Posts by Longview

    I cannot know about everyone. Eventually I will study Lipiniski.


    First, let's clarify the spelling for those interested: it is Lipinski. The WIPO application of 2014 that I, and others, have given links to over the years, now unfortunately devolves to the Google Patentscope version. The original was a relative pleasure to read, the Patentscope character-read version loses a lot of tabular collation, images and other important features that made the 130 plus pages relatively easy. Perhaps you, Jed Rothwell, with your great skills and resources as curator of the LENR CANR database can dredge up the original. Several, including TC/THH appear to drastically misread the considerable efforts of the Lipinskis. Their efforts initially are seen to first replicate and confirm the very high energy proton beam to lithium target gives a very low cross-section published by Herb et al in 1938. They go on to show that by contrast to Herb, much much lower energy protons give much higher alpha yields in the expected MeV ranges, provided energies are LOW (< 3500 eV) and that Li targets are positively and/or alternately electrically biased. And the Lipinski results, as has been mentioned here, apparently occur without the expected (says Peter Ekstrom) gamma accompaniment. It concords with a notion that "how excitation or activation occurs, determines to some extent the nature and spectrum of the products". Perhaps no surprise to chemists, physical chemists and biochemists. Apparently difficult for some of those versed in, or wedded to, plasma and /or collisional physics, otherwise often designated "hot fusion".


    As has been mentioned here, the "Q" for many of these Lipinski reactions ranges up to several thousand. "Q" here is an approximate surrogate for COP.

    Lipinski's should also lift their patent for sucessfull replicators: nobody would want to invest into (research of) technology, which is protected from its very beginning and it doesn't promise good usage.

    They are cautiously inviting replication. The Lipinski's history includes Hubert's creation of the code for cc:mail which was purchased by Lotus Development which itself ultimately was purchased by IBM. The huge level of detailed disclosure from their WIPO patent application show very good knowledge of USPTO and the legal matrix of US patent litigation. I am fairly certain that they are financially much stronger and self-sufficient by comparison with many LENR / AHE present day pioneers. If by "lift their patent" you mean increase the level of disclosure, fine. If you mean that they should hand over patent rights to replicators..... that would be crazy.

    This is not being suppressed at the patent level. This is more BS.

    My impression is that if and when there is suppression it is now largely at the individual examiner level. Hot fusion biased examiners from the F-P days are now largely retired. There still may be some categorical "class" red flags at the USPTO, so that If an application avoids the titling and focusing terminology as "cold fusion", and if it does not loudly claim fusion per se, applications are now often accepted and patents effectively claiming LENR / CANR / CF are now granted. That is, there is a good chance to gain LENR patents through the USPTO today, if one is careful with claims and class title. (Longview not an patent agent nor patent attorney)

    As I've stated before, I fully believe real fusion will beat so-called cold fusion to have a working plant.

    In some real sense that contest has long been over. One might benefit by doing the comparative calculations for a cubic meter of the core of our Sun and say a roughly equivalent mass of a laser driven inertial confinement system for hot fusion research, say NIF (USA National Ignition Facility). In summary: solar core output is reportedly 276.5 watts per cubic meter. Solar core pressure: over 250 billion atmospheres. Core temperature: 15.7 million kelvin. Solar "time of confinement": continuous over billions of years v. 6 ns for an NIF shot. Peak temperature in NIF reportedly ~50 million kelvin (although others here have insisted it has reached much higher temperatures). Pressure in NIF: 300 billion atmospheres at peak. Working mass in NIF: up to 0.01 g. Working mass in solar core of one cubic meter (core mass at 150 g/cm3 i.e. 1.5 X 108 g or 150 tonnes / m3).


    Now compare those two sets of estimates with say the "triple product extension" (time x pressure x temperature) of the Lawson Criterion described on the web. That criterion in a side by side comparison gives one little confidence that inertial confinement hot fusion can exceed breakeven on any sustainable basis. Needless to say the modest output of less than one third of a kW from 150 tonnes of our Sun is, from a human perspective, at least sustainable, quite stable and requires zero maintenance. Of course, to be fair, we would demand that any LENR device show a substantial COP. If the solar core were in that contest, it would likely be considered dead at a COP of so little over 1.000000 as to be rejected.

    I am fairly certain they are not seeking investors at the street level. Some day, perhaps with an IPO we'll see the usual "forward looking statements" as they "go public". They are likely still quite a ways from that, and don't need the retail investing public.... yet.


    I agree it would be good to have a quick summary of the best of their results, and for the unified gravity idea perhaps a simplified visually-aided explanation. One weakness of the unified gravity idea is that the prediction for a low energy "window" does not (to me) seem to really correspond to the observed range of proton energies giving high Q results. I am sure their attempt to explain that could, if successful, be widely appreciated.

    http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it…TATIONS/S10_O2_Lipson.pdf


    Interesting parallels might be seen if the electron bombardment were at much lower energies as in the Lipinski work. One may ask, what exactly would be a mechanism underlying a low energy window? One should note that the highest UGC / Lipinski Qs (3000 to 7000) were seen when the targets were positively biased, and where the targets potentials were rapidly switched in potential, again with a positive bias (IIRC).

    people who publish long tomes but do not summarize them

    It seems you may be missing the nature of this 141 page document. It is a patent application! I assume you might have read some of those in your life (?) In this case it is a very detailed one, perhaps necessary in view of the possible immense significance of the technology. The great length is fortuitous for us, not an impediment.


    Most patent applications, and patents themselves are not considered to be in the scientific literature per se. It is the reason why a good search on technology in the literature is quite incomplete without also searching patent literature.

    I have read it, and some 2 years ago I reported here some of the details. I have just now reviewed some of the key points. I recall back then, the presumed precursor to THHnew warned that such results are subject to artifact.... and indeed that is possible. But now with disappointment I see his presumed successor recently wrongly assigning "300 keV" protons to the Lipinskis protocol.


    If people don't bother to even get the main points of a new technology, or its patent claims, then what attention should we pay to their blandishments concerning such technology?


    I assure everyone here that it is worth the read. It is not difficult reading, particularly if one skims over the unified gravity theory portion. And that is not to disparage their theory, it is just not required to understand the practical import of their results.


    http://www.unifiedgravity.com/…014189799-PAMPH-330-2.pdf

    These gammas are penetrating. Usually gamma emission is omnidirectional. Are gammas in case of induced emission of a metastable isomer omnidirectional as well, or are they anisotropic? If the gammas in the Podrog patent above are omnidirectional, a lot of them will escape, either without heating the gas that drives the turbine, or heating the shielding that is in place to make the device safe. (In the general case gamma emission from an atom oriented in a field is anisotropic, but without taking special measures to constrain atoms in this way, the anisotropic emission profile is smeared over a full solid angle for the ensemble.)


    The mean free path of a 0.7 MeV photon (lower energy) in air is 110 meters. So even if there is some control over the direction of the photon emission, the photons will still mostly interact with the turbine housing.

    With due respect Eric, the block diagram does not necessarily embody the actual process in (proposed?) practice. Quite likely an omnidirectional source of gammas can be surrounded nearly completely by an absorption medium. That medium itself might well have a density of over a thousand times that in air, and hence a far lower mean free path. Liquid water, superheated high pressure steam, argon above critical point and so on. That medium may then do the work directly or more likely through heat exchange with a suitable working fluid.


    I intend none of that to say that I believe in any aspect of the disclosure.

    May I suggest simply reading and suspending judgement, rather than categorizing as "Steornish" or whatever other categorization is tempting. Best at this point to regard it as possible new information. The use of National accelerator (including a NASA one at Huntsville AL) facilities is not necessarily an effort to gain the cachet of the particular university that may house such a facility, but more likely an effort to avail themselves of the high level of instrumentation and to gain the more precisely selectable levels of proton beam energies reliably available at such facilities. There are also possible safety aspects more easily monitored at such accelerator facilities, since there may be other forms of radiation accompanying such reactions.


    It has been some time since the Lipinskis reportedly reproduced the necessary equipment in their own corporate laboratory near Palo Alto, CA. The Lipinski's have likely a fairly deep well of their own funding, BTW.


    Judging from the prejudicial comments made by Axil eg. "LENR is not fusion", it "Axil" may not be the entity best to judge anything relating to LENR or to judge the Lipinskis' efforts.... sorry to report. I suggest individuals go to the effort of reading the WIPO application themselves. (The 2014 WIPO application is the "amazingly long" document MY claims to refer to). It is quite detailed, appears to reveal nearly every detail involved in their very interesting findings. Again, regard the theoretical material on pages 12 through 20 as being only tangential, and perhaps irrelevant, to understanding their results. And by the way, the "300 keV" was their effort to reproduce the original proton to lithium results reported by Herb et al in Physical Review, 48, 118 (1935). The Lipinskis showed the same disappointing results at such high energies, in stark contrast to their much more productive results at much lower energies.


    Here is the link once again:

    http://www.unifiedgravity.com/…014189799-PAMPH-330-2.pdf

    There is a night and day difference between the disclosures of UGC v. the obfuscation in Rossi's "output". Read the Lipinski's 2014 WIPO application. 140 pp. There is so much detail one may be tempted to get distracted when reading through that application-- the most impressive results are toward the end. As usual, I suggest letting their theory stand on its own and simply go to the extensive empirical results that only begin some 20 pp into the document. The UGC / Lipinski disclosures are very detailed, as should be required in any serious patent application, as I understand it.

    polyneutrons was invented to explain

    Well darn it. I thought we had something with the multiple neurons. But is was just neutrons. That itself is interesting, but not a source of bot intelligence I suspect..... Thanks to all the bots here with their good humored banter. We can still speculate on the ability of very cold neutrons to assemble into natural aggregates, the smallest of which might be a tetrad, that is the points of a tetrahedron.

    Profile reads:

    THHuxleynew Master, Member since Jan 18th 2017, Posts 1,426


    I suspect THHuxleynew has called Rossi a fraud more often than the total posts I've made. Posting the same thing shouldn't accumulate points. I neither care about nor want a label. particularly one so inappropriate.

    Yes, but read my post for a subtle hint: THH has had other names here. The powers that be have seen fit to transfer his points to the newer identity, at least twice. It is an artifact of some judgments being made that likely have a rationale, even if in retrospect perhaps not the wisest one.

    nearly 84 I'm labeled a "student."

    Looking at THHuxleynew's label of "master." I wonder if the requirement is related to how insulting one can be about Rossi. Also, I wonder what is the point of these labels.

    Perhaps you know that the designations of "student", "professional", "master" and so on are automatically derived from one's activities here at the Forum. Huxley is perhaps unique in undergoing some identity shifts here, but he deserves the designation both from the automatic process and from his apparent steadfast commitment to evidence-based science. He has made that many posts and received that many "likes" over the years, reaching the 10,000 points which I guess to be the threshold for "master".


    It does not take long to get to "professional", so I suggest you will get there soon enough. Another path might be to become a "Verified User", which does not sound too important, but is granted to a fairly select few, who are personally known to the administrators, I deduce.

    If I read this correctly, it is the pioneer (Piantelli) of the technology who is being denied a patent on grounds of inadequacy and interference being presented by his successor, AR. There are few venues for appeals in the USA for such a judgement, I wonder if there is an appeals process in Europe that might re-examine this decision. All of a sudden, Rossi appears to have the upper hand, he has an experienced legal team, he has coralled many, if not all of the relevant claims and can make what may be a convincing claim of "reduction to practice" whether he actually did or not. This is the mistake of Darden, Cherokee, IH, giving up the litigation, and hence essentially allowing a wrong to propagate and be used a precedent and proof for future litigation. Over the longer term, and perhaps fortunately, the marketplace does not care if the technology has a patent, it only cares if the technology works. Perhaps it is just that patenting anything in LENR is to remain difficult. Lesson: If you are trying to save the planet through technology, you should not necessarily expect big rewards in this life.

    No problem, but what has that to do with the Primakoff Effect? And for that matter, magnetic influences on LENR do not necessarily suggest axions are directly involved. Samarium cobalt is not only a strong ferromagnet, but is very likely a potent catalyst for chemical reactions, since each of its components is as well. We would have to dissociate these catalytic effect(s) from the strong ferromagnetism before even concluding that one or the other, or both were operating. Then we would still have an immense effort to support axion involvement.


    LENR does not appear to require exotic explanations. The likely reactions are quite favorable from overall enthalpy considerations. The problem is the activation energy, which in a strictly thermal collisional regime is very difficult to overcome. This is exactly the regime in which directed magnetic, directed electrostatic and pulsed electromagnetic fields might be expected to undermine / overcome such a large activation barrier.

    Surely, so the focus is clearly on short-lived daughter nuclides. ULM (<7 m/sec) neutrons are supposed to be a source for such nuclides. Those decay energetically, or not? And have they been studied much? Is the energy yield from the short term decays inherently too weak to do work?


    There must be simple means to classify and study such neutrons and especially their very short lived products.

    In my opinion, the road to a deeper understanding of the LENR reaction lays in the theory of Axions and the Primakoff effect.


    Let's have a bit more of this, please. I deduce from the Feynman diagrams for the Primakoff Effect, that show high energy gammas, ones whose mass energy equivalence meets or exceeds the subatomic particles in question. That would make it very hot fusion.... entirely the province of stellar cores or the hottest experiments possible (if that).


    On the other hand, it appears that axions are in an energy range of a few micro eV / c2 And hence far too low to easily account for the missing required mass in neutron synthesis from proton + electron interactions in the mesothermal domain of LENR, that is the axions would have to assemble and add within a very short space/time window to bring the resonance to stability / constructive collapse.

    The experiments he has conducted show (he thinks) unexpectedly high fusion rates from Li bombarded with protons at about 300keV. He claims some sort of resonance at 307keV that promotes much higher fusion probability.

    Where are you taking this from? I assume you may refer to the Lipinski team, "he" and "he thinks". But, if it is the UGC WIPO application experiment series, where is this "300keV"?


    If it is father and son Lipinski "he" you refer to, their theory predicts a resonance at 223 eV. That's eV NOT keV. Perhaps they predicted another resonance at 307 keV?


    Regarding the Lipinskis and their UGC theory, I suspect that patent disclosures seeking to gain patentablility and exclusivity in such a fundamental area, are best advised to find fundamental theory that is both explanatory and predictive. To some extent it appears that the Lipinski abstractions at least begin to serve that purpose, with all due respect to what appears to be excellent empirical work in several very highly qualified USA National Accelerator facilities. At least it allowed them the opportunity to gain patents in what might otherwise be thought of as CF or LENR work (to which they explicitly disclaim their phenomena have any connection).


    I have specifically and repeatedly invited anyone studying their very impressive WIPO disclosure to disregard the theory and attend to the methods and results.


    Hopefully these links will lead to a wider understanding of the actual claims:


    http://www.unifiedgravity.com/…014189799-PAMPH-330-2.pdf


    UGC Lipinski Replication

    high fusion rates from Li bombarded with protons at about 300keV.

    Sorry to say, you must not have carefully read the whole UGC document (over 100 pp. IIRC) . The maximum yields are/were seen at approximately 1000-fold lower energies than this. Last I looked at the document (I hope it has not been redacted, replaced or otherwise altered) the optimal yields were never seen at such high energies, quite the contrary. The optimal yields, IIRC, were in the 100 to 1000 eV range. The energies are/were sufficiently low to suggest that they might be taken out of an accelerator context and placed in a simple thermal excitation regime. The optimized low energy scenarios reported in great detail by the Lipinskis / UGC also involved modulated and often positive potentials applied to the lithium targets.

    Nanotools are not cheap

    Agreed, although GM (Geiger-Mueller) and scintillation counters can be had quite reasonably, used ones for the latter, lots around since scintillation counting in research in biochem and molecular biology is becoming rarer. In any case thanks for your interest bocjin.

    Nanotools are not cheap

    An afterthought: Chemistry, photochemistry, catalysis, etc. are relatively inexpensive "nanotools" known by more conventional names.

    Continuing: So perhaps a gas phase, low pressure system in which a specifically tuned photonic dissociation by homolytic cleavage of a suitable diatomic element (many available, but halogens are easiest or at least most well understood in this regard). Likewise, perhaps a source of protons or deuterons, also dissociated to supply at least P+ if not P-, where P represents H or D or even T. Since there are known microwave dissociations producing protons and / or hydride ions, there should be no reason why such species cannot be co-produced in the gas phase.


    To lower the kinetic order of such reactions from two party fluid collisions, consider the following: A condensed or solid phase for one or the other of the interacting components. For example a metal hydride, as we continue to see discussed here.


    But, the final caveat here is that many of the above ideas could, if successful, result in often short-lived radioisotopes, especially if it is by neutron addition. Most candidates seem to have quite energetic (MeV) beta decays as at least the first step. But, at least such results should be readily measured and quantified by GM or scintillation counting.