Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
On Monday 20 June 2005 22:24, John Coviello wrote: Professor Peter Hagelstein mentioned the iESiusa development at the MIT Cold Fusion colloquium last month. He said a group associated with iESiusa had secured a South Korean patent for a cold fusion technology and that he expected commercial developments in the near future. iESiusa also put out a press release in recent weeks stating that their co-founder and Chief Technology Officer had moved to their offices in Canada to help with the commercialization of their energy technology. It remains to be seen if iESiusa is just blowing hot air or has something real. Being from Las Vegas certainly gives me pause about iESiusa. Lots of sharks in Vegas. I am reserving judgment on iESiusa until they demonstrate something significant. iESiusa definitely deserves a field trip by cold fusion advocates to see if they seem legit. Dunno, but their web site only hands out old PDFs. Don't have the patience on a slow connection to get PDF's that will probably turn out to be not on subject. The PDFs they now hand out are old and not on subject. Our subject anyway. Standing Bear
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
Standing Bear wrote: Dunno, but their web site only hands out old PDFs. Don't have the patience on a slow connection to get PDF's that will probably turn out to be not on subject. The PDFs they now hand out are old and not on subject. Our subject anyway. The PDFs and other info at the iESi website have no useful information, but information about the claims is reportedly available, in the form of patents and technical papers by other researchers, including Irina Savvatimova, as I mentioned. I do not actually have any of these patents or papers yet, but I am starting to look around for one in English. A couple of days ago, Ludwik Kowalski uploaded summaries of two Russian papers describing replications. See: http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/230baranov.html He wrote: [Fig. 1] shows a loop in which oil is forced to circulate under pulsating pressure. Numerous technical details (pump rpm, pressures, frequencies, etc. are provided. But he did not translate the details. If someone here wishes to try the experiment, I expect he would be happy to provide more details, and images from the paper. People who have replicated recommend the use of oil instead of double distilled water. Both are dielectrics, but oil is easier to work with and it can be used many times, whereas the water quickly becomes conductive so it can only be used once (in one pass). Ludwik's address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] If anyone here is thinking about testing the iESi claims you should definitely contact him. This gadget seems to be related to the Griggs and Stringham gadgets, which is reason to think it may be real after all. Nothing in the iESi website gives us any confidence, but these other experiments do. If Irina tells us she replicated it, I would be inclined to believe her, although I would want to know why she dropped it in favor of glow discharge, if it works as well as claimed. Perhaps she replicated an older, less-impressive version, not the 20:1 miracle machine. - Jed
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
John Coviello wrote: iESiusa definitely deserves a field trip by cold fusion advocates to see if they seem legit. I have been in communication with them, and I would go, but they want visitors to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), and that is something I will not do. As I said yesterday, for me that would take away the whole point of the trip, which is to share information. If I were an investor I might consider it. iESi will have no credibility until they independently replicated and the replication is published. I gather they do not care about credibility. On the contrary, their web site seems designed to make them look like frauds. They want to keep a lid on the discovery even though it has been patented. They say they have improved it since the patent was issued. Ludwik Kowalski has written some highly skeptical reviews of the research, starting with this one: http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/216koldamasov.html - Jed
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
Jean de Lagarde wrote: For more than three months since a large exchange in the beginning of march 2005, we have not heard about IESI. Have they been visited by competent people which coud give us news of this supposed fantastic breakthrough or does it exist non disclosure agreements that prevent them to talk ? I have heard that competent people have visited, and they were favorably impressed, but they have not written any reports yet as far as I know. Who knows what to make of it? I do not know whether these people signed non-disclosure agreements or not. They have not disclosed anything to me, except that they were favorably impressed. The thing is, they wouldn't tell me, and I wouldn't care to listen in any case, because I have no use for secrets. I do not want to hear confidential, semi-confidential, or even slightly confidential information. If I am not free to publish every detail on LENR-CANR.org or here on Vortex, I do not want to know about it. I am interested in two kinds of information: 1. Academic science. This must be fully open and transparent. If any part is kept secret, it isn't valid academic science. 2. Technology for which a patent has been applied for, or technology already in the public domain. If any part of a patent application is kept secret, the patent will be ruled invalid. There are plenty of other kinds of intellectual property, such as trade secrets, but I personally have no use for such things, since I am trying to promote cold fusion and hand out accurate information about it. Telling readers that a secret process exists is not helpful or useful. Or is it dead ? We would be happy to know It does not seem dead, but until it is proved with independent replications it is not alive, either. It is in limbo, along with dozens of other claims. - Jed
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
Professor Peter Hagelstein mentioned the iESiusa development at the MIT Cold Fusion colloquium last month. He said a group associated with iESiusa had secured a South Korean patent for a cold fusion technology and that he expected commercial developments in the near future. iESiusa also put out a press release in recent weeks stating that their co-founder andChief Technology Officer had movedto their offices in Canadato help with the commercialization of their energytechnology. It remains to be seen if iESiusa is just blowing hot air or has something real. Being from Las Vegas certainly gives me pause about iESiusa. Lots of sharks in Vegas. I am reserving judgment on iESiusa until they demonstrate something significant. iESiusa definitely deserves a field trip by cold fusion advocates to see if they seem legit.
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
Sources say there has been big breakthrough with CF Pd-Rh alloys. A company called Innovative Energy Solutions Inc. has been formed to market the technology. See: http://iesiusa.com/ - Jed For more than three months since a large exchange in the beginning of march 2005, we have not heard about IESI. Have they been visited by competent people which coud give us news of this supposed fantastic breakthrough or does it exist non disclosure agreements that prevent them to talk ? Or is it dead ? We would be happy to know Jean de Lagarde.
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
Jean, Sources say there has been big breakthrough with CF Pd-Rh alloys. Aha... ! Is it merely coincidental - or were you considering Pd-Rh alloy for the MAHG? At least, something close to this was conclusion was also arrived at by me recently, based on a wide study of the literature of the hydrogen properties of what is available for use as electrodes - but substituting the next element in the periodic table - i.e. Ruthenium instead of Rhodium. Just based upon the numbers, it looks to me like a roughly 50-50 alloy of Pd and Ru is the best choice for MAHG - but then again - I am assuming a non-nuclear anomaly, while I suspect that you are considering a LENR effect. It will be interesting to see... ... and the best news about Pd-Ru alloy is - that despite whatever claims are made by others - the use of Pd-Ru in a hydrogen cell was patented in 1982 and that IP has long since expired. From the Kujas patent: Negative hydrogen electrode comprising an alloy palladium and ruthenium United States Patent #4,460,6601982 it is evident that, in such a cell, the hydrogen can only be converted into electrical power by means of the catalyst in the catalytic electrode. It follows that the efficiency and durability of the catalyst is frequently the determining factor of the useful life of such a fuel cell. Conventionally, the catalyst in such electrodes is generally an alloy of two or more metals including at least one noble metal such as platinum, ruthenium, niobium or the like. It is known that, in such cells, these catalyst materials can be poisoned by coming in contact with, e.g. copper in the electrolyte, or nickel which has broken away from the anode. Another hazard to the catalyst electrode in a nickel/hydrogen fuel cell is overconcentration of the electrolyte at higher polarization which results in electrolyte salt crystal formation on the catalyst surface. Any of these phenomena will significantly decrease the potential of the cell resulting in loss of operating efficiency for the vehicle containing it. In the literature pertaining to nickel-hydrogen fuel cells, palladium is not included among the noble metals suggested as catalytic materials. There are several reasons for this. Palladium is very sensitive to the above-mentioned phenomena, **particularly poisoning by copper.** [side note: is this why LENR cells are erratic - self-poisoning?} A pure palladium catalyst can be poisoned by amounts of copper measurable in angstroms. [side note #2 - copper is the most common transmutation product of LENR - that is pretty clear. If Kujas is correct, then LENR cells may be poisoning themselves with Cu !!] In addition, a pure palladium catalyst would be particularly unsuited for a nickel-hydrogen fuel cell because, under standard conditions in such cells, it will absorb up to 800 times its own volume of hydrogen. Further, pure palladium has shown a tendency to release from the support material during operation of test cells. In accordance with this invention, it has been found that palladium alloyed with ruthenium is unexpectedly substantially improved in tolerance to all of the aforementioned phenomena. In addition, the palladium/ruthenium electrodes provided in accordance with this invention are superior in operating efficiency to electrodes combining alloys of ruthenium with other noble metals such as platinum. Very interesting - I have spent days reviewing this FC electrode literature - and it amazing to me that many CF researchers are unaware of the depth of detail available in this field (active hydrogen electrodes) due to fuel-cell research. The problem is that much of it is unpublished trade-secret, and that the cross-over was never seen as a real possibility. However, I think it goes without saying that an alloy which is particularly good for a fuel cell would be a good 'candidate' for a MAHG or even LENR cathode (certainly it is no guarantee) - if only because some of that efficiency in the FC could possibly be related to non-chemical energy - whether it be LENR, of more likely a ZPE bare-proton effect. This could also be why one continues to hear anecdotal stories of FCs that appear to operate at overunity for considerable periods. And the self-poisoning effect is definitely an item that needs further attention. Jones It would not surprise me that Innovative Energy Solutions Inc. which is little more than an idea which has been incorporated, has now discovered the substantial IP problem which they face, due to Kujas et al. and decided to go trade secret from here on out.
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
thomas malloy wrote: IMHO, if the device is producing a commercially feasible amount of energy, ten times the input energy, the instrumentation doesn't have to be too complex. I agree it does not have to be complex, but it has to be present. It is so easy to show 10 x input, why not do it? The above technology sounds like the Piantelli patent. IMHO, Piantelli's technology was great, but Fiat Allis decided not to pursue it, and Dr. Piantelli didn't answer my emails. I've been expecting something like this. My Sources today say the gadget resembles Stringham's approach. *I* have been expecting someone to take Stringham's work and run with it. Arrogance comes with being a genius. Except when it doesn't. Also, arrogance usually comes with being stupid. I read the IESI press release. Can someone explain what a heat recovery system has to do with a LENR process? It is simple. If you have one, you don't need the other. - Jed
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
At 10:24 AM 3/3/5, Edmund Storms wrote: You forget Nick, that hydrogen will be mainly obtained from water. As a result, each hydrogen atom that is produced is accompanied by the necessary oxygen for its conversion back to water. I think that was Nick's point too. Also of interest is the fact that even if the primary source of energy for the hydrogen is methane gas, and the carbon is sequestered, there is a lot more oxygen around than the web site indicates. Using 15 lb/in^2 air pressure, that's rho = 1.055x10^4 kg/m^2 of atmosphere above the earth's surface. Using 6378 km as earth's radius R, we have area A = 4 Pi R^2 = 5.11x10^14 m^2. Total mass of the atmosphere is M_atmos = Rho * A = 5.39x10^18 kg. Total mass of oxygen is roughly 1/5 that or about 1.078x10^18 kg. We can afford to lose about 1/3 of that before life gets tough, or about 3.59x10^17 kg. Using H2 + 0.5 O2 - H2O + 228 kJ/mol, we get 228 kJ per 16 g of oxygen burned, or 1.425x10^7 J/kg of O2 burned, or 1.35x10^4 Btu/kg. Since world energy consumption is about 400 quads, or 400x10^15 Btu, that's (4x10^17 Btu)/(1.35x10^4 Btu/kg) = 3.08x10^13 kg of O2 consumption per year. That gives us a time T of about T = (3.59x10^17 kg)/(3.08x10^13 kg/yr) = 1.166x10^4 yrs, or about 11,660 years to get there. I would expect at least humans to adapt in that time, but who knows? I hope I got all that right. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
A Friend wrote to me: The people I know who have been [to visit IESI] and seen the equipment can't say anything other than there are big objects making lots of noise but no data is apparent or being offered. It smells strongly of Potopov to me. - Jed
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
Jed, Potopov is before my time. Can you say just a word or two about it? It worked? Didn't work? Status unknown? Thanks, Steve At 02:25 PM 3/3/2005 -0500, you wrote: A Friend wrote to me: The people I know who have been [to visit IESI] and seen the equipment can't say anything other than there are big objects making lots of noise but no data is apparent or being offered. It smells strongly of Potopov to me. - Jed
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
Stop the presses. I downloaded the white paper which is mostly white noise -- vapid. It describes the work of Hyunik Yang (Korea) et al. It says: They used resonate harmonic frequencies to expose the nuclei of atoms so they could put the nuclei together to obtain the energy from the fused product. Their system is inexpensive, safe, and easy to operate and construct. The first plasma device will produce heat by taking water and converting it to steam. This device is expected to be working by late 2004 and an early prototype is already functioning. The early prototype produces 14 times the energy put into it and the final product is expected to produce 200 times the energy going into the unit. The second plasma device is expected in early 2005 and it will use its energy to split the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. This device is already working in an old prototype which produces the hydrogen and oxygen and immediately recombines the two in a hot hydrogen and oxygen flame. The old hydrogen-oxygen device was the first proof that the team had successfully tapped the energy of the atom. It only produced 50% more energy out than went into the device but showed that the energy of the atom was being drawn upon. - Jed
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
Grimer wrote: I can understand your disgust with the poor standard of instrumentation, etc. Jed, but as far as I'm concerned, it all sounds terribly plausible. Actually, I think it is plausible too. That is why I am disgusted by the instrumentation, and also by the documents on this web site. If you have something which is demonstrably real, for goodness sake demonstrate it properly! I almost get the feeling the people who wrote this web site are trying to convince the world they are flakes. I will never forget the half-baked CETI demonstration in California, which gave me the impression it was intended to obfuscate and hide the facts rather than bring them to light. It turned that was *exactly* what it was intended to do! It worked all too well. The crackpot attitude that spurs people to put on half-baked demonstrations reminds me a of a story my mother used to tell about my brother when he was a little kid. This was back in the 50s. My parents were holdouts and refused to buy a television. The local grocery store chain held a contest, in which contestants submitted an advertising jingle, and the company president's wife picked the best one and two runner-ups. The first prize was a trip to Europe, the second prize was a television, and third prize was $10. My brother got an entry form and sat down at the table, furrowed his brow, and seemed to think for a long time. My mother asked, are you having trouble thinking up a jingle? He said no he could think of a jingle easily, but he was trying to think of one that would be pretty good -- good enough for second prize -- but not so good that it would win first prize, because he did not want to go to Europe -- he wanted the television. CF entrepreneurs are forever trying to be a little impressive -- just enough to entice investors -- but not too impressive, to avoid tipping off the competition. This is childish nonsense. In business, you should always make your best case. You put your best foot forward no matter who you are speaking with, and you should try to be scrupulously honest, even if you are having a casual conversation with an old lady at a bus stop. I know some old ladies who ride buses in New York City who are members of the board at major corporations. When you act evasive, experienced business people will assume you are engaged in a shell game, or they will think you are several tacos short of a platter. - Jed
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
Korean patent On http://iesiusa.com/intellectual.html there is a list of patents, but I don't recognize the number format. Can someone help? 10-20020026277 would be particularly interesting. :) Steve
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
Jed, Just for the heck of it I did a google on Hyunik Yang and got a large number of responses. He has reported on nanowires of Gallium Nitride and Gallium Phosphide, as well as jointly with some russians on an ”Experimental Study of Peculiarities of Electric Explosion ... web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/News/CFRLEngNews/CFRLEN44.htm It might be worth your while to look him up a little. There is also a bunch of stuff from this new Company. Hank
Re: Big CF breakthrough reported
Good work Robin. From their SEC filing (on their Web site) Patents 1. Hydrogen Technology 1. Korean Patent Application No. 10-2002-0026277 Energy Generating Device This patent has only been filed in Korean and has not been translated into English. The patent basically describes how the manufactured prototype Hydrogen Energy unit works. FWIW, as you notice, this is a patent pending. Their Web site does not say pending. Perhaps it was granted after the SEC filing. This too, from the filing: 2. Korean Patent Application No. 10-2002-0069231 Apparatus for Generating Hydrogen Gas Worldwide Patent Cooperation Treaties (PCT) Patent No. KR2003/002395 Perhaps they may be found on the WIPO site if you have the time to look. After spending hours searching the Korean patent database, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that this is a disinformation site. I was told about this situation by two people who are leaders in the cold fusion community over the past few days. Honestly, I am up to my eyebrows in editing the next newsletter so I've not dedicated much time to digging into this yet, but I'm happy to share my view: I'm skeptical. Optimistic but skeptical. The words Jed used to title this thread were the same I heard from an informant, perhaps the same one. We are all hoping for the day the sun will shine from the little CF jar, myself included. I think it's important for all of us to always do our own thinking, no matter which prominent U.S. theorist decides to endorse a particular commercial enterprise. This is one of the big lessons about cold fusion: Think for your (our) selves. Investigate and assess the facts and make up one's own decision. Perhaps this is a big breakthrough. How do we know that at this time? Certainly not from their Web site. Certainly not from their SEC filing and certainly not from searches of their patents. Perhaps this is a big story and I may miss being the first to report it, but I'm sorry, I need to see a lot more. We all remember Genesis World Energy, right? I've seen another website recently about an NGO that seems to really have their heart in the right place - but there's something weird about it, I can't quite put my finger on it. www.gifnet.org . Back to Innovative Energy Solutions, as soon as I kick out New Energy Times #9 I'll dig deeper into this. They have a main office in Vegas. I'm not opposed to driving out there any paying them a visit. Though I was told that they have intentionally kept a low profile so as to keep their lead from larger companies who could easily overpower them with massive resources. Seems reasonable. I have a few names and phone numbers to go on. If anybody digs up anything else interesting, I'll appreciate seeing that here. And whatever I turn up I'll kick it back to the community in New Energy Times #10. IES does seem to more transparent that GWE, posting their SEC filing and addresses and salaries of principals and such. I give them a lot of credit for that. Steve
RE: Big CF breakthrough reported
Hi Robin Steve, I too was disappointed when I went to KIPRIS and could not find the Korean documents. Granted, I can't read Korean, so all I hoped for was some diagrams, but nothing to be found. Don't get hung up on the zeros, as you can see from the search engine interface, they are optional. The website claims the documents are filed which means just that. Patents are numbered in so many ways, you just wouldn't believe it. I think if we can't find anything on KIPRIS we're not going to do much better elsewhere. That said, I had no problem finding the rest of the documents. They're Romanian, not Korean. Try RO112312 GAS-GAS TYPE HEAT EXCHANGERS WITH THERMIC TUBES as a sample. The inventor is listed on the website as having held a position at the University Transilvania, perhaps immortality has given him some insights into CF that we mere humans lack (grin). I would withhold judgement until we find out more. They clearly have some tangible sort of business here. K. -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Big CF breakthrough reported In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:38:00 -0800: Hi, [snip] Korean patent On http://iesiusa.com/intellectual.html there is a list of patents, but I don't recognize the number format. Can someone help? 10-20020026277 would be particularly interesting. :) Steve After spending hours searching the Korean patent database, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that this is a disinformation site. First, the patent nr. Patent No.10-2002006931 is actually missing a digit (supposed to be 7 digits following the year). Second, the other patent 10-20020026277 appears to relate to a BASE STATION APPARATUS AND HANDOVER CONTROL METHOD. I have written to them, and asked for clarification. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
