Industrial Heat Files New International Patent for ‘Energy-Producing Reaction Devices’

Thanks to Bernie Koppenhofer for finding the following:

Today, August 27, 2015, Industrial Heat, LLC has filed an International Patent for: ENERGY-PRODUCING REACTION DEVICES, SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS

Link is here:

Inventors are listed as Andrea Rossi and Thomas Barker Dameron.

The abstract reads: “A reactor device includes a reaction chamber; one or more thermal units in thermal communication with the reaction chamber configured to transfer thermal energy to the reaction chamber; and a refractory layer between the reaction chamber and the one or more thermal units.”

This one, unlike the recently approved Rossi patent is very extensive, and will take some time to go through. More details will be added here as information is digested.

I guess this will put an end to the rumor that Industrial Heat is no longer interested in the E-Cat!

  • Omega Z

    T. Barker Dameron
    Raleigh, North Carolina
    Mechanical or Industrial Engineering

  • Obvious

    Using the Lugano device dimensions I calculated the coil characteristics with the wire size suggested in the patent application. I had to substitute Kanthal A1 resistance, since no wire has the suggested resistance in the application. (Kanthal is actually very numerically close to the suggested ohms/ ft with 1 decimal place over.) Anyways, at a full 230 V available in Lugano, the device would be capable on paper of 33000 Watts. Clearly it would burn up if not throttled back severely. At 75 V it would use about 46.9 A, a value calculated as RMS maximum for the device based on Joule heating. It would use about 3500 W at 75 V. To keep the power consumed at around 930 W, which is about the maximum the Lugano Report suggests, then the volts must be held below 39.9 V, and the device is extremely sensitive to any change in voltage. Increasing the volts to 50 causes power consumed to jump to 1560 W.
    The device also would appear to consume around 30% of its power in the leads to the coil.

  • Stephen

    Can someone remind me what happens to the other gasses (Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2 etc) present in the sealed container?

    Could this be part of the remaining gas or are they removed from the gas at high temperatures by reaction with the Nickel and Aluminium (would dry Nickel make a difference)?

    If a steel container was used would it react with this?

    Do we know the composition of the remaining gas in the device? Or can it be found during opening?

    In case low pressure is required. Would degassing before or during the experiment remove some of the nitrogen and oxygen?

  • John Page

    This Patent list the castable alumina Durapot 810. I did a simple google of “Durapot 810” just out of curiosity and found something interesting on the second page. Google found that on the “Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project” Facebook page, there was a comment from Beniamino Benedetto, where he also mentions “Durapot 810”. There are hundreds maybe thousands of castable alumina products on the market, so this is a big coincidence, or maybe Beniamino Benedetto has some insider info?

  • LCD

    We’ll I’m sure there will be some of that but we’ve got to hey to a point where replication is ready or the skeptics may as well be right.

  • William D. Fleming

    This application seems to be for the general process which was tested during the Lugano trial, while the Leonardo patent is for a specific device currently in operation in an advanced form, and described in detail. The latter carries a lot more weight IMO.

  • radvar

    Appropos of nothing, a list of unsolved problems:

  • Dr. Mike

    Mark S.
    I agree if the new experiment and report answers the unresolved issues in the initial report. It would be trivial to measure the RMS current and the RMS voltage of each heater winding. Also, the investigators now know that they need to run the control run up to 1200-1300C for a time period necessary to achieve a steady-state temperature (probably less than 10 minutes?). One final requirement of a new experiment is make sure that the dummy run is supplied with the same additional “specific electromagnetic pulses” as used in the active run (see page 1 of the Lugano report). There was no mention in the discussion of the dummy run that these additional “specific electromagnetic pulses” were supplied during the dummy run, and the equipment used to supply these additional “specific electromagnetic pulses” is not included in the Figure 4 Wiring Diagram on page 5 of the report.
    Dr. Mike

  • I think Rossi already used lithium in the fuel powder. However — the accuracy was never very good in any of the tests I assisted so we cannot know for sure what the COP was. On the other hand, several times Rossi apparently experienced runaway reactions, or close runaway, e.g. when Levi made the test with flowing water and no boiling, and at those occasions COP seemed to be much higher, although with poor control of the reaction.

  • Dr. Mike

    For those that have taken the effort to read the patent application, you will find that this patent application is essentially an attempt to patent the Lugano device using the results from the Lugano report as evidence of a working device. Unfortunately, the errors in the Lugano report that have been discussed extensively on this website have not corrected in this patent application. These major errors include:
    1. The measured temperatures in the active device were probably off by more than 100-200C due to emissivity errors. (Thomas Clarke gave a comprehensive explanation of these errors.)
    2. The patent application in sections 00136-00138 still claims that the RMS current in “C2” lines is 1/2 that of the “C1” lines rather than the correct 1/SQRT(3).
    3. In section 00177, Table 7, the Joule heating in the wires indicates that large RMS currents were measured in the active runs. The argument that some commenters presented for an explanation of these large currents was that the heater coils were not really made of Inconel, but rather some unknown material that had an extremely large negative temperature coefficient of resistance. However this patent application in section 00103 states that the heater wires were really Inconel. Since Inconel resistance changes by less than 10% from room temperature to active operating temperature, either the Joule heating calculations in Table 7 are incorrect or the input power measurements are incorrect.
    Rossi really should have made an effort to address these issues before including them in his patent application.
    Dr. Mike

    • Bob Greenyer

      Unfortunate yes.

    • LCD

      What were the actual claims though, that’s the really important part?

      • Dr. Mike

        You are certainly correct that the big picture is the isotropic changes of the Ni (and the Li). Both the calorimetry errors (as calculated by Thomas Clarke) and the possible error in the power measurements indicate a COP fairly close to 1.0, rather than the >3 as claimed in the Lugano report.
        In my estimation the really important part is not that there is potentially an error in the COP calculation, it’s that the review process of the Lugano report on this website did not result in additional investigation to resolve those possible errors. If the report had been submitted for publication in a reputable scientific journal, the reviewers would have asked for additional data or experimentation to resolve the questions that have been asked by the reviewers of the report on this website. A revised paper would have been published when all questions were resolved. It is obvious that we will never see a revised Lugano report.
        Dr. Mike

        • LCD

          I do think there will be another report but maybe not a revised lugano report.

          Your points are valid. I don’t have as much of a problem with the possible error in the COP for several reasons.

          1) ssm was not used
          2) the radiometric approach provided little to no oppoprtunity for hiding much of anything, which recall has been an ongoing problem

          As an aside my biggest problem is that a control unit had not been done in parallel.

          3) isotopic shift occurred
          4) parkhamov got 1.7

          Im really looking forward to the next few months of rossi replications. I think you’ll see some special things happen.

    • LCD

      What was the estimated energy output error from the discrepancy in calculated temperature I.e. How far off does that put the COP.

      • tomas clark as expecte conclude by adding theory, to appriximation, assumption, and forgetting the impact of calibration, reach 1…
        many of his reasoning are as usual quite good, but some of his strange forgetting make it dubious, as usual.

        my quick computation, not counting convection, make it 1.6.
        note that reinterpreting more honestly the theory of the wrong emissivity make it more uncertain but higher.

        for example the emisivity of the dogbone from a practical point of view is probably near 1, for 2 reasons.
        one is that as sid the reflectivity is lower in IR, making it 0.95 for the Optris can.
        for the heat radiation, it is higher than computed not only because the reflectivity is probably lower because of surface state, of fins, but also because the transparency of alumina is not a problem if bellow some opaque resistor or even powder have zero transparency.
        finally transparency of alumina will allow hoter internal elements of the reactor to radiate even more energy than what the surface temperature would say..

        finaly it seems the measurement is dubious, it cannot be saved, but what I care is that Tom darden did not flee the business, on the contrary, and you know money talks more than science.

        • LCD

          It seems really hard to swallow that a large error in the calorimetry was made. But even if a conservative estimate is above 1 who cares, it’s above one with isotopic shifts not using ssm. Right?

        • LCD

          It is somewhat interesting that parkhamov calculated 1.7 but alas without using the pure Li additive which I presume is the unknown catalyst.

    • LCD

      But look forget about the COP for a moment. There was a huge isotopic shift in Ni. The second indep test lives and dies with that observation.

      Got to concentrate on the bigger picture.

    • it was filed before the problems were identified, and maybe he don’t dare to correct the report until the physicist correct it themselves…

      the C1/C2 claims is not so important as it is used just to estimate joule losses in wiring.
      McKubre have said it would be more intelligent to measure voltage just on the connection to the resistor (he think like a scientists, the physicist were conservative thinking like a conspiracy theorist).

      the calorimetry error seems real, but there is still some incoherence that may eliminate this emissivity theory too. It is hard to defend any position.

      note that if you integrate the emissivity=0.95, then one possibility is that the heating element is SiC and the resistance is reduced not far from 3x in the range (from max to min, unlike at 1250C, where it increase again)…

      maybe in the patent there is description of the heating element ?

      • Obvious

        The device construction is laid out in the WO application, in photos. The elements are clearly visible as wires, possibly 15 AWG.

      • Dr. Mike

        The patent application definitely says the heating coil is Inconel in section 00103. The COP data claimed in the report can not be substantiated without determining what measurements were taken incorrectly. I would tend to believe that the high current measured by clamp-on ammeters as evidenced by the Joule heating calculations represent the correct data. It should be noted that even if the real COP of the Lugano reactor was close to 1.0, the isotropic changes in the Li and Ni indicate that there were nuclear reactions taking place in the reactor as is pointed out by LCD in a comment below.
        Dr. Mike

    • LuFong

      At least this patent application was filed AFTER the report was issued. The previous patent application which used large sections of the previous “independent report” verbatim was actually filed before the report was released.

      Despite this I still have high hopes for the E-Cat. But to me these reports exist purely for marketing purposes.

      • Dr. Mike

        I also have high hopes for the e-cat technology. However, I can’t see how a report that has data and results being questioned by scientists that have reviewed the report as being very useful for marketing.
        Dr. Mike

    • LCD

      I want to see more replications.

    • radvar
      • Manuel Cruz

        It does not say anything new, just offers more evidence that psychology is not a science.

    • radvar

      US patent law recently changed from “first to invent” to the more internationally widely used “first to file”. Doesn’t make sense to me, however, there are probably several more layers of procedure under those terms that I’m not aware of.

      That aside, maybe that change prompts people to get on record with the first thing they think/hope will work.

  • Agaricus

    Agreed. They will most likely employ some form of ‘hire purchase’ agreement with performance guarantees and possibly with free upgrade provisions, in order to defray capital risk on the part of customers. With data from the current trial available for inspection, there will be no problem at all in finding homes for any number of the devices through contacts, ‘word of mouth’ and possibly through industry publications.

    IMHO this has been IH/Darden’s strategy from the outset, meaning that publicity is not only not required but is actually undesirable, at least until a number of installations are in place and earning their keep. It is only after this stage is complete and a market for cold fusion water heaters/LP steam generators is established that more disruptive products using spin-off technologies will be introduced.

  • Jarea1

    This is a brave assumption. Why should a company think so emotionally? What do you prefer? give lessons to current journalist (i think they will not learn anyway) or speed up LENR adoption?
    In my opinion, media doesn´t work because they are not independent. They are controlled by gatekeepers that decide that LENR either 1 it must not be published because it cause damage for them or 2 it is not interesting (it doesn´t give you enough money). This independently of the option of being a fraud or not.
    I tend to the option 1 because it is obvious that there are many people with hunger for reading about cold fusion even with the eternal discussion about fraud. We see with the news and promises from mainstream fusion those news come to public even if they are void.

    • mcloki

      You don’t put out a press release til there is something to sell. touting your own horn just ends up embarrassing the reporters and news site when things do not come to pass.

    • bachcole

      I talk to people all of the time about LENR (and reporters are people), and they are not interested much in it, because it is not proven and is outside of the box.

      • Jarea1

        As said that is not proportional to other topics i see in the news. Hot fusion for example always make promises. Graphene is always the future material with millions of applications. Here we have facts and steps to commercialization and nothing is said.

        • bachcole

          That does not prove a conspiracy. It proves, like with homeopathy, that no one knows the mechanism, so they are very reluctant to believe in it. When the dollars start flowing for A.R./I.H. with no lawsuits, then they will believe.

          • Zephir

            It’s pluralistic ignorance – actually a dual mechanism to conspiracy. The conspiracy is always organized, the pluralistic ignorance is always emergent.

        • LCD

          Big difference in hot fusion vs LENR. The work in hot fusion up until very recently has been public whereas the good LENR stuff is all private.

    • I disagree on blaming oil and finance.
      the finance newspaper are much more open to LENR than average.
      the oild company have replicated and published results.

      who oppose LENR is first physicists, US academic society, US high impact journals, US DoE, US media, then western journal and media follow the terrors, and scientists follow the media.
      This is a physicist and Ivy league problems, rest is slavery chain.

      • Zephir

        Yes, this is a correct identification of problem. Just these people and their research is threatened with E-Cat finding the most. Oil companies have nothing to worry about as the oil will be needed anyway for plastic and chemical industry.

      • Jarea

        I still think the newspaper owners have to be blamed. You can always publish something objective, something that is not saying anything against the physic laws and therefore not confronting the physicists and academic society. That is to say, in my opinion media leaders must also be blamed together with the academic corruption.

  • Warthog

    Well, the filing of an INTERNATIONAL patent application strongly verifies IH’s belief in the product. Filing international is EXPENSIVE….you don’t do that for “paper patents”.

  • as I’ve understood it is just a theory of energy production in physics, not specific to LENR, but where LENR is possible.
    I know he wrote books on physics laws, their structures and the problems associated.

    as I understand it will rather answer to people who say “impossible” but will not help those who want to know how it works.

  • Barbierir

    I agree but this definitely demonstrates that IH is fully behind Rossi, they’re not the naive investors scammed by con-man tricks