Curbina Moderator
  • Member since Mar 1st 2014

Posts by Curbina

    New Safire Project Talk.

    External Content
    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.

    Is the talk of November 2019 that became available now, thanks for the heads up.

    It seems the EPO “deemed as withdrawn” statement about the patent has left its scars in Holmlid. I for one am happy this is forcing them to come forward with more information, but I would have been much happier if Holmlid would have decided to involve more people in replication and help them get published with more independent replications so the patent could have been granted.

    I spent some time trying to check what has been said in the comments of this thread today.

    Specially in regards to the claims of plagiarism, which I have to say, unfortunately I think are very well founded at least in part. A paragraph in the description of this newly published application is unforgivably similar to one on the granted application of Rossi.

    I am really astonished to see that a patent application filed on behalf of the US Navy has such a blatant plagiarism. Is really unconceivable.

    Now we have learnt thanks to Can and also Ahlfors that the application has a non final rejection, but we don't know yet the reasons (BTW, can , you have to tell me where does one find that description of the administrative steps of the application, I haven't been able to find it!). Most probably the rejection is due to the detection of the plagiarism, if not something more obvious as the "impossibility of LENR" usually resorted to.

    All things considered, I would expect this kind of charade from a patent troll, but not from an Armed Forces institution, so I am really astonished and badly impressed.

    Let's not see all in black, and let's rescue the earlier announcement of a new research initiative to assess the reproducibility of LENR, that will be carried out by the US Navy. This is great news, specially because it is a recognition that the amount of evidence gathered, even if hard to reproduce, points towards a real phenomena that is in much need of been further elucidated.

    Personally I think the thermite thing is a 'red herring' with a very fishy smell.

    Just a quick note: I think this whole endeavor is surrealistic. The inventors AFAIK are completely unrelated to LENR at least in what one can find quickly on the web. The patent states it is the result of work done under the orders of the US Navy, so this leaves much more questions than answers.

    I went to the IEEE article and posted this:

    Wow, that was fast!!! These US Navy researchers are talking about a new research project to elucidate the reality of LENR, and three days later a patent application for a LENR reactor is published by the USPTO and the owner is the US Navy!!! Did we miss something in between?

    They take long to publish comments there, I hope this one gets through the filters.

    Are they going to use coal and firewood in the second chamber to trigger lent?

    As magicsound already stated, the reaction heater chamber uses what is normally known as thermite. The LENR fuel is conveniently described in very general terms, so in that regard there’s not much new information in the patent other than it’s a patent being applied for in behalf of the US Navy so they had to have done research for this.

    This paragraph of the background of the invention is well written:

    “[0007] The second type of apparatus consisting of a vessel containing palladium, nickel or any other metal that can absorb hydrogen ions in a powder, wire, foil, or mesh configurations is exposed to ionic hydrogen or deuterium. Many variations on the configurations of these liquid and solid reactors have been introduced and studied, and many observations of excess heat production, which cannot be explained by conventional chemistry, have been reported. Although the exact nature of LENR remains unknown, the volume of experimental results argues in favor of the validity of the phenomenon of LENR.

    Thanks for the heads up Lou Pagnucco , the assignee is the US Navy, tho, not NASA, but is important as it is surprising to see a patent plainly talking about LENR in no unambiguous terms.

    Found this description of Shell 105 in a publication that used Shell 105:

    "Many catalysts have been described for this reaction. One catalyst – Shell 105, also used in this experiment – dominated the market for many years, and was the first to include potassium as a promoter for the water-gas reaction. This catalyst is typically 84.3 % iron as Fe2O3 , 2.4 % chromium as Cr2O3 , and 13.3 % potassium as K2CO3 . It has good physical properties and good activity, and it gives fair yields."

    Sourced from here:…/tc30_styrene_english.pdf

    I have seen you debating with the peeps at ResearchGate, at some point You will have to admit that you were born a couple of centuries earlier. People just read their sacred books to you in increasing volume, until they just give up trying to convince you, but looking at your model and your data, that’s heresy.

    Takaaki Matsumoto proposed clusters of hydrogen formed by the action of the electric arcs in his experiments. He observed them as formed in the surface so the need for cracks, and this is a wild speculation, IMHO has more to do with the need for providing the conditions that form during the arcing than with the “compression” of the hydrogen. In the same alley, the NASA team recently observed much more bubbles detected in the sensors when the Pd deposition was evidently dendritic. Again, this topological condition is proposed to have a higher electron density flowing. Just wild speculation from my part.