[Vo]:One of Piantelli's European patents revoked?
There is an interesting article at E-Cat World today, which summarized information submitted by AlainCo, who I believe is a regular on Vortex as well: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/09/30/piantelli-european-patent-revoked/ It seems that one of Piantelli's European LENR patents [1] has been revoked [2]. (I'm not 100 percent sure of this interpretation.) A number of interesting counter arguments were made in a petition to the European Patent Office [3]. The opposing party in this complaint was advocating on behalf of a similar patent by Rossi [4], with a priority date of 2008. Here is an interesting tidbit from the complaint: In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that Piantelli et al. have never got a single watt from other metals, that is different from nickel, making them react with hydrogen. It seems from the response of the European Patent Office to the petition that the matter went into oral proceedings. I have a number of questions. But it is clear that Rossi's team saw Piantelli's patent as a threat, and they appear to have prevailed over it. I can only imagine that similar challenges will be raised with Rossi's patents. I assume that each jurisdiction must be handled separately. Eric [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/Rossi-Patent-Application-WO-2009-125444.pdf [2] http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/piantellirevoke.jpg [3] http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Patentchallenge.pdf [4] http://www.google.com/patents/EP2368252B1?cl=en
Re: [Vo]:Another report from Ed Storms
Ed explained this more clearly to me: High loading is only an indication that the material does not produce excess volume and the associated large cracks. The high loading only shows that the material has the POTENTIAL to support LENR. In other words, he thinks that loading is an attribute of a necessary condition, but it is not itself that condition. In other words, an underlying condition causes both high loading and the cold fusion effect, so high loading always accompanies the effect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Another report from Ed Storms
Direct link: http://lenrexplained.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PROGRESS-REPORT-6.pdf This is a *must read* report. Since it is me, I guess there is no rule against repeating what I wrote at CMNS. Maybe people here can help me sort out the apparent contradictions about loading and expansion. This is great stuff! I have learned more about the hands-on aspects of Pd-D cold fusion than I learned from maybe a hundred other papers. (And no kidding, I have actually read ~100 other papers, at least as copy editor.) I have both learned and confirmed various things. The need for high loading, and the need for Pd material that does not expand too much with "excess volume" are related subjects, and they are complicated. What Ed says about them seems contradictory. He seems to be saying that high loading is not necessary, yet elsewhere he implies it is necessary. I get it, but it takes some sorting out. Here are some of the statements, with my comments in square brackets: p. 1. LENR is not initiated by simply achieving a high D/Pd ratio as some explanations predict. . . . [It is loading plus something else. Once the heat begins, loading can decrease.] p. 5. . . . the amount of excess volume created during loading predicts the eventual ability to make excess energy, as described first by Storms(2-4). [Too much excess volume prevents the reaction.] p. 6. As long as the temperature is not reduced, this [heat after death] excess power continues even as the sample slowly loses D. [As I said, once you get a reaction, loading is no longer essential.] p. 6. Although the [heat after death] excess power shows unsteady production, it remained essentially constant in spite of the change in average composition while the temperature slightly decreased. When the internal heater was turned off, excess power rapidly dropped to zero at a rate consistent with the time constant of the calorimeter . . . p. 7. A sample that is being self-heated by power from the LENR process would continue to make energy after the electrolytic current is turned off because once LENR starts, it does not need to be fed by D supplied by the electrolytic process. The D that is already in the lattice supplies D to produce LENR even at low compositions. p. 9. . . . a small amount of excess volume is proposed to produce small cracks without the ability to release D2 but with the ability to initiate LENR. Consequently, a small excess volume produced by Pd, such as is the case with the sample studied here, is important and relevant to being able to achieve a high D/Pd and generate excess energy. [If I understand correctly this means loading is needed to trigger the reaction, along with some preparations that Ed will describe in the next paper, but that once the reaction gets underway loading is less important. When the material is so good it produces measurable heat after death, loading is no longer a factor because it decreases back down to PdD0.67 (p. 6) yet heat after death continues.] On another subject, I am not surprised the radiation was an artifact of temperature. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Magnetic enhancement Paper with LENR Implications
From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net This may be relevant. http://phys.org/news/2015-07-short-wavelength-plasmons-nanotubes.html Hmmm… very interesting indeed. The second images illustrates how IR light is the instigator of plasmons – but IR has a relatively long wavelength. The first image shows plasmons in a nanotube, which are about ¼ the length of the 100 nm scale on the left. No way are these plasmons in the IR size range - but plasmons are not photons and we do not know the wavelength of the visible light they emit in the image (which is probably a false color anyway). The plasmon size shown would corresponds to a wavelength which in the UV range – a range which is associated with Mills and LENR. This image does not relate to hydrogen, but the Rydberg multiples most often associated with gain in hydrogen would be 27.2 eV and 54.4 eV. The later is about 23 nanometers…. It was documented in the original Thermacore testing in the early 1990s. Nanotubes are an exciting possibility for gain. Anyone heard anything newsworthy from Seldon Technology on their nanotube process? http://coldfusionnow.org/seldon-technologies-nasa-and-lenr/ Jones Beene wrote: One of the most memorable details from Defkalion’s flash-and-burn fiasco is/was the claim of large magnetic field enhancement. Another datum: the Letts/Cravens effect requires a magnetic field - along with laser light, and one implication is that SPP formation is accentuated by an applied magnetic field, even when the light source is not obvious. There is also the lore about carbon nanotubes LENR - or as in the patent app. of Cooper (US 20130266106 to Seldon Technologies). Can we connect the dots? Here is the site which links CNT to nickel and to a greatly enhanced magnetic field. http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.82.193410 Giant magnetic moment enhancement of nickel nanoparticles embedded in multiwalled carbon nanotubes …. “We report a giant magnetic moment enhancement of ferromagnetic nickel nanoparticles …embedded in carbon nanotubes …. The giant moment enhancement is unlikely to be explained by a magnetic proximity effect but possibly arise from the interplay between ferromagnetism in nickel nanoparticles and strong diamagnetism in multiwalled carbon nanotubes.”
[Vo]:Another report from Ed Storms
This is #6 in the series. They are all listed here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1714 I will update this if he publishes more. - Jed
[Vo]:An easier way to follow Rossi's blog
See: http://rossilivecat.com/
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic enhancement Paper with LENR Implications
This may be relevant. http://phys.org/news/2015-07-short-wavelength-plasmons-nanotubes.html On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:00:20 -0700, "Jones Beene" wrote: One of the most memorable details from Defkalion's flash-and-burn fiasco is/was the claim of large magnetic field enhancement. Another datum: the Letts/Cravens effect requires a magnetic field - along with laser light, and one implication is that SPP formation is accentuated by an applied magnetic field, even when the light source is not obvious. There is also the lore about carbon nanotubes LENR - or as in the patent app. of Cooper (US 20130266106 to Seldon Technologies). Can we connect the dots? Here is the site which links CNT to nickel and to a greatly enhanced magnetic field. http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.82.193410 [1] GIANT MAGNETIC MOMENT ENHANCEMENT OF NICKEL NANOPARTICLES EMBEDDED IN MULTIWALLED CARBON NANOTUBES …. "We report a giant magnetic moment enhancement of ferromagnetic nickel nanoparticles …embedded in carbon nanotubes …. The giant moment enhancement is unlikely to be explained by a magnetic proximity effect but possibly arise from the interplay between ferromagnetism in nickel nanoparticles and strong diamagnetism in multiwalled carbon nanotubes." Links: -- [1] http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.82.193410
[Vo]:daily LENR info for 30 Sep. 2015
published now: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/09/sep-30-2015-lenr-info.html Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Theory for D-D fusion in a metal matrix
Magnetic enhancement Paper with LENR ImplicationsThe following link describes a reason for the ability of a metal lattice to allow D-D fusion with high probability. There is a suggestion that virtual photons distribute the energy released in the formation of the fused item—He, I think. The paper came from the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia. This was posted on the Rossi blog on Sept 27 at 12:31 pm. The theory may help to explain both Pd and Ni lattice LENR processes. IMHO the virtual photons distribute spin energy to the lattice since they carry spin. The miracle is that there are no high photons, to escape the lattice. Angular momentum is conserved. In addition the same ideas may apply to H fusion is a metal lattice. http://www.coldfusion-power.com/uploads/7/3/6/7/7367632/1-s2.0-s0168583x1500052x-main-nimb.pdf Bob Cook
[Vo]:Magnetic enhancement Paper with LENR Implications
One of the most memorable details from Defkalion's flash-and-burn fiasco is/was the claim of large magnetic field enhancement. Another datum: the Letts/Cravens effect requires a magnetic field - along with laser light, and one implication is that SPP formation is accentuated by an applied magnetic field, even when the light source is not obvious. There is also the lore about carbon nanotubes LENR - or as in the patent app. of Cooper (US 20130266106 to Seldon Technologies). Can we connect the dots? Here is the site which links CNT to nickel and to a greatly enhanced magnetic field. http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.82.193410 Giant magnetic moment enhancement of nickel nanoparticles embedded in multiwalled carbon nanotubes .. "We report a giant magnetic moment enhancement of ferromagnetic nickel nanoparticles .embedded in carbon nanotubes .. The giant moment enhancement is unlikely to be explained by a magnetic proximity effect but possibly arise from the interplay between ferromagnetism in nickel nanoparticles and strong diamagnetism in multiwalled carbon nanotubes."
