handle whats coming . a the public ledger contract is decentralized can't be forged can't be hacked and you can build a decentralized for profit organisation on it while making the information open source (i hate to say that but think NRA with shares and influence) .
the reward for you and contributing members will be in the trillions while minimizing the risk .
i don't think its worth going to details here .
You're making things way too complicated. This forum's content is already a publicly shared ledger in itself.
Mats: Oshwa mentions 'design files' related to open source hardware. Those design files contain very specific circuit descriptions etc. Those can be circumvented in many occasions. To give you an example: part of a shared electronic circuit design contains an OPAMP as an amplification component. By replacing the OPAMP component by a discrete transistor circuit one can circumvent the openly shared circuit description.
A procedural description being the core of IP claims is very common and does not specifically fall under hardware of software IP domains.
A process step description can be generic.
To give an example in the field of LENR:
One of the essential steps may be to reduce the nickel-oxide layer of nickel particles bought from any of the well known suppliers to allow smooth absorption of Hydrogen by nickel particles.
In essence it's sufficient to mention 'reduction of nickel-oxide layer from nickel particles' as one of the process steps. It is not required to describe the exact way of reducing nickel-oxide layers as there are numerous ways to do this.
Mats, a process describing how LENR effect can be created isn't hardware either. I would place it in the category 'recipes' or 'processes'.
Everyone familiar with present LENR patent applications will notice that up till now none of them describe in a reproducible way what process steps are required to start LENRs.
Most of them describe applications (e.g. an apparatus) rather than that. Most of these applications are worthless and are easy to circumvent. These applications would fall under the category 'Hardware'.
So, what's missing is a step by step description of essential process steps to create LENR, consisting of:
removed: double posting
“Quote from axil: “I think Me356 said that he did not need lithium aluminum hydride but he used pure lithium instead. Aluminum moderates the lithium reaction. I could be wrong, I don't read every word on every post. I will concede this point and be surprised if you can find a reference in a post were Me or anybody else can produce the Rossi type reaction without lithium added to the fuel mix.
Have a look at this posting by Me356 here :"We can completely exclude lithium or similar compounds that can create a hydrides"
Maybe Me356 is willing to help out on this.
Back in 2011, I identified lithium as Rossi's catalyst. Does that invalidate Rossi's patent since the use of lithium or any of the alkali metals are the LENR catalysts and therefore are prior art.
See post as follows:
Patent office dispute between Piantelli and Rossi?
Yes, that will be prior art that will prevent any claims having Lithium as an essential catalyst for LENR granted after you published it.
Personally, I doubt that Lithium plays an essential role. As Me356 also indicated, he does not need Lithium. The presence of Lithium may cause Lithium transmutations, but as we all know there are other transmutations possible (e.g. Nickel).
To add more personal thoughts: I think that UDH (Ultra Dense Hydrogen) is the key. Holmlid has already publications on that (and by that also prior art on how to produce UDH with catalysts he mentions).
To put some humor in the subject of prior art, have a look at a well known example of prior art that was first published in a comic book.
