Eric, thanks for summarizing his patent for the Vortex readers. >From patenting ethics point of view this is a very strange approach trying to patent something, It almost looks like a quick job, dumping his mindset. His last figure is an example of that. He is following the track of worldwide patenting with this input however, which doesn't come cheap. Maybe he has an investor that backs him financially.
Axil, thanks for confirming his basics makes sense. From your previous postings I suspected that, but it's good to see confirmation. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > The author lives in Davis, California, which is not that far from me. > Here is the abstract: > > This invention describes the Least Action Nuclear Process (LANP). What >> makes this process different than that occurring in LENR or cold fusion >> devises is the temperature at which the nuclear process occurs, about 10^70 >> K [edited for clarity]. The process requires an element of new physics (a >> far-from-equilibrium blackbody theory), a poorly understood physical >> process (reversible thermodynamics), and a fundamental physics principle >> (Principle of Least Action) to model the electrolysis process wherein >> nuclear reactions occur. The invention can be used to understand, modify, >> enhance, calculate, or model the LANP process, or to understand, modify, >> enhance, model, design, manufacture, or operate, LANP devices, or to >> propose, study, design or apply new applications of LANP technology. > > > There's an easier-to-read version of the patent here: > > http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013184082A1?cl=en > > Some interesting details to mention: > > - He claims to be patenting a process (LANP), which, in his account, > appears to be a natural rather than a mechanical process. The patent > itself seems to consist of a description of a theory about this natural > process. If we have heard elsewhere that it is dangerous to include bits > of theory in a patent, he has bucked this wisdom and put all of his eggs in > this basket. > - He introduces a new temperature, the "radiation temperature," which > I believe consists of the energy flux through a surface defined between two > fundamental particles, a back-and-forth sharing of energy he suggests > happens trillions of times a second. The radiation temperature is > conceived as a sort of near-field temperature that does not exist beyond > the immediate environment of the particles being observed. > - He seeks to differentiate his process from LENR by claiming that > LENR is understood to occur at around 60-70 degrees celsius (in terms of > the normal "thermodynamic" temperature), whereas LANP occurs at 10^70 K > (radiation temperature). The reason we think LENR (which is really LANP) > is happening at lower temperatures is that the very high (radiation) > temperature relates to an adiabatic process that has no traces outside of > the electrolytic cell. > - He seems to believe that all LENR is actually LANP, and that LANP is > a proper replacement for LENR. > - He provides a number of embodiments. The embodiments appear to be > either descriptions of existing LENR electrolytic devices, or a series of > theoretical steps that build upon one another, or both. > - Among other things, LANP attempts to explain the lack of radioactive > byproducts by affecting selection rules. > > At a high level, I get the sense that he wants to differentiate LANP from > LENR, while simultaneously replacing it with LANP, and then patent > well-known LENR techniques under the new acronym. I only skimmed the > patent, so I might have been mistaken on this point or missed something > interesting. > > Eric > > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Teslaalset > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> i found a patent application that was published on December 2013 on Least >> Action Nuclear Process, claiming an alternative explanation of what most of >> us see as LENR. >> The inventor, Daniel S. Szumski, presented this theory during ICCF17 I >> believe. >> Jed posted it here at Vortex a while ago. >> >> Link to the patent application: >> >> http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WO&NR=2013184082A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20131212&DB=&&locale=en_EP >> >> Does anyone have an opinion on this process? Axil, Jed? >> > >
