For better or for worse the USPTO is holding LENR patents to a higher standard. There is obvious bias against CF and the references they quote as "negative evidence" are dated to say the least. Their patent counsel does not seem suited to the task at hand. It will be up to CP and the rest of us trying to get IP protection in the US to breach this wall of bias but we have spoken with two previous directors of the USPTO and we feel there is a path forward to US patents. Everything is a double-edged sword. The higher standard raised by USPTO is an additional obstacle for certain but on the other hand, anyone successfully breaching these barriers and obtaining such patents will have something inherently more valuable.
Daniel_G
Member
- Male
- Member since Apr 10th 2019
- Last Activity:
Posts by Daniel_G
-
-
Times are changing when we get good positive coverage in a mainstream publication like Popsci.
-
Display More
US buildings are among the worst on the planet worse than UK. Further most folks need a 1..1.5 hours car ride to get on job. USA is built upon wasting resources.
Guess why the Swiss inflation rate is lowest now? No petrol/gas/coal current well insulated buildings since 30 years Since > 10 years only heat pumps.
So US energy is irrelevant for the future of the planet, same for USA if they will not kick start with a sound sustainable living style.
We also have 3 large storage lakes that each can replace a 1000MW nuke for some days. Loading is > 90% efficient!
That's true. Another company I ran was the global leader in chiller energy efficiency and was written about in the book Factor Four by Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker and Amory Lovins. This company has been recently rebooted based on AI and machine learning and IoT technology and we continue to push the envelope in efficient buildings. Unfortunately not every country is as efficient as the Swiss. We need to accommodate all. Couldn't agree more about the edge case Switzerland is a model for efficiency.
The American model's history is notable in that the Detroit automakers specifically made a system of suburbs build around urban centers to sell more and more cars back when energy and resources were plentiful. It's hard to unbuild what is already built.
-
Just to put this in perspective 100MWh sounds like a lot. If it was in California, how many percent of the total need would it be?
That would be exactly ⅓ of 1/1000th of 1%.
Does it still sound like a lot?
-
I got some of that, 220 an ounce guarantee to set your mind free from that ball of confusion. Not sure where your numbers come from. 400%? Very cheap ways to store energy
Gravity batteries: Abandoned mines could store enough energy to power ‘the entire earth’
Your proposal is some “professor” pleasuring himself with some fantasy. A proper load analysis shows that for the state of California only, the amount of storage needed to go full wind and solar is 30,000 GWh. Yet this clown is saying that they only need 70,000 globally. Uh. No. He hasn’t even bothered with an actual analysis. He’s just dreaming.
Also he doesn’t know much about electrical engineering because the vast majority of mining elevators are DC, not AC induction motors. They need rectifiers. A shit ton of rectifiers. Then inverters. The ropes are going to break from being stressed at maximum load. It’s a lazy man’s fantasy with zero connection in reality. He’s off by the storage need by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
If I spent more time on this I could likely find a few more intractable problems with his proposal but how can anyone take this dude seriously?
-
Is he now producing how many watts of usable power? What are the remaining issues that need to be solved?
-
Here’s the contrary view. Jacobsen argues that there’s plenty of potential for solar and wind, and that the storage needed for intermittency is eminently achievable: https://www.theguardian.com/en…water-can-power-the-world
I want some of what he is smoking. Not even worthy of a real answer. There are so many aspects of what he just hand waves over as “it’s all done” I don’t even know where to start. He calls for fossil fuel mining to halt but ignores the thousands of percent increases in mineral flows that would be required to create his dystopia. He ignores the actual economics of storage that currently would require 400% of gdp on average to power our existing energy needs.
-
I do not disagree. The push for green hydrogen is entirely a political matter. In my country there’s hype because someone claims to have found a way to create a liquid fuel with the hydrogen produced with windmills and Porsche invested a few thousand euros on a pilot plant. I think is pure hype as it all requires more energy than it will ever be stored in the liquid fuel, but as no one sees the balance and as wind is “free”, everyone is happy about it.
Curbina again the burden of intermittency rears its ugly head. In order to be economical the production of liquid fuel is a chemical engineering process. Chemical processes need to work near to capacity a majority of the time. You can build an economical plant that spends half its time idle and then works at double capacity the rest of the time. The people who suggest this is possible have never designed nor operated an actual chemical plant.
-
Very competent industry professionals without ulterior agendas have looked at this issue in detail. Most laymen don’t realize how difficult a problem intermittency is and the cost required both in economic and carbon terms just don’t work out. As a LENR developer of course we all want the same thing. Wind and solar simply are not a viable energy source for a vibrant civilization. Hence the push to find better alternatives.
-
This will never ever be economical. It’s a dead end.
-
The COP 1000 is not shown in this paper. It is presented as heresy only. Is there a paper which describes the experiment in detail?
-
Could you point me to the evidence of this cop 1000? What was the absolute output power? What additional problems remain to be resolved before a commercial product can be made?
-
Jurg I’m inherently interested in your outside the norm theories despite our arguments of the past. I have one question, I think the best way to convince someone that your theory is correct is to produce something practical or useful (something we agree the LHC will never do). Has Holmlid been able to produce confirmed energy output based on these interesting theories of his?
-
Do not be concerned about CP , and don’t be critical about CP.
They must have the strategy to get patent so they have insisted that their heat generating reactor is Quantum diffusion not Cold Fusion.
Cold Fusion society has been responsible for this issue, because cold fusion is still pseudo science and have not reached the correct mechanism.
Kodama-san, not having the correct mechanism does not make it pseudoscience. A simple, repeatable phenomenon that can produce excess heat linked with transmutations is not pseudoscience.
It's also quite natural to have competing theories for the mechanism if you study the history of 20th century physics, there was always some kind of controversy going on and these controversies were a healthy part of actual science. One cannot claim to have superior knowledge (everybody is wrong except me), unless you have the ability to make a simple repeatable result as above.
-
Every model is wrong. Some are useful.
-
It's quite possible that they choose to stay under the radar and only show the good data to the real investors.
-
The CEO is a lawyer not a tech visionary. But a very well spoken and well connected one. After their breakup with Mizuno which was settled out of court (very common in Japan), they were able to raise significant funds with their new technical team, file many patents, recruit some big names as partners, etc. This is rather strong but circumstantial evidence that they have something.
I don’t think this type of calorimetry is very convincing either to be honest. In my opinion I am convinced that LENR reactions are quite focused, meaning you can get hot spots and cold spots which means your thermal couple temperature will have huge error bars and radiative heat is fraught with its own problems.
The proper way to handle such criticism is to do a different type of calorimetry. Each type has its strong and weak points. Their focus and drive will be to convince their deep pockets investors to keep adding funds to the coffers. Not to convince anyone else.
Judging simply from the amount of additional funding they are raising recently I would assume that they have done this.
Even if they did other calorimetry, what motivation do they have to publish those results? We simply will not know until they either stop being able to raise additional funds or a commercial product is announced.
I think most of THH’s criticisms are fair in this case but the conclusion is in their position they probably don’t care what some critic thinks.
-
Some form of nuclear will be absolutely essential to wean us off of fossil fuels. It’s delusional to think otherwise. Beware of groupthink.
-
The conclusion is that the sharing schemes, even when shared across the entire continental United States does not solve the problem.
It’s a very well thought out and logically presented argument. If you choose not to watch it you are showing your cognitive dissonance.
Curbina nobody said wind and solar don’t work. The point of this analysis is that there is no path to net zero with wind and solar without bankrupting the global economy.
-
Watch the video and then we can discuss. The arguments are solid and logical.
