[Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-Cold-Fusion-Short.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-Cold-Fusion-Long.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-ColdFusion-RothwellEdit.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
quote from Amoco document This report will discuss briefly some of the early calorimetric experiments on cold fusion and in more detail, a single experiment just concluded.A closed cell electrolytic experiment has been conducted using a palladium cathode and platinum anode with accurate (+/-0.001 watt) calorimetric measurements. Results indicate a positive energy output of approximately 50 Kilojoules more than was input to the experiment through electrolysis current and heater current. The heat output was observed both as short term bursts of energy and as long term sustained production. Colorimetric calibration with an internal heat source showed essentially identical data before and after the electrolysis experiment. Material balance for palladium, water and lithium showed essentially no material had been consumed during the experiment. Tritium levels measured before and after electrolysis showed a factor of 3 increase that cannot be accounted for by concentration effects. It is important to note that if this experiment had been terminated after only one month the results would have shown no positive energy production. These data support the claims of several experimenters that anomalous heat and tritium are produced during electrolytic experiments using a hydrogen absorbing cathode. Further experiments are in progress to determine reproducibility and better define experimental parameters. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library…thwellEdit.pdf On 12/28/11, David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote: Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-Cold-Fusion-Short.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-Cold-Fusion-Long.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-ColdFusion-RothwellEdit.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
A cleaner copy is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf See also: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhisconstanthe.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
In ecatnews.com http://ecatnews.com/?p=1727, Paul Story commented: [The idea that we have two fraudulant entities outbidding each other in an open exchange of illusionary pricing – shouting at each other from opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean – is too bizarre to be given space except in recognising it as a small possibility.] We all want Rossi, or Defkalion, or somebody, to have the goods, but the comedy gold in such a situation as Story describes almost makes me hope they really are conmen.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
Paul Story wrote: [The idea that we have two fraudulant entities outbidding each other in an open exchange of illusionary pricing – shouting at each other from opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean – is too bizarre to be given space except in recognising it as a small possibility.] Add to that a scenario in which Defkalion has set up a large, expensive fake laboratory staffed by genuine experts being paid to pretend they are doing research. The whole notion is so implausible I can't imagine why anyone would take it seriously. This is real life, not a James Bond movie. People do not spend millions of dollars and hire dozens of people to commit fraud. Only skeptics far removed from reality would even imagine such a thing is possible. Rossi think he can outproduce and underprice industrial corporations. He is crazy, but not half as crazy as skeptics who seriously believe this whole thing is fake. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Add to that a scenario in which Defkalion has set up a large, expensive fake laboratory staffed by genuine experts being paid to pretend they are doing research. The whole notion is so implausible I can't imagine why anyone would take it seriously. This is real life, not a James Bond movie. People do not spend millions of dollars and hire dozens of people to commit fraud. I agree that the above scenario is not likely but it is not what skeptics propose so it's a straw man. What *is* likely is that Defkalion believed that they were going to receive a working core module from Rossi in June 2011. It is also likely that they prepared equipment and labs based on what they thought this core would be like according to specifications given to them by Rossi. I think that the only thing they ever built was a simulation of their anticipated final product. And the core was and still is missing. Either that or they are simply lying about a large and expensive laboratory of their own and a large staff of genuine experts. After all who has seen or talked to this large group of people? I don't know how you know or think you know how much Defkalion spent and what they built but be that as it may, it is an agreed on fact that they did not get a core from Rossi. When they didn't get the working core from Rossi, perhaps they decided to try to develop it because they believed Rossi had the technology, the technology was possible and they could develop it anew. That is essentially what they claim (on their web site forum) happened. My guess is that they have been unable to get anything to work and that this is the reason they have never shown a test in public or given a unit to anyone or any government agency to test. Only skeptics far removed from reality would even imagine such a thing is possible. Oh? Who could have imagined Steorn was a 21 million Euro fake when it first started? And the other spectacular tech frauds people keep listing here? Rossi think he can outproduce and underprice industrial corporations. He is crazy, but not half as crazy as skeptics who seriously believe this whole thing is fake. There is nothing crazy about doubting Rossi and Defkalion. Believing that they have what they say, are actively marketing it, but won't let anyone test it independently -- that's pretty crazy. And to think Rossi sold 1300 modules to some mystery client for an unspecified and unguessable purpose defies the imagination.
Re: [Vo]:National Security and Population Structure
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:13 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: My particular part in this effort was that I was to prototype a mass-marketable version of the PLATO network, which I did circa 1980. I won't go into the details of that network except to say that the contribution it would have made to national security would have been to connect smart rural homesteads with information, education and business resources that would contribute to their self-sufficiency. Yes, I know, this is starting to be realized today, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge since 1980, no? SNIP The reason you never heard of these things is that they were in direct conflict with Wall Street's interests and Wall Street made no secret of its hatred of Bill's vision. I succeeded in prototyping the mass market PLATO system and it was quashed by a mutinous middle management more identified with Wall Street than the crazy old koot in the executive suite. Unlike many of Bill's other technology directions in support of decentralized population structure, the PLATO system was poised to make immediate profits and roll out mass produced Macintosh equivalent network computers for a service that would have cost $40/month in 1980 dollars -- and that includes terminal rental. So it was particularly egregious that this technology was killed for the noble purpose of making America vulnerable to 9/11 type attacks. Hi Jim. I don't know if this is on topic for Vortex. As it happens, at one time, I studied the history of PLATO and what I read and heard wasn't the same as what you just recounted. PLATO was incredibly advanced for its time. But it wasn't Macintosh-like for the most part. There was no mouse and all menus were accessed with key stroke combinations or a very clumsy touch panel. Graphics were slow and 512 x 512. Color was experimental in 1980 if I read it right -- most displays were monochrome. Sound was experimental. And networking outside a small local area required expensive leased telephone lines in those days because there was no internet. Your figure of $40/month per station is unlikely because of the large and expert central staff required to maintain the system and provide user service over the network. What I do find strange and unfortunate is that the wonderful PLATO attention to user requirements, rapid fixing of system flaws and bugs, and it's user-friendly and unique menu structure have not been properly incorporated, even now, in modern systems. An example of that is that in many programs and apps, you can't return to a previous screen conveniently, use of keys and buttons isn't consistent from app to app, you can't get help, you can't always interrupt animations or computations, and you can't get a human to assist you -- all those items were almost taken for granted on the few properly run PLATO systems in the 1970's (for example the medical school PLATO). And nowadays, if you have trouble, you usually end up waiting hours to speak or chat with some Sam or Susie in a third world country who knows little, often provides disastrous advice (reformat your hard drive for example) and rarely helps with the current problem. On the other hand, we have Google and the internet to help us, something barely dreamed of in PLATO days. Bottom line, as technology advances, there is an increasing call for oppression to maintain the centralized population structure, just as there was to create it by moving the boomers out of their small midwestern towns, through universities and into the sterilizing urban environments in which they could not afford childrenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A -- but the attack on national security was conducted by Wall Street against the traditional American way of life. Any discussion, nowadays, about the threat to national security represented by attacks against centralized symbols like the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 is utter misdirection. I'm not sure what you're saying here. I am certain that militants would be only too happy to use a dirty bomb, biological or chemical weapons or a crude nuclear bomb to attack the government centers in Washington which are unsafely too close together. They would also love to attack any population center. But surely you're not saying you can do away with cities are you? Not with PLATO like systems? Not with any current technology. Maybe when we have unlimited energy? Anyway, those wanting to read more about PLATO can look at these links. And there was a PLATO reunion recently-- the fiftieth anniversary. Too bad it petered out and Control Data went belly up! David Woolley's web site and an excellent Youtube video panel discussion:http://thinkofit.com/plato/dwplato.htm Brian Dear's PLATO history page: http://platohistory.org/ PLATO at Fifty -- conference program: http://www.computerhistory.org/events/listing/plato-at-50/ The history of PLATO provides another
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: What *is* likely is that Defkalion believed that they were going to receive a working core module from Rossi in June 2011. It is also likely that they prepared equipment and labs based on what they thought this core would be like according to specifications given to them by Rossi. No, that is not even a little bit likely. That is not what they said happened. That is not what Rossi said happened, back in June. I know several people who have been to Defkalion (including the 3 I heard from lately), and that is not what they saw. That is another James Bond movie scenario. An absurd fantasy. I will grant, Rossi has been saying that is what happened, but when he says things like this, he is talking all out his head (lying). He is contradicting what he said before. You, of all people, should know better than to believe him. I think that the only thing they ever built was a simulation of their anticipated final product. If you believe that, you have very strange notions about how engineers and product designers go about their work. I don't know how you know or think you know how much Defkalion spent . . . The people who have been there can estimate that by looking. They know what laboratory equipment costs. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: The people who have been there can estimate that by looking. They know what laboratory equipment costs. Wouldn't it be nice if we could hear from these people directly and see photos of what they saw (within the needed limits to protect trade secrets)?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
Mary Yugo wrote: Wouldn't it be nice if we could hear from these people directly and see photos of what they saw (within the needed limits to protect trade secrets)? I am trying to arrange that. It might help if you and others would stop making outrageous, baseless, ignorant attacks against them. Generally speaking, people are not inclined to share information when you accuse them of being criminals and lunatics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I am trying to arrange that. It might help if you and others would stop making outrageous, baseless, ignorant attacks against them. Generally speaking, people are not inclined to share information when you accuse them of being criminals and lunatics. I don't recall accusing anyone of anything. I raise possibilities which should be very easy to knock down. If you can do that, I wish you would! This issue was raised on the Moletrap forum: why should any inventor with a dramatic and valid new technology as useful as Rossi and Defkalion claim care about what an anonymous poster or two on the internet say about them? Why do they even bother with all the trivial garbage they post and all the idiotic questions they respond to on their forums and blogs? They really have that much extra time? And they can't be bothered to give unequivocal proof that they have what they say? I think this is unlikely.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
Mary Yugo wrote: I don't recall accusing anyone of anything. I raise possibilities which should be very easy to knock down. You do accuse people. You make endlessly repeated ignorant, snide comments about subjects you know nothing about. You could easily learn about these things, but you never bother. For example, recently you made stupid mistakes about doctors washing their hands, and about the limits of chemistry. If you can do that, I wish you would! I am fed up with you. I will do nothing for your benefit. Other people deserve to see more from Defkalion, so I shall try to persuade them to release more. As I said, it would help if you would stop making trouble, but that is too much to hope for. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
I wrote: A cleaner copy is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf The authors went over this. They may have made a few corrections. I seem to recall there was a problem with a figure, which we fixed. This is easier to read, and quote from. Note the Discussion, which says: The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment. (I should add page numbers to this document.) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from accelerated protons. Robin: This implies close proximity between proton and target nucleus. Yes. That is essentially the gist of combining Miley/Holmlid with Lawandy. However, one does not need to subscribe to the full extent of either model. One can combine the two with adjustments. However if such a proximity exists, then there is no reason a conventional fusion reaction would not take place. You are overlooking one huge reason. When there is negative binding energy between the two particles, fusion cannot take place. What happens next, in that case is open to interpretation, but there is a known example to go on - neutrons. Besides which, you posit Coulomb force repulsion *after* strong force attraction, but this makes no sense, because the strong force goes as the sixth power of distance whereas the Coulomb force goes as the second power, so once the strong force gains the upper hand, it retains control. Well, it makes perfect sense because the strong force is known to operate only in one vector. It is the same thing when two neutrons come together. There is negative binding energy, and fusion cannot take place - yet the strong force brings them together and they immediately separate - EVEN WITHOUT COLOUMB repulsion (other than near-field). In short, my model combines the high energy of proton acceleration, following a strong force attraction scenario - in situations where there is negative binding energy and Coulomb repulsion. It is based on the neutron model. Jones
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy) surface to speak of. You are making a false assumption there. The assumption is three dimensions. Lawandy and Holmlid are 2D. Things are very different in 2D. Jones
[Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this 2003 USPTO patent application -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1 Inventors: Keeney, Franklin W. (US) Jones, Steven E. (US) Johnson, Alben C. (US) ABSTRACT: A method of producing cold nuclear fusion and a method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion are disclosed. The method of producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material, hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen, and establishing a non-equilibrium condition in the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material and hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. -- which includes Steven E. Jones as an inventor. Further down is -- BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to fusion energy. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for producing cold nuclear fusion and a method for preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion. [0003] 2. Description of the Related Art [0004] Mankind employs many energy sources. Oil, coal, natural gas, water (hydroelectric), and nuclear fission number among the most prominent of these sources. However, most of these sources exists in a limited supply, produces a relatively small quantity of energy per unit of the given source, or raises environmental concerns. Thus, because earth's population and energy needs continue to climb dramatically, researchers continue to seek more plentiful, efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy sources. [0005] These needs have led researchers to consider nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun. First, the raw materials for nuclear fusion abound on our planet. For example, deuterium is plentiful in seawater. Second, fusion of atomic particles and/or light nuclei produces more energy for a given amount of material than virtually any other known energy source. Finally, nuclear fusion holds strong promise as an environmentally-safe process. For these reasons, and based on major technological advances in the latter half of the twentieth century, many knowledgeable individuals now anticipate that nuclear fusion may provide a long-term answer to mankind's energy needs. --- The patent application seems to cover quite a wide range of implementations. Unless this is a different Steven Jones, did he become a believer 14-years after the 1989 CF-brouhaha? Any insights? Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Titanic step forward? Better is gigantic management strategy blunder! To use mild euphemisms- this plan is naive, childish, primitive savage capitalistic thinking and self-destructive strategy. To use dumping on an endless, insatiable market- you cannot succeed even with a hundred million E-cats. And to kill (!) the competition is as counter-productive as impossible. It is impossible. Rossi is an experienced businessman, so he should know that. Perhaps he is just spouting off. Perhaps he is trying to frighten Defkalion. On the other hand . . . . . . maybe he has teamed up with someone like GE, Westinghouse or Hitachi. That would give him a significant lead in the market for a few years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
Perhaps it would be necessary to define better |experienced business man Obviously you learn from bitter failures (as Petroldragon) but the experience of successful campaigns is irrreplaceable see e.g. Jobs' career -succces breeds succes. To frighten Defkalion? How exactly? They are really experienced businessmen and the market is practically infinite for at least 10 years. On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Titanic step forward? Better is gigantic management strategy blunder! To use mild euphemisms- this plan is naive, childish, primitive savage capitalistic thinking and self-destructive strategy. To use dumping on an endless, insatiable market- you cannot succeed even with a hundred million E-cats. And to kill (!) the competition is as counter-productive as impossible. It is impossible. Rossi is an experienced businessman, so he should know that. Perhaps he is just spouting off. Perhaps he is trying to frighten Defkalion. On the other hand . . . . . . maybe he has teamed up with someone like GE, Westinghouse or Hitachi. That would give him a significant lead in the market for a few years. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
From Jed: I wrote: A cleaner copy is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf Yes, adding page numbering would be useful. When was the original report published? I don't see a date displayed on the PDF copy. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle Update
I continue to update The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf The most recent addition is the following section: THE MYSTERY OF 2 H, 4 H AND 6 H TRANSMUTATIONS One of the mysteries of deuterium cold fusion transmutation is why 1, 2, 4, or 6 atoms are added to the lattice elements. (See Storms, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, p. 175) There are also mysteries regarding the apparent preference of pair-wise proton additions to heavy nuclei, as discussed above in relation to Ni + 2 p. Deflation fusion provides some answers in this regard. Following are some isotopes commonly involved in LENR transmutation experiments and their nuclear magnetic moments: 47TI-0.78848 49Ti-1.10417 57Fe+0.0906 57Fe+0.0906 59Co+4.63 61Ni-.75002 87Sr-1.09360 91Zr-1.30362 105Pd-0.642 107Ag-0.11357 109Ag-0.13056 133Cs+2.582 135Ba+0.838 137Ba+0.9374 195Pt+0.6095 197Au+0.14575 The remaining common isotopes of these elements, namely 84Sr, 86Sr, 88Sr, 46Ti, 48TI, 50Ti, 54Fe, 58Fe, 59Fe, 58Ni, 60Ni, 62Ni, 64Ni, 84Sr, 86Sr, 88Sr, 90Zr, 92Zr, 94Zr, 96Zr, 102Pd, 104Pd, 106Pd, 108Pd, 110Pd, 130Ba, 132Ba, 134Ba, 136Ba , 138Ba, 190Pt, 192Pt, 194Pt, 196Pt and 198Pt, have zero magnetic moments. It is notable that the radioactive isotopes of these elements tend to have nonzero nuclear magnetic moments. Nuclear magnetic moments are expressed in units of the nuclear magneton, mu_N, where: mu_N = e h_bar/(2 m_p) = 5.05078324x10^-27 J/T In contrast to the above heavy nucleus nuclear magnetic moments, the magnetic moment of the electron, in terms of mu_N is 1836.1528, about 3 orders of magnitude larger. Elements with positive magnetic moments have nuclear magnetic moments aligned with their spins, as do protons. Elements with negative magnetic moments have nuclear magnetic moments opposed to their spins, as do neutrons. It is common sense that tunneling of deflated hydrogen, with its large magnetic moment, due to its included electron, into a nucleus having a nuclear magnetic moment is energetically feasible due to magnetic attraction. What is of more interest is the involvement of isotopes with zero magnetic moment in heavy element transmutation. It is proposed above that electrons of heavy nuclei occasionally enter those nuclei, thus providing a large momentary nuclear magnetic moment, and thus triggering tunneling of deflated hydrogen into the nucleus. The initial electron, having a large kinetic energy, can be expected to quickly depart during the ensuing process, leaving only the trapped electron behind. This leaves the nucleus with a prolonged large magnetic moment. Any deflated state hydrogen in the vicinity should quickly also tunnel in. However, here the process most likely stops. The trapped electron spins are most likely, but not necessarily, co-aligned. Their spins are with high probability co-aligned as spin up and spin down, thus canceling magnetic fields, but have some probability of aligned spins. In the latter case, a follow-on addition of another pair becomes likely. This tendency provides some degree of explanation for the mysterious tendency for 2H, 4H, and 6H transmutations, where none exists otherwise. Here “H” means any isotope of hydrogen. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: When was the original report published? I don't see a date displayed on the PDF copy. It was circulated around 1994. They brought a copy to ICCF-4 (1994). I well remember what happened when showed it to John Huizenga. He turned green and fled. It was one of the funniest moments in the history of cold fusion. I talked to one of the researchers and some people who assisted. The old company did not suppress this result. The researchers could not reproduce it. After years of trying they finally gave up. However, they stand by the original result. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
What a surprise to me! If cold fusion patents are suddenly allowed, I can not imagine this kind of patent holding up in general upon challenging in court in infringement proceedings. The application was made in 2000. Most everything was invented, published or publicly discussed in sci.physics.fusion well before that. Maybe the intent is to end up with just some part enforceable? Maybe this was just intended to test the waters in general, to obtain some kind of ruling useful to justify consideration of other patent applications? Perhaps I should apply for a patent on a propulsion means comprised of (1) a construct suitable for passenger occupancy, supported by (2) low energy locomotion devices, such as wheels etc., and (3) a motive device, such as a gasoline engine which propels said locomotion devices, and then include 100 subordinate claims hinting at the nature a car. I think this kind of thing can only be of use to a deep pockets organization with a legal staff. On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this 2003 USPTO patent application -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1 Inventors: Keeney, Franklin W. (US) Jones, Steven E. (US) Johnson, Alben C. (US) ABSTRACT: A method of producing cold nuclear fusion and a method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion are disclosed. The method of producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material, hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen, and establishing a non-equilibrium condition in the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material and hydriding the fusion- promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. -- which includes Steven E. Jones as an inventor. Further down is -- BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to fusion energy. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for producing cold nuclear fusion and a method for preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion. [0003] 2. Description of the Related Art [0004] Mankind employs many energy sources. Oil, coal, natural gas, water (hydroelectric), and nuclear fission number among the most prominent of these sources. However, most of these sources exists in a limited supply, produces a relatively small quantity of energy per unit of the given source, or raises environmental concerns. Thus, because earth's population and energy needs continue to climb dramatically, researchers continue to seek more plentiful, efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy sources. [0005] These needs have led researchers to consider nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun. First, the raw materials for nuclear fusion abound on our planet. For example, deuterium is plentiful in seawater. Second, fusion of atomic particles and/or light nuclei produces more energy for a given amount of material than virtually any other known energy source. Finally, nuclear fusion holds strong promise as an environmentally-safe process. For these reasons, and based on major technological advances in the latter half of the twentieth century, many knowledgeable individuals now anticipate that nuclear fusion may provide a long-term answer to mankind's energy needs. --- The patent application seems to cover quite a wide range of implementations. Unless this is a different Steven Jones, did he become a believer 14-years after the 1989 CF-brouhaha? Any insights? Lou Pagnucco Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:National Security and Population Structure
On 12/27/2011 07:13 PM, James Bowery wrote: A young Nebraska farmer's son went to war against Germany and came back with code-breaking skills, as well as good DoD contacts. His name was William Norris. He started Control Data Corporation with a young engineer named Seymour Cray and, with 34 people out on Seymour's farm in Wisconsin (only one of whom was a PhD and he was a Jr. programmer) built what is widely regarded as the first supercomputer http://drdobbs.com/184404102-- even as IBM's armies of PhD's and unlimited resources foundered in the effort much to the dismay of IBM's CEO, Thomas Watson, Jr. Somewhere along the line, they hired me. What I learned was that both Bill and Seymour had very strong feelings about the national security implications of an increasingly urbanized population. That's one reason Seymour had his lab out in the north woods of Wisconsin. Bill, as CEO of CDC, had made this allowance for Seymour while keeping CDC HQ in Minneapolis St. Paul (right across from the airport). The reason I signed on with them was the promise that I could fulfill part of Bill's vision for America: National security through dispersed population structure -- both its preservation as an American heritage and its promotion as recovery from the recent urbanization that threatened that heritage. Basically, its virtually impossible to take out a decentralized society -- whether you are a nuclear superpower or an international terrorist organization. My particular part in this effort was that I was to prototype a mass-marketable version of the PLATO network, which I did circa 1980. I won't go into the details of that network except to say that the contribution it would have made to national security would have been to connect smart rural homesteads with information, education and business resources that would contribute to their self-sufficiency. Yes, I know, this is starting to be realized today, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge since 1980, no? The rest of Bill's vision was that these smart homesteads would be energy and food self-sufficient. The reason you never heard of these things is that they were in direct conflict with Wall Street's interests and Wall Street made no secret of its hatred of Bill's vision. I succeeded in prototyping the mass market PLATO system and it was quashed by a mutinous middle management more identified with Wall Street than the crazy old koot in the executive suite. Unlike many of Bill's other technology directions in support of decentralized population structure, the PLATO system was poised to make immediate profits and roll out mass produced Macintosh equivalent network computers for a service that would have cost $40/month in 1980 dollars -- and that includes terminal rental. So it was particularly egregious that this technology was killed for the noble purpose of making America vulnerable to 9/11 type attacks. Bottom line, as technology advances, there is an increasing call for oppression to maintain the centralized population structure, just as there was to create it by moving the boomers out of their small midwestern towns, through universities and into the sterilizing urban environments in which they could not afford childrenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A -- but the attack on national security was conducted by Wall Street against the traditional American way of life. Any discussion, nowadays, about the threat to national security represented by attacks against centralized symbols like the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 is utter misdirection. Yeah! Good to hear it, specially when it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, or close enough. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
That was messed up! They sent me Fig. R5 but I forgot to add it. I added it in now, plus I added page numbers. You may need to reload the file to see them: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On 12/27/2011 05:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beenejone...@pacbell.net wrote: A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD. * I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree. No, I mean DoD - DoD has far more political clout. There is no inter-connection between the two - except via top politicians and the Cabinet - who hear from both. I do not follow, but that's okay. * I doubt that. The only people I know of who suspected there may be direct weapons applications Martin Fleischmann and Edward Teller. Granted, they know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, respectively. Yes, they do. Case closed. The case does not seem closed to me. Many other people who know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, such as Ed Storms, say there appears to be no likelihood of a weapon. I do not think that the opinions of Fleischmann and Teller automatically outweigh these other people's opinions. Cold fusion does not appear to be a chain reaction, so I do not see how it could be used in a weapon. By not being the direct cause of a chain reaction? I think LENR can be weaponized, and that's probably related, in part, to all the denial surrounding it. It makes sense. Moreover: I'm afraid it already has. I will not talk about it. If I continue gaining insight, I suppose I'll write a book one day. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
Say, if CF breaks as conventional, and this patent is issued, maybe this is intended to provide an excuse for the patent office to reject all subsequent cold fusion patent application claims based on infringement of prior art, until this patent is successfully challenged. On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this 2003 USPTO patent application -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1 Inventors: Keeney, Franklin W. (US) Jones, Steven E. (US) Johnson, Alben C. (US) ABSTRACT: A method of producing cold nuclear fusion and a method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion are disclosed. The method of producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material, hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen, and establishing a non-equilibrium condition in the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material and hydriding the fusion- promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. -- which includes Steven E. Jones as an inventor. Further down is -- BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to fusion energy. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for producing cold nuclear fusion and a method for preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion. [0003] 2. Description of the Related Art [0004] Mankind employs many energy sources. Oil, coal, natural gas, water (hydroelectric), and nuclear fission number among the most prominent of these sources. However, most of these sources exists in a limited supply, produces a relatively small quantity of energy per unit of the given source, or raises environmental concerns. Thus, because earth's population and energy needs continue to climb dramatically, researchers continue to seek more plentiful, efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy sources. [0005] These needs have led researchers to consider nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun. First, the raw materials for nuclear fusion abound on our planet. For example, deuterium is plentiful in seawater. Second, fusion of atomic particles and/or light nuclei produces more energy for a given amount of material than virtually any other known energy source. Finally, nuclear fusion holds strong promise as an environmentally-safe process. For these reasons, and based on major technological advances in the latter half of the twentieth century, many knowledgeable individuals now anticipate that nuclear fusion may provide a long-term answer to mankind's energy needs. --- The patent application seems to cover quite a wide range of implementations. Unless this is a different Steven Jones, did he become a believer 14-years after the 1989 CF-brouhaha? Any insights? Lou Pagnucco Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
I wrote: I talked to one of the researchers and some people who assisted. The old company did not suppress this I meant the oil company not the old company. I wasn't even using dictation. I got that wrong the old fashioned way. This file was originally dated March 19, 1990. I have an interesting cover letter that came with the original copy. It says: Cold fusion was announced by Fleischmann and Pons . . . difficulty in reproducing . . . blah, blah. The attached document is the first formal written report covering [Amoco research]. The latest cold fusion experiment run at the Tulsa Research Center documented anomalous energy production, as measured through careful calorimetry, and produced enhanced levels of tritium, an indication that a nuclear process is involved in the experiment. Work is continuing to further understand the cold fusion mechanism. As I said, it did not pan out. This along with other communications from oil companies do not give me the impression they ever intended to suppress this research. However, if it starts to succeed with a technology out of their control, such as Rossi's, I expect they will try to suppress it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: Cold fusion does not appear to be a chain reaction, so I do not see how it could be used in a weapon. By not being the direct cause of a chain reaction? Yup. I think only a chain reaction would be fast enough to evolve into a major explosion before the lattice evaporates. There is no doubt you can make a small explosion with cold fusion. People have already done that, by accident. Mizuno nearly killed himself doing that. See: http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On 11-12-28 05:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: There is no doubt you can make a small explosion with cold fusion. People have already done that, by accident. Mizuno nearly killed himself doing that. See: http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents Thanks for the link, Jed! I recalled the early speculation that the explosion was caused by recombination, and I'd been wondering why you had more recently attributed it to a CF excursion. The paper referenced in the caption of the photo you linked clarified it; thanks again. It still leaves a question, though, which is what happened between T-10 seconds and T-5 seconds which caused the electrolyte temperature to *drop* by about 8 degrees. That seems very peculiar; it would be nice to know the cause. (I suppose there's not much chance of ever finding it, though, since this was necessarily a one-off event!)
Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle Update
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:17:21 -0900: Hi, [snip] It is notable that the radioactive isotopes of these elements tend to have nonzero nuclear magnetic moments. ...notable perhaps, but hardly surprising. Pair forming results in stability, hence nuclei with unpaired particles tend to be less stable, i.e. frequently radioactive. Pair forming also results in cancellation of magnetic moments (which is the very reason for the stability in the first place). [snip] This tendency provides some degree of explanation for the mysterious tendency for 2H, 4H, and 6H transmutations, where none exists otherwise. Here H means any isotope of hydrogen. ...I assume you mean that none otherwise would exist within your theory. Hydrino molecules provide at least one other explanation for particle pairs, and Axil's notion of entanglement may provide another (though it rubs me the wrong way ;). Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0800: Hi, [snip] -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from accelerated protons. Robin: This implies close proximity between proton and target nucleus. Yes. That is essentially the gist of combining Miley/Holmlid with Lawandy. However, one does not need to subscribe to the full extent of either model. One can combine the two with adjustments. However if such a proximity exists, then there is no reason a conventional fusion reaction would not take place. You are overlooking one huge reason. When there is negative binding energy between the two particles, fusion cannot take place. What happens next, in that case is open to interpretation, but there is a known example to go on - neutrons. You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples where the binding energy of a proton is negative. 1. Protium. 2. Helium. (There may be a few more, e.g. very neutron poor isotopes, which are radioactive to either positron decay or electron capture, with a very short half life.) Besides which, you posit Coulomb force repulsion *after* strong force attraction, but this makes no sense, because the strong force goes as the sixth power of distance whereas the Coulomb force goes as the second power, so once the strong force gains the upper hand, it retains control. Well, it makes perfect sense because the strong force is known to operate only in one vector. Really? That's news to me. Perhaps you could provide a reference? It is the same thing when two neutrons come together. There is negative binding energy, and fusion cannot take place - yet the strong force brings them together and they immediately separate - EVEN WITHOUT COLOUMB repulsion (other than near-field). IMO there is no strong force between neutrons, nor between protons. This neatly explains why neither the dineutron not Helium2 are stable. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0800: Hi, [snip] -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy) surface to speak of. You are making a false assumption there. The assumption is three dimensions. Lawandy and Holmlid are 2D. Things are very different in 2D. That's the problem. The real world is 3D. There are no ideal surfaces. And on even the most even real surface the smallest features are still individual atoms separated by Angstrom distances. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo wrote: I don't recall accusing anyone of anything. I raise possibilities which should be very easy to knock down. You do accuse people. Cite it or don't say it. Who did I accuse and of what and where did I do it? You make endlessly repeated ignorant, snide comments about subjects you know nothing about. You could easily learn about these things, but you never bother. For example, recently you made stupid mistakes about doctors washing their hands, and about the limits of chemistry. I let that get by because it's off topic and tedious but either you failed to understand what I wrote, or you're simply wrong. In any case, it's OT for this discussion. I also don't want to discuss Einstein, Tesla, Edison and the Wright Brothers. Also not Joe the Plumber. Can we stick to Rossi and Defkalion? If you can do that, I wish you would! I am fed up with you. I will do nothing for your benefit. I guess you can't prove anything favorable about Defkalion and Rossi then? As I said, it would help if you would stop making trouble, but that is too much to hope for. I have no idea why you'd think anything said on a fairly obscure internet blog by an anonymous author would inhibit the discoverers of the potentially greatest invention in at least a century from proving that it's real. Maybe you can explain this amazing paradox.
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy) surface to speak of. You are making a false assumption there. The assumption is three dimensions. Lawandy and Holmlid are 2D. Things are very different in 2D. That's the problem. The real world is 3D. There is no problem here. 2D is inclusive in 3D, so the real world is also 2D. There are no ideal surfaces. So what? There are no ideal gases either but the applicable Laws (generalizations) are usually correct. And on even the most even real surface the smallest features are still individual atoms separated by Angstrom distances. Yes, and that is why - by convention - one atom of thickness is treated as 2D. Were you not aware of that? In the abstract, an atom thickness may not be true 2D, but it always works out that way with high precision, both in the math and in experiment, to be an acceptable approximation of how 3-space and 2-space are connected in the real world. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples where the binding energy of a proton is negative. 1. Protium. 2. Helium. Bingo. But do not miss the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that we are only interested in the strong force interaction of two protons in 2-space. They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. With the other elements involved in Ni-H (nickel and/or a dielectric) there is almost zero probability of a proton getting close enough to react with any Ni nuclei (or other high Z nuclei). In short, the only thing we should be concerned with, in trying to explaining Rossi/DGT thermal gain - is how do protons in dense accumulations interact with each other, in order to produce excess energy without much gamma radiation (some but not much) and without much transmutation (some but not much). Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too cold. It is a mistake to think that gammas can be shielded by low density elements. This would be too easy to demonstrate, if it were true. That is the point that my proposed dynamic interaction: strong force plus negative binding energy between protons, strives to explain. There is excess energy in a way that convention nuclear physics cannot describe because there is minimal mass-energy conversion per nuclei per reaction. Let me reiterate that it is not precisely a nuclear reaction, in that the energy comes from non-quark nuclear mass. I call it subnuclear, since protium has substantial excess mass which is non-quantized. Only the quark mass is quantized, and that is but a fraction of total nuclear mass, even in protium. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On 11-12-28 08:40 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo wrote: I don't recall accusing anyone of anything. I raise possibilities which should be very easy to knock down. You do accuse people. Cite it or don't say it. Who did I accuse and of what and where did I do it? Unless I'm greatly mistaken, you've accused a number of people of failing to exist. These certainly included Rossi's alleged customers, and I think they may have included some of Jed's anonymous testimonial providers. (I think you may have accused Aussie Guy of not exactly existing, too, but I may be wrong about that; perhaps it was someone else who said that.) But it's too late at night and I'm not going digging in the archives to be sure. (Certainly, with the possible exception of Aussie Guy, you haven't accused anyone on this mailing list of nonexistence, at least as far as I know.) (Come to think of it, one or two people have accused *you* of something akin to nonexistence as well, but that was silly; nobody who doesn't exist could possibly post so many messages to this group.) Failure to exist can be a very serious accusation, you know, and countering it can be extremely difficult, as many people have found, to their chagrin, when accused by one government or another of having failed to exist. (I think it's time to head off to bed, I'm getting punchy...) You make endlessly repeated ignorant, snide comments about subjects you know nothing about. You could easily learn about these things, but you never bother. For example, recently you made stupid mistakes about doctors washing their hands, and about the limits of chemistry. I let that get by because it's off topic and tedious but either you failed to understand what I wrote, or you're simply wrong. In any case, it's OT for this discussion. I also don't want to discuss Einstein, Tesla, Edison and the Wright Brothers. Also not Joe the Plumber. Can we stick to Rossi and Defkalion? If you can do that, I wish you would! I am fed up with you. I will do nothing for your benefit. I guess you can't prove anything favorable about Defkalion and Rossi then? As I said, it would help if you would stop making trouble, but that is too much to hope for. I have no idea why you'd think anything said on a fairly obscure internet blog by an anonymous author would inhibit the discoverers of the potentially greatest invention in at least a century from proving that it's real. Maybe you can explain this amazing paradox.
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
On 11-12-28 03:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: A cleaner copy is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf The authors went over this. They may have made a few corrections. I seem to recall there was a problem with a figure, which we fixed. The title of this report is a classic example of why words such as current and recent should be used with caution when titling a report. This is easier to read, and quote from. Note the Discussion, which says: The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment. (I should add page numbers to this document.) The copy I just downloaded has page numbers. - Jed
[Vo]:Does Miracle Comet presage Miracle Technology?
Christmas comet, named Lovejoy no less: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398066,00.asp http://www.space.com/14045-spectacular-christmas-comet-amazes-skywatchers-ch ile.html This kind of thing had staggering importance a few thousand years ago ... g attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
On 11-12-28 04:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I talked to one of the researchers and some people who assisted. The oil company did not suppress this result. The researchers could not reproduce it. After years of trying they finally gave up. However, they stand by the original result. Jed, do you have any more information on the failure to reproduce? Could they no longer get the *original* *cell* to work, or was it just new cells that didn't work? Do you know if the non-working cells used a different source for the palladium? They mentioned in the Amoco History section that: It should be noted that all of these experiments used the same palladium ingot purchased by Lautzenhiser and Eisner in Houston. The history of the CF field seems to be littered with Jekyl/Hyde effects, where the source of the chemical supplies makes all the difference.
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
This was abandoned in 2004 after a non-final rejection by USPTO 1/21/2004. Click Public PAIR link on http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/status/ Choose Application Number and insert 09/514,202 Choose Image File Wrapper tab when this application opens, then the correspondence and actions can be read. I couldn't copy from the Non-Final Rejection, but it should be read - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application Say, if CF breaks as conventional, and this patent is issued, maybe this is intended to provide an excuse for the patent office to reject all subsequent cold fusion patent application claims based on infringement of prior art, until this patent is successfully challenged. On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this 2003 USPTO patent application -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1 Inventors: Keeney, Franklin W. (US) Jones, Steven E. (US) Johnson, Alben C. (US) ABSTRACT: A method of producing cold nuclear fusion and a method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion are disclosed. The method of producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material, hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen, and establishing a non-equilibrium condition in the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material and hydriding the fusion- promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. -- which includes Steven E. Jones as an inventor. Further down is -- BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to fusion energy. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for producing cold nuclear fusion and a method for preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion. [0003] 2. Description of the Related Art [0004] Mankind employs many energy sources. Oil, coal, natural gas, water (hydroelectric), and nuclear fission number among the most prominent of these sources. However, most of these sources exists in a limited supply, produces a relatively small quantity of energy per unit of the given source, or raises environmental concerns. Thus, because earth's population and energy needs continue to climb dramatically, researchers continue to seek more plentiful, efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy sources. [0005] These needs have led researchers to consider nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun. First, the raw materials for nuclear fusion abound on our planet. For example, deuterium is plentiful in seawater. Second, fusion of atomic particles and/or light nuclei produces more energy for a given amount of material than virtually any other known energy source. Finally, nuclear fusion holds strong promise as an environmentally-safe process. For these reasons, and based on major technological advances in the latter half of the twentieth century, many knowledgeable individuals now anticipate that nuclear fusion may provide a long-term answer to mankind's energy needs. --- The patent application seems to cover quite a wide range of implementations. Unless this is a different Steven Jones, did he become a believer 14-years after the 1989 CF-brouhaha? Any insights? Lou Pagnucco Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
This patent application seems like one Fleischmann and Pons would have written as well. Sad that Jones and F-P didn't cooperate and avoid a lot of wasted time. Horace Heffner wrote: Say, if CF breaks as conventional, and this patent is issued, maybe this is intended to provide an excuse for the patent office to reject all subsequent cold fusion patent application claims based on infringement of prior art, until this patent is successfully challenged. On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this 2003 USPTO patent application -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1 Inventors: Keeney, Franklin W. (US) Jones, Steven E. (US) Johnson, Alben C. (US) ABSTRACT: A method of producing cold nuclear fusion and a method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion are disclosed. The method of producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material, hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen, and establishing a non-equilibrium condition in the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material and hydriding the fusion- promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. -- which includes Steven E. Jones as an inventor. Further down is -- BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to fusion energy. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for producing cold nuclear fusion and a method for preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion. [0003] 2. Description of the Related Art [0004] Mankind employs many energy sources. Oil, coal, natural gas, water (hydroelectric), and nuclear fission number among the most prominent of these sources. However, most of these sources exists in a limited supply, produces a relatively small quantity of energy per unit of the given source, or raises environmental concerns. Thus, because earth's population and energy needs continue to climb dramatically, researchers continue to seek more plentiful, efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy sources. [0005] These needs have led researchers to consider nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun. First, the raw materials for nuclear fusion abound on our planet. For example, deuterium is plentiful in seawater. Second, fusion of atomic particles and/or light nuclei produces more energy for a given amount of material than virtually any other known energy source. Finally, nuclear fusion holds strong promise as an environmentally-safe process. For these reasons, and based on major technological advances in the latter half of the twentieth century, many knowledgeable individuals now anticipate that nuclear fusion may provide a long-term answer to mankind's energy needs. --- The patent application seems to cover quite a wide range of implementations. Unless this is a different Steven Jones, did he become a believer 14-years after the 1989 CF-brouhaha? Any insights? Lou Pagnucco Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** On 11-12-28 08:40 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: Unless I'm greatly mistaken, you've accused a number of people of failing to exist. The only allegation of non existence I've ever made is the non-existence of a proper and credible experiment that proves that the E-cat works as advertised. Of that, I'm quite sure. The other non-existence attributes I've alleged are only potential -- as in: Rossi's anonymous customer may not exist or may be associated with Rossi. -- to give an example. I've never accused anyone of fraud in conjunction with Rossi and Defkalion. I have, however, pointed to Steorn as an example of something which developed similarly and appears very similar and clearly is a fraud -- which has been crystal clear for at least two years. I have said many times that Rossi and Defkalion could be frauds. I think the probability that they are is quite significant. It's an opinion-- not a statement of facts. Having said all that, Stephen, please prove you exist.
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
Wow. Yes, indeed, this should be read. Whatever the intent of the nonsensically broad claims, it did not work out very well! The PTO examiner, John Richardson, did a great job on the rejection. He cites Pons, Miley, etc. Unfortunately, I could only download a page at a time. The server was also overloaded periodically. I uploaded to: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Keeney/ and I will leave it there briefly for those who want to see it. On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Jay Caplan wrote: This was abandoned in 2004 after a non-final rejection by USPTO 1/21/2004. Click Public PAIR link on http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/status/ Choose Application Number and insert 09/514,202 Choose Image File Wrapper tab when this application opens, then the correspondence and actions can be read. I couldn't copy from the Non-Final Rejection, but it should be read - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application Say, if CF breaks as conventional, and this patent is issued, maybe this is intended to provide an excuse for the patent office to reject all subsequent cold fusion patent application claims based on infringement of prior art, until this patent is successfully challenged. On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this 2003 USPTO patent application -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1 Inventors: Keeney, Franklin W. (US) Jones, Steven E. (US) Johnson, Alben C. (US) ABSTRACT: A method of producing cold nuclear fusion and a method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion are disclosed. The method of producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material, hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen, and establishing a non-equilibrium condition in the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material and hydriding the fusion- promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion- promoting material for producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. -- which includes Steven E. Jones as an inventor. Further down is -- BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to fusion energy. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for producing cold nuclear fusion and a method for preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion. [0003] 2. Description of the Related Art [0004] Mankind employs many energy sources. Oil, coal, natural gas, water (hydroelectric), and nuclear fission number among the most prominent of these sources. However, most of these sources exists in a limited supply, produces a relatively small quantity of energy per unit of the given source, or raises environmental concerns. Thus, because earth's population and energy needs continue to climb dramatically, researchers continue to seek more plentiful, efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy sources. [0005] These needs have led researchers to consider nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun. First, the raw materials for nuclear fusion abound on our planet. For example, deuterium is plentiful in seawater. Second, fusion of atomic particles and/or light nuclei produces more energy for a given amount of material than virtually any other known energy source. Finally, nuclear fusion holds strong promise as an environmentally-safe process. For these reasons, and based on major technological advances in the latter half of the twentieth century, many knowledgeable individuals now anticipate that nuclear fusion may provide a long-term answer to mankind's energy needs. --- The patent application seems to cover quite a wide range of implementations. Unless this is a different Steven Jones, did he become a believer 14-years after the 1989 CF-brouhaha? Any insights? Lou Pagnucco Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
