Pretty sure it is an update.
jfloan173
Member
- Member since Oct 1st 2020
- Last Activity:
Posts by jfloan173
-
-
Wrangling over patent rights won't get any of us anywhere. Until the basic physics is worked out and becomes generally accepted, only then will we have some headway. One question I have is how on earth can the CNT system work in the gas phase when all the carefully structured CNT frameworks would be vaporised? Was this one of the simplistic objections to your scheme by patent examiners? @Wyttenbach''s SO(4) physics need to be evaluated - it is a very complex algorithm which calculates the most accurate values closest to reality surpassing the Standard Model and most other theories, the concept of multi-dimensionality is making real progress in our thinking, surpassing even Einstein and Sternglass's ideas. But then again, they didn't have the computing tech we now have for solving such complex algorithms.
Like I said elsewhere, smarter people will figure everything out once the patent issues. I will consider that success, even if nothing else happens., because once it is 'out there', it will evolve. I am not omniscient. Just observant and single-minded. Stubborn, if you will.
-
Whose eyes? What sort of demonstration? Emission of what? What does "MWCNT" mean?
Describe what you offered in somewhat more detail and I might be able to assist you.
USPTO. I have done this before, with another invention. Drive there (to the USPTO), drag the 150 pound first item into the USPTO. Show and tell. They were shocked it was not vaporware. I guess that happens a lot to them. I was mightily impressed with the people I interacted with. Patent was processed.
THIS time, no one wanted a 'sunburn'. (You will get a 'sunburn' from the gamma). Cowards.
MWCNT is a carbon nanotube with two or more concentric tubes. We try to shoot for two walls. Single walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) do not work at all.
I offered to combine a small amount of MWCNT's with D2O before their eyes, with a Geiger counter as a detector. So dry MWCNT's, plus known-source D2O; mix; measure with Geiger. Always gets some emission.
It even works with tap water sometimes, although less energetically. I say sometimes, because while it has always worked for me, it might not work in another geographic location. You can expect a total evaporation in an enclosed petri dish within 48 hours.
-
Display More
Actually, they could not do that, for reasons mostly beyond the scope of the discussion. It took days or weeks to prepare for a flight, and they had to have a designated field with a hanger. Eventually the army agreed to a demonstration at Fort Myer. It was a poor choice. There was not enough space. But anyway, Orville finally flew there on September 3, 1908. Wilbur had already flown in France on August 8, causing a big splash. These public tests did, finally, convince the world that the claims were true.
The patent office is not needed to prove reality. On the other hand you have to prove reality to get a patent. That is not normally needed but this invention appears to violate the known laws of physics.
A patent is needed if you are going to make money. Without a patent, when the public realizes the invention is real, every industrial corporation on earth will take it from you. No doubt many of them will try to take it anyway, but if you have a patent you can hire top-notch lawyers and sue them.
That is not a bit true as far as I know. It is not simple. I do not know anyone who can make a reliable cold fusion device. No one knows how to control it or scale it up.
The Wright brothers airplane was rather simple to produce. It had no market, other than wealthy young men willing to risk their lives. It killed most of the early pilots.
If anyone could do that we would soon be able to convince the patent office and every industrial corporation on earth that the invention is real. If anyone could produce 5 or 10 gadgets that produce 10 W reliably, on demand, with only a few watts input, I could use that to convince everyone in the world that the effect is real. No one I know is capable of doing anything like that. Some people claim they can do it but they are keeping their devices secret. I doubt they can actually do it.
We can do that. Low kilowatts now, higher soon. But we need money to do so. Making things that are safe and reliable costs money. Not megabucks, but more than I have. My dreams are filled with shoving out reactors off a C-130 ramp over northern Africa. And other places. No more dung burning.
-
I offered to create a simple emission source before their eyes, time and place of their choosing. MWCNT's and D2O. I did not hear back. Adds to the just go away theory.
-
i share the same opinion as you
i even suspect they are not granting patents intentionally..they are not stupid to the extent of not examining the physical evidence and reports!
LENR have huge impact on energy market and even rare gases and metals as they will be produced in huge quantities when this art is mastered.
Here is the thing. I do not see a displacement effect on energy production world wide. I see an evolution in the manner in which energy is created and distributed. No manpower losses need result, just a shift from lineman to installer / maintainer.
Sadly, I agree about intent. Vested interests might feel threatened, but it is a knee-jerk reaction. They will make more money, at lower cost, and not impact the environment. The paradigm will shift from brute force centralized production to distributed production. I would hope the existing energy distributors/producers would become the distributed energy manufacturers. Their costs will go from maintenance of high cost centralized production to a maintenance level highly distributed model, which will cost them less but will have a large force of retrained technicians that are highly distributed. There are strategic infrastructure benefits, but now, with the patent, anyone can do it. My hope.
-
... "Incidentally, it seems that the attorney now is a partner, too."
With assignment problem, it seems.
That was promptly resolved in DE's favor. They signed, and transferred their equipment back to us. This is why the 2656350 patent has three inventor names, all assigned to DE. Otherwise it would be individual inventors.
-
Nice pics, thanks jfloan173, what was the purpose of the water bottles? to receive the heat?
yes. We didn't expect anything to get exciting, but we were wrong.
-
We had / have decent equipment. In the case of the early liquid experiments, the best we could buy. I admit shielding was under-appreciated. We planned extensive shielding (many feet of concrete) after the incident, but then went to gas phase. In the gas phase experiment, we had 4 stage pumping, a great mass spec (QMG 420, 128 amu system, 16x300mm rods, 90 off axis detector). I was trying to borrow a mag sector mass spec with real resolution, but that didn't happen. This is a tough range for quads, really need a mag sector. But a month later everything was stolen.
-
more 3opposite side view pre burst.pdf4beaker exposed for better pic.pdf3opposite side view pre burst.pdf4beaker exposed for better pic.pdf5gammaX and neutron detector.pdf6closer view with neutron detector and gammaX.pdf7close beaker pic.pdf8water bottles between me and the sample pre burst.pdf9water bottle nearest to sample post burst.pdf
-
Well, the EU patent is a go. So we have that. EP2656350. Publishing 11 November 2020.
I was expecting you currently do 'gas only'. There is an increased number of positive phenomena that use Deuterium gas + catalyst(s) reported from many initiatives in the last few years.
I would not recommend any 'DYI home experiments' without understanding what high energy particles can be released and without having professional detection equipment and shielding present.I was expecting you currently do 'gas only'. There is an increased number of positive phenomena that use Deuterium gas + catalyst(s) reported from many initiatives in the last few years.
I would not recommend any 'DYI home experiments' without understanding what high energy particles can be released and without having professional detection equipment and shielding present.There is an entire lineup of patent apps building on a baseline.
Some pictures of the arrangement. The gas phase experiment I'll post tomorrow.2side view of system.pdf
-
jfloan173 Thanks very much for your summary, much appreciated.
Can you tell whether the current focus is on gas (D2/H2) or on liquid (D2O/H2O) implementations?Gas phase only now. The D2O phase was as much me being cautious and it being simpler to start with. I hoped that D2O would be a rate limiter. It was. After getting more attuned to the reaction's characteristics, we only use D2 now. D2O is still useful for anyone wanting to 'do this at home' as it were. Just make sure the mass of cnts is around 1mg. Expect to do it a few times before finding some cnts that are active, and even then just a few. Assume all commercial cnts come pre-contaminated with H. We don't do it that way any more.
Just a quick mention regarding H2O. I did what I had expected to be a 'no emission by design' experiment, a set of ten. Just tap water and less than 1mg of cnts each. Two were emitting. I was shocked, until I remembered all 'tap water' and pond water and the like has HDO as well as D2O. Try it yourselves.
-
I found this examiner's arguments antagonistic and facile.
Where are the neutrons? It's only fusion if there are neutrons. He says.
There are only neutrons if the samples are externally stimulated, something we were avoiding.
Calorimetry? It is not a cold fusion experiment using an electrolyte.
I was then damned for not telling them what the electrolyte was.
Very antagonistic and close-minded.
I can hardly read this examiners comments. I let the attorney's deal with it.
-
Seldon spun off a new corporation, C3L. All activity past the initial discovery was done under the color of C3L. Seldon's business was strictly water purification, and C3L's business was strictly development of energy-related products. It can get confusing.
-
jfloan173 : Would it be possible for you to briefly summarize what happened with the discovery of Seldom Technologies between 2005 and current date? It seems it was abandoned for quite some years and it has been revived recently?
Certainly. First point to be made was that the project was never abandoned. It was throttled both by the fact that we were self-funding, and by our inability to get the USPTO to understand that it didn't use electrolytes (they insisted we had to) and that we weren't using electrical stimulation. Because it flew in the face of all known physics, it couldn't exist. We have spent a fortune trying to get them to understand that is was a new approach. We are still going through the appeals quagmire, but believe we will prevail.
2006 was spent largely with continuing work at LLNL. This was liquid phase D2O in with cnt's a lab there, then electrically stimulated cnts with DC, pulsed DC, and AC.
2007-2008, and maybe some part of 2009 was spent doing gas phase experiments in another lab in Oregon. The gas phase experiments were much more difficult and equipment-centric. There, the objective was to see if we were producing He. We got the data over a period of some months, and we were producing Helium. All the equipment was stolen, which was a major loss.
From then until 2017 or so, efforts were focused on what would comprise a practical reactor design; it's controls; starting and stopping the reaction, making sure it was safe, etc. A lot of work, thousands of hours.
This lead to a reappraisal of the approach, and several deep design iterations. We are four generations past the initial concepts and tests, +/-.
Of course, I cannot discuss this further until we are protected. This is intended to be a product, not an academic exercise.
-
Good to know. We sent out all of the samples in their various iterations to a lab to do characterizations of the emissions. Early on, after the film test, we bought a He3 neutron detector, a nice Ortec Gamma/X detector, a Canberra MCA, and all the associated gear. A week or so into data collection, we had an energetic 'event' that killed almost everything. We were using a 50mg cnt sample and relatively strong lights (photo-shoot floods) for illumination, and taking as many pictures as we could. It was a major setback. I was burned badly. It is why I emphasize 1mg of cnts.
-
Oh, I left out one thing; the dissociation of water. At the time, I only knew of one mechanism, electrolysis. The only problem was that required an electrolyte and current. Since we did not apply a current between two electrodes (although some kind of electrolyte might have been present inadvertently), that one seemed not to be a good fit. I later learned about radiolysis while we were duplicating the tests eight months later at LLNL. That left ionizing radiation. We could measure helium being produced, we had deuterium, so the emissions implied alpha particles were being generated, and hence gamma-rays. Also, the D2O self-warmed. If you weren't careful, you could lose all of the liquid D2O quite promptly. We thereafter focused on gas phase D2.
-
I hope this answers some questions, and prompts more.
-
That was all in the early Fall of 2005. Both samples still exist. I know one has never been replenished with D2O. I wanted to see how long it would keep emitting. MWCNT's retain hydrogen, apparently for at least 15 years, as the sample I have is still emitting. It resides in a block of lead, and is checked periodically. I have not exposed that sample to anything more energetic than room lighting, and twice direct sunlight. Emissions increase (double) in direct sunlight.
I do know that exposing the cnts to energetic photons produced neutrons, which essentially broke the cnts to carbon mush; not cnts any more. I used a 254nm UV lamp. Electrical fields (AC and DC) seem to limit the life of these deuterated cnts. Strongish magnetic fields (2-3T) attract cnts. Do not let the magnet come in contact with the cnts; it will become a permanent condition (non-geological timeframe). mwcnts immersed in CCl4 behave interestingly, particularly when those same magnets are applied to the exterior of the vessel.
-
I had a quad ms, but it was unable to see hydrogen, either H or H2. It really only became reliable at mass 4. I did not have a Geiger counter, and wasn't there yet, mentally, to think I would need one. I talked my dentist out of ten x-ray film packs (the water-tight white plastic things they used to put in your mouth, very uncomfortable). I took two 50ml beakers, placed 10mg of the 'cleaned' cnts in each, and about 20-25ml of D2O in each. There was a semi-elaborate setup, but in essence I put one film pack under each beaker on a 2x4 piece of pine, and left it overnight. I put the rest of the packs in my desk (about 300m from the experiment). The next day I brought the two 'exposed' packs and two 'unexposed' packs to the dentist, had them developed, with the result that two packs were exposed and two were not. We repeated this a fair number of times (maybe thirty, it's in the log). Had to buy the rest of the packs, the dentists was open handed only to a point.
