Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:09:37 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Eric, the theory as you describe it is quite unusual. I understand energy release of this nature as being due to an isomer transition within the nucleus. Is that what is being proposed? We should review the charts and see if there are know isomers of nickel which might be contributing to the energy source. If none are known to science so far, perhaps Piantellii and his partners have found a new one. The idea of a negative hydride ion displacing an electron and orbiting close to the nucleus is something I posited on this list several years back, in relation to Hydrino hydride. We were talking about an exchange between K Ar. Perhaps Piantelli is seeing some evidence of this, and doesn't know what he's looking at. I have also on occasion suggested that a Hydrino might get close to another nucleus, and the shrunken electron might jump ship to the target nucleus (as it has a higher central charge than the proton), taking up a new even tighter orbit around the new nucleus than it did around the proton. This process would release a considerable amount of energy, and the proton left over from the Hydrino would be expected to be ejected from the atom, probably carrying much, if not all, of that energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:08:43 -0800: Hi, [snip] Has anyone studied Piantelli's work enough to comment on whether I've gotten this right or missed something important? Can anyone (Robin?) comment on which parts are controversial and which are accepted physics? I understand that you can see the emission of a gamma ray from large, metastable nuclei, when the nucleons rearrange to a lower energy level, but is this possible with as light an atom as nickel? Apparently a double beta decay of 58Ni to 58Fe is energetically possible, with the release of 1.9 MeV, which falls in the middle of the range reported by Piantelli for his proton energy. Perhaps positioning a proton close to the Ni nucleus enhances the chance of this reaction occurring?? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Is it related to the theory proposed in that report http://webbshop.cm.se/System/TemplateView.aspx?p=Energimyndighetenview=defaultid=6d5bbc764d4942c89612bc9c5a9c4990 it seems different, but the orbiting of 2 nucleus together seems a common point 2013/1/22 mix...@bigpond.com In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:09:37 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Eric, the theory as you describe it is quite unusual. I understand energy release of this nature as being due to an isomer transition within the nucleus. Is that what is being proposed? We should review the charts and see if there are know isomers of nickel which might be contributing to the energy source. If none are known to science so far, perhaps Piantellii and his partners have found a new one. The idea of a negative hydride ion displacing an electron and orbiting close to the nucleus is something I posited on this list several years back, in relation to Hydrino hydride. We were talking about an exchange between K Ar. Perhaps Piantelli is seeing some evidence of this, and doesn't know what he's looking at. I have also on occasion suggested that a Hydrino might get close to another nucleus, and the shrunken electron might jump ship to the target nucleus (as it has a higher central charge than the proton), taking up a new even tighter orbit around the new nucleus than it did around the proton. This process would release a considerable amount of energy, and the proton left over from the Hydrino would be expected to be ejected from the atom, probably carrying much, if not all, of that energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:08:56 +1100: Hi, [snip] In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:08:43 -0800: Hi, [snip] Has anyone studied Piantelli's work enough to comment on whether I've gotten this right or missed something important? Can anyone (Robin?) comment on which parts are controversial and which are accepted physics? I understand that you can see the emission of a gamma ray from large, metastable nuclei, when the nucleons rearrange to a lower energy level, but is this possible with as light an atom as nickel? Apparently a double beta decay of 58Ni to 58Fe is energetically possible, with the release of 1.9 MeV, which falls in the middle of the range reported by Piantelli for his proton energy. This is actually a double beta+ conversion, two protons converting to two neutrons, so it might also be seen as a double electron capture reaction. A Hydrino molecule might merge with the 58Ni. The shrunken electrons are captured and convert protons into neutrons, and two protons are ejected in place of the Hydrino molecule. Or alternatively, the two shrunken electrons of the Hydrino molecule are captured by the 58Ni nucleus, converting it into 58Fe, and the protons of the Hydrino molecule are ejected. Either way, energy is released, and protons are ejected. BTW a double electron capture reaction would add the energy of two electron masses to the reaction, i.e. adding another 1 MeV, thus neatly accounting for the 3 MeV that Piantelli reports as his maximum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Robin, Why would you be able to add the masses of the 2 electrons to that of the nickel? They would need to be regenerated every time a reaction was required or eventually you would run out of them. If you are thinking of some form of radiation release that produces an electron and positron pair, then that energy would also need to be subtracted from what is released by the reaction. Has the existence of that hydrino been proven? I like the concept, but am not aware that anyone has been able to actually capture a number of them to measure. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 9:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:08:56 +1100: Hi, [snip] In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:08:43 -0800: Hi, [snip] Has anyone studied Piantelli's work enough to comment on whether I've gotten this right or missed something important? Can anyone (Robin?) comment on which parts are controversial and which are accepted physics? I understand that you can see the emission of a gamma ray from large, metastable nuclei, when the nucleons rearrange to a lower energy level, but is this possible with as light an atom as nickel? Apparently a double beta decay of 58Ni to 58Fe is energetically possible, with the release of 1.9 MeV, which falls in the middle of the range reported by Piantelli for his proton energy. This is actually a double beta+ conversion, two protons converting to two neutrons, so it might also be seen as a double electron capture reaction. A Hydrino molecule might merge with the 58Ni. The shrunken electrons are captured and convert protons into neutrons, and two protons are ejected in place of the Hydrino molecule. Or alternatively, the two shrunken electrons of the Hydrino molecule are captured by the 58Ni nucleus, converting it into 58Fe, and the protons of the Hydrino molecule are ejected. Either way, energy is released, and protons are ejected. BTW a double electron capture reaction would add the energy of two electron masses to the reaction, i.e. adding another 1 MeV, thus neatly accounting for the 3 MeV that Piantelli reports as his maximum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:43:10 +1100: Hi, [snip] I may be double counting the electron masses, since I calculated the original 1.9 MeV based on the mass of whole atoms, and there is already a difference of two electrons between them. Apparently a double beta decay of 58Ni to 58Fe is energetically possible, with the release of 1.9 MeV, which falls in the middle of the range reported by Piantelli for his proton energy. This is actually a double beta+ conversion, two protons converting to two neutrons, so it might also be seen as a double electron capture reaction. A Hydrino molecule might merge with the 58Ni. The shrunken electrons are captured and convert protons into neutrons, and two protons are ejected in place of the Hydrino molecule. Or alternatively, the two shrunken electrons of the Hydrino molecule are captured by the 58Ni nucleus, converting it into 58Fe, and the protons of the Hydrino molecule are ejected. Either way, energy is released, and protons are ejected. BTW a double electron capture reaction would add the energy of two electron masses to the reaction, i.e. adding another 1 MeV, thus neatly accounting for the 3 MeV that Piantelli reports as his maximum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:56:41 -0500 (EST): Hi, It looks like our emails crossed. :) Robin, Why would you be able to add the masses of the 2 electrons to that of the nickel? They would need to be regenerated every time a reaction was required or eventually you would run out of them. Not the intention. Charge is conserved in all these reactions. Any electrons used combine with protons to form neutrons. Has the existence of that hydrino been proven? What is proof? I like the concept, but am not aware that anyone has been able to actually capture a number of them to measure. Check out a couple of Mills' papers. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:43 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: i.e. adding another 1 MeV, thus neatly accounting for the 3 MeV that Piantelli reports as his maximum. I couldn't find offhand any numbers in Piantelli's patent. I mentioned offhand at one point that there have been 1-3 MeV protons seen in some CR-39 experiments, but none of these were from Piantelli that I know of. I think he has talked about tracks in a cloud chamber, but I do not recall the energies reported in that connection. Eric
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:47 -0800: Hi, [snip] Thanks for the clarification. On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:43 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: i.e. adding another 1 MeV, thus neatly accounting for the 3 MeV that Piantelli reports as his maximum. I couldn't find offhand any numbers in Piantelli's patent. I mentioned offhand at one point that there have been 1-3 MeV protons seen in some CR-39 experiments, but none of these were from Piantelli that I know of. I think he has talked about tracks in a cloud chamber, but I do not recall the energies reported in that connection. Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
*At this point things won't go any further unless a second energy threshold (2) is exceeded through one of a large number of means (mechanical shock, electric current, x-rays, etc.).* What is behing this stimulation? Cheers:Axil On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: At this point things won't go any further unless a second energy threshold (2) is exceeded through one of a large number of means (mechanical shock, electric current, x-rays, etc.).
[Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
I am reading through Piantelli, Bergomi and Tiziano's 2013 EP2368252B1 patent [1], trying to understand the basic mechanism that is thought to be the source of the heat they're generating. Here I will attempt to reproduce their description in my own words -- I do not know anything about its plausibility and am just trying to understand what they're saying. I have attempted this elsewhere [2], but now that I read through the new patent it occurs to me that I probably misunderstood Piantelli in my previous attempt. As an initial comment, Piantelli et al. refer to nuclear reactions several times in the 2013 patent, but I gather that these are not intended to be fusion reactions for the most part, but rather a reorganization of the nucleons in the substrate nuclei (primarily nickel) to a lower energy level. They accomplish this through the catalytic action of hydrogen. There are two important activation energies; the first (1) involves raising the temperature of the substrate above a critical level and the second (2) involves introducing a shock of some kind to the system that raises the energy in specific regions to an even higher level. If I have understood the authors, the system and mechanism can be described like this: You need clusters of transition metal atoms of certain sizes involving magic numbers above a minimum count and and below a maximum one, where the metal atoms are arranged in a regular crystalline pattern (fcc, bcc, hexagonal). The number and atom count of the clusters determines the potential power output. These clusters of transition metal atoms are then exposed to hydrogen, which adsorbs onto the surface layers. If the substrate is heated sufficiently, through nonlinear and aharmonic interactions there will be phonons whose energy exceeds the first critical threshold (1) mentioned above. When this happens, molecular hydrogen will dissociate and, through some unspecified means, H- ions will be created, where the H presumably take on valence electrons in the transition metal cluster. At this point things won't go any further unless a second energy threshold (2) is exceeded through one of a large number of means (mechanical shock, electric current, x-rays, etc.). If one of these triggers is supplied, the H- ion formed in the previous steps will, through unspecified means, replace an electron in the metal atom. At this point Piantelli et al. claim that the Pauli exclusion principle and the Heisenberg uncertain principle will work together to force the negative H- ion, which is thousands of times heavier than an electron, into an inner shell of the transition metal atom, forming a complex atom that combines the transition metal atom with an orbiting H- ion, in a manner similar to f/H catalysis. When this happens there will be x-rays and Augur electrons. At this range the H- ion will be very close to the transition metal nucleus, and the size of the H- ion and its proximity to the metal nucleus will force a reorganization of the metal nucleus and a consequent mass deficit, resulting in the expelling of the H- ion as a proton and a release of energy into the system. This appears to be the central mechanism responsible for heat in their account. The proton can presumably go on to do other things, maybe causing an occasional fusion, but the authors do not appear to rely upon this as the primary channel. Has anyone studied Piantelli's work enough to comment on whether I've gotten this right or missed something important? Can anyone (Robin?) comment on which parts are controversial and which are accepted physics? I understand that you can see the emission of a gamma ray from large, metastable nuclei, when the nucleons rearrange to a lower energy level, but is this possible with as light an atom as nickel? Two interesting points to note -- first, there is evidence for 1-3 MeV protons in some of the CR-39 LENR experiments. Second, Piantelli et al. are vague on the question of the deuterium content. They say that the hydrogen can have the natural level of deuterium (0.015 percent), or it can have a deuterium content distinct from this, but they do not specifically say that you can use H2 that contains no deuterium. Eric [1] http://www.22passi.it/downloads/EP2368252B1[1].pdf [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg72906.html
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
I address some of this in the following treads: [Vo]:An ionization chain reaction [Vo]:noble gase cluster explosion What happens in the Papp reaction also happens in the NiH reaction, just with a different cluster type. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I am reading through Piantelli, Bergomi and Tiziano's 2013 EP2368252B1 patent [1], trying to understand the basic mechanism that is thought to be the source of the heat they're generating. Here I will attempt to reproduce their description in my own words -- I do not know anything about its plausibility and am just trying to understand what they're saying. I have attempted this elsewhere [2], but now that I read through the new patent it occurs to me that I probably misunderstood Piantelli in my previous attempt. As an initial comment, Piantelli et al. refer to nuclear reactions several times in the 2013 patent, but I gather that these are not intended to be fusion reactions for the most part, but rather a reorganization of the nucleons in the substrate nuclei (primarily nickel) to a lower energy level. They accomplish this through the catalytic action of hydrogen. There are two important activation energies; the first (1) involves raising the temperature of the substrate above a critical level and the second (2) involves introducing a shock of some kind to the system that raises the energy in specific regions to an even higher level. If I have understood the authors, the system and mechanism can be described like this: You need clusters of transition metal atoms of certain sizes involving magic numbers above a minimum count and and below a maximum one, where the metal atoms are arranged in a regular crystalline pattern (fcc, bcc, hexagonal). The number and atom count of the clusters determines the potential power output. These clusters of transition metal atoms are then exposed to hydrogen, which adsorbs onto the surface layers. If the substrate is heated sufficiently, through nonlinear and aharmonic interactions there will be phonons whose energy exceeds the first critical threshold (1) mentioned above. When this happens, molecular hydrogen will dissociate and, through some unspecified means, H- ions will be created, where the H presumably take on valence electrons in the transition metal cluster. At this point things won't go any further unless a second energy threshold (2) is exceeded through one of a large number of means (mechanical shock, electric current, x-rays, etc.). If one of these triggers is supplied, the H- ion formed in the previous steps will, through unspecified means, replace an electron in the metal atom. At this point Piantelli et al. claim that the Pauli exclusion principle and the Heisenberg uncertain principle will work together to force the negative H- ion, which is thousands of times heavier than an electron, into an inner shell of the transition metal atom, forming a complex atom that combines the transition metal atom with an orbiting H- ion, in a manner similar to f/H catalysis. When this happens there will be x-rays and Augur electrons. At this range the H- ion will be very close to the transition metal nucleus, and the size of the H- ion and its proximity to the metal nucleus will force a reorganization of the metal nucleus and a consequent mass deficit, resulting in the expelling of the H- ion as a proton and a release of energy into the system. This appears to be the central mechanism responsible for heat in their account. The proton can presumably go on to do other things, maybe causing an occasional fusion, but the authors do not appear to rely upon this as the primary channel. Has anyone studied Piantelli's work enough to comment on whether I've gotten this right or missed something important? Can anyone (Robin?) comment on which parts are controversial and which are accepted physics? I understand that you can see the emission of a gamma ray from large, metastable nuclei, when the nucleons rearrange to a lower energy level, but is this possible with as light an atom as nickel? Two interesting points to note -- first, there is evidence for 1-3 MeV protons in some of the CR-39 LENR experiments. Second, Piantelli et al. are vague on the question of the deuterium content. They say that the hydrogen can have the natural level of deuterium (0.015 percent), or it can have a deuterium content distinct from this, but they do not specifically say that you can use H2 that contains no deuterium. Eric [1] http://www.22passi.it/downloads/EP2368252B1[1].pdf [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg72906.html
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Christos Stremmenos on Piantelli Patent I was very much surprised, upon reading the “Description of Prior Art” in the publication of European Patent EP 2368 252 B1 (Jan 16th 2013, priority 24/11/2008) granted to inventor Francesco Piantelli, to find out that the inventor was said to have been working with nickel nano-powders since 1998. This is completely inaccurate. At that time, the only one who, together with Prof. Focardi, was making use of Ni and Pd nano-powders (prepared at Prof. E. Bonetti’s laboratory at the Department of Physics of the University of Bologna) was the present writer. I also know that Andrea Rossi had been working with nickel powders since the mid nineteen-nineties. I had repeatedly consulted with Piantelli, who insisted that powders could not work — he explained why it was so with his more or less abstruse theories. read the rest here http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/christos-stremmenos-on-piantelli-patent/
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
I have comented there Peter On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:55 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Christos Stremmenos on Piantelli Patent I was very much surprised, upon reading the “Description of Prior Art” in the publication of European Patent EP 2368 252 B1 (Jan 16th 2013, priority 24/11/2008) granted to inventor Francesco Piantelli, to find out that the inventor was said to have been working with nickel nano-powders since 1998. This is completely inaccurate. At that time, the only one who, together with Prof. Focardi, was making use of Ni and Pd nano-powders (prepared at Prof. E. Bonetti’s laboratory at the Department of Physics of the University of Bologna) was the present writer. I also know that Andrea Rossi had been working with nickel powders since the mid nineteen-nineties. I had repeatedly consulted with Piantelli, who insisted that powders could not work — he explained why it was so with his more or less abstruse theories. read the rest here http://www.e-catworld.com/** 2013/01/christos-stremmenos-**on-piantelli-patent/http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/christos-stremmenos-on-piantelli-patent/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Eric, the theory as you describe it is quite unusual. I understand energy release of this nature as being due to an isomer transition within the nucleus. Is that what is being proposed? We should review the charts and see if there are know isomers of nickel which might be contributing to the energy source. If none are known to science so far, perhaps Piantellii and his partners have found a new one. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 3:09 am Subject: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent I am reading through Piantelli, Bergomi and Tiziano's 2013 EP2368252B1 patent [1], trying to understand the basic mechanism that is thought to be the source of the heat they're generating. Here I will attempt to reproduce their description in my own words -- I do not know anything about its plausibility and am just trying to understand what they're saying. I have attempted this elsewhere [2], but now that I read through the new patent it occurs to me that I probably misunderstood Piantelli in my previous attempt. As an initial comment, Piantelli et al. refer to nuclear reactions several times in the 2013 patent, but I gather that these are not intended to be fusion reactions for the most part, but rather a reorganization of the nucleons in the substrate nuclei (primarily nickel) to a lower energy level. They accomplish this through the catalytic action of hydrogen. There are two important activation energies; the first (1) involves raising the temperature of the substrate above a critical level and the second (2) involves introducing a shock of some kind to the system that raises the energy in specific regions to an even higher level. If I have understood the authors, the system and mechanism can be described like this: You need clusters of transition metal atoms of certain sizes involving magic numbers above a minimum count and and below a maximum one, where the metal atoms are arranged in a regular crystalline pattern (fcc, bcc, hexagonal). The number and atom count of the clusters determines the potential power output. These clusters of transition metal atoms are then exposed to hydrogen, which adsorbs onto the surface layers. If the substrate is heated sufficiently, through nonlinear and aharmonic interactions there will be phonons whose energy exceeds the first critical threshold (1) mentioned above. When this happens, molecular hydrogen will dissociate and, through some unspecified means, H- ions will be created, where the H presumably take on valence electrons in the transition metal cluster. At this point things won't go any further unless a second energy threshold (2) is exceeded through one of a large number of means (mechanical shock, electric current, x-rays, etc.). If one of these triggers is supplied, the H- ion formed in the previous steps will, through unspecified means, replace an electron in the metal atom. At this point Piantelli et al. claim that the Pauli exclusion principle and the Heisenberg uncertain principle will work together to force the negative H- ion, which is thousands of times heavier than an electron, into an inner shell of the transition metal atom, forming a complex atom that combines the transition metal atom with an orbiting H- ion, in a manner similar to f/H catalysis. When this happens there will be x-rays and Augur electrons. At this range the H- ion will be very close to the transition metal nucleus, and the size of the H- ion and its proximity to the metal nucleus will force a reorganization of the metal nucleus and a consequent mass deficit, resulting in the expelling of the H- ion as a proton and a release of energy into the system. This appears to be the central mechanism responsible for heat in their account. The proton can presumably go on to do other things, maybe causing an occasional fusion, but the authors do not appear to rely upon this as the primary channel. Has anyone studied Piantelli's work enough to comment on whether I've gotten this right or missed something important? Can anyone (Robin?) comment on which parts are controversial and which are accepted physics? I understand that you can see the emission of a gamma ray from large, metastable nuclei, when the nucleons rearrange to a lower energy level, but is this possible with as light an atom as nickel? Two interesting points to note -- first, there is evidence for 1-3 MeV protons in some of the CR-39 LENR experiments. Second, Piantelli et al. are vague on the question of the deuterium content. They say that the hydrogen can have the natural level of deuterium (0.015 percent), or it can have a deuterium content distinct from this, but they do not specifically say that you can use H2 that contains no deuterium. Eric [1] http://www.22passi.it/downloads/EP2368252B1[1].pdf [2] http://www.mail
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Stremmenos refers to the work of Zichini: Piantelli acknowledged his own publication on Nuovo Cimento, but no mention was made of the fact that in the following number of Nuovo Cimento (Vol. 102, No. 12), Prof. Zichichi and his team at the University of Bologna, where I also was teaching at the time, tested Piantelli’s apparatus and discovered that it didn’t work at all, and that all of Piantelli’s statements were unfounded. What is this about? Does anyone know about this paper? I do not have a copy and I have never heard of it. I looked at contents of Nuovo Cimento (Vol. 102, No. 12) at the Springer.com site but I do not see a paper by Zichini. I know that that Cerron-Zaballos were unable to replicate Piantelli. Cerron-Zeballos, E., et al., Investigation of anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1996. 109A: p. 1645. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
the affair is explained the best at Steve Krivit's NET site. Piantelli has told me that Zichichi has not collaborated with him, has not followed his advices and knew anything better than him.. All the stories Stremmenos tell are not relevant- the patent authority has decided that Piantelli's WO 2010/058288 is good as patent and... finita la commedia! Is useless to attack Piantelli. In the 3 writings about Piantelli on my blog he explains who he got the idea of nanostructures. By the way the rods of Piantelli also have nanostructures on the surface due to hydrogen fragilization. Piantelli is the real Father of the Ni-H branch of LENR. Peter On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Stremmenos refers to the work of Zichini: Piantelli acknowledged his own publication on Nuovo Cimento, but no mention was made of the fact that in the following number of Nuovo Cimento (Vol. 102, No. 12), Prof. Zichichi and his team at the University of Bologna, where I also was teaching at the time, tested Piantelli’s apparatus and discovered that it didn’t work at all, and that all of Piantelli’s statements were unfounded. What is this about? Does anyone know about this paper? I do not have a copy and I have never heard of it. I looked at contents of Nuovo Cimento (Vol. 102, No. 12) at the Springer.com site but I do not see a paper by Zichini. I know that that Cerron-Zaballos were unable to replicate Piantelli. Cerron-Zeballos, E., et al., Investigation of anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1996. 109A: p. 1645. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: the affair is explained the best at Steve Krivit's NET site. Unfortunately that is now behind a pay wall. Piantelli has told me that Zichichi has not collaborated with him, has not followed his advices and knew anything better than him.. Who is Zichini? I have never head of him. I found a Wikipedia page on him, but there is nothing relating to cold fusion. Did he publish a paper? Britz, Storms and I have compiles a good bibliography of cold fusion papers. Zichini is not an author or coauthor. Is is possible Stremmenos meant Cerron-Zeballos? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Piantelli is the real Father of the Ni-H branch of LENR. If Ni-H cold fusion is real, Mills is the real father. Fleischmann was the first to suggest the use of Ni, but Mills was the first to do it, as far as I know. There is plenty of credit to go around. Rossi is the first to apply the nanoparticle technique to Ni, as far I know. Arata pioneered the nanoparticle technique. It was a darn good idea to try it. Rossi deserves tremendous credit for this. If his technique is as good as he claims, he is the third most important person in this history of this field, after FP. There are many people in fourth place. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Peter, I consider the use of nano sized powders as different than using wires even if the wire has nano sized structures on its surface. By using the powder, Rossi and others of a like mind are acknowledging that the surface area is the important variable. Anyone that relies upon wire most likely is thinking of bulk effects. The performance could be orders of magnitude different depending upon where the reaction takes place and how deep it occurs. The basic reaction of nickel and hydrogen is an idea which perhaps Piantelli came up with and has experimented with. The use of powder should be considered a major improvement to the original concept. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 10:45 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent the affair is explained the best at Steve Krivit's NET site. Piantelli has told me that Zichichi has not collaborated with him, has not followed his advices and knew anything better than him.. All the stories Stremmenos tell are not relevant- the patent authority has decided that Piantelli's WO 2010/058288 is good as patent and... finita la commedia! Is useless to attack Piantelli. In the 3 writings about Piantelli on my blog he explains who he got the idea of nanostructures. By the way the rods of Piantelli also have nanostructures on the surface due to hydrogen fragilization. Piantelli is the real Father of the Ni-H branch of LENR. Peter On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Stremmenos refers to the work of Zichini: Piantelli acknowledged his own publication on Nuovo Cimento, but no mention was made of the fact that in the following number of Nuovo Cimento (Vol. 102, No. 12), Prof. Zichichi and his team at the University of Bologna, where I also was teaching at the time, tested Piantelli’s apparatus and discovered that it didn’t work at all, and that all of Piantelli’s statements were unfounded. What is this about? Does anyone know about this paper? I do not have a copy and I have never heard of it. I looked at contents of Nuovo Cimento (Vol. 102, No. 12) at the Springer.com site but I do not see a paper by Zichini. I know that that Cerron-Zaballos were unable to replicate Piantelli. Cerron-Zeballos, E., et al., Investigation of anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1996. 109A: p. 1645. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Jed please try: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml see Nos 12 and 13- let me know if it works for you. Piantelli has discovered the effect H-Ni on Aug 16, 1989 and published it in a local univ. journal Have you read what I wrote about Piantelli starting with the Piantelli Taxonomy? my info comes from him. Peter On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Piantelli is the real Father of the Ni-H branch of LENR. If Ni-H cold fusion is real, Mills is the real father. Fleischmann was the first to suggest the use of Ni, but Mills was the first to do it, as far as I know. There is plenty of credit to go around. Rossi is the first to apply the nanoparticle technique to Ni, as far I know. Arata pioneered the nanoparticle technique. It was a darn good idea to try it. Rossi deserves tremendous credit for this. If his technique is as good as he claims, he is the third most important person in this history of this field, after FP. There are many people in fourth place. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Jed please try: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml see Nos 12 and 13- let me know if it works for you. I found the passage below significant because a fairly recent discussion on vortex-l left me with the impression that they did not *publish* anything in response to the CERN paper. Harry Piantelli-Focardi Group Responds to CERN In November 1998, the Piantelli-Focardi group published Large Excess Heat Production in Ni-H Systems,[14] again in Il Nuovo Cimento. The paper directly responds to the most significant criticism of the 1996 CERN paper. In the Piantelli-Focardi authors’ introduction to their new paper, they state that they modified the cell they reported in 1994 [3] with an improvement which allows the measurement and the monitoring of the external surface temperature. With this new set-up, the Piantelli-Focardi group writes, the external temperature increase, together with the internal one, have been utilized to characterize the excited state of the Ni sample. The existence of an exothermic effect, whose heat yield is well above that of any known chemical reaction, has been unambiguously confirmed by evaluating the thermal flux coming from the cells. The paper clarifies the term excited state as the phase in which the experiment was producing anomalous heat. Britz wrote the follow summary of the 1998 Piantelli-Focardi group’s paper: In addition to a cell used by this team earlier, consisting of a tubular vacuum chamber with a heating mantle around a Ni rod and a single temperature probe on the outside and the inside of the mantle, a new cell has now been designed with multiple probes. “Hydrogen gas was admitted to the chambers, which were heated, and temperatures measured. Transient lowering of the input power produced, upon restoring the power, temperatures higher than before the transients. This showed the presence of nuclear phenomena, and calibrations performed calculated roughly 20 Watts of excess power generated by the hydrided Ni rods. The effect, once started, lasted for 278 days, the duration of the experiment.
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Okay, I found the problem. This is the Cerron-Zeballos paper, but the co-author Zichichi was spelled wrong in my EndNote database. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Piantelli has discovered the effect H-Ni on Aug 16, 1989 and published it in a local univ. journal Have you read what I wrote about Piantelli starting with the Piantelli Taxonomy? Well, if he really published that early, I guess he gets priority over Mills. Neither of them has been satisfactorily replicated, in my opinion. Really, the first totally convincing Ni-H results may end up being Rossi's. Assuming HE is fully confirmed someday. By the way, the paper I referred to is here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:09 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I understand energy release of this nature as being due to an isomer transition within the nucleus. Is that what is being proposed? That is the term I was looking for -- isomeric transitions. There are metastable isomers of, for example, isotopes of nickel. But if I have understood what Piantelli is saying, in order for the reaction to be gainful, these metastable isomers are too short-lived to be what he needs. I believe he needs the normal isomers to be very long-lived metastable ones, and then the action of hydrogen brings them down to a heretofore unknown ground state. This would need to apply to most or all transition metals, and not just nickel, since the patent covers the transition metals generally and not just nickel. Eric
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
I would be surprised if such a group of isomers were available but not discovered until the present. It is possible, but some of the nickel isotopes are known to exhibit them and it would be strange for the researchers to have overlooked ones associated with other isotopes. Obviously, the energy would have to already be stored there before Piantelli could release it. Any action that merely stores energy in one of these to be reclaimed later would result in an overall energy gain of zero. How confident are you that this is the reaction that he considers valid for his patent? There is an outside probability that isomers of this nature do exist and have remained undetected. If the mechanism required to achieve the energy release is extremely unlikely to occur and is not produced by the typical known drive mechanisms, then perhaps so. The way you described the release process would most definitely fall into the category of unlikely! It would be exciting to find out that he is correct. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 10:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:09 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I understand energy release of this nature as being due to an isomer transition within the nucleus. Is that what is being proposed? That is the term I was looking for -- isomeric transitions. There are metastable isomers of, for example, isotopes of nickel. But if I have understood what Piantelli is saying, in order for the reaction to be gainful, these metastable isomers are too short-lived to be what he needs. I believe he needs the normal isomers to be very long-lived metastable ones, and then the action of hydrogen brings them down to a heretofore unknown ground state. This would need to apply to most or all transition metals, and not just nickel, since the patent covers the transition metals generally and not just nickel. Eric
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: How confident are you that this is the reaction that he considers valid for his patent? Not confident at all. It could be something entirely different. One question I have is about patent law. If you file a patent and create a device that someone knowledgeable in the art can reproduce, but your theory about how it worked was incorrect, can the patent still be defended? Eric
Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: One question I have is about patent law. If you file a patent and create a device that someone knowledgeable in the art can reproduce, but your theory about how it worked was incorrect, can the patent still be defended? I think David French said no to this, which surprised me. He recommends you leave out any discussion of theory. If you don't include it, you do not need to defend. The less you put in the patent, the better. - Jed
