.........because the rate of UDH synthesis is very slow and is in equilibrium with the reverse reaction perhaps? Need to discover better catalysts to increase the concentration of UDH to increase the probability of subsequent fusion reactions. Which is why Norront Fusion are screening for other catalysts.
I would like to understand UDH. Can you suggest where to start? I need experimental reports and data. I want to compare various explanation of BLP or Norront fusion results.
Just because I have read the rejection reports of the patent applications of Santilli and Ohmasa, I know that in their case the strongest argument was that, no matter how correct and independently verified their unexpected experimental results were, and no matter the fact that there was no mainstream theoretical support for their results, there was no way that a person skilled in the art would have been able to get the same results just from reading and doing what is written in the application, which is a condition sine qua non for a patent grant.
I have seen this argument in my office action. One of my embodiment uses Aquafuel as an example of colder fusion. There are several examples of an arc though water to generate a fuel: all of them would produce a gas like Aquafuel. I make the argument that the utility of the method is to produce a fuel which a has potential energy derived from the equation of state ( balance equation showing transmutation). Hence, I responded as follows:
"Further, paragraph 0005 cited examples where an electric arc is used to produce chemical fuel. Clearly, if so, many processes can produce such a chemical fuel, nothing is hidden or prevents one skill in the art from producing such a gas. The reproducibility of making magnecules is the basis of the commercial venture Magnegas."
The primary physical argument is that magnecules are evidence of a fuel as described above. Mass balance validates the equation of state showing transmutation. In an engine test comparison to gasoline, Aquafuel produced 3x the energy expected based on its composition and compositions know relationship to energy on combustion (thermodynamics). Given conservation of energy, the energy predicted by the equation of state (by transmutation) doesn't disappear but is converted to potential energy as a fuel.
A general disbelief that colder fusion can be that easy doe not make it so. Being ignorant of the origin of the energy of the fuel does not invalidate evidence of its nuclear fusion origin.
No, the Patent Office does not deal in theories. It only accepts engineering proof that the invention works. Nor is it supposed to reject a claim because that claim violates theory except in the case of perpetual motion machines.
On the other hand, if a patent includes theory, and the scientific consensus says the theory is wrong, the P. O. may reject the patent on that basis. So, experts in patent law have repeatedly told cold fusion researchers they should never include any theory in their applications. Theory cannot help a patent. It can only cause problems.
Theory in a patent is not without value but almost without value. A theory per said is by definition an abstract idea and therefore not patentable. A patent must persuade about what is physical. So in a patent, theory is restricted to an operative model and the statement is made that other models are possible so that the model should not be considered restrictive. A model has moving parts. The model predicts physical behavior as a sequence of steps. Those predictions of physical behavior are the basis of the scientific method. A list of steps that changes physical behavior of matter becomes a method. A method which produces physical results is patentable if the method has utility, novelty and unobviousness.
An examiner's attempt to label something as "cold fusion and discard it based on scientific consensus can only work if the examiner describe how the physical description of that something is "cold fusion". Not so in my case. The examiner states the cold fusion concept relies on incorporation of deuterium into a crystal matrix. No combination of hydrogen and a crystal matrix is required in my method. I will fight every false generalization the examiner thinks he can use.
I am fighting for my rights, I have not succeeded but I am confident that I can use the law to prevail.
Display MoreHigh energy... as in 12 million electron voltsper deuterium atom..12MeV/D ?
Cold fusion was dismissed for a number of reasons. including
1. it was too cold.. sufficient collisions could not happen at temperature less than 100 million K... according to theory
2. There was no ash... not enough neutrons/not enough gamma radiation commensurate with the anomalous heat produced..
not because there was no anomalous heat... the anomalous heat is always way above the heat produced by chemical reaction
... the patent office may conclude not enough burden of proof..
Thanks for the link to NEDO. Yes, an expectation of millions of electrons volts rather than energy in the range of chemistry. The rejection is called a judicial exception. Particularly, cold fusion is dismissed as an abstract idea. Abstract ideas are not patentable. For example fusion without the three evidence you mention could be an abstract idea if there were no other persuasive evidence generated by methods accept by person skilled in the art or if there is not reasonable evidence to suppose that a nuclear reaction could occur without those evidences.
Therefore, if a new theory shows the magnitude of coulomb barrier is lower when the target and projectile element nuclei have been modified from their ground state, then the patent office would then need to consider the evidence of such modification. If that modification changes the reaction under consideration (other than D to D fusion), then the other evidences you list also may not apply. So, then it becomes what are the evidences to support modification of nuclei and what are the persuasive evidences generated by methods accepted by person skilled in the art for the specific fusion equation.
Hence, a "colder fusion" patent grant depends on there being enough persuasive evidence to consider the invention significantly more than just an unproven concept. I believe a data derived equation of state for the fusion reaction is extraordinary evidence of fusion. It is hard to refute that evidence of fusion. The are many other arguments that an idea may be abstract instead of physical or concrete. Each argument will need to be considered, then the weight of the arguments is used to make a ruling.
So you can imagine I got a mailing about an inch and 1/2 thick against "cold fusion" concept set forth by Pons and Fleischmann. Which is non relevant but was send as weight of the evident against "cold fusion"
Some people don't want help and other welcome it. Funny thing good science starts with belief. Much of the belief we needs comes from our interaction with others. I saw this post this morning and I though it would help. https://www.bakadesuyo.com/202…ercome-impostor-syndrome/.
Some people don't want help and other welcome it. Funny thing good science starts with belief. Much of the belief we needs comes from our interaction with others. I saw this post this morning and I though it would help. https://www.bakadesuyo.com/202…ercome-impostor-syndrome/.
The burden of proof is about the expectation. In conversation with my patent examiner, he told me not to focus on energy production, because fusion can't be proven. He meant it in the sense that everyone expects that when a fusion system is proven, it will produces enormous amounts of heat (energy). I told him fusion can be proven but energy production in that sense can't. An equation of state for a fusion reaction was data derived and is well out of the error range. The calculations based on estimated inputs and output and the equation of state for reaction would put the energy at 95.6 million BTU but the heat output was 7404 BTU with an input of 4533 BTU. So the problem isn't fusion (fusion is proven by measured inputs and outputs) rather the problem is why does the energy seems to vanish. My argument is if we dismiss fusion because of the high energy expectation, we put people at an unknown risk: because something serious is obviously happening. If we accept fusion, that 95.6 million BTU per the equation of state is something we maybe able to recover. Everyone proposing research makes that step from what we know to proposing there is something to be gained by further research. No one will get proof of what we will gain without research and someone must fund it or we will never get that carrot which is dangled in front of us.
I am sorry. I don't mean to make you feel inferior in any way. I want you to engage. I want to you to question why I think a certain way. I hadn't considered an explanation of Fe pico hydrides until you pushed me to derive one. I am grateful for that. I am grateful that W could see that an ejected electron could be a flaw and that Co was identified as a product. I didn't expect that. Without both those responses, I wouldn't have began the work and wouldn't have realized I needed to dig deeper. I wouldn't have discovered the weak force specificity (specific reaction of one isotope over another). I think this is really a big deal because the specific reaction of one isotope over another can't be accounted by chemical theory as we use it. Rather such specificity requires introduction of a weak force interaction. Thank-you.
Display More>>> "are witnessing it right now, as shown in the photo ..."
Hokkai Electronics Co., Ltd.
Hydrogen-nanoparticle-heat generator
Hydrogen-heat conversion using metal fine particles as catalyst
https://hpeem1.jimdo.com/%E9%9…B1%E4%BC%91%E9%A1%8C2018/
[2018] / Snap6 is a promoting image
I know this is off topic, does anyone know of some papers or reviews on the above?
Per the subject. I don't see any advantage of censorship except to reduce the bad feelings so the information flow can continue.
The magnecule bonding is evidence of energy added to the nucleus to cause charge separation in the nucleus. If H* and Fe* bond magnetically then both elements have energy in the nucleus above their nuclear ground state. The chemical reaction above the metal creates H*. H* causes a fusion reaction which creates more H*. H* as a fuel penetrate to K shell and transfer energy to Fe to create Fe* which then magnetically bonds as Fe*H*.
The model which fits the data is fusion not exothermic pico-chemistry. The fusion happens, then the pico-chemistry. The weak force is why only one isotope of iron reacts. Magnecule fusion is the weak force lowering the coulomb barrier. Elements which can receive energy into their nucleus by way of the weak force will fuse at a lower temperature. The more energy that gets into the nucleus this way, the lower the coulomb barrier between magnecules. Oxygen is likely the element most capable of receiving energy via the weak force from H*. Magnecule fusion between H* and O* is a proven reaction per my pending patent. Don't just reject my statement, because if you want to know for yourself you can read it and do the math and prove it to yourself.
If the above explanation works to explain energy from Fe pico-hydrides, it may work to explain BLP experiments which are water dependent and probably a host of others LENR experiments where oxygen and hydrogen are present.
There are indeed plenty of labels. The labels need to mean something specific. Magnetronite as defined above become that specific term. Specific terms help us compare models via experimental data.
What can we know it true without hypothesis and further experimental data?
Could you explain what is UDH? How do you understand H*?
As proposed and per theory magnetronite states of Hydrogen are dense hydrogen but there are a lot of these states of various density. As proposed above we could have Fe*. So it is easier to use a mineral name like magnetronite to refer to minerals where one or more atoms have magnetic fields above the ground state of those atoms.
Also UDH or H* is not an atom sized dipole like a metal hydrogen pico-scale bond is, would be bad to get them confused. Both are pico-hydrides but one is just hydrogen with itself, so no charge asymmetry and with simpler lower energy reactions.
You seem to be right on it! Fit's perfectly with the observation that these pico-states with H/metal would appear like transmutations at low energy, just with some strange magnetic features in the new "element".
So iron maybe a co-fuel to release the energy from magnecule fusion stored in H*. Various efforts by BLP and host of other could have data to discover other co-fuels from heat yield experiments.
Here is another though that is likely relevant to a magnetic field as compared to magnetic field boosted by w-waves. The source is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…bility_(electromagnetism) . The relative magnetic permeability of iron (99.8% pure) and iron (99.95% pure Fe annealed in H) are 5000 and 200,000 respectively.
Wouldn't it be nice to use experiments that measure permeability of materials solidified in hydrogen to select for elements (isotopes of elements) that would react like Fe-54?
Proposal of a "purely electromagnetic compound of picometer size" doesn't account for why only Fe-54 reacts. How do the neutrons cause this selection, unless the forces involved in pico-chemistry interact with neutrons. As I proposed an electron could be ejected to allow electronic bonding but there is another possibility that could account for selection of Fe 54. I proposed that the H* has a superpositioned weak-interacting quantum state. Some of energy of a particular state of H* could pass to the nucleus of iron 54 via the w-waves (the proposed exchange boson in H* states as magnetronite). The selection then likely follow some reverse of the phat condensation that creates H*. The other isotopes don't react because the possible quantum states in their nuclei can not accept some of the energy from any one of many H* states. The specificity is due to a necessary matching of energy division to a quantum relationship. Remember possible magnetronite states of H* are proposed to be related as E= n*n*(~13.6 eV). Activation of a weak interacting state in iron 54 would then cause H* and Fe* to bond as magnecules. That bonding would not require the lost of an electron, so the energy produced could be less than the expected 7 keV required to eject a K shell electron from Fe. As explained before magnet to magnet bonding also creates an electric dipole which may account for the change in the charge to mass ratio which lead to the confusion of H*Fe* with Co55.
I found the data in the article link in post #14 synthesis-and-characterization-of-an-iron-pico-hydride-a-permanent-electric-dipo... Table 3 shows the reactive isotope is Fe-54. The mass produced is shown in fig 13 as mass 55. But rather than being radioactive Fe-55, there was no radiation above background level (bottom of page 12). Dufour expects as I did the energy release to be about would be need to eject the electron (7 keV) but measures 4.06 KeV (681MJ/mole Fe). The confusion with Co 55, Dufour explains as Fe 54 hydride have an effective electrical charge greater than e-. (page 13). Perhaps the measured value is low because the energy come off as an x-ray at about 7 keV. That is to say some of x-rays escape the device and are not detected as heat.
This reasoning is incomplete as the presence of H* virtually promotes iron to cobalt ( As shown by Dufour in Asti). Cobalt needs one more electron and of course the deepest one is missing!
But until somebody reproduces the experiment such reasoning is virtual too...
Do you have a link for (Dufour in Asti)? I am curious about the data. What would suggest cobalt 57 rather than iron 57 as the dominate result from iron 56?
I present some notes from Pico-Chemistry The possibility of new phases in some hydrogen-metal systems. Pdf. (see post #14). Dufour postulates “an electrical dipole, formed between an electron and a proton”, … could “penetrate into the inner electronic shells of the metal.” He discusses reaction conditions then proposed the result “A dipole … with a sizeable charge separation is thus formed between the proton and the electron and is attracted by the positive nucleus…” He proposes chemical state (a chemical bond) with an enthalpy of formation (680MJ/mole) Fe.
I can understand part of this from the point of view of magnecules. Magnecules are formed due to reaction conditions at the metal surface involving electromotive force and hydrogen. The weak interacting states which cause magnecules have an electrical dipole. The electrical dipole become a strong magnetic field when the w-wave penetrates the nuclear region. These magnetronite states are of such small size they may penetrate to inner electronic shells. The more energy in the state, the smaller it gets. Normal size exclusion prevents penetration of hydrogen but not necessarily these smaller states. But bonding is not expected because the K shell of Iron is filled. Bond theory requires and overlap of the hydrogen and iron orbitals but also that both orbitals have no more than two electrons. It seems an electron would need to be ejected from the k shell of iron to accommodate the electron of any magnetronite to allow bonding. I am using magnetronite to refer any mineral having hydrogen which has weak interacting quantum states.
From post #18 we get a k shell x-ray at 7057.98 eV. (Did I get this right?). The formula for the energy of various n levels for weak interacting quantum states of hydrogen is n*n*(13.5878925) eV. The closest match is n= 23 at 7188 eV. As with the photoelectron effect, the energy to eject an electron just needs to be above the energy that binds the k shell electron. If the x-ray above is the energy emitted when the electron is knocked out of it’s place and reabsorbed, then we have an approximate match to explain inner shell bonding of hydrogen to iron.
Let's reason by methodology. We need to eject the electron. Let’s use the auger effect as the method basis. The sequence then is something energetic (high energy photon substitute) creates an inner-shell vacancy. Then, pico-sized hydrogen bonds with the remaining inner-shell electron. As a high energy photon substitute, let’s use a hydrogen atom energized into weak interacting quantum state. These pico-chemical states are a result of weak interacting states superimposed on the hydrogen atom. The formula for these states is E=n*n*hv. At n=1, hv is approximate the ionization energy of hydrogen. The energy and higher n states are created by phats. There are 240 accessible states between hydrogen ionization and neutron decay (13.5878925 ev to 0.7824260693 MeV specific to within 2.0E-5 ev). Luckily, that works because condition at the
metal surface (free electrons and hydrogen) are right for the formation of pico-sized hydrogen. So pico-size hydrogen penetrates to the inner-shell electron to cause the reaction. So, there would be a reaction of a sufficiently energetic pico-sized hydrogen with the inner shell to which causes the eject the electron and bonding.
The energy released then comes from magnecule fusion (an autocatalytic reaction) or from the chemical reaction that started the method sequence.
Okay I just looked at the iron hydride pico-chemical thread. I can make sense of it except that chemical bonding rules say that 1) the hydrogen and inner shell iron orbital needs to overlap (they do) but 2) both orbital can only have two electrons. The iron inner orbital are filled (two electron per orbital), so three (the other from hydrogen) is too many. If it were not for that an exothermic bonding reaction would be possible. Rule violations happen, but usually there is a reason. Why would this happen?
Reality isn't the question, I believe pico-chemistry/magnecules increase the chance of nuclear reactions, working as described. Civilian practicality, priority of development, ease of engineered efficiency, convenience, speed of producing a public product and diversity of potencial applications are the real questions. To me pico-chemical reactions are enough alone to satisfy all of the worlds energy urges, as I have read about it. Just because compact Pu fission (example) is possible doesn't mean it is the solution for everything energy. Sometimes something less dense and more flexable pushes all the right buttons, and deep pico bonds are still a couple orders of magnitude more dense in energy content than H oxidations. Have a restful weekend.
Our point of view differs only in that you believe in hydrino formation releasing energy and I see the decay or reaction of the pico-chemicals as releasing the energy. I have shown where this new fuel source originates. I am exploring this fuel which for now I call immobilized antimatter, IAM. Thanks, you have a restful weekend also.
When you say "magnecule fusion" are you refering to the same pico-chemical process Dufour is or actual nuclear fusion?
Dufour suggested a process (pico-chemical) that causes polarization within the nucleus which hence causes a lowering of the Coulomb barrier. Magnecules are evidence of such a polarization. Elements in their natural or ground state can not bond like magnets. But by increasing weak force interactions in the nucleus, the nucleus becomes polarized. The movement of electrons relative to that polarization causes a magnetic field strong enough to cause bonding between atoms as if the atoms where magnets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0
These pico-chemical states are a result of weak interacting states superimposed on the hydrogen atom. The formula for these states is E=n*n*hv. At n=1, hv is approximate the ionization energy of hydrogen. There are 240 accessible states between hydrogen ionization and neutron decay (13.5878925 ev to 0.7824260693 MeV specific to within 2.0E-5 ev).
Magnecule fusion is actual fusion. One can prove fusion by deriving balanced nuclear reactions using mass balance and accounting for chemical and magnecule reactions. The total change by reaction is chemical, pico-chemical and transmutation. By removing the chemical and magnecule reactions, the remaining change is transmutation. One has only the to apply stoichiometry and one gets data derived balanced nuclear equations. Those equations are equations of state. Think about how impossible it should be to derive (from data) precise and accurate primary and secondary nuclear reaction equations if the reactions are not real. https://patentimages.storage.g…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf
