Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
The most remarkable takeaway of US20140034116A1 is that the inventors point out that using ionized 1/1 (light) Hydrogen, only two Nickel isotopes are suitable: Ni62 and Ni64. This is particulary interesting since they published this in their provisional patent application back in August 2012. Rossi and Defkalion started talking about specific Nickel isotopes being essential during the course of spring 2013. Rossi amended his claims in April 2013 claiming Ni62 is essential for the overall proces. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: There is no bibliography on this patent. This is odd. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
From: Teslaalset The most remarkable takeaway of US20140034116A1 is that the inventors point out that using ionized 1/1 (light) Hydrogen, only two Nickel isotopes are suitable: Ni62 and Ni64. This is particulary interesting since they published this in their provisional patent application back in August 2012. Rossi and Defkalion started talking about specific Nickel isotopes being essential during the course of spring 2013. Rossi amended his claims in April 2013 claiming Ni62 is essential for the overall process. Yes, that detail is interesting ... maybe even prescient ... but it would only be patentable IF (big if) in the specifications, the inventor described a reactor which had actually been reduced to practice (instead of being an educated guess based on theory) and in which the enriched isotopes had been actually used, instead of the bulk metal. It is not possible in US patent law to claim priority for use of a bulk element by specifying an active alloy in that element. This application reads like the inventor is trying to patent a theory. It is almost a certainty that this application will not be granted as drafted. OTOH - the inventor has nuclear industry credentials, and has written a book, of sorts... but none of that inspires confidence that he has written an enforceable patent. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/15/zuppero_solar_system/ http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4534 attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Jones etal-- Ni-62 and Ni64 are not a big constituents of natural Ni--Ni-58 is the largest at about 68.3%. However, they both provide about 4.5% of the natural Ni isotopes. Both Ni-62 and Ni-64 would transmute to stable Cu -63 and Cu-65 upon absorption of a proton. There may be no gammas emitted. On the other hand transmutation of Ni-58 to Cu-59 would likely involve gammas (maybe as high as 1.3 Mev associated with Cu-59 decay to Ni-59 which itself is radioactive with no direct gamma emission, only positron emission with its subsequent annililation with an electron producing the .51 Mev back to back gammas. Back to back .51 Mev gammas would also be present in the Cu-59 decay and could easily be detected with coincidence gamma counters. The in-growth of Cu isotopes may not disturb the lattice too much given their low population in the lattice. Spin coupling of the proton to the various Ni isotope may be the key to getting the reactions to occur. This effect should be fleshed out by those folks that can handle the math. I could but it would take me some time to bone up on the wave functions and handling them. However, it is apparently not new math but was done by Belinfante in 1908 in his theory of spin momentum. I bet Focardi understood this spin coupling and figured out what temperatures would encourage the reaction of Ni62 and Ni64 separate from Ni58. The Cat in Rossi's E-Cat is probably the special sauce that produces the correct coupling at a given temperature. In addition to temperature Rossi's device may include a controlled oscillating magnetic field. A further refinement might be to enrich the Ni to have more Ni62 and Ni64. This may be the heart of Rossi's Hot Cat design. A separate high temperature lattice may also be involved such a a W-Ni lattice. Does anyone have an idea how you would do such enrichment for Ni? I would start with chemical separation based on photo sensitive Ni organic compounds that respond to differing wave lengths of light for the various Ni isotopes. It may be fairly simple. One should investigate the Company that is making Rossi's Ni powder to see if they do isotope enrichment work. Bob The - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR From: Teslaalset The most remarkable takeaway of US20140034116A1 is that the inventors point out that using ionized 1/1 (light) Hydrogen, only two Nickel isotopes are suitable: Ni62 and Ni64. This is particulary interesting since they published this in their provisional patent application back in August 2012. Rossi and Defkalion started talking about specific Nickel isotopes being essential during the course of spring 2013. Rossi amended his claims in April 2013 claiming Ni62 is essential for the overall process. Yes, that detail is interesting ... maybe even prescient ... but it would only be patentable IF (big if) in the specifications, the inventor described a reactor which had actually been reduced to practice (instead of being an educated guess based on theory) and in which the enriched isotopes had been actually used, instead of the bulk metal. It is not possible in US patent law to claim priority for use of a bulk element by specifying an active alloy in that element. This application reads like the inventor is trying to patent a theory. It is almost a certainty that this application will not be granted as drafted. OTOH - the inventor has nuclear industry credentials, and has written a book, of sorts... but none of that inspires confidence that he has written an enforceable patent. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/15/zuppero_solar_system/ http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4534
RE: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Original Message- From: Bob Cook Ni-62 and Ni64 are not a big constituents of natural Ni--Ni-58 is the largest at about 68.3%. However, they both provide about 4.5% of the natural Ni isotopes. Both Ni-62 and Ni-64 would transmute to stable Cu -63 and Cu-65 upon absorption of a proton. There may be no gammas emitted. On the other hand transmutation of Ni-58 to Cu-59 would likely involve gammas (maybe as high as 1.3 Mev associated with Cu-59 decay to Ni-59 which itself is radioactive with no direct gamma emission, only positron emission with its subsequent annililation with an electron producing the .51 Mev back to back gammas. Bob, In general you are asking too much of spin coupling to participate in proton addition reactions. There is an energy gap of at least 6 orders of magnitude. And in the end you still cannot account for copper ash which should be extremely radioactive but is not. Far better IMHO to look mass-energy conversion somewhere else.
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Jones-- As I pointed out the Cu-63 and Cu-65 is not radioactive--its stable. Cu-59 is radioactive as I pointed out. However it decays to a non-gamma emitting Ni-59 isotope with a significant half-life for beta+ decay. Spin energy fractionation occurs in small units and has many potential particles capable of spin changes available for participation, including electrons. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:21 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR Original Message- From: Bob Cook Ni-62 and Ni64 are not a big constituents of natural Ni--Ni-58 is the largest at about 68.3%. However, they both provide about 4.5% of the natural Ni isotopes. Both Ni-62 and Ni-64 would transmute to stable Cu -63 and Cu-65 upon absorption of a proton. There may be no gammas emitted. On the other hand transmutation of Ni-58 to Cu-59 would likely involve gammas (maybe as high as 1.3 Mev associated with Cu-59 decay to Ni-59 which itself is radioactive with no direct gamma emission, only positron emission with its subsequent annililation with an electron producing the .51 Mev back to back gammas. Bob, In general you are asking too much of spin coupling to participate in proton addition reactions. There is an energy gap of at least 6 orders of magnitude. And in the end you still cannot account for copper ash which should be extremely radioactive but is not. Far better IMHO to look mass-energy conversion somewhere else.
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni-62 and Ni64 are not a big constituents of natural Ni--Ni-58 is the largest at about 68.3%. However, they both provide about 4.5% of the natural Ni isotopes. Both Ni-62 and Ni-64 would transmute to stable Cu -63 and Cu-65 upon absorption of a proton. There may be no gammas emitted. On the other hand transmutation of Ni-58 to Cu-59 would likely involve gammas (maybe as high as 1.3 Mev associated with Cu-59 decay to Ni-59 which itself is radioactive with no direct gamma emission, only positron emission with its subsequent annililation with an electron producing the .51 Mev back to back gammas. I'm wondering about three things that might mitigate the detection of penetrating radiation. First would be successful enrichment to 62Ni and 64Ni to a high degree. Second would be the possibility that 62Ni and 64Ni are special and participate in the reaction in a way that other isotopes of nickel do not (recall that this was a topic of discussion for many weeks at one point). Third is the possibility that in recent cases where there was a vigorous NiH reaction and someone there to detect radiation (e.g., the recent Elforsk test), perhaps the detector was not configured to detect at levels that would have been relevant. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Eric-- A key question is how easy it is to enrich Ni. This should be easy to answer. Note in my comment I suggested that particular organic Ni compounds may be selectively sensitive to tuned laser based on the isotope they contain and hence selective dissociation or other chemical reaction to accomplish separation. Do you remember when the topic was discussed before. I would like to review that thread. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni-62 and Ni64 are not a big constituents of natural Ni--Ni-58 is the largest at about 68.3%. However, they both provide about 4.5% of the natural Ni isotopes. Both Ni-62 and Ni-64 would transmute to stable Cu -63 and Cu-65 upon absorption of a proton. There may be no gammas emitted. On the other hand transmutation of Ni-58 to Cu-59 would likely involve gammas (maybe as high as 1.3 Mev associated with Cu-59 decay to Ni-59 which itself is radioactive with no direct gamma emission, only positron emission with its subsequent annililation with an electron producing the .51 Mev back to back gammas. I'm wondering about three things that might mitigate the detection of penetrating radiation. First would be successful enrichment to 62Ni and 64Ni to a high degree. Second would be the possibility that 62Ni and 64Ni are special and participate in the reaction in a way that other isotopes of nickel do not (recall that this was a topic of discussion for many weeks at one point). Third is the possibility that in recent cases where there was a vigorous NiH reaction and someone there to detect radiation (e.g., the recent Elforsk test), perhaps the detector was not configured to detect at levels that would have been relevant. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A key question is how easy it is to enrich Ni. This should be easy to answer. Note in my comment I suggested that particular organic Ni compounds may be selectively sensitive to tuned laser based on the isotope they contain and hence selective dissociation or other chemical reaction to accomplish separation. This is far from anything I have experience with or know about, although I can envision how it might work. Do you remember when the topic was discussed before. I would like to review that thread. Unfortunately it wasn't a single thread that I can point you to. The detail related to one of Rossi's patent applications and to a counterclaim made by Defkalion, as well as a similar but distinct claim made by Defkalion in relation to different isotopes of nickel. In Rossi's application, I do not recall the specific isotopes, although I suspect they were 62Ni and 64Ni. The key point of the discussion was that some isotopes might be more reactive than others. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Eric-- Thanks for the lead. I will do a little digging myself. There appear to be many Ni complex organic compounds that should have bond resonances to C atoms that depend upon the mass of the Ni isotope. Tuned electric or magnetic excitation should be able to selectively break the bond for any particular Ni isotope. I do not think separation would be difficult. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A key question is how easy it is to enrich Ni. This should be easy to answer. Note in my comment I suggested that particular organic Ni compounds may be selectively sensitive to tuned laser based on the isotope they contain and hence selective dissociation or other chemical reaction to accomplish separation. This is far from anything I have experience with or know about, although I can envision how it might work. Do you remember when the topic was discussed before. I would like to review that thread. Unfortunately it wasn't a single thread that I can point you to. The detail related to one of Rossi's patent applications and to a counterclaim made by Defkalion, as well as a similar but distinct claim made by Defkalion in relation to different isotopes of nickel. In Rossi's application, I do not recall the specific isotopes, although I suspect they were 62Ni and 64Ni. The key point of the discussion was that some isotopes might be more reactive than others. Eric
[Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
US20140034116A1 patent application published regarding a description of LENR methods to generate energy, including the options to generate electricity. The inventors actually don't mention the term LENR, but indicated that the actual physical effects are still unknown. Ni - H is part of it, but the claims are much wider regarding the potential combinations of elements. http://www.google.com/patents/US20140034116/http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Fpatents%2FUS20140034116%2Furlhash=0aBv_t=tracking_disc
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Improved link: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140034116 On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: US20140034116A1 patent application published regarding a description of LENR methods to generate energy, including the options to generate electricity. The inventors actually don't mention the term LENR, but indicated that the actual physical effects are still unknown. Ni - H is part of it, but the claims are much wider regarding the potential combinations of elements. http://www.google.com/patents/US20140034116/http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Fpatents%2FUS20140034116%2Furlhash=0aBv_t=tracking_disc
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Teslaalset-- This Three-Body Association Reactions With Molecular Bonding reaction is another form of a electron screening reaction it seems. It seems to provide a mechanism for generating enough kinetic energy to overcome the repulsion of two positively charged particles. I have copied some pertinent discussion from the patent application below: [0051] Consider a Widely separated pair of reactants thermally at rest that can form a bond without regard to any electron between them. The energy difference between separated reactants and product ground state, E R, is the maximum reaction energy available. With the reactants initially far apart, the entire available reaction energy ER is all potential energy, and the potential well depth equals E R. [0052] Now let the two reactants also be electropositive, such as oxygen or nitrogen atoms, or such as carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (0) and each adsorbed on a metal catalyst such as palladium (Pd) or platinum (Pt). Carbon monoxide is adsorbed on a surface of atoms in an egg crate pocket. An oxygen atom is adsorbed on an adjacent egg crate pocket. If a thermal electron finds itself between the oxygen (0) and the carbon monoxide, the thermal electron between them causes the reaction. The electron between them causes the carbon monoxide to smash into the oxygen, literally, because electron is negative, the carbon monoxide and O are positive, and they attract strongly. The temperature of the smash is approximately 20,000 to 30,000 degrees Kelvin. The three-body reaction gently dampens the smashing by using the electron as the damper. The damped electron now has all the energy and was squeezed out like slippery water melon seed between fingers. The potential energy for these three bodies, an electron betWeen tWo positives, is always attractive. This positive-negative-positive three-body configuration is the starting point and initial condition for a three-body association reaction. Nickel may also work as a catalyst as well as a positively charge particle in a three bodied reaction as described above. I think this should be referred to as the slippery watermelon seed effect. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Teslaalset To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR Improved link: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140034116 On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: US20140034116A1 patent application published regarding a description of LENR methods to generate energy, including the options to generate electricity. The inventors actually don't mention the term LENR, but indicated that the actual physical effects are still unknown. Ni - H is part of it, but the claims are much wider regarding the potential combinations of elements. http://www.google.com/patents/US20140034116/
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
Teslaalset etal-- Axil's polarion and solarton's may be the surface negatively charged item that gets between the positive particles in the three body association reaction identified in this patent application. I would think that there should be some Bremstrahlung radiation noted from the high energy electron (slippery watermelon seeds) associated with the reactions. Axil's Vortex-1 email --- Friday, February 28, 2014 10:42 AM is pertinent to this discussion. The whole string of recent comments on the SPP process is also related. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Teslaalset To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR Improved link: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140034116 On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: US20140034116A1 patent application published regarding a description of LENR methods to generate energy, including the options to generate electricity. The inventors actually don't mention the term LENR, but indicated that the actual physical effects are still unknown. Ni - H is part of it, but the claims are much wider regarding the potential combinations of elements. http://www.google.com/patents/US20140034116/
RE: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
From: Bob Cook The potential energy for these three bodies, an electron between two positives, is always attractive. This positive-negative-positive three-body configuration is the starting point and initial condition for a three-body association reaction.Nickel may also work as a catalyst as well as a positively charge particle in a three bodied reaction as described above. * I think this should be referred to as the slippery watermelon seed effect. This is good digging Bob, and it looks like you are correct on the hidden IP tactic - but I think it should referred to as the watermelon man effect which is essentially a kind of mistaken identity. This is little more than a meal ticket for patent attorneys with a few crumbs for patent trolls. As with Mills theories, which he has tried to frame as patents with the same lack of clarity - this one is even more worthless in what it can protect. Theories are not patentable, even if absolutely correct. Devices and processes are patentable but they require detailed specifications, not operating theories. This is a theory without proper specifications. It will essentially protect nothing. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
There is no bibliography on this patent. This is odd. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
