---

Introduction

In my struggle to secure the grant of a U.S. patent relating to cold fusion I decided to adopt unusual tactics. My invention involved a thermoelectric technique for setting up an internal negative electric space charge inside a metal which I believed would involve charge displacement in the aether. This could assist in bringing together two bare positive nucleons, typically deuterons, absorbed into that metal. That, as I saw it, could serve as a catalyst which could assist in the cold fusion process.

A U.S. application of mine relating to this cold fusion technique was in its initial phase in the U.S. Patent Office, following its survival as a PCT application. A PCT application is one filed under the auspices of the international body which administers the international agreement known as the Patent Cooperation Treaty. U.S. Patent Examiner Harvey Behrend had handled that application in its international phase and, in its wounded state, it had somehow survived and arrived at the point where it could be onwardly processed by the National Patent Offices. This is normally a ‘rubber-stamp’ affair, but not so for the U.S. application, which began to serve a new sentence by being imprisoned for a time in death row of the ‘cold fusion section’ (Art unit 2204) of the U.S. Patent Office, Harvey Behrend being the officer in charge of the case.

The case history on that is recorded elsewhere in these Web pages. See:

Independently of the above situation I had success in securing allowance of a U.S. patent application on a thermoelectric energy conversion topic, dealt with by an examining section of the U.S. Patent Office which operates normally.

The tactics I adopted in my efforts to secure a granted patent involved filing a U.S. continuation-in-part application based on the pending cold fusion application that had survived the PCT stage, but before it came under the executioner’s axe wielded by Harvey Behrend. My plan was to emphasize the thermoelectric aspects of the invention, but discuss their relevance to ‘cold fusion’ and incorporate a very substantial Appendix on that subject. I wrote the specification discussing the merits of ‘cold fusion’ and offered as an invention a special form of apparatus which I regarded as useful for testing the cold fusion process.

There was a 50:50 chance that the new application would be assigned to Harvey Behrend’s examining group, but the abstract stressed thermoelectric energy conversion and not cold fusion, so I had my fingers crossed in hoping that Art group 1102 and not Harvey Behrend’s Art group 2204 would be put in charge of the case in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

So that you, the reader, may understand what this is all about, and particularly so that my colleagues in the patent profession in Europe who may come to hear about this as well may understand, I feel it appropriate to quote a few words from an article which appeared in the July-November double issue of ‘Infinite Energy’, Nos. 15 and 16, at page. 86.

I refer to Dr. Hal Fox’s article ‘New Energy Sources for the Near Future: An Open Letter to Decision Makers’. Hal Fox is Editor of the Journal of New Energy. He is located in Utah, where the saga of cold fusion was born, and he has followed the cold fusion theme as closely as anyone over the years dating from March 1989, when that hope and prospect for a new energy technology was first announced. I quote:

“A university professor who has been supported by a multi-million dollar hot fusion contract and who becomes an advisor to the Department of Energy is unlikely to advise the government to fund a competitive low-energy technology. There would be very strong university pressure to continue in the development of hot fusion! This combination of federal funds, appointments to advisory groups, and the pressures for institutional funds on the advisors, has resulted in scientists becoming lobbyists with the following results:
__ The Office of Patents and Trademarks has been advised not to allow patents on competitive technology to hot fusion.
__ Leaders of some professional societies (such as the American Physical Society) have lobbied to prevent major peer-reviewed journals from publishing articles about competing technologies.
__ Officials in Washington …..”

Yes, indeed, I, as one of many, can vouch for the fact that the U.S. Patent Office, so far as it dares, is conducting its examination of cold fusion patent applications in what clearly amounts to an obstructive manner, but I am not alone!

In the event, I am pleased to say that the patent application did fall into the hands of Art Group 1102 and was accepted for grant, but there were a few problems en route, as I will explain, before presenting the patent in detail.

I had submitted seven claims, the first six being directed to the bare apparatus and its thermoelectric characteristics, but claim 7 introducing a version involving an electrolytic cell. All claims were rejected by the first Office action. It was dated February 24, 1997.

In the preamble to the rejection were numbered paragraphs (8) and (9), which read:

(8) It is noted that the specification contains reference to usage with “cold fusion”. It is noted that the scientific community does not accept the operativeness of “cold fusion”
(9) The Examiner does not see where Applicant has supplied any reputable evidence to support his assertions, theories and concepts set forth in the specification, but not limited to, the discussion of quantum field interaction in the device and cosmic background synchronization. The claimed invention is a thermoelectric device which is considered to be operable.

After a few further formalities and objections there came the sentence:

Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.

Evidently, my tactics had been rumbled, but the Examiner in Art Group 1102 was acting fairly and considerately in performing his task. Prior art was made of record as pertinent but not relied upon. The Examiner’s commentary included the statement:

It is noted that Aspden ‘184 discloses a device (Figures 21 and 22) similar to that being claimed in the current application, but the patent was published less than a year before the filing of the current application and the device of Figures 21 and 22 is not claimed in any way as to cause any double patenting problems with current claims 1-6.

This was a reference to my U.S. Patent No. 5,376,184, issued on December 27, 1994 and entitled ‘Thermoelectric Heat Transfer Apparatus’. I was dealing with the same Examiner who had processed and allowed that earlier application. Here, then, was the message that, if I could overcome the issue raised by his paragraphs (8) and (9) – the cold fusion references – I should be able secure grant based on those six claims.

I wanted to do that without striking out all that objectionable matter referred to in those paragraphs (8) and (9). What I filed as my response evoked the second Office action dated June 20, 1997, which the examiner made ‘Final’. Apart from minor issues of a formal nature, mainly addressed at claim clarification, the action contained the statement:

“Applicant’s arguments filed March 24, 1997, have been fully considered. In view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks the objections to the specification have been overcome.”

I had succeeded in retaining the ‘Commentary on the Physics of Cold Fusion’ that was part of the text of the patent specification I had filed at the U.S. Patent Office!

Now, these Web pages are intended to ‘educate’ and ‘inform’ the reader on issues which bear upon Energy Science and particularly my interpretation of certain phenomena which are seen as anomalous and which are seemingly unorthodox by normal scientific standards. So I think it appropriate to disclose here the ‘Remarks’ that I had included in my response to the patent examiner’s first Office Action:

The Applicant appreciates the Examiner’s helpful comments, which greatly facilitate this response.

Points 1 to 7 have been acted upon in accordance with the Examiner’s suggestions, subject to clarification of item (2) where, in fact, a ten-fold increase is intended. Such a high eddy-current anomaly factor is only found in very thin electrical steel laminations when magnetized cross-wise to the grain. That condition is one where hysteresis loss is high in relation to eddy-current loss and so the extra heat flow enhances the anomaly. One tries to avoid this in designing transformers by ensuring, so far as one can, that the magnetic flux path is along the grain direction, meaning that in which the steel has been rolled because this orientates the crystal grains longitudinally in that direction and makes for easier magnetization.

Concerning point 8, the Applicant is well aware of the general posture of the scientific community on the ‘cold fusion’ issue and understands that the question of utility of an invention can be put in doubt if it depends upon the uncertainty surrounding such technology.

This is why the disclaimer was inserted from page 2, line 25 to page 3, line 2 but qualified by the wording of page 3, lines 12 to 16. Again at lines 1 to 3 on p. 22 Applicant has emphasized that the invention, although inspired by an interest in the ‘cold fusion’ theme, is independent in its patentable merits.

To address this and keep the focus of the subject invention on its thermoelectric merits, Applicant has considered the deletion of the Appendix (pages 25-38). In that eventuality Applicant assumes that it will remain available for public inspection as part of the File Wrapper when this patent application is granted and has noted, with appreciation, the Examiner’s remarks (item 3 on page 4) concerning possible claim allowability.

Related to this, claim 7 has been deleted and a corresponding amendment has been made to the consistory clauses (the amendment at lines 8 and 9 on page 14). The invention claimed is as defined in Claims 1 to 6 and if the electrolytic cell application were adopted that would be something separate not within the scope of the invention claimed, except to the extent that infringes upon the territory of the thermoelectric feature covered by Claims 1 to 6. The reference to the electrolytic embodiment is retained in the disclosure as background information, but it no longer features in the invention as claimed.

It is hoped that the deletion of Claim 7 and the related statement of invention will be a sufficient amendment in addressing point (8), without deleting the Appendix added to the text of the specification. Otherwise it would help to have clarification of the Examiner’s statement ‘appropriate correction is required’, so far as it applies specifically to point (8). Incidentally, the statement on p. 38 at lines 20-22 reiterates, albeit rather strongly, the Examiner’s statement that the scientific community does not accept the operativeness of ‘cold fusion’.

Applicant further notes that the Appendix is informative in giving background to the research interest leading to the invention claimed in this continuation-in-part and of relevance to the parent application, but is willing, reluctantly, to delete the Appendix if required as a condition for acceptance. It is hoped that it will be allowed to remain as it stands as a supplement to the main text.

Concerning Examiner’s comment (9) on page 3 of his Office Action, it may be that the Applicant has gone further than necessary in trying to justify the basis of certain scientific anomalies which are interpreted in an unfamiliar way. On the specific point that “The Examiner does not see where Applicant has supplied any reputable evidence to support his assertions, theories and concepts…including, but not limited to, the discussion of quantum field interaction in the device and cosmic background synchronization”, Applicant can but say that herein lies the motivation for the research project which has led to the subject invention and he would rather not eliminate the description supporting Fig. 5.

Note that, although there is unsupported reference to ‘vacuum field spin’ at line 19 on page 10, the later description supporting Fig. 5 (page 20, lines 1 to 15) explains the physics involved and directs reference to a scientific paper in Physics Letters. (See further comment below and copy of the paper now appended).

The thermoelectric principles of the invention are well-founded on ‘reputable evidence’. The Applicant’s IEE papers and monographs, backed by the university research of others on the eddy-current anomaly can be listed and supplied if necessary.
However, the Examiner is not objecting to the thermoelectric aspects of the disclosure.

Concerning the theme that the induction of a radial electric field in a metal conductor can involve something of a quantum field nature having a cosmic synchronization aspect, this can be supported but the scientific community at large has been slow in reacting to the research of public record. In using the words ‘reputable evidence’ the Examiner casts doubt upon the authority of a researcher, rather than the merit of the research. If by ‘reputable’ one means ‘wholly accepted’, then treading new ground in really fundamental science-based technology, where there is heavy reliance on theory, is not going to be helped by the patent system. ‘Acceptance’ in a ‘reputable’ sense means that the world already knows about the invention and that means it is too late to be patented. If the word ‘reputable’ means ‘sourced in a major corporation, governmental or academic institution’ then the terms can tend to exclude patenting by deserving individuals who, like myself, no longer belong actively to such a corporation (IBM in my case) or a university (I have a 15 year university background in the field of electrical engineering, 12 years of that being exclusively in research).

My object in writing these latter remarks is to ask the Examiner to consider that his point (9) is met by the submission herewith of copies of two scientific papers:

1. Physics Letters, 110A, pp. 113-115, 1985.

This describes in the opening paragraph the system shown pictorially in Fig. 5 of the specification.

2. Physics Letters, 41A, pp. 423-424, 1972.

This is the paper referenced on p. 20 of the specification. It describes the synchronous jitter motion in a cosmological (aether) context. The fine-structure constant is the fundamental dimensionless physical constant that incorporates Planck’s quantum of action, the speed of light and the fundamental electric charge quantum e (electron charge value).

It is pointed out that the laboratory source of the latter paper is the Australian equivalent of the U.S. Bureau of Standards, a laboratory where that fine-structure constant is measured. Dr. D. M. Eagles is a reputable British physicist who has published numerous, much-cited, scientific papers on quantum physics and, more recently, on superconductivity. He worked for NASA in USA before joining the National Measurement Laboratory in Australia.

There is no recorded criticism in the scientific literature concerning these two papers. Indeed, when there is such reference, as in a review work, it tends to leave the question of merit open. There is a curious phrase on page 163 in a review book by Petley of the National Physical Laboratory in U.K. (‘The Fundamental Physical Constants and the Frontier of Measurement’) published by the U.K. Institute of Physics which reads:

“No doubt the theoretical attempts to calculate the values of ‘alpha’ (fine-structure constant) and ‘beta’ (proton-electron mass ratio) will continue – possibly with Nobel prizewinning success. Aspden and Eagles (1972) obtained (alpha)^-1 = 108(pi)(8/1843)^1/6.”

The cited art has been reviewed and the Examiner’s comments are noted. This will provide interesting background reference data for onward research in the subject field.

There is little more the Applicant can add to meet the Examiner’s objections and it is hoped that the above amendment will be deemed fully responsive and result in acceptance.

Respectfully submitted

Harold Aspden
Applicant
March 19, 1997

So, I now invite you to look at the U.S. Patent No. 5,734,122 issued to me as Applicant on March 31, 1998.

Before presenting the more formal part of the patent specification I have decided first to introduce you to the ‘Appendix’ which now features in the published specification of U.S. Patent No. 5,734.122 following the formal description of the invention and placed before the claims. The text of this Appendix had been written three years before the subject patent application was filed. It was intended for use in connection with a petition to revive a U.S. patent application that had suffered a curious fate, but that is part of the story told elsewhere in these Web pages (See Cold Fusion: My Story: Part II)

THE APPENDIX OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,734,122

A Commentary on the Physics of ‘Cold Fusion’

Abstract

This commentary describes the circumstances of the Applicant’s background interest in the subject of nuclear structure, particularly with regard to deuterons and proton creation, and a connected research background on anomalous electrodynamic properties associated with current flow in metal at room temperature.

It further explains why there is reason to expect the statistical incidence of physical processes associated with nuclear fusion to be different for action in metal and action in very hot plasma.

Furthermore, since any landmark invention in this field must probe unexplored territory which is not adequately mapped in the accepted and general state of the art, one must be prepared to give credence to physics which is new and unfamiliar. It is a recognized ‘state of the art’ fact that there are unsolved mysteries in physics, and physicists have at this time no way of denying this Applicant’s contention that the mystery which particularly concerns what has come to known as ‘cold fusion’ is the role of the muon, the enigmatic mu-meson, in creating the proton and in promoting its decay.

The Fusion Criteria

In a very hot proton gas protons can combine to create heavier atomic nuclei. This is facilitated if there is something effectively neutralizing the charge repulsion between the protons. A proton or antiproton charge can become neutral if a beta particle of opposite polarity combines with it in some way to be seen as a neutron. Alternatively it is conceivable that in the very energetic field conditions that one can foresee, particularly in the presence of strong gravity fields, the field medium itself can be such as to overcome the mutual repulsion or the medium itself may become electrically polarized to provide a background that can serve as the neutralizing influence. In any event, the high energy physics of the scenario by which protons synthesize heavier forms of matter has to explain why hot fusion occurs and the picture just presented has to be very close to what has just been outlined.

Now, there is one important aspect here that tends to be overlooked. How do those protons get created in the first place? The scientific challenge here is not concerned with fusion but rather initial creation and the answer lies in finding the true explanation for what governs the mass of the proton. This is a theoretical exercise in which this Applicant has played an important and recognized part, because, although the world has not rushed into accepting the Applicant’s explanation, it is a fact that the precise value of the proton-electron mass ratio of 1836.152 was deduced in terms of the mu-meson field. This derivation involved collaboration with Dr. D. M. Eagles of the then National Standards Laboratory in Australia. It was reported in the U.S.A. Institute of Physics journal Physics Today in 1984 (November issue, p. 15) and was mentioned in their 1985 update by the leading U.S. researchers who measure this quantity. See R.S. Van Dyck et al: International Journal of Mass Spectroscopy and Ion Processes, 66, (1985) pp. 327-337. They noted how remarkably close the theoretical value was to the one they measured and added ‘This is even more curious when one notes that they [meaning this Applicant and Dr. Eagles] published this result several years before direct precision measurements of this ratio had begun.’

Given that the Applicant knows how protons are created from a mu-meson field and taking into account that physicists familiar with quantum electrodynamics know that the vacuum field is the seat of activity of electron and positron creation and that mu-mesons are otherwise known as ‘heavy electrons’, it needs little imagination then to suspect that Nature is trying to create protons continuously everywhere in space. Since we do not see such protons materializing before our eyes we must infer that they exist only very transiently after creation unless the field medium has surplus energy to be shed over and above its local equilibrium requirements.

This scenario of proton creation and annihilation is no less credible than the accepted scenario of electron-positron creation and annihilation or the equivalent mu-meson activity. We think the electron and the proton have an infinite lifetime because none has been measured, but the true reason for this is that it is impossible to measure the lifetime of something when it gets itself recreated virtually in the same place and immediately. Yet, we know that electrons can decay in association with positrons and we further know that electrons can tunnel through potential barriers with a 10^-13 second lifetime, so physicists do need to get their picture of these events into proper context.

The proton and the electron are the only types of particle that exist in stable form, simply because they are recurrently regenerating as the primordial forms of matter, as such, in their respective charge polarity states.

Now, given this background knowledge of proton creation, it becomes easier to understand how an atomic nucleus might increment in its nucleon value and without needing an immensely hot background. If a proton were to be created in the very space already occupied by an atomic nucleus one can begin to understand how it might fuse with that nucleus and promote the emission of a beta particle. Almost all the transmutations that are listed in atomic tables, excluding what occurs in the heavy nuclei ranging from bismuth onwards, require emissions of beta particles. Beta particles are those electrons and positrons already mentioned. They are emitted by atomic nuclei. Yet atomic physicists have chosen to ignore their existence in atomic nuclei and have instead assumed that there are neutrons present to keep the mass balance. Here lies the very heart of the problem surrounding cold fusion. Neutrons are unstable. They are artifacts created when atoms break up. They are composites of beta particles and protons, but they do not exist as ‘neutrons’ in that atomic nucleus.

Accordingly, one must see the evidence of ‘cold fusion’ as evidence confirming this rather obvious proposition, namely that there are no neutrons in atomic nuclei. This is a case where discovery in the context of a technological advance, meaning ‘invention’, has given a new insight into basic physics and yet has led to the incredible contest by which the absence of the neutron hot fusion product has been regarded as disproving what is observed.

However, summarizing the position, Nature is constantly attempting to create protons everywhere, but generally does not succeed, because there is no energy to sustain the field equilibrium and so the pseudo-creations promptly decay. However, given the right conditions the statistical action can, even with the field equilibrium requirement, result in nuclear fusion because if the trigger threshold is reached it becomes energetically favorable for a proton elsewhere, but nearby, to decay to keep the vacuum field energy balance.

No doubt the reader will understand that, if a proton were to be created within an atomic nucleus, the event, if also accompanied with the expulsion of a positive beta particle, would leave that nucleus one nucleon heavier but with its charge unchanged. If, accompanying this event, a proton nearby, or a proton in a nearby deuteron, were to decay with its beta particle action, then some heat energy would be shed nearby. This becomes a very likely event, given that Nature most certainly does have a way of creating matter in proton form, provided (a) the overall mass energy of particles involved allows the reaction and (b) the close proximity of the particles is assured.

What, then, are the right conditions and how can this action be enhanced?

The answer is found by analogy with the hot fusion situation. We need to bring into very close relationship the two nuclei that are to fuse together. We can do this either by moving them at high speed, as by thermal excitation, or somehow assuring that, since they are positively charged, the field background has a negative electrical condition. The nuclei must further be stripped away from the satellite atomic electrons of the normal atomic form.

Now, before explaining how physics can assure this in the cold fusion work, it is appropriate to digress a little, in two ways.

Firstly, reference will be made to some reported evidence of cold fusion that antedates the Fleischmann-Pons activity. Secondly, the author will refer to his own experimental diversion at the time he made the invention which is the subject of the parent patent application based on the GB priority date of April 15, 1989.

Cold Fusion in 1960

At pages 2-3 of the Journal of the British-American Scientific Research Association, Vol. XIII, No. 4, December 1990, there is an article by Edward Rietman entitled ‘MOLECULAR CYCLOTRONS’. The article makes no reference to the ‘cold fusion’ theme but is concerned with transmutations at normal laboratory temperatures.

The following are quotations from that article:

‘Digging through some old notes I found results for experiments on molecular cyclotrons. C. L. Kervran in 1960 published a book entitled ‘TRANSMUTATIONS BIOLOGIQUES’. His results were ‘verified’ by H. Komaki of Japan. In 1965 Kervran was nominated for the Nobel Prize.

These two workers observed an increase in metallic elements in seedlings germinating in pure water. Specifically they observed transmutations of the type:

Na – Mg, K – Ca, Mn – Fe

In each of these cases a proton was reported to be absorbed by the nuclide of lower atomic number to form the next higher element.

S. Goldfine wrote a report in 1978 discussing how such reactions might take place in biological organisms.

It is well known that ATP in the mitochondria is a key molecular component in biochemical energy production. The mitochondria also contains Na, Mg, K, Ca, Mn and Fe ions. Goldfine suggested that the periodic field of an Mg-ATP crystal lattice will cause periodic fluctuations on the wave function of the trapped electron…there is a flow of electrons in the Mg-ATP caused by the many reactions occurring in the mitochondria…Goldfine continued to suggest that the small crystallites of Mg-ATP in the mitochondria act as molecular cyclotrons to accelerate protons and produce reactions of the type:

Na + H = Mg, K + H = Ca, Mn + H = Fe

To cast some light on this subject I spent months attempting to grow crystals of Mg-ATP complex for study in X-ray diffraction. I never succeeded in even obtaining a powdered sample. I concluded that the Mg-ATP complex exists only in an aqueous environment…’

From the above quotation one can see that here was a version of cold fusion presented from a background that is in the field of biological organisms.

One may further infer that living organisms are subject to nuclear transmutations that are accentuated where crystallites involve metallic elements in an aqueous environment, and this suggests that, in denying the realities of cold fusion, one is turning away from something that may have relevance to cancer research, inasmuch as those transmutations might well have consequences to health.

Bearing in mind that there is evidence to show that magnetic fields also have an effect on biological activity that is problematic from the physics viewpoint, it is appropriate to investigate the electrodynamics of heavy ions, whether moving in water, in metal or in a plasma. The point of vital importance that warrants attention is that all the teaching concerning electrodynamic actions is based on empirical studies involving electron currents. Electrons are classified as leptons and there are some very sound reasons for distinguishing their electrodynamic properties from those of hadronic matter.

The Applicant’s Electrodynamic Research

There are long-accepted but unresolved anomalies concerning the anomalously very high forces exerted on heavy ions in a cold cathode discharge. In researching this subject the Applicant has established that the forces exerted on a heavy ion owing to its electrodynamic interaction with an electron are, in theory, enhanced by a factor equal to the ion-electron mass ratio.

This theory leads to a breach of the law that specifies balance of action and reaction, which means that energy is being exchanged with the field medium in which the electromagnetic reference frame is seated. The effective electromagnetic reference frame has a structure, as if it is formed by a fluid crystal lattice which, on a local scale, can adapt or maybe govern the shell structure of an atomic nucleus. Thus, normally, the motion of atoms and even ions in a gas or a solution will not evidence the anomalous electrodynamic effects, simply because they do not move relative to the local electromagnetic reference frame, meaning that, as far as concerns translational motion, the electrons present are the only active participant electrodynamically.

It is, however, quite a different situation when we consider a proton or a deuteron as a free ion inside the crystal host lattice of a metallic form, because there can only be one electromagnetic reference frame effective at any location in that metal. Therefore, a proton that is within a host crystal, and is free to move through it, will be seen as moving relative to the electromagnetic reference frame and then it can contribute to anomalous electrodynamic effects.

These conditions were the subject of the Applicant’s research as a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the University of Southampton in England 1983 onwards. The Applicant had written on the subject of the proton, the deuteron and the neutron, pursuing the theme that no neutrons exist inside the deuteron and stressing that atomic nuclei are composites of beta particles and protons or antiprotons. This work was all published before 1989.

The anomalous electrodynamic forces that exist in the heavy ion/electron interaction imply a hidden source of energy and so of heat but the Applicant’s research was aimed essentially at proving the modified law of electrodynamics dictated by that research. Certainly, whilst the ability to accelerate heavy ions by drawing on a hidden source of field energy was one of the Applicant’s pursuits, at no time had the Applicant contemplated the prospect of a fusion reaction of the kind implied by Fleischmann and Pons.

Nevertheless, as soon as that latter work was reported, the research knowledge arising from the author’s investigations was seen as relevant in the onward exploration of the excess heat phenomenon.

The Applicant was not only interested because of the excess energy aspect. There was the no-neutron feature and the fact that the process involved ion migration through water. There was the fact that the deuteron was the primary agent and this Applicant had shown, from the theory of the deuteron mass and its magnetic moment, that deuterons undergo cyclic changes of state and the state which prevails for one seventh of the time, the deuteron has a neutral core, having transiently shed a beta particle. More than this, however, the author had become involved at the time with two inventions, one of which later became the subject of a U.S. Patent (Serial No. 5,065,085) and these involved anomalous energy activity in a thermoelectric context which bears upon the cold fusion issue.

The other, lesser important, of these inventions was concerned with ‘warm’ superconductivity. The Applicant’s research had suggested that substances having certain molecular mass forms are adapted to absorb impact by conduction electrons in such a way that the change of inductive energy accompanying the collision is conserved until the resulting EMF changes can impart the energy to another electron. This meant that the thermal energy of a heavy ion in the substance could be reduced to feed the normal resistance loss associated with the current. This was, therefore, a process by which anomalous heat energy activity was involved in electrodynamic interactions between heavy ions and electrons.

The more important invention of the two just mentioned was concerned with the anomalous behaviour of a thermoelectric interface between two metals when subjected to a strong magnetic field in a rather special conductor configuration. The Nernst Effect operates to cause heat carried by electrons in a metal to be converted into an electric potential energy by the ordering action of a transversely directed magnetic field.

The essential requirement for the action of the Nernst Effect is that there is a temperature gradient in the metal and, given such a temperature gradient, and the magnetic field, there will then be an electric potential gradient set up within the metal. Now, a potential gradient inside a metal conductor implies that there is inside the body of the metal a distribution of electric charge not neutralized by normal metallic conduction. The polarity of that charge is determined by the direction of the thermal gradient and the orientation of the magnetic field. It can be negative or positive by choice in the design of the apparatus used.

Besides this, the Applicant knew that the flow of a strong current through a metal conductor will promote what is known as the pinch effect in which electrodynamic forces act on the negative electron charge carriers to pinch them inwards and so set up an excess negative charge distribution inside the metal conductor.

This, plus the additional feature that a strong current flow through a metal conductor that is populated by free deuterons will promote a migration of deuterons that will bring them more frequently into near collision, all militated in favour of an invention proposing the provision of a supplementary high current closed circuit through the cathode of a cold fusion cell. That, indeed, became the subject of the patent application which the Applicant filed in U.K. on April 15, 1989, this being the priority application relied upon in the U.S. Patent Application under petition.

The Applicant, therefore, had reason to believe that the work on cold fusion would progress if the auxiliary current activation circuit were to be used.

However, in the event, the pioneer work of Fleischmann and Pons became the subject of such criticism that there was no prospect of getting R & D funding to take the subject invention forward and one is confronted with a chicken and egg scenario where disbelief of cold fusion as a scientific possibility stands in the way of securing patent grant and the doubts about securing a patent stands in the way of finding sponsorship for the development.

The Fusion Criteria Reexamined

There are three criteria that need to be satisfied simultaneously to promote and enhance the cold fusion reaction of deuterons.

Firstly, there is the background incidence of the virtual mu-meson field which is trying everywhere to create protons. This is a natural activity that cannot be controlled. It is a statistical effect, but one can calculate the probability governing proton creation fluctuations in a given volume of cathode material. See comments below.

Secondly, there is the need to bring the deuteron partner in the fusion process into close proximity with the target deuteron. In hot fusion reactions this is achieved by the motion associated with thermal activity. In cold fusion it is achieved by adsorbing deuterons into a host metal in which they become separate from their satellite electrons and by concentrating the loading by the deuteron population.

Thirdly, as with the creation of stars and by hydrogen fusion, there is the need to provide the field which pulls the deuterons together in spite of their mutual repulsion. In cold fusion this means the provision of a neutralizing negative charge distribution within the metal body of host metal. This requires strong electron current surges resulting in heat concentrations which set up temperature gradients in company with transverse magnetic fields. However, the structural form of the host metal in relation to the current channel, the magnetic field effect and the heat conduction path require a mutually orthogonal geometry to provide an optimum action.

Note that the surplus negative charge may result in a charge density that is quite small in relation to the positive charge of the deuteron population but every unit of charge is seated in a discrete electron and a single electron which can upset the normal charge balance of deuterons and free conduction electrons can nucleate a pair of deuterons.

Then, the creation of a proton in one deuteron accompanied by the demise of a proton in the other will convert the two deuterons into a tritium nucleus and free a proton with a beta particle transferring between the two. Alternatively one deuteron will convert into helium 3 and the proton released will be in company with a beta minus particle.

The onward reactions involving neutrons that are observed with hot fusion processes need not occur if the events involved are triggered naturally by the mu-meson activity in trying to create protons rather than by neutron bombardment.

The Proton Creation Probability

This probability of proton creation is a calculable quantity in terms of the vacuum lattice theory which the author developed in the 1960s and published in 1972/1975. It is, however, also evident empirically from the action of proton creation in promoting the decay of tritium. The triton nucleus comprises what is effectively a two part structure linked together by a nuclear bond with one part of the structure seated at a charge site in the vacuum lattice. It is this site that is the target for the mu-meson attack by which the proton form is created. When the proton does form at such a site and that tritium nucleus is present, the two-nucleon part converts to helium 3 and the single nucleon part decays to return the proton energy to the vacuum and sheds a beta minus particle. This reaction occurs with a release of a quite small amount of heat energy, namely 17.9 kev and with a 12.2 year lifetime. Accordingly, since the deuteron presumably has an affinity for the lattice sites in the vacuum, it is reasonable to expect the deuteron cold fusion reaction to occur with a similar incidence rate. The two deuterons will release 4 Mev in creating a proton and a triton and this will be the main source of heat followed by the triton converting to helium 3 and the onward heat evolution as helium 4 develops. The 12.2 year reaction probability, given a sufficient concentration of deuterons, could well accounts for any excess heat that can truly be said to involve a ‘cold fusion’ process.

It follows, therefore, that the primary technological problem of assuring that heat is generated in a cold fusion cell is that of bringing about the right concentration of deuterons in the host metal. This is not to be measured in number of deuterons per unit volume but in the number of deuterons that have a separation distance less than a certain critical threshold. That threshold distance can best be determined empirically but, whilst it can be penetrated by deuterons in a spurious activity where temperature gradients and field effects combine to be effective coincidentally, it is better if the Nernst Effect is harnessed more directly so as to create the negative charge background in a controlled way.

This, indeed, is the route by which the invention, the subject of the Patent Application Serial No. 07/480,816 can develop, but one feels that the orthodox scientific establishment bias, which denies that ‘cold fusion’ can be a reality, is so determined to obstruct progress that the outcome will be to the detriment of interests in the United States.

This Appendix commentary applies essentially to the substantive disclosure in the parent Patent Application Serial No. 07/480,816 and is intended to be one of historical and public record besides eventually proving of relevance to the subject invention depending upon the outcome of events in the development of ‘cold fusion’.

---

To progress now to the remainder of the U.S. Patent No. 5,734,122 as issued on March 31, 1998 press the link:

---

---

Concerning the Applicant’s prior art U.K. Patent Specification GB 2,002,953 this, in the Applicant’s opinion, is the closest art and it is appropriate to comment. In 1977 the Applicant realised the practical prospect for using in an ion accelerator certain theoretical principles that had emerged from research on electrodynamics. The technical application, as can be seen from the words of the claims, introduces the idea of segmenting a current flow path so that current is carried mainly by heavy ions in one segment and wholly by electrons in another segment. The whole basis of this was connected with free ion discharges, meaning cold-cathode-type electrical discharges in evacuated discharge chambers. The Applicant had no reason at that time to imagine that ions could be accelerated within a host metal.

In the event, the U.K. patent was abandoned as the project was somewhat academic. The question, of course, was one of getting people to believe in the electrodynamic principles involved, because there is concern about the imbalance of force and energy. Almost all the emphasis was on anomalous forces but there was some evidence of record that anomalous energy transfer was involved. The project was also aimed at triggering hot fusion, as can be inferred from the last sentence (lines 61-65 of the specification).

It was several years later that the Applicant heard of an ion discharge device invented by a Geoffrey Spence which used the magnetron features of the electrode structure 30 in Fig. 8 but instead of using the auxiliary ion discharge (14-15) as an accelerating control Spence used an electric bias field in that electrode structure. This meant that the electrodynamic deceleration problem was overcome in an easier way so that the balancing acceleration derived its added base power from the electric bias rather than the separate ion discharge. It is understood that the Spence discharge device secured a granted U.S. patent [a search would be needed to trace it] and, when built, in did work to provide the excess power predicted theoretically. Unfortunately, hearsay report says that the test devices burn out the electrodes after several hours operation. The merits of the invention of GB 2,002,953 are, however, merely of historic interest, and from the Applicant’s viewpoint the need really is to provide a solid-state structure which can aim to create conditions for generating excess heat by drawing on the electrodynamic interactions of heavy ions and electrons.

In effect, the subject invention transfers the electrodynamics of the cold ion discharge between electrodes in a low pressure gas and does what is certainly not obvious. The invention creates in an all-metal circuit segments containing free heavy ions and segments excluding free heavy ions and lets the through current involving electrons set up a multiplicity of segmented low speed discharge zones. The theory in the specification draws on certain analysis concerning discharges in water (not metal) to underline the possible feasibility of generating the anomalous electrodynamic action. The prior art revealed anomalous force in conventional ion discharges and in discharges in water. The Applicant has devised a novel structure for accentuating the heat generating property using a segmented all-metal cathode circuit powered by a circulating current whilst an anode merely primes the cathode with free heavy ions.

It is hoped that this response will be deemed adequate to take the examination forward. Thank you for sending the Office Action to U.K. by airmail. Please request the mail room to be sure to send the next Action also by airmail to help the Applicant to conform in timely response.



H. ASPDEN
APPLICANT

---

---

The following is the text supplementing an AMENDMENT communication to the U.S. Patent Office as my response, as patent applicant, to the Office Action of December 7, 1995.

---

The drastic restriction of claims, now reduced to three which are worded to describe the invention precisely as it is presented in detail in Fig. 1 and in pages 19 to 21 of the specification should overcome the examiner’s objections as set out on pages 17 and 18 of his Office Action.

At the end of this response applicant has listed the non-patent references cited by number to facilitate identification in the text below.

Concerning the examiner’s objections presented on pages 19 and 20 of his Office Action, the comments below distinguish applicant’s invention from the specific circuit structures shown in the cited patents. The examiner argues that those citations can be combined with Tryzna et al (U.S. Patent 3,844,922, not included in the list below) to argue a prima facie case of obviousness that those various circuits could be modified to devise connections through the cathode which obtain the advantages of Tryzna et al.

As the applicant explained on pages 12, 13 and 14 of his response to the Office Action dated 4/3/95, there is a clear structural and functional distinction between applicant’s invention and Tryzna. The latter applies a small a.c. voltage potential to the cathode with the intention to activate the etching process by having a small a.c. current through the electrolyte superimposed upon the d.c. current through the electrolyte. There is no reason for it to occur to anyone looking at Tryzna side by side with one or other of the other patents cited to see them combine as teaching the assembly of an apparatus having provision for current throughput confined to the cathode proper at current levels one hundred times that otherwise flowing through the electrolyte. Given any teaching anywhere that there is purpose in such an arrangement it would not take prior circuit diagrams shown in patent literature to teach an electrical engineer how to connect up the circuit. The applicant submits that in the absence of a suggestion somewhere in the prior art that there is purpose in setting up a circuit providing such high relative current flow as a circulating current in the cathode of a liquid electrolyte cell then the invention implicit in the structure recited in new claims 47 and 48 is novel and quite distinct as being non-obvious from the art cited.

It is further submitted that the invention as claimed is supported by adequate description to allow its implementation by those same people who, without any special detailed design instructions, were able to rush to their laboratories to set up electrolytic cells aimed at replicating those used by Fleischmann and Pons.

It is further submitted that the apparatus which can be assembled on the basis of the applicant’s disclosure will work in promoting hydride formation in the cathode, given that the skills exercised in its construction would be those of technicians qualified in the electrochemical field. Also, it will work in assuring that the specified level of current flows through the cathode, that being a matter of choosing an appropriate power voltage source, according to the resistance of the cathode circuit and the turns ratio and core size and operational power frequency of the current transformer selected for use. This is a standard design task imposing nothing other than normal demands on the skills of a qualified technician.

The applicant argues that the operability of the apparatus, the subject of claims 47, 48 and 49, does not depend upon there being a cold fusion process in the cathode, but that if such a process were occurring it would provide a monitoring control parameter not provided by apparatus of prior record.

The applicant further contends that the operability of the apparatus, the subject of claims 47, 48 and 49, does not depend upon there being an ‘excess heat’ phenomenon in the cathode, but that if such a phenomenon were occurring it would provide a monitoring control parameter not provided by apparatus of prior record.

The applicant argues that for utility purposes, the apparatus, the subject of claims 47, 48 and 49, will, to the extent that electrolysis will certainly develop hydride formation in the cathode, serve as a regulating means for promoting the release of hydrogen from that hydride composition under the monitoring control of the high current fed through the short-circuit path of the cathode, if only because this produces heat sufficient to overcome the endothermic action of that cathode dehydration, though that will be offset in the main by the heat of formation of hydrogen gas from the merger of two hydrogen atoms. The apparatus does therefore constitute a useful structure as a novel means for storing hydrogen derived by electrolysis from water and then releasing it by current passage confined almost wholly to a path through the cathode. Note that the cathode serves as the hydrogen producing interface, the hydrogen storage element and as the interfacing surface through which heat activity in the cathode releases the hydrogen when needed.

Applicant believes that, on the basis of the amendment now submitted and the above comments, the claims 47, 48 and 49 should be allowed. This response to this point is deemed sufficient to meet the substantive objections raised, though the applicant is conscious that the body of the specification does contain matter which elaborates on theory having the cold fusion issue in mind. Applicant is willing to excise that material if it will appease the examiner and dispose him to allow the new claims.

Applicant requests acceptance of the minor amendment to the specification presented above, on the basis that this is to correct a manifestly obvious typographical error. The recital on p. 20 lines 15 and 16 that the cathode ‘can, as an all-metal circuit of low electrical conductivity, carry a high current with very little ohmic power loss’ is evidently in error. Either ‘conductivity’ should be replaced by ‘resistance’ or the word ‘low’ should be replaced by ‘high’, as proposed by the amendment.

The following further remarks in support of the above amendment and this reply to the examiner’s objections will need to be fairly lengthy, owing to the very extensive list of art cited and the need to be fully responsive to the examiner’s 21 page argument. What follows should not be taken as essential argument which implies reliance of the invention on the cold fusion theme as such. It is just that the applicant cannot accept the full weight of rejection based on the cold fusion art cited, without rebutting much of what is applied.

Applicant seeks first to make one initial comment about the source of the ‘excess heat’ actually observed by those repeating the Fleischmann and Pons experiment, that is, by some of those reputable sources quoted by the examiner. They ascribe the heat to ‘recombination’ of hydrogen and oxygen in the cell.

Ohashi et al in particular discusses comprehensively the energy components in the heat balance demanded by conventional physics. However, the process involves input of electricity to dissociate the hydrogen and oxygen, balanced later by heat released by their recombination. The entry of the hydrogen into the palladium cathode involves an exothermic process which is a heating process feeding heat into the ambient state of the cell. Some researchers critical of the F & P findings discount the data applicable through prolonged initial periods of their tests. They (Williams et al and Lewis et al) say that there is evidence of endothermic activity during this period. Yet if there is hydrogen storage by adsorption during that period owing to build up of the hydride in the cathode that should be exothermic. It is difficult to understand how there can be an endothermic condition for both input and output of hydrogen into the body of the cathode. One presumably must assume that when one comes to run the already-preloaded cell in a test hydrogen is released from the cathode surface, an endothermic reaction, and can then recombine with oxygen to return as heat the electrical power originally supplied. There is energy balance in this overall process but we end up with heat output equal to the electrical energy input less the heat energy dissipated to the ambient environment during the loading period. This weighs the heat balance against the F & P claims if the initial heating effect is ignored. In addition there is some heat wasted by normal joule heating as electrical conduction loss.

In practice, so far as concerns the references cited on this topic of recombination, the real issue we face on the question of practical utility is whether the hydrogen released during the test actually does recombine to produce heat within the cell or whether it is vented off as gas, because the evidence is clearly there in the cited verification test references to show that there is excess heat production if that recombination is not factored into the heat balance and especially if the initial heating due to hydride formation is ignored as well.

It is submitted that Fleischmann & Pons were not so stupid as to overlook the recombination possibility if in fact it were taking place because they would, as would any reasonably intelligent person, have to know how the cell calls back the oxygen that has bubbled off during the preloading period. If, to get around this problem, the hydrogen is supposed to all escape from the tips of cathode connectors presumed to be exposed to air where it is all used immediately in combustion using oxygen in the air above the electrolyte that would indeed be a miracle and all the moreso if all that heat energy were to warm the electrolyte without most of it venting off into the atmosphere!

If one can expect hydrogen ions once released at a cathode to all recombine with oxygen inside the aqueous electrolyte, rather than bubbling off as hydrogen gas, then someone needs to explain how it is that we can produce hydrogen gas by electrolysis of water! Why is there no such recombination in all the cells used commercially to produce hydrogen gas?

As the Ohashi et al citation explains in its last few lines: “If it can be established that not all the hydrogen and oxygen combine, then there is reason to look for causes of the heat exceeeding the joule heat”. Yes, indeed, there is good reason to look for the cause of that excess heat, be it fusion or something else.

Applicant seeks next to dispose of the alleged ‘anticipatory’ prior art cited, meaning that published before the April 15, 1989 priority date which the applicant claims for this application.

This is exclusively that of record in patents having a priority date before April 15, 1989.

The invention, the subject of the applicant’s claims, is in its basic essence the provision of electrolytic apparatus by which a strong short-circuit current can be circulated through the metal cathode (excluding the anode) whilst a separate relatively small anode to cathode current flows through the electrolyte. The purpose, if not the result, of this is to condition the cathode together with its adsorbed ions from that electrolyte so as to promote activity which will generate heat in that cathode at a rate exceeding the electrical power input. The structure of the apparatus is what matters inasmuch as process claims are not in issue, meaning that the applicant accepts that prior art, if otherwise relevant, which involves a liquid electrolyte but does not mention cathodic ion adsorption per se can be anticipatory. The electrical conductivity of the cathode, being of metal, is very much higher than that of any leakage path through the electrolyte so, to all intents and purposes, even that quite high short-circuit current will generate only a modest amount of heat in comparison with that expected to result from the activated phenomenon. However, the essential point is that a priming input power is fed to that cathode independently from the normal power fed between the electrodes of the electrolytic cell. This is a form of electrical apparatus which can be easily searched against the prior art to establish whether or not it is novel and it must be assumed that the examiner has presented prior art with that in mind.

Now, as to the patent art cited:

1. DUHME shows two cathodes and one anode and two electrical power supplies. Both power supplies feed current through the electrolyte between anode and one or other of the cathodes. There is no flow path for electric current through a cathode that does not traverse the electrolyte in a series, as opposed to parallel (leakage) sense. Admittedly this art is close, but not close enough to constitute an anticipation.

2 SCHUTZE also shows one cathode, one anode and an intervening grid. There are two power supplies, as is normal for any grid controlled thermionic discharge tube. One feeds the anode-cathode circuit and the other applies the grid potential. Here there is a flow path for electric current from a further power supply through the cathode inasmuch as the cathode serves in this case as a thermionic emitter and needs heat input to promote that emission. It is therefore at a very high temperature, one which is not consistent with the use of an electrolyte as opposed to a rarified gas intermediate the electrodes. Indeed, the Schutze invention concerns the nuclear transmutations that can occur in the body of the gas between anode and cathode through which the current is discharged. This patent would be relevant save for the fact that applicant’s claims as restricted from those originally filed are directed to embodiments utilizing an ‘electrolyte’, meaning a liquid, which necessarily is at lower temperature than sustains thermionic electron emission.

3. OVSHINSKY uses the charge storage of the electrolytic cell as a kind of capacitor coupled in a rectification circuit. There is a d.c. polarizing circuit feeding the anode to cathode path and an a.c. input is applied between two cathodes but all current flow to and from the cathode from either current source necessarily goes through the electrolyte. This is therefore not anticipatory of applicant’s invention as now claimed.

4. VINCENT shows an etching bath which has an electric circuit feeding a.c. and d.c. along the same path through the etching solution in the bath. This has no relevance to the applicant’s invention as now claimed.

5. BANKS shows a cell containing two electrolytes and an intervening porous liner with the containing housing serving as an electrode and two other electrodes positioned to assert electric potentials which control the porous liner to preclude intermixing of the electrolytes. One cannot see in this disclosure any circuit from the common power source providing a closed conductive path through an electrode without series passage through the electrolyte. It has no bearing on the applicant’s invention as now claimed.

6. CHILDS shows a system for electrical charging of a battery of electrolytic cells. There is provision for feeding additional current to a selected cell in parallel with the main current but the current supplied to that selected cell all passes through the electrolyte between the anode and cathode. It has no relevance to what the applicant now claims.

7. DILLER shows various electrodes in fused baths subject to electrolysis but each electrode has a single connection to the power supply. This means that current cannot flow through the electrode without all passing through the electrolyte. Again, it is not relevant to the applicant’s claims.

8. WEBER shows a parallel bank of anodes dipping into a water electrolyte used for producing hydrogen and oxygen by the normal electrolysis process. Each anode has a single connection to the power supply. This means that current cannot flow through an anode without all passing through the electrolyte. Again, it is not relevant to the applicant’s claims.

9. MIZUNO et al shows a device which has an electrode at each end and is packed with a metal powder that can absorb hydrogen. There is no electrolyte and no electrolysis dissociating ions in a liquid. The hydrogen gas is supplied under pressure through an input port and stored by adsorption in that metal powder for later release through the same port by regulating the temperature of the powder. That temperature control involves passing a heating current through the powder which has electrical interface contact with the two electrodes at each end of the device. The powder is not an ‘electrolyte’ and the current that flows through it flows between the two electrodes and does not flow in a circuit shorted by connection through two terminals on a single electrode. This citation is relevant only insofar as it shows heat being generated in an resistive body containing hydrogen and providing a short circuit path between two separate electrodes. Applicant’s claims are distinct from this Minzuno disclosure both in structure and in function.

10. FREEMONT et al shows circuitry for mixing and varying current inputs to an electrolysis cell, but (see Fig. 10) the output connections provide for flow between anode and cathode. There is no separate power supply feeding current between two connections to the same electrode so there is no question of setting up a strong current confined to passage through the cathode, without enforced traversal of the electrolyte. This is therefore not anticipatory of the applicant’s claims.

11. PONS et al does not show a circuit providing for current passage through the cathode and separate from the anode to cathode path through the electrolyte.

12. RABINOWITZ et al is not prior art. It has a priority date later than April 15, 1989. It does not show a circuit providing for current passage through the cathode and separate from the anode to cathode path through the electrolyte.

13. DREXLER has a priority date later than April 15, 1989. It does not show a circuit providing for current passage through the cathode and separate from the anode to cathode path through the electrolyte.

14. ZACHARIAH has a priority date later than April 15, 1989. It does not show a circuit providing for current passage through the cathode and separate from the anode to cathode path through the electrolyte.

As to the other art cited, only two, both Newspaper items are listed with publication dates before April 15, 1989, the Washington Times report by D. Braten and the New York Times report by M. W. Browne. Neither anticipate what this applicant claims, both being reports about the Fleischmann and Pons announcement.

It is not clear whether the examiner requires the applicant to comment on the remaining 35 of the 37 references cited from miscellaneous scientific publications and newspapers. Even if they were relevant to what applicant claims, which they are not, they cannot serve as valid anticipations owing to their dates being later than the applicant’s priority date of record.

Applicant will, however, comment at least on all points specifically raised by the examiner by reference to any such citation.

First, however, it is requested that the examiner should consider this applicant’s argument as to the purpose of injecting electrical power directly into the cathode by a strong current separate from that transported to it by electrolytic action. The object is to generate an action leading to the generation of heat at a rate in excess of the electrical power input and the applicant is mindful that the trigger for that action will involve expenditure on a priming energy input which itself would produce some heat.

Second, the examiner is requested to look at a few words in the item 28 in the Appended List of the Examiner’s Non-Patent Citations. In the second column of the Williams et al. reference, the article in Nature, one reads of evidence of ‘endothermic’ reactions which caused the investigators to “exclude the first 10,000 minutes of data from each cell when calculating the statistics”. So, if there is a heat loss which betrays the possibility that the cell is adjusting to find its equilibrium as hydrogen is expelled from the cathode that is excluded it from the data reported. The same passage said ‘Lewis et al’ found the same effect. Looking then at the Lewis et al citation (item 6) also in Nature, one reads in the second column on p. 528, where reference is made to ‘excess enthalphy measurements’: “The measurements were performed using the isoperibolic calorimetry mode (a constant-temperature system with a well defined heat loss rate to a constant-tenmperature bath)..” One sees therefore that in an effort to test whether anomalous heat could be generated the investigators went to great trouble to be sure that they kept the test apparatus at a constant temperature so far as that was possible. If the trigger for the action they were looking for were to be temperature gradients in the cathode as opposed to the level of temperature then they would certainly have suppressed any chance of success. Lewis et al explains how the evolved gases are vented off and that surely means that hydrogen is escaping and taking its combustion energy with it. Yet one is led to believe by various of the citations referenced that recombination of hydrogen and oxygen occurs and accounts for such excess heat as is produced by these cells.

Third, the examiner is requested to look at a few words in the ONRL/FTR-3341 citation (item 12 in the appended list). On page 5 of the report by J. F. Cooke on his visit to Harwell in England, one reads:

&qout
Fleischmann did not help Harwell set up their experiments, but he did subsequently examine them and indicated that they were properly set up. During the initial phase of their work, Bullough also received a telephone call from Prime Minister Thatcher inquiring about the progress of the work. The following is a brief summary of what was done and what was found.

A large number of cells were examined. Different electrode materials were used; these included palladium, platinum …. Calorimetric cells up to two liters in capacity, which took into account and eliminated temperature gradient problems, were also used. The heat balance surveys were capable of resolutions of better than 1%. ….. The final result … was ‘in none of these experiments was there any evidence of fusion taking place under electrochemical conditions’. It should also be added that there was no evidence of excess heat generated by any of their cells.”

The latter document was dated July 31, 1989. On the face of it one might assume that if a temperature gradient in the cathode was the trigger needed to generate excess heat, those Harwell tests would have missed their mark. One might further assume that if Fleischmann was at all involved in assessing what Harwell claimed then he too, at the time, was unaware of the importance of that temperature gradient and probably had not bothered about holding temperature well regulated in his own experiments. After all, he was interested in the ability of the cell to generate heat and that means a rise in temperature.

The applicant cannot, therefore, put any weight on citations which state that the temperature in the cell is held uniform throughout. Accepted physics in the thermoelectric art recognizes that a temperature gradient in a metal carrying currents which produce magnetic fields transverse to that gradient will of necessity result in electric potentials set up in the metal and even though the metal is a good electrical conductor. Those electric fields are absent if there is no temperature gradient. They will therefore be minimal in apparatus designed to keep the cathode temperature constant. However, by passing a high current through the cathode and confining it to a highly conductive path which excludes the poor conduction path of the electrolyte, one can accentuate the action even with a moderate temperature gradient.

Looking through most of the later citations from those scientific periodicals one sees that the tests applied depended upon whether or not there were neutrons or gamma radiation emitted by the electrochemical cells tested.

Now, this applicant filed his patent application on April 15, 1989 fully in the knowledge that, contrary to accepted scientific belief, there is no neutron inside a deuteron. The applicant had explained this in his writings:

‘Physics without Einstein’, Sabberton, P.O. Box 35, Southampton, England (published in 1969). See pages 18-22 and 128-132, which show, firstly, that electrons and positrons (beta-particles are nuclear components in the deuteron along with the protons and, secondly, how the deuteron can be forced by high energy gamma rays to shed a proton and create the neutron, which is short-lived and decays into a proton and an electron.

‘Physics Unified’, Sabberton, P.O. Box 35, Southampton, England (published 1980). See pages 123-130, where the same theme is presented and thereafter expanded to embrace other aspects of particle physics.

‘The Theoretical Nature of the Neutron and the Deuteron’, Hadronic Journal, vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 129-136, 31 July 1986.

In these circumstances, and though the examiner does not regard
this applicant’s theoretical background as something he can recognize alongside ‘reputable’ authority, the fact remains that the absence of neutron emission and gamma radiation from an electrolytic cell has no real bearing upon whether or not one can generate heat in the cathode of such a cell by an anomalous process.

Applicant urges the examiner, therefore, to withdraw the objection that the invention lacks utility because popular opinion is that the Fleischmann and Pons cell cannot be replicated and does not generate excess heat. That issue is something which Fleischmann and Pons have to argue themselves, though one expects to see commercial outcome from the technology they are pioneering. This applicant’s concern is with the particular apparatus, the subject of the invention involving the short-circuit current connection through the cathode.

The following comments track the examiner’s remarks by page reference to his Office Action.

Page 5: Statement that claims to initial positive results were generally retracted or shown to be in error by subsequent experiments (see article by Stipp in Wall Street Journal).

The Stipp article (ref. 8) said that the neutrons observed in the first experiment were based on false measurements and not confirmed in the second experiment but ‘the researchers said their second experiment yielded more heat than the first one’.

Page 5: The same statement referred also to page A22 of M. W. Browne’s article in New York Times.

The Browne article (ref. 2) said that Caltech failed to find any symptoms of fusion in that no emitted neutrons, gamma rays, tritium of helium were seen, contrary to claims of the Utah group. Then it reads ‘The Caltech team intentionally reproduced experimental errors leading to the same erroneous conclusions reached by the Utah group, Dr. Lewis said. By failing to install a stirring device, temperature differentials in the cell led to false estimates of its overall heat, he said. This may have suggested to the Utah group that its cell was producing fusion energy.’

The applicant’s comments hold up. The Caltech work indicates that they discovered how not to generate excess heat energy but did not disprove the possibility, if that temperature gradient in the cathode is the key.

Page 5: The examiner here asserts that those ‘skilled in the art’ say the assertions of Fleischmann and Pons were based on experimental errors and refers to the citations naming Browne, Kreysa et al, Lewis et al, Hilts, Hoanyi, Ohashi et al, Miskelly et al, Chapline, Wilson et al, and Williams et al.

Applicant has already commented on Browne (ref. 2), Williams et al (ref. 28) and Lewis et al (ref. 6). Kreysa et al (ref. 3) say they have “reproduced all the phenomena which Fleischmann and Pons reported” but go on to say that they can reason in quantitative terms why the heat measured was generated. Their argument is based on rate of heat flow assumptions attributed to ‘catalytic recombination’ for which they define a range of 0.12 up to 31.3 watts per cm. cube, saying that the F & P findings involved 9.26 watts per cm cube. This argument against the F & P findings is stated to assume that all hydrogen produced is reoxidized while still inside the cell and that is hardly a point which F & P could have overlooked. Hilts (ref. 9) is a Washington Post article that merely reports on the lack of neutrons in an MIT experiment. Horanyi (ref. 13) in what is merely a theoretical discussion argue against nuclear fusion as an alleged explanation for the F & P. findings. Ohashi et al (ref. 4) is based on theory and reiterates the ‘possibility’ that the heat in the F & P experiment ‘might’ be due to recombination of hydrogen and oxygen in the cell. It says that any ‘replication’ of the F & P experiment should determine by measurement how much recombination does in fact occur. Yet, above, where Kreysa et al did an experiment and reached the same conclusion after finding excess heat, they did not make that measurement but said it could be (in theory) between 0.12 and 31.3 watts per cm. cube. That is hardly a convincing denial of the F & P claim. MisKelly et al (5) restated the hydrogen recombination problem and went on to report experiments involving stirring to assure uniform temperature conditions. This article ended by saying that more definitive results could only be achieved by using closed-system calorimeters and assuring total recombination of the gases. This means that the issue is not settled by these various contributions. Chapline (ref. 7) is just a theoretical discourse in which the author concludes that F & P have produced ‘no credible evidence’ of excess heat ‘produced by nuclear fusion reactions’. Wilson et al (34) has an abstract ending with the words ‘we cannot prove that no excess heat has been generated in any experiments’. Again, the Wilson et al article merely shows that with careful calorimetry and temperature regulation the evidence of ‘excess heat’ can be be called into question.

Page 5: The examiner here stresses that Lewis et al and Bosch et al found no evidence of nuclear fusion when pulsed currents were used.

Lewis et al (ref. 6) show no circuit diagram for the apparatus they tested and from their description of the electrodes used in the test cells one must assume that the pulsed d.c. current they used was through the normal current flow path from anode to cathode to the electrolyte. This, in the context of pulsations, may have been cited because the applicant has disclosed pulsating a.c. current input as the way to get current circulating around a closed metal conductor loop path through the cathode, relying on induction by making the cathode part of a secondary winding on a transformer. The Lewis et al article is not anticipatory of the applicant’s structure. Nor can the applicant see much point in pulsing d.c. through the electrolyte. It certainly is not within the scope of the applicant’s claims.

Bosch et al (ref. 25) on page 172 (second column) states “No evidence of catalytic recombination of deuterium at the surface of Pd was seen”. This was at the end of a prolonged experiment with ran for 21 days when a check was made for ‘possible catalytic scalding, due to the presumed recombination’. This contrasts with the assumptions made by other researchers as noted above, who assumed that the heat they were measuring had to arise mainly from such recombination. On page 167 in their comments on heat balance Bosch et al declare that if a portion of the palladium becomes catalytically activated above the liquid surface during the experiment, then considerable heat can be released from the recombination instead of being counted as a loss to the system, enough, they say, to explain the F & P ‘excess heat’ claim. However, when they looked for evidence of such recombination at the end of their tests they could find no such indication! This Bosch et al reference refers on page 172, not to pulses as one normally understands the term, but to tests involving ‘rapid current increases from 1 A to 3 A and also rapid decreases down to 0.5 A’, but these are seen as step changes in operational current. On page 168 (last few words) Bosch et al say they looked for a constant temperature water bath regulator, but did not find one to suit their needs and hence ended up with a temperature-monitored water bath cooled by a constant flow of room air. The object would be to hold temperature uniform in the cell so that the temperature measurement was reliable. In this there is, again, that possible suppression of the action which they sought to research, if, as this applicant suggests, the temperature gradient in the cathode can be the trigger for that action.

Page 5: Here there is a reference to a T.V. show NOVA ‘Confusion in a Jar’ (ref. 31) by citing which the examiner implies his support for the view to the F & P had found it easy to get quick results which were erroneous.

This applicant cannot see the relevance of this T.V. program to the subject patent application. It was just media confrontation and the message that comes through is that Fleischmann said he had worked on the project for five years whereas he was being challenged by critics lacking the benefit of that experience.

Page 6: The examiner points to the Dagani comments referred to in the Jan 14 1991 issue of C & EN (ref. 23) as claiming that none of the scientific community take cold fusion seriously.

As this applicant reads that article it is a news item explaining some of the background of the F & P situation from the view point of the University of Utah. The key point that emerges is the statement by Fleischmann that he had identified a parameter that is the key to the reproducible production of ‘excess energy’ but he could not disclose it for reasons of commercial condfidentiality. It would seem prudent to regard that statement with some respect, but evenso the citation has no direct bearing on this applicant’s claims.

Page 6: The examiner here refers to the book ‘Too Hot to Handle’ by Frank Close which refers to the artifacts that can be misinterpreted as neutrons.

Bearing in mind that the primary concern is the question of generating ‘excess heat’ this applicant can see nothing in that disclosure that adds to what has been commented upon above.

Page 6: Here we have a generic recital of the lack of reputable evidence in support of cold fusion based on detection of neutrons, gamma rays, tritium or helium and a lack of reputable evidence indicating excess heat production. There are 18 cited references mustered together on 6 lines of the examiner’s text.

As the applicant has pointed out above a high energy emission need not be a consequence of a cold fusion reaction because there are no neutrons in the deuteron and because neutrons are produced essentially only when other neutrons or high energy gamma radiation bombard a target nucleus. Nor does the applicant feel it necessary to comment on research findings by those relying on assumptions based on processes involving the temperatures that go with high energy.

The papers which rely on neutron emission or high energy emission (radiation or particles) as the signature for excess heat generation are therefore seen as irrelevant. These are Ziegler et al (ref. 16), Price et al (ref. 18), Schrieder et al (ref. 17), Cribier et al (ref. 19), Alber et al (ref. 11), Henderson et al (ref. 24), Hajdas et al (ref. 15), Faller et al (ref. 14), Ewing et al (ref. 29), Myers et al (ref. 33).

Fleming et al (ref. 21) reported on heat measurements but find no excess heat. Their experiment kept the ‘sample’ tested in ‘thermal equilibrium with the surrounding chamber’, which, for reasons already stated, make the findings non-conclusive.

Shani et al (ref. 20) is curious as selected citation in that it seems to suggest a 1,000 fold activity of neutron production in the metal-deuterium system compared with prediction based on observation of neutron production rates in the compressed deuterium gas.

Rogers et al (ref. 37) which is mentioned by the examiner on page 6 of his Office Action as indicating lack of evidence of nuclear fusion or excess heat is a theoretical assessment saying what should be but not reporting any independent experimental fact. It offers nothing but a theoretical debate on reported findings of F & P.

The Washington Post item (ref. 10) of July 13, 1989 says nothing other than that the Energy Department recommended no government support to verify the cold fusion claims.

The Washington Post item of March 29, 1990 says that Salamon could not detect nuclear output from tests on apparatus in Stanley Pons’ laboratory but in the sense that “there was not an iota, not a sniff, of conventional fusion occurring”. Salamon was quoted as saying he could find no residual signs of a neutron burst. However, that presumes neutrons are necessarily produced by the cold fusion reaction!

Silvera et al (ref. 27) simply reiterates the observation that tests show no neutron or gamma ray emission such as would evidence nuclear fusion.

Balke et al (ref. 32) further reiterates the observation that no neutron emission has been found in their tests.
Page 7: Here the examiner refers to and quotes from the Cooke report (ref. 12) already discussed above.

The applicant can but point again to that statement in the Cooke report that says the temperature was controlled to “eliminate temperature gradient problems”. Those ‘problems’ hold the secret of the anomalous generation of excess heat!

The remainder of this response does not concern prior art issues.
The specification under examination has the exact form as originally filed in the April 15 1989 priority document being relied upon in this case. That was very early in the cycle of events which came to dominate the ‘cold fusion’ scene. The applicant was concerned only with new forms of apparatus which he felt would enhance what seemed to be a new and emerging technology in the energy field. The invention disclosed was apparatus structured to permit very substantial current flow through a cathode in an electrolytic cell, supplementary to the very much lower current flowing across from the anode to the cathode.

It was expected that the novelty and utility of such a non-obvious form of apparatus would be examined by the Patent Office as is any other form of electrical apparatus.

In the event, it became apparent upon receipt of the first Office Action that the Examiner did not intend to pursue this case in a normal way, as by simply searching the dual current feed to the cathode, the simple generic concept of the invention. Instead, he required an election of species in a four-tier cascade, which the applicant sees as an unwarranted requirement. Certainly, the counterpart examination of the case before the British Patent Office had not posed any search problem and, though that Office is quite ready to contend lack of unity of invention where appropriate, no objections remotely resembling those of the U.S. Examiner were raised. This may not be an argument that carries weight in U.S. practice, but for someone with this applicant’s experience it was abundantly clear that the formal treatment of the subject application even for the U.S. Patent Office was destined to be unusual.

Now, of course, it will be understood that the applicant when writing the specification for the April 15 1989 priority filing had no reason to believe that the ‘cold fusion’ theme would become such a ‘fiasco’. Otherwise, in drafting the specification the disclosure would have been confined to an electrolytic apparatus with that dual current feed to the cathode featured as the invention and no reference made to ‘cold fusion’.

It is to be noted that in the initial prosecution of this subject case, in the stage prior to the petition for which its revival was secured, the Applicant sought to excise all reference to ‘cold fusion’ and all the theoretical portion of the disclosure. However, the examiner insisted on the reinstatement of that part of the disclosure, for reasons which the applicant cannot understand, unless it was the examiner’s intention to target the ‘cold fusion’ aspect as the basis for rejection.

In applicant’s patent professional experience he had, until this case, always found patent examiners willing to comply with an applicant’s desire to delete material from a specification, given of course adequate remaining description confined to the structure shown in the drawings and duly claimed. Having, in the light of developments, said too much in the specification concerning certain theoretical interpretations of what could well be a genuine cold fusion phenomenon, the applicant was, and presumably still is, precluded from making that deletion.

Yet applicant hereby advises the examiner that he would be most willing to enter such an amendment again to delete all reference to such theory and to ‘cold fusion’ in order to assure acceptance of claims which are restricted to the dual current feed to the cathode in an electrolytic apparatus confined to adsorption of hydrogen-isotope ions from an acqueous solution.

For the record, although the examiner contends the need for ‘reputable’ evidence to support the cold fusion theme, as already indicated, applicant’s scientific research as published long before the Fleischmann and Pons event did show why deuterons did not contain neutrons but did explain the energy needed to transmute a deuteron into a proton and a neutron, besides explaining neutron decay into a proton and an electron. Hopefully, the examiner will understand that new discoveries in science are hardly likely to have ‘repute’ until they are well-accepted but by then they can hardly be of relevance in supporting a new invention, because they can but contribute to making the invention seem obvious.

Nor, indeed, is the applicant familiar with the use of the term ‘reputable’ in judging whether scientific literature can be applied for or against the merits of an invention. If an invention is anticipated by a prior publication it surely makes no difference whether or not the author is of good ‘repute’. If it is alleged that an invention does not work because that is proved by a scientific publication dated after the priority date of the invention, then that could bear upon its patent validity if authored by ‘reputable’ authority. However, such issues are normally only contested after grant when a judge can weigh the facts, including the ‘reputation’ of the expert witnesses called to testify. But even in such a case the judge would require evidence also to show that the precise structure claimed in the patent had been the subject of tests by that ‘reputable’ authority.

Therefore, in responding to the examiner’s detailed remarks by reference to the numerous publications cited, the issues of importance are (a) whether or not they include art prior to April 15, 1989 disclosing the dual current feed to the cathode and (b) whether or not any of the later art cited discloses tests specific to the dual current feed to the cathode.

The examiner’s very extensive survey of the negative reports pertaining to the research of Fleischmann and Pons and ‘cold fusion’ in general is, in this applicant’s opinion, somewhat irrelevant, as not being specific to this applicant’s invention.

Also, having regard to the intense interest in the ‘cold fusion’ theme on an international front, there is in that cited art nothing conclusive enough to suppress the anti-cold-fusion lobby. It is submitted that, in taking such a firm stance against ‘cold fusion’ technology, the examiner should weigh the consequences of that posture having regard to the status now, early in 1996, as the light-water, lithium electrolyte, nickel/palladium catalyst, Patterson Power Cell moves towards commercialization. What is the sense in refusing to grant patents on this subject on the basis of the examiner’s selection of statements by ‘reputable’ scientists when the few patents in this field that have penetrated examiner scrutiny are attracting investment by technology-based corporations who also command advice from experts they judge to be sufficiently ‘reputable’?

The Patterson Power Cell is the subject of U.S. Patent No. 5,318,675 issued on June 7, 1994. It refers to Patterson’s prior related U.S. Patents 4,943,355 and 5,036,031 which concerned the adsorption of hydrogen into palladium. It further refers to the Fleischmann and Pons claims concerning ‘excess heat’ and the ‘cold fusion’ effect. It incorporates tables of experimental findings showing that the experiments reported are reproducible and that some of those experiments indicate ‘an unexpected increase in heat output’. See column 9 line 58.

In the January 1996 issue of New Energy News there are three items which warrant mention in the above context:

(1) On p. 1 the statement that the Patterson Power Cell has attracted its first $1,000,000 license for commercialization by a U.S. Fortune 500 company.

(2) On p. 5 the statement that the European Patent Office is granting the Pons-Fleischmann patent for cold fusion, coupled with the remark that the corresponding U.S. application (and over 200 others) has been denied by the U.S. Patent Office.

(3) On p. 22 the notification that the Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion will be held in 1996 in Hokkaido, Japan.

The Patterson technology was a feature in a documentary program shown on British television on December 17th 1996. Small pellets having Ni/Pd/Ni coatings are compacted in a tube filled with water and a pulsed current input through electrodes results in the generation of heat energy far in excess of the electrical energy supplied.

How can the U.S. Patent Office justify a posture of granting patents relevant to this technology to some applicants without citing copious ‘cold fusion’ literature as objection but confronting others, as in this subject application, with close on 40 such non-patent citations?

The applicant does not know how he can, at this stage in the proceedings, contest the examiner’s position on the subject of ‘reputable evidence’, when he is the judge of what is and what is not ‘reputable’ and the subject of his attention is ‘cold fusion’ generally and not the specific apparatus claimed by the applicant.

Therefore, it is simply requested that the examiner should allow the deletion of all the references to ‘cold fusion’ and the theoretical sections from the specification, so as to further the onward examination by sole reference to the features claimed, namely the dual current feed to the cathode in an electrolytic cell.

Applicant has been obliged to respond to the objections based on the 37 non-patent items cited, even though he believes the ‘cold fusion’ debate is really not germane to the apparatus claims sought.

It has been stated that what is seen as a key point concerning the attempts to replicate the Fleischmann-Pons apparatus, is that, if a temperature gradient in the cathode is the trigger for heat generation (an adequate temperature gradient), then what occurred in a spurious way in the pioneer experiments may be precluded from occurring in those refined replication tests.

However, it is not for the applicant to defend the Fleischmann-Pons case, save to say that he does know with absolute certainty, backed by my Ph.D. research at a ‘reputable’ establishment (Cambridge University in England), that anomalous heat is generated by eddy current induction in laminar metal cores when pulsed magnetically by a.c. power. This is because the normal heat generated flows through that metal in the planes of the laminations and, owing to the magnetism, as in nickel or iron, that heat energy acts regeneratively to set up electric fields which effectively reduce the electrical conductivity of the metal and so allow eddy current heating to build up beyond normal theoretical expection.

By setting up a non-linear electric field gradient within an electrical conductor, such as nickel or palladium, there has to be an internal charge that is not neutralized locally. As one must see it that charge can play a role affecting protons and deuterons adsorbed into that conductor. A temperature gradient in the metal with a transverse magnetic field present means a mutually transverse electric field, by standard physics based on ‘reputable’ authority familiar with electrical conduction and thermoelectricity.

On page 13 the examiner questions what applicant says about heat gradients by saying that if heat is generated in the cathode there must be a temperature gradient between the cathode and the other components of the cell. In saying this he has not understood the essential point that the heat gradient has to be within the metallic body of the cathode to affect the distribution of ions inside the cathode and there has to be a substantial current flow through the cathode to set up enough magnetic field to interact with that necessarily small temperature gradient in order to build up the electric charge inside that cathode. Once the excess heat is generated its flow from the cathode will sustain the temperature gradient and escalate the effect but it has to be triggered somewhow and it will not be triggered if the cell is kept at a uniform temperature. The examiner says he cannot see how stirring removes the temperature differential. Stirring mixes the electrolyte and so makes its temperature more uniform besides keeping bubbles from forming poor heat conductive surface barriers on the cathode surface. That makes it more difficult for the cathode temperature gradient to occur in a spurious way. The applicant has drawn attention above to those citations which provide calorimeters deliberately structured to ensure uniform temperature.

On p. 8 of his Office Action the examiner states: “Clearly, if something cannot be reproduced at will, there is also then no adequate nor enabling disclosure which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art, to make and use it as required by the statute.” Since this statement seems more directed to the process aspect of the the Fleischmann-Pons activity I assume that the Examiner would deny patent grant to Fleischmann and Pons.

However, concerning the subject invention, which concerns apparatus having structure providing a dual current feed to the cathode of an electrolytic cell, then certainly here this apparatus can be reproduced at will by routine design and assembly. It will work reliably in feeding current through the cathode from the two separate circuits involved and it has utility for the reasons set out earlier.

However, insofar as the adsorption of hydrogen into the cathode is concerned the following points are made.

Firstly, the entry of a hydrogen atom into the cathode of an electrolytic cell is the entry of the H or D isotope into metal in which the satellite electron of the atom joins company with those electrons shed as conduction electrons by atoms constituting the metal. Any separation of an electron from its parent atom involves an energy transaction. Any changes in the relative proximity of ions and/or electrons within the body of a metal conductor must involve energy transactions.

Secondly, the passage of a current, particularly a substantial current, through a metal conductor involves motion of the free charge present in that metal. Whether these charges are electrons or the H or D ions makes no difference. They are affected and the stronger the current, the greater the effect.

Thirdly, an apparatus particularly designed to activate the H or D ions, in contrast with a normal electrolytic cell in which the relatively very small electrolysis current is a measure of ion migration in the electrolyte, but is relatively insignificant in the body of the metal cathode, must have utility in enhancing those energy transactions already mentioned.

Applicant’s specification makes no assertions about the heat which may be generated by the apparatus defined by the claims.

As the examiner deems the disclosure to be insufficient in failing to set forth the underlying assumptions for Applicant’s theories, including the applicant’s appraisal of the degree of validity of said assumptions, and that confronts the applicant with a problem that can only be remedied by filing a very copious continuation application disclosing the theory in its fullness. The theory shows, for example, how the constant of gravitation G can be derived in terms of the electron charge/mass ratio or how the proton, neutron and deuteron masses are determined in relation to the mass of the electron. It shows, for example, how protons and deuterons can transmute by fusion and by fission to find an equilibrium abundance ratio corresponding to that measured. The validity of the underlying assumptions is assured by the way everything comes together in explaining the qualitative and quantitative properties of the fundamental particles involved. Why, for example, is it that the neutron has a negative magnetic moment? Here, the neutron is not something within an atomic nucleus, but rather the neutron as created when a deuteron is split by gamma radiation. Physicists of great ‘repute’ measure the magnetic moment of the neutron and their data tell us that, in nuclear magnetons, it is -1.91304308(54), a precision on 0.28 parts per million. Applicant’s theory showed that the neutron, which is nothing other than an antiproton attached to a few beta particles, is ever changing between four alternative states in one of which it throws aside a positive betal particle transiently. It is in this latter state one period in 23 so, allowing for a g-factor of 2, its magnetic moment is -44/23 nuclear magnetons. Applicant does not believe those who generate the ‘reputable evidence’ in connection with nuclear theory have, as yet, come to realize the fact that this quantity -44/23 is -1.9130435, which, as the examiner can see, is within the 0.28 parts per million range of uncertainty in the measurement. This was published in the refereed scientific periodical dated 31 July 1986 already referenced and what is said here, though not said in the patent specification, is that the applicant understands how neutrons are created as well as the form and nature of deuterons, as evidenced by the ability to deduce such high precision results. Therefore the applicant knows that there is no neutron within a deuteron and why it takes high energy gamma radiation or the high energy equivalent to create the short-lived neutrons which are created in hot nuclear reactors. He knows from the underlying basis of the theory why the actions which account for the proton, neutron and deuteron masses occur at normal temperatures and that means that the eventual confrmation of ‘cold fusion’ and its eventual acceptance will endorse that theory.

Applicant is willing to send the examiner copies of the relevant published papers if that may help him to accept a more favorable posture on the ‘cold fusion’ issue, but as one well knows, the patent is not a vehicle for promulgating belief in a theory.

However, if disbelief in a theory can be the basis of rejection of a novel and meritorious apparatus claim, then perhaps the examiner will wish to know more about that theory.

If, on the other hand, the examiner insists that establishment opinion on ‘cold fusion’ is what is governing, then it is submitted that the U.S. Patent Office is being influenced in a way that is detrimental to the spirit of the patent system. In that case, those who have filed patent applications aiming to make a contribution in this field should be put out of their misery by the Patent Office edicting that ‘cold fusion’ applications are unpatentable subject matter. In the latter case, the patents on the Patterson Power Cell, which have got through the net, will seem incongruous and hard to justify.

The applicant apologizes for the length of this response but reminds the examiner that the applicant deems the first six pages of this text to be sufficient but has added extra comment for fear of being deemed non-responsive.

It is hoped that the three new claims will prove acceptable and applicant here affirms that if they are allowed no further attempt will be made to open up further issues arising from the species election.

Respectfully submitted

Harold Aspden

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

1,567,791 DUHME 1/25

2,240,914 SCHUTZE 5/41

3,052,830 OVSHINSKY 9/62

3,193,485 VINCENT 7/65

3,288,694 BANKS 11/66

3,616,315 CHILDS 10/71

4,324,624 DILLER 4/82

4,344,831 WEBER 8/82

4,490,348 MIZUNO et al 12/84

4,755,305 FREMONT et al 7/88

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

90/10,935 WO PONS et al 9/90

90/13,128 WO RABINOWITZ et al 11/90

90/13,897 WO DREXLER 11/90

91/06,103 WO ZACHARIAH 5/91

OTHER REFERENCES

1 The Washington Times, 3/24/89, page A5, ‘Ridiculously easy test yields claim of energy triumph’ article by D. Braten.

2 The New York Times, 5/3/89, pp. A1, A22, ‘Fusion claim is greeted with scorn by physicists’, article by M. W. Browne.

3. J. Electroanalytical Chem., vol. 266, (1989), pp. 437-450, ‘A critical analysis of electrochmical nuclear fusion experiments’, G. Kreysa et al.

4. J. of Nuclear Sci. and Tech., vol. 26, No. 7, (July 1989), pp. 729-732, ‘Decoding of thermal data in Fleischmann & Pons paper’, H. Ohashi et al.

5. Science, vol. 246, No. 4931, 11/10/89, pp. 793-796, ‘Analysis and published calorimetric evidence for electro-chemical cold fusion of deuterium and palladium’, G. M. Miskelly et al.

6. Nature, vol. 340, 8/17/89, pp. 525-530, ‘Searches for low-temperature nuclear fusion of deuterium in palladium’, N. S. Lewis et al.

7. UCRL-101583, 7/89, pp. 1-9, ‘Cold confusion’, G. Chapline.

8. The Wall Street Journal, 4/26/89, page B4, ‘Georgia Group outlines errors that led to withdrawal of cold fusion claims’, article by D. Stipp.

9. The Washington Post, 5/2/89, pp. A1, A7, ‘Significant errors reported in Utah fusion experiment’, article by P. J. Hilts.

10 The Washington Post, 7/13/89, p. A14, ‘Panel opposes cold fusion efforts’, Associated Press Report.

11. Zeitschrift fur Phys. A – Atomic Nuclei, vol. 333, (1989), pp. 319-320, ‘Search for neutrons from cold nuclear fusion’, D. Alber et al.

12. ORNL/FTR-3341, 7/31/89, pp. 2-15, Cooke.

13. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. Letters, vol. 137, no. 1 (8/21/89), pp. 23-28, ‘Some basic electrochemistry and the cold nuclear fusion of deuterium’, G. Horanyi.

14. J. Radionanal. Nucl. Chem. Letters, vol.137, No. 1 (8/21/89), pp. 9-16, ‘Investigation of cold fusion in heavy water’, S. H. Faller et al.

15. Solid State Communications, vol. 7, No. 4, (1989), pp. 309-313, ‘Search for cold fusion events’, W. Hajdas et al.

16. Physical Review Letters, vol. 62, No. 25, 6/19/89, pp. 2929-2932, ‘Electrochemical experiments in cold nuclear fusion’, J. F. Ziegler et al.

17. Zeitschrift fur Phys. B – Condensed Matter, vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 141-142, (1989), ‘Search for cold nuclear fusion in palladium-deuteride’, G. Schrieder et al.

18. Physical Review Letters, vol. 63, No. 18, 10/30/89, pp. 1926-1929, ‘Search for energetic particle emission from deuterated Ti and Pd foils’, P. B. Price et al.

19. Physics Letters B, vol. 228, No. 1, 9/7/89, pp. 163-166, ‘Conventional sources of fast neutrons in ‘cold fusion’ experiments’, M. Cribier et al.

20. Solid State Communications, vol. 72, No. l, (1989) pp. 53-57, ‘Evidence for a background neutron enhanced fusion in deuteron-absorbed palladium’, Gad Shani et al.

21. J. of Fusion Energy, vol. 9, No. 4, (12/90), pp. 517-524, ‘Calorimetric studies of electrochemical incorporation of hydrogen isotopes in palladium’, J. W. Fleming et al.

22. The New York Times, (3/17/91), article by Broad on pages 1 and 30.

23. C & EN (1/14/91), pp. 4-5, ‘Cold fusion: Utah pressures Pons, Fleischmann’, article by R. Dagani.

24. J. of Fusion Energy, vol. 9, No. 4 (12/90), pp. 475-477, ‘More searches for cold fusion’, R. A. Henderson et al.

25. J. of Fusion energy, vol. 9, No. 2 (6/90), pp. 165-186, ‘Electrochemical cold fusion at IPP Garching’, H. S. Bosch et al.

26. J. of Fusion Energy, vol. 9, No. 2 (12/90), pp. 133-148, ‘Measurement and analysis of neutron and gamma ray …’, D. Albagli et al.

27. Physical Review B, vol. 43, No. 14, (11/15/90), pp. 9143-9146, ‘Deuteratyed palladium at temperatures from 4.3 to 400K and pressures to 105 kbar: Search for cold fusion’, I. F. Silvera et al, pp. 9143-9146.

28. Nature, vol. 342 (11/23/89), pp. 375-384, ‘Upper bounds on cold fusion in electrolytic cells’, D. E. Williams et al.

29. IEEE Transactions ion Nuclear Science, vol. 37, No. 3, (6/90), ‘A sensitive multi-detector neutron counter …’, pp. 1165-1170, R. J. Ewing et al.

30. ‘Too Hot to Handle’ (1990), W. H. Allen Pub., London W105AH by Frank Close, pp. 146-171, 200-215, 289-349, 351-353.

31. NOVA Confusion in a Jar, Transcript of show No. 1802 of April 30, 1991, pp. 2-19.

32. Physical Review C, vol. 42, No. 1 (7/90), pp. 30-37, ‘Limits on neutron emission from cold fusion in metal hydrides’, B. Balke et al.

33. J. of Fusion Energy, vol. 9, No. 3 (1990), pp. 263-268, ‘Search for cold fusion at D/Pd greater than 1 using ion implantation’, S. M. Myers et al.

34. J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry, vol. 332, Nos. 1 and 2, (14 August 1992), pp. 1-31, ‘Analysis of experiments in the calorimetery of LiOD-D₂O electrochemical cells’, R. H. Wilson et al.

35. Cold fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, University of Rochester Press, by Huizenga, (1992), pp. VII-IX, 22-41, 58-83, 86-91, 128-189, 200-223, 240-259.

36. Science, (6/15/90), pp. 1299-1304, ‘Cold fusion conundrum at Texas A & M’, article by G. Taubes.

37. J. of Fusion Energy, vol. 9, No. 4 (12/90), pp. 483-485, ‘Cold fusion reaction products and their measurement’, V. C. Rogers et al.

---

---

This is the major part of the substantive technical part of the response to the U.S. Patent Examiner’s Office Action of April 3, 1995.

---

The main thrust of the disclosure in this Applicant’s disclosure concerns the injection of a very strong electrical current flow through the cathode, a current which in no way participates in the electrolytic process. Such a current flowing axially along the centre of the cathode body will develop circumferential magnet fields inside the metal cathode and these can interact with heat flow along the axis to develop radial electric field gradients inside the cathode by virtue of the Nernst Effect. Heat flow carried mainly by electrons gets diverted by the magnetic field as the heat is converted into electric potential. An electric potential gradient inside a metal means a distributed charge inside that metal, notwithstanding its electrical conductivity, and that plays a key role in the invention claimed.

The physics of all this is independent of ‘cold fusion’ as such. It is simply a thermoelectric phenomenon and one which has utilitarian purpose in the conversion of heat to electricity or in the storage of heat energy in electrical form pending controlled release as heat.

The new claim 36 is written with the objective of securing protection for the apparatus defined and claim 36 in no way depends upon acceptance of cold fusion though the apparatus should prove useful if that technology develops in due course. Even Claim 37 which introduces the hydrogen ion as adsorbed into the cathode has a supportable basis independent of the cold fusion scenario.

As the specification of record shows the Applicant had become aware of the enhanced electrical conduction properties of a metal which comprises atoms which can group to have a mass resonance that is an integer multiple of a near-to-102 atomic mass unit value. This was evident from research on warm superconductors and it has now been realised that this property can play a major role in determining materials suitable for use as permanent magnets. For example, barium ferrite magnets have a molecular composition BaFe₁₂O₁₉ which has molecular weight 1113 or 11 times 101.2 and Alnico magnets include a principal atomic group component AlNiCo₂ which has a mass of 203.53 atomic mass units or 2 times 101.76. In permanent magnets there are microscopic loop currents in what are virtually superconductive circuit paths and these sustain the state of permanent magnetism just as current in a superconductor is sustained.

The specification of record discloses apparatus in which the cathode is specifically structured to carry an enhanced current and affected in composition to enhance this resonant effect on conductivity. Applicant seeks by the new independent claim 36 and claims 37 onwards to have the Examiner focus on the merits of the invention from this aspect.

From the point of view of the prior art search, the examination of the parent case had reduced primary consideration to the relevance of Trzyna (U.S. Patent 3,844,922).

In supplementing this response advising election of species it seems appropriate therefore to comment on Trzyna as Applicant would have replied in dealing with the parent case had the 12/16/92 Office Action been received.

Also, since doubts concerning the ‘cold fusion’ issue may prevail, even though the Applicant does not seek to champion that cause on the merits of what is disclosed in the subject specification, there is an important aspect concerning temperature gradient that warrants some comment.

Essentially, in the calorimeter tests used by researchers trying to verify the cold fusion process they went out of their way to ensure that temperatures of the test device were uniform. They eliminated the temperature gradients in the cathode which are absolutely the key factor for activating the Nernst Effect. Without a temperature gradient there is no energy conversion activated by current through the cathode which changes heat into electric polarization. Without the latter polarization controlling the presence of surplus ions inside the body of the metal cathode there is no uniformity in the sense needed to get a fine-tuning of what this Applicant describes as mass resonance which in turn enhances the electrical conductivity and so the whole action.

The Applicant has therefore appended a series of notes below which would have been filed in a replying to that 12/16/92 Office Action on the parent application, had it been received before that application became abandoned. Hopefully, these remarks will prove helpful in endorsing the merit of the subject application notwithstanding the aura attached to ‘cold fusion’.

Concerning the importance of the 102 atomic mass factor in the subject disclosure, the Examiner may have heard recently of the outstanding discovery by U.S. researchers in Colorado that a metal formed by condensation from vapor form had been cooled to a temperature of a few billionths of a degree above absolute zero and a very large group of its atoms had merged their action to a common thermal quantum state. That metal was rubidium, which has two isotopes of 85 and 87 atomic mass units respectively. Rubidium is exceptional in this respect, because more rapid cooling occurs during condensation where atoms come together in groups having near-to-102 atomic mass units as the random thermal motion converts into orderly and concerted motion. It is then very relevant that 6 times 85 is 5 times 102 and 7 times 87 is 6 times (101.5).

TRZYNA 3,844,922:

Concerning Trzyna U.S. Patent No. 3,844,922, the following remarks are written with the Examiner’s earlier objections in the parent case in mind. The Examiner had suggested that current through the cathode would be by-passed partially by flow through the electrolyte.

The disclosure in Trzyna (3,844,922) in the abstract illustration shows an electrolytic cell with provision for a.c. excitation of the cathode and both d.c. and a.c. excitation of the anode-cathode circuit. Note the single metal-to-metal point of contact between the metal of the two separate circuits. In that Trzyna disclosure, as in the Applicant’s disclosure, with an a.c. potential between the ends of the cathode, there will be some a.c. flow shunted through the electrolyte but electro-chemists know that there is such a large difference in electrical conductivity between metal and an electrolytic solution (of the order of a ratio of 10,000 to 1) that, to all intents and purposes, unless the cathode were to be an extremely thin metal film with small cross-section and very large superficial area, it is technically correct to speak of the two circuits as being quite distinct as current paths, in Fig. 1 the a.c. path through the cathode and the d.c. path through anode and cathode.

It is submitted that this interpretation would be placed on what the Applicant has disclosed in the specification as filed without it being necessary to explain the above in detail. Evenso, the Applicant has attempted to bring clarity into this issue by suitably limiting the claims, also in order to distinguish the invention from the Trzyna disclosure.

Concerning the relevance of the Trzyna citation, note here that, although the circuit configuration does resemble that proposed in the subject specification, the technical function is entirely different. In electrolytic etching and electroplating the whole physical action concerns the process occurring exclusively in the electrolyte and at the cathode surface. The action necessarily involves low voltages and the nature of electrolysis is such that there is a limit on the current density per unit area of cathode that is feasible and any excess currents per unit area are to be avoided. Certainly, the objective in Trzyna is to provide a small fluctuating voltage potential at the surface of his cathode/workpiece with relatively minor transfer of current in the cathode and, owing to the electrolyte’s small specific conductivity, this means that the a.c. current admitted to cathode is quite small and though most of that will circulate around the cathode loop it is small in relationship to the anode current as it is intended to help in equalising electrolytic actions over the cathode surface. Note the ratio 30 amperes d.c. in the anode-cathode circuit and 6 amperes a.c. in the cathode circuit (see column 4 line 65 and column 5 line 1).

In this Applicant’s apparatus the a.c. cathode current is far in excess of the d.c. current in the anode-cathode circuit, a ratio of 100 to 1 being mentioned in the specification (line 18, p. 20), because it is the action of this powerful current, whether by electrodynamic pinch, electrodynamic ion-electron enhanced acceleration, heat gradient or by enhancement of ion collisions, that promotes the action for which the apparatus is designed.

Indeed, the Applicant now knows that the heat gradient plus the electric pinch and Nernst potentials resulting from the strong current are the critical criteria for best mode operation of the invention. Furthermore, the objective is not, as in Trzyna, to affect the transfer of ions between anode and cathode and their adherence or separation from the cathode work surface, but rather to have an effect on a process that occurs inside the cathode once the ions have been adsorbed into that cathode. The heat gradient exists because the heat generated is removed by a flow of fluid over the cathode surface by passage from an entry port, travel over the surface of the heated cathode, and then through an exit port by which the heat is used externally in a recirculating system.

Technically, therefore, what is disclosed can be assembled by a person skilled in the electro-chemical art and it is functionally distinct from the teachings in the Trzyna disclosure.

In these circumstances, and having regard to the amendment suggested it should be justifiable to regard the innovation as patentable over the art originally cited.

In his objections to the parent application Examiner states that there is no support in the original disclosure for referring to the cathode as having a single point of connection to a metal conductor by which its output current returns to the d.c. source.

This draws attention to a problem of wording to distinguish the ‘cathode’ from the ‘cathode circuit’. Fig. 1 does show an anode, a cathode and connections (a) through a d.c. supply to the anode-cathode circuit and (b) through an a.c. supply feeding the cathode circuit exclusively. The single terminal point connection is shown at the left end of the cathode and, as the Examiner states in his fourth paragraph on page 3 of his Action ‘the cathode itself extends beyond the ends of the housing’.

In that early examination there was some problem raised by reference to the “single turn secondary winding”. This is the feature shown in Fig. 3 since cathode 2 is such a single turn. This no longer arises in the claims presented as 36-46 but it is deemed to be evident to an electrical specialist reading the specification in the context of Fig. 1 that, since the object is to promote a very high current flow through a cathode fed by a transformer, and since there is no other load, the connection through the cathode has to be a short-circuit. The logical design is to use what is effectively a current transformer with minimal secondary resistance and that means using a single turn. The multi-turn secondary shown in Fig. 1 is merely a standard illustration of a transformer action. Had a single loop been shown it might still have been seen as a two-turn secondary but the back-up showing in Fig. 3 clearly gives basis for the single turn secondary winding feature and that is located wholly within the housing for the cathode.

General Remarks on the ‘Cold fusion’ Theme:
Applicant is mindful that the Examiner argued in the parent case that there is no reputable evidence of record to support any allegations or claims that the invention involves nuclear fusion.With respect, what Applicant believes was in issue in the parent application was not the attempts to replicate the experiments which have led to this cold fusion fiasco, but the workability of the structure which this Applicant has described in the subject application, though it is reasonable for the Examiner to invite comment on why the adversaries on the cold fusion research could not demonstrate cold fusion. The Examiner has, incidentally, only cited the negative reports.

None of the ‘reputable’ evidence cited reports on an experiment specifically using Applicant’s apparatus.

These preliminary comments are generic to several of the many references cited by the Examiner and so are itemised as follows:

(a) The nature of a calorimeter test where there is no excess heat is, by definition, one by which there is thermal equilibrium. In the event that a successful cell is one where a temperature gradient in the host metal cathode is essential to set up the potentials in the metal that then exist, by virtue of the Nernst Effect, the use of a well-controlled calorimeter would preclude the cell from producing excess heat because the potentials might well be the factor that brings the deuterons into needed proximity to trigger fusion. Such calorimeter tests are inconclusive and do not replicate cells which run on an open basis in which there is convection and formation of gas bubbles which bring about temperature gradients in the cathode. If the test protocol, in seeking to pin down all components in a heat balance, freezes the system into thermal equilibrium so as to sense change of temperature, then, to the extent that cold fusion needs a little activation stimulated by temperature differences in the cathode, that same test protocol stifles the effect it is supposed to measure.

This is why the Applicant has provided the cooling feature and why the input of strong currents to the cathode plays its role in upsetting the thermal equilibrium.

What is needed in a proper test protocol is a calorimeter test in which there is a controlled rate of heat flow through the system which goes hand in hand with a temperature gradient and is channelled to pick up excess heat and so deliver the excess as output without imposing the straight-jacket uniform temperature constraint that a calorimeter in equilibrium imposes.

This is why the coolant circulates in the Applicant’s Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The Examiner will hopefully see the sense of this argument and appreciate the problem. Those who set out to test the F & P claim did not trust the F & P calorimetric evaluation and so they aimed at precise calorific measurement using a calorimeter that regulated temperature in a uniform way. They assumed that if excess heat is produced then the best thing to do is to enclose all the heat in a container in thermal equilibrium and see if the temperature increased. Even if they cycled the temperature between different values over a protracted period of time they ensured that the operative temperature was uniform in the apparatus at the moment when measurements were made. The result was that they did not replicate the very conditions which mattered, namely that there had to be temperature gradient in the cathode to get any excess heat in the first place.

This point can be underlined by referring to the Miskelly et al paper in Science (November 1989) which the Examiner cited in his earlier action. In the last paragraph on p. 529 there is the argument that the F & P experiment is flawed by their finding that temperature differentials of 2 degrees C occurred in an unstirred cell, especially as there were gas bubbles, and this was seen as a source of error. In fact, it should have been seen as the clue pointing to why the F & P cell really did develop excess heat.

Without a temperature differential in the cathode, the action of the current in developing a magnetic field that acts on the heat flow through that temperature gradient in the body of the cathode will not produce the Nernst EMF within the cathode metal and so there will be no residual charge in the host metal by which the deuterons can be brought together in a fusion relationship.

Therefore, the use of good calorimetric methods or closed cells with no circulating coolant precludes a valid test of the F & P cell. If the excess heat generation is precluded by temperature stabilization any test to search even for neutron or gamma radiation is futile.

Note further that the actual fusion reaction is that by which tritium is generated along with a proton, meaning no neutron and no gamma radiation. See the discussion by Faller et al in the 1989 reference cited by the Examiner (J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. Letters). This shows the doubts as to the fusion product. F & P obtained concentration of tritium. Yet, because there is electrolytic concentration of tritium in the residual deuterium oxide as the latter is used up in normal dissociation, this is glossed over as being a reason for discounting the findings of F & P. Firstly, one had to have an experiment that did generate excess heat and only then should one weigh the balance of the tritium product. There is no point in watching the tritium concentration in a cell that is not heat-active and then declaring that any such concentration found by F & P is normal electrolytic concentration.

The problem here to keep in mind is that experimenters do not wish to waste deuterium oxide. They accept its dissociation in operating the cell, but they do not pump it through a cell with the object of extracting heat. They avoid the temperature gradients and they brush aside the tritium factor, whilst pointing at the no-neutron, no-gamma radiation aspects which are not relevant anyway to the tritium producing reaction. Two deuterons fuse to create a proton and a triton having 3 and 1 Mev of ‘heat energy’, respectively.

(b) Therefore, if the test is based on detection of neutrons or gamma radiation it is not relevant owing to the fact that deuterons that come together in a cool environment need not combine by producing a neutron but may simply release the 4 Mev surplus heat energy that comes from conversion to a triton and a proton. That Mev of energy is not carried by fast beta particles but rather by the relatively very heavy triton and proton and the latter are able to transfer heat directly to the phonon system to which they belong when arrested. There is no reason to insist on any gamma radiation such as one associates with excessively hot beta emission.
(c) If there is no effort to supply any current confined to a circuit including the cathode but not the anode and there is no provision for setting up a temperature gradient in the cathode then the disclosure does not bear at all upon the Applicant’s invention.

Proceeding now to specific comments and concerning the other references in the 12/16/92 Office Action:
Fleming reveals no excess heat: comments (a) and (c) apply.
Broad: This concerns doubt about the 2.2 Mev gamma ray detection but Fleischmann is presumably still satisfying his backers in their onward development of larger heat generators and a March 1991 newspaper report should not be given undue attention.

Henderson: This reveals no neutron or gamma emission and assumes fusion reaction with a helium product: comments (b) and (c) apply. Note specifically the statement: ‘We did not measure products from reaction (2)’. It is reaction (2) that this Applicant sees as the relevant reaction.

Bosch: This was again a search for neutrons and gamma radiation. Equation 2 in Table III is followed by comment ‘For those reactions which don’t create directly gammas, the generation of fast charged particles would create secondary gammas…’ This is a sweeping assertion based on experience with radioactivity and hot fusion. If those workers have no experience of cold fusion in producing excess heat but know from hot fusion work that primary gamma radiation can create secondary gammas, how can they declare what would happen if no primary gammas are produced? Evenso, in their article, concerning temperature measurement there was some modest temperature differential in the cathode region (bottom p. 169) but they observed ‘non-equilibrium effects attributed to exothermic loading and said ‘clearly better measurements were needed to draw more significant conclusions’. Comments (b) and (c) apply.

Rogers: This is a review paper and not one reporting new experiments but it states in the last paragraph that tritium has been measured as a reaction product, though trying to excuse this as being possibly due to preferential electrolysis.

Albagli: This dismisses the tritium feature by attributing growth in tritium to electrolytic concentration. Comments (a), (b) and (c) all apply.

Nova: Confusion in a Jar: This evidences the debate surrounding the subject but is not evidence that shows that the scientific community deems the ‘cold fusion’ suggestion as ‘bordering on the incredible’. To the contrary, the fact that such a forum of debate was taking place shows that that community is so concerned that the claim could be ‘credible’ that they seek to drive the question forward to a termination point at a faster rate than the proponents can proceed to secure experimental clarification.

Balke: Here the temperature was varied as a test parameter but all the emphasis is on detecting neutrons. Comments (b) and (c) apply.

Myers: This does focus on the reaction producing tritium, but with strict temperature control, meaning that in searching for the fusion products, the open cell electrolytic conditions by which temperature perturbations in the cathode can occur are not present. Comments (a), (b) and (c) apply.

Wilson: This discusses calorimetry of the F & P cell and points to possible errors but (see p. 2) ‘these do not lead to significant errors in their calculation of excess heat and (abstract) ‘we cannot prove that no excess heat has been generated in any experiments’. This, again, is a situation where, if there are temperature differences in the test system, these are a source of potential error in heat calculations, but excess heat in any quantity that is worth considering necessarily will involve a temperature differential in the cell. By precluding one, one precludes the other. The runaway escalating heat generation condition that F & P reported is not really considered. It is the real clue to follow. If excess heat generation is proportional to temperature gradient and temperature gradient increases with such heat generation, that is an exponentially escalating action. Once that action is triggered in a cell which lends itself to that temperature gradient condition, the runaway situation develops but will be moderated if the heat escapes in a different direction or the electric current developing the field, assuming Nernst Effects apply, is diverted. Hence, finding fault with F & P data by criticizing sources of temperature difference in a calorimeter test, is to put the whole picture out of focus.

Silvera: This again seems irrelevant in that comments (a), (b) and (c) apply. The calorimeter used to measure excess heat does have regard to the changing thermal gradients during the ‘slow’ increase from 77K to room temperature. However, note the commentary in the middle of the first column on p. 42. ‘During the warm-up, the power sensitivity fell by as much as two orders of magnitude due to changing thermal gradients in the cell’. The researchers were only concerned with looking for excess heat at a steady temperature and so they discounted what they were finding during the step changes of the controlling temperature, because their equipment had lost its sensitivity owing, one can assume, to excess heating!

Williams: Comments (b) and (c) apply, but the calorimter test data reported is very curious. At p. 375, right hand column, middle section, it is said that there was an ‘apparent endothermic period at the beginning of the run..this was due in part to .. a temperature gradient …an analogous effect at the start of electrolysis was reported by Lewis et al, who showed that the apparent heating coefficient of a similar cell varied during the first part of a run. Because of this effect, we excluded the first 10,000 minutes of data from each cell when calculating the statistics.’ So, if a researcher is looking for evidence of excess heat after running a cell for an initial priming period and what he finds instead is an apparent cooling over that initial period, he can discount that finding as irrelevant. It may be relevant that the Nernst Effect in metal can provide cooling or heating and if the temperature gradient settles down to a value where cooling balances a limited fusion heating effect, there would be no heat excess. If it takes a while before fusion heating occurs that suggests initial cooling. If the cell used does not force a sustained temperature gradient then there can be heat balance. The citation, therefore, is not convincing evidence of the ‘no-excess-heat’ proposition and, to the contrary, it merely opens the issue for further study.

Ewing et al: This is solely concerned with neutron tests. Comments (b) and (c) apply. The Examiner includes ‘Ewing et al’ in his statement ‘These references provide further clear evidence that no excess heat is generated in such ‘cold fusion’ systems’ but the Applicant can find no reference to ‘heat’ in the Ewing paper!

It is, of course, difficult to comment on all the references cited in the earlier parent application and hopefully the Examiner will take the examination of this application forward on the basis of the apparatus disclosed and without primary attention focussed on the cold fusion issue, especially as the process claims are cancelled.

The apparatus is intended to allow the testing of thermal activity in electrolytic cells activated by passage of substantial current through a closed circuit cathode and the Applicant is willing to amend the text of the specification accordingly if that is allowed and needed to secure allowable claims.

If, in that regard, references are cited which involve calorimeter tests with very stable monitoring of temperature they do not represent the open cell structure used by F & P with its scope for a temperature gradient up the palladium cathode nor do they represent the situation where there are heating effects of an a.c. cathode circulating current. Nor do they apply to Applicant’s disclosure. If the references base the rejection of cold fusion on non-neutron emission or no-gamma emission then it is submitted that they have no bearing on Applicant’s invention or on the F & P experiments.

Concerning the adequacy of the description as an enabling disclosure, it is submitted that, just as so many researchers could build apparatus in the form of electrolytic cells with the object of testing the F & P cold fusion claims, and presumably by using their inherent skills as physicists or electrochemists, with no tuition from F & P, so an apparatus having the additional provision for the closed cathode circuit described and shown in the specification can be built to implement the Applicant’s invention. The very skills possessed by so many researchers who are trusted to build cells deemed to offer valid tests which replicate the F & P cell are those which are appropriate and available, without specific enabling additional instruction, for building and testing what the Applicant’s disclosure shows.

The Applicant cannot add new matter to the specification at this stage and so must rely on contending that the specification does suffice. Given that the processes by which palladium electrodes adsorb hydrogen are known in the relevant art, the size and form of the cathode would be determined by known criteria and the current supplied to the cathode by the added closed circuit would be limited to avoid calculable I²R resistive overheating. It is conceded that, for the invention to be operable in promoting heat generating reactions with active rather than passive involvement of the cathode-adsorbed ions, the ‘cold fusion’ scenario has itself to have technological foundation. However, if one can presume that is the case then the invention must contribute to enhancing the process. There is such clear physical basis for the current field action and the heat action to combine to create conditions which bring the ions into closer proximity. The well-known electrodynamic pinch effect on electron current in a wire is enough to explain how negative charge can be concentrated at the seat of the positive ions and that must bring them into more active relationship. This apart, and regarding the ions as serving a passive function, there are reasons based on dynamic mass-resonance criteria arising from the application of standard physics to the problem, for showing that heat can be converted into an electrical displacement that implies energy storage. The apparatus disclosed by the Applicant is expressly suited to research investigation on that theme.

Still on the ‘cold fusion’ theme, there are many reports of success on the cold fusion issue, but is seems that these are immediately branded as from ‘non-reputable’ sources and so have no weight in this argument. Nevertheless the Applicant makes reference to an abstracted report in FUSION FACTS at pp. 9 and 10 of the September 1993 issue. This refers to work performed by Reiko Notoya of the Catalysis Research Centre, Hokkaido University, Japan under the title ‘Cold Fusion by Electrolysis in a Light Water – Potassium Carbonate Solution with a Nickel Electrode’. It is claimed that what was measured was a progressive transmutation of potassium into calcium resulting from fusion of hydrogen and potassium at laboratory temperatures. It is stated that the measured rate at which the calcium concentration in the electrolytes increased due to electrolysis was comparable with the excess heat involved.

Now, this is not direct evidence that the Applicant’s invention has merit, but it is evidence that we may be destined to see research which will lead to the eventual commercial exploitation of the transmutation of elements by processes in which protons and deuterons are adsorbed into metal activated by electrical current.

It is mentioned because the use of a nickel cathode has particular relevance to an aspect of the subject invention which the Applicant has researched experimentally. Nickel has a very high Nernst coefficient, as is well known, and it is a ferromagnetic material which means that it comprises microscopic domains that are fully saturated magnetically. The Nernst Effect is that by which EMFs are set up transverse to the magnetic field when a temperature gradient exists in the mutually orthogonal direction. If, therefore, heat is generated within that nickel as by applying an electric current or by internal processes or heat is introduced to set up even modest temperature gradients the result is that the nickel behaves microscopically as a thermoelectric power converter. It has minute 100 micron regions of action involving cooling and producing electrical current flow and adjacent regions where a balancing heating occurs. This activity is ongoing in that nickel by standard and proven physical principles.

What, however, can easily be overlooked is the fact that the Nernst Effect is one by which that EMF is set up within the metal and that, as the thermal gradient is not uniform, that EMF varies within the metal, which means that the inside of the metal has pockets of positive and negative charge. Now, if a proton were to be adsorbed into a nickel cathode of porous design complementing that 100 micron domain structure so that heavier ions from an electrolyte penetrate those pores, at a region of nagative charge, one can conceive the possibility of charge neutralization leading to a merging of atomic nuclei.

An alternative explanation, however, is that the process in these potassium cabonate tests does not involve fusion inside the nickel but fusion in the electrolyte. Note that carbonated water dissociates from H₂O plus CO₂ into HCO₃^– plus H⁺ and, by analogy, potassium carbonate dissociates in water into KCO₃^– plus K⁺. The negative ion here has for the potassium isotope 41 a mass that is 101 atomic mass units, this being 41 plus 12 for carbon plus three units of 16 for oxygen, and in its close association with H⁺ in the dissociated water they will together satisfy the 102 mass resonance criterion. The evidence from the Notoya disclosure was that there was excess heat in measure related to the increase in calcium observed, the implication being that it is the K 41 potassium isotope that is experiencing cold fusion with the proton to become Ca 42.

The point made here is that one must not take the physics of nuclear processes as observed in high energy reactors as being the governing criteria where unusual electrical constraints are applied to mobile ions in conductive media, whether electrolytes or metal. On the contrary, one must heed the reported discoveries, even those giving spurious results, and since this ‘cold fusion’ field has become one of protracted evaluation, one ought, from a patent viewpoint, to judge more on the basis of novelty and not on there being a proven and tested end product. This is a situation, as with a new medical composition, where it may take a while before the relevant scientific community is ready to digest the product as having proven benefit. It is important to keep in mind that the grant of a patent is not an endorsement that the invention has commercial value. It is something conferred on the merits of innovation that can advance technological knowledge, even if that advance proves unrewarding in the sense that it does not lead to what eventually proves to be the best mode for taking the technology forward. In this instance, a novel apparatus useful in research aimed at tests in a promising and useful technological field warrants protection, just as a novel reactor aimed at hot fusion might warrant a patent grant even though it may never survive long enough in its duration as a patent to protect an actual commercially viable energy producing reactor.

The Applicant has added this somewhat gratuitous and rather extended set of remarks, where a simple election of species would have sufficed as a formality. It is intended to be helpful and facilitate onward examination of this application as based on the new and restricted set of claims submitted herewith.

Respectfully submitted,

HAROLD ASPDEN
Applicant



---

---

This is the major part of the substantive technical part of the response to the U.S. Patent Examiner’s Office Action of December 16, 1992. It was written essentially to comply with the formality of sustaining a petition to overcome the problem of that Office Action not having been received so that the application had been deemed abandoned. In the event there is some overlap in the statements made here and those included in Appendix III.

REMARKS

1. The Applicant has attempted in the amendment filed 8/24/92 to meet the Examiner’s objections by very severely restricting the specification in order to exclude reference to cold fusion.

2. The Applicant was, however, mindful of the right to file a continuation-in-part application, but in the event the Office Action issued on 12/16/92 was not received and this has created a dilemma for the Applicant.

3. In the circumstances, having now been sent a duplicate copy of that Action by a communication from Applicant’s Agent dated October 6th 1993, this response endeavours to meet the Examiner’s objections in the hope that the application can be revived and so have scope to remedy any disclosure deficiencies by filing a continuation or continuation-in-part application.

4. The following remarks are addressed point by point to the numbered sections of the Examiner’s communication dated 12/16/92. In respect of section 1, the above amendment conforms with the Examiner’s direction to reinstate all deleted text from the specification. This retains the full commentary on the cold fusion issue and certain theoretical argument from the perspective at the time of the 15th April 1989 priority date and the contents of the U.K. priority specification.

5. The Examiner has objected to Claim 23 on the election of species ground denying the author the chance of bringing the hollow cathode feature into issue. The Examiner has, therefore, in respect of claims 22, 23, 24 and 25 not conceded a favorable response to the Applicant’s request (dated 9/16/92) answering the informality objection dated 9/9/92 in which it was said:

‘It is hoped that the examination may proceed on the assumption that the four claims now in contention are deemed to be of a common species.’

In amending the claims to exclude this ‘hollow cathode’ feature the Applicant now trusts that there may still be prospect of recovering ground on this question, as by being given the opportunity of filing a continuation-in-part.

The new claims 26, 27, 28 and 29 are intended to meet the objection raised by the Examiner’s new citation, the disclosure in Trzyna et al (3,844,922).

The claims are now are very restricted and merely cover two specific versions of apparatus providing the supplementary cathode current excitation.

Much of the Examiner’s rejection concerns the ‘cold fusion’ issue generally in relation to the rather expansive nature of the art cited. It is this general theme which clouds what could otherwise be a simple formal presentation of this response.

In section 3 of his report the Examiner declares that there is no support in the original disclosure for stating that the a.c. circulates in an all-metal closed path which is within the housing 4 and is exclusively that of a cathode.

The question faced here is whether the Examiner is really challenging the technical feasibility of an electrode structure which provides for separate a.c. circulation in the cathode and d.c. circulation in the anode cathode circuit or whether his concern is one of the specific wording of the disclosure and proper distinction of terms.

It is submitted that the disclosure in the specification does allow a person skilled in the electrochemical art to understand and indeed build what is intended, namely an electrolytic cell having an anode and a cathode immersed in a solution and subjected to the normal d.c. excitation, whilst the cathode, which is part of an all-metal circuit is designed to allow a.c. to flow freely around a loop confined to that circuit. The disclosure in Trzyna (3,844,922) in the abstract illustration shows an electrolytic cell with provision for a.c. excitation of the cathode and both d.c. and a.c. excitation of the anode-cathode circuit. Note the single metal-to-metal point of contact between the metal of the two separate circuits. In that Trzyna disclosure, as in the Applicant’s disclosure, with an a.c. potential between the ends of the cathode, there will be some a.c. flow shunted through the electrolyte but electro-chemists know that there is such a large difference in electrical conductivity between metal and an electrolytic solution (of the order of a ratio of 10,000 to 1) that, to all intents and purposes, unless the cathode were to be an extremely thin metal film with small cross-section and very large superficial area, it is technically correct to speak of the two circuits as being quite distinct as current paths, the a.c. path through the cathode and the d.c. path through anode and cathode.

It is submitted that this interpretation would be placed on what the Applicant has disclosed in the specification as filed without it being necessary to explain the above in detail, but if this is the reason for sustaining a rejection then, hopefully, assuming that the petition to revive is granted the Applicant will be given opportunity to clarify this, if necessary, by having the right to file a continuation-in-part application. Evenso, the Applicant has attempted to bring clarity into this issue by suitably limiting the claims, also in order to distinguish the invention from the Trzyna disclosure.

Concerning the relevance of the Trzyna citation, note here that, although the circuit configuration does resemble that proposed in the subject specification, the technical function is entirely different. In electrolytic etching and electroplating the whole physical action concerns the process occurring exclusively in the electrolyte and at the cathode surface. The action necessarily involves low voltages and the nature of electrolysis is such that there is a limit on the current density per unit area of cathode that is feasible and any excess currents per unit area are to be avoided. Certainly, the objective in Trzyna is to provide a small fluctuating voltage potential at the surface of his cathode/workpiece with relatively minor transfer of current in the cathode and, owing to the electrolyte’s small specific conductivity, this means that the a.c. current admitted to cathode is quite small and though most of that will circulate around the cathode loop it is small in relationship to the anode current as it is intended to help in equalising electrolytic actions over the cathode surface. Note the ratio 30 amperes d.c. in the anode-cathode circuit and 6 amperes a.c. in the cathode circuit (see column 4 line 65 and column 5 line 1).

In this Applicant’s apparatus the a.c. cathode current is far in excess of the d.c. current in the anode-cathode circuit, a ratio of 100 to 1 being mentioned in the specification (line 18, p. 20), because it is the action of this powerful current, whether by electrodynamic pinch, electrodynamic ion-electron enhanced acceleration, heat gradient or by enhancement of ion collisions, that promotes the action for which the apparatus is designed.

Indeed, the Applicant now knows that the heat gradient plus the electric pinch potential resulting from the current are the critical criteria for best mode operation of the invention. Furthermore, the objective is not, as in Trzyna, to affect the transfer of ions between anode and cathode and their adherence or separation from the cathode work surface, but rather to have an effect on a process that occurs inside the cathode once the ions have been adsorbed into that cathode. The heat gradient exists because the heat generated is removed by a flow of fluid over the cathode surface by passage from an entry port, travel over the surface of the heated cathode, and then through an exit port by which the heat is used externally in a recirculating system.

Technically, therefore, what is disclosed can be assembled by a person skilled in the electro-chemical art and it is functionally distinct from the teachings in the Trzyna disclosure.

In these circumstances, and having regard to the amendment suggested it should be justifiable to regard the innovation as patentable over the art cited.

Examiner states that there is no support in the original disclosure for referring to the cathode as having a single point of connection to a metal conductor by which its output current returns to the d.c. source.

This draws attention to a problem of wording to distinguish the ‘cathode’ from the ‘cathode circuit’. Fig. 1 does show an anode, a cathode and connections (a) through a d.c. supply to the anode-cathode circuit and (b) through an a.c. supply feeding the cathode circuit exclusively. The single terminal point connection is shown at the left end of the cathode and, as the Examiner states in his fourth paragraph on page 3 of his Action ‘the cathode itself extends beyond the ends of the housing’.

Concerning the ‘single turn secondary winding’ this is the feature shown in Fig. 3 since cathode 2 is such a single turn. Fig. 3 is part of a general disclosure that can support a solid cathode implentation, nothwithstanding the showing in this figure of the hollow cathode and the concern about the election of species.
Also, it should be evident to an electrical specialist reading the specification in the context of Fig. 1 that, since the object is to promote a very high a.c. current flow through a cathode fed by a transformer, and since there is no other load, the connection through the cathode has to be a short-circuit. The logical design is to use what is effectively a current transformer with minimal secondary resistance and that means using a single turn. The multi-turn secondary shown in Fig. 1 is merely a standard illustration of a transformer action. Had a single loop been shown it might still have been seen as a two-turn secondary but the back-up showing in Fig. 3 clearly gives basis for the single turn secondary winding feature and that is located wholly within the housing for the cathode.

Accordingly, it is hoped that the Examiner will accept this explanation in response to his objection, especially in view of the clarifying amendment of the claims.

6. Concerning Examiner’s objections (section 5) to the specification and his finding that Applicant’s arguments in response to section 2 of the 6/15/92 Office action are unpersuasive, the case becomes one of refusing to accept deletion of reference to ‘cold fusion’ and reverting to a contest on that issue.

In refusing to accept the amendments that delete all reference to ‘cold fusion’ it is presumed that the Examiner insists on reinstatement of that text and this is duly implemented by the amendment above.

The Examiner persists in declaring that all issues in that section 2 are still pertinent and germane to the patentability of the Applicant’s claims.

The issue confronted is the Examiner’s declaration that there is no reputable evidence of record to support any allegations or claims that the invention involves nuclear fusion. With respect, it would seem here that the Examiner is the arbiter as to what is regarded as ‘reputable’ and takes the position that there is nothing uncertain about this matter and that the claims supporting the cold fusion possibility stand disproved.

Now, what is really in issue is not the attempts to replicate the experiments which have led to this cold fusion fiasco, but the workability of the structure which this Applicant has described in the subject application, though it is reasonable for the Examiner to invite comment on why the adversaries on the cold fusion research could not demonstrate cold fusion. The Examiner has, incidentally, only cited the negative reports.

None of the ‘reputable’ evidence cited reports on an experiment specifically using Applicant’s apparatus.

These preliminary comments are generic to several of the many references cited by the Examiner and so are itemised as follows:
(a) The nature of a calorimeter test where there is no excess heat is, by definition, one by which there is thermal equilibrium. In the event that a successful cell is one where a temperature gradient in the host metal cathode is essential to set up the potentials in the metal that then exist, by virtue of the Nernst Effect, the use of a well-controlled calorimeter would preclude the cell from producing excess heat because the potentials might well be the factor that brings the deuterons into needed proximity to trigger fusion. Such calorimeter tests are inconclusive and do not replicate cells which run on an open basis in which convection and formation of gas bubbles bring about temperature gradients in the cathode. If the test protocol, in seeking to pin down all components in a heat balance, freezes the system into thermal equilibrium so as to sense change of temperature, then, to the extent that cold fusion needs a little activation stimulated by temperature differences in the cathode, that same test protocol stifles the effect it is supposed to measure.
This is why the Applicant has provided the cooling feature and why the input of strong currents to the cathode plays its role in upsetting the thermal equilibrium.

What is needed in a proper test protocol is a calorimeter test in which there is a controlled rate of heat flow through the system which goes hand in hand with a temperature gradient and is channelled to pick up excess heat and so deliver the excess as output without imposing the straight-jacket uniform temperature constraint that a calorimeter in equilibrium imposes.

This is why the coolant circulates in the Applicant’s Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The Examiner will hopefully see sense in this argument and appreciate the problem. Those who set out to test the F & P claim did not trust the F & P calorimetric evaluation and so they aimed at precise calorific measurement using a calorimeter that regulated temperature in a uniform way. They assumed that if excess heat is produced then the best thing to do is to enclose all the heat in a container in thermal equilibrium and see if the temperature increased. Even if they cycled the temperature between different values over a protracted period of time they ensured that the operative temperature was uniform in the apparatus at the moment when measurements were made. The result was that they did not replicate the very conditions which mattered, namely that there had to be temperature gradient in the cathode to get any excess heat in the first place.

This point can be underlined by referring to the Miskelly et al paper in Science (November 1989) which the Examiner cited in his earlier action. In the last paragraph on p. 529 there is the argument that the F & P experiment is flawed by their finding that temperature differentials of 2 degrees C occurred in an unstirred cell, especially as there were gas bubbles, and this was seen as a source of error. In fact, it should have been seen as the clue pointing to why the F & P cell really did develop excess heat.

Without a temperature differential in the cathode, the action of the current in developing a magnetic field that acts on the heat flow through that temperature gradient in the body of the cathode will not produce the Nernst EMF within the cathode metal and so there will be no residual charge in the host metal by which the deuterons can be brought together in a fusion relationship.

Therefore, the use of good calorimetric methods or closed cells with no circulating coolant precludes a valid test of the F & P cell. If the excess heat generation is precluded by temperature stabilization any test to search even for neutron or gamma radiation is futile.

Note further that the actual fusion reaction is that by which tritium is generated along with a proton, meaning no neutron and no gamma radiation. See the discussion by Faller et al in the 1989 reference cited by the Examiner (J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. Letters). This shows the doubts as to the fusion product. F & P obtained concentration of tritium. Yet, because there is electrolytic concentration of tritium in the residual deuterium oxide as the latter is used up in normal dissociation, this is glossed over as being a reason for discounting the findings of F & P. Firstly, one had to have an experiment that did generate excess heat and only then should one weigh the balance of the tritium product. There is no point in watching the tritium concentration in a cell that is not heat-active and then declaring that any such concentration found by F & P is normal electrolytic concentration.

The problem here to keep in mind is that experimenters do not wish to waste deuterium oxide. They accept its dissociation in operating the cell, but they do not pump it through a cell with the object of extracting heat. They avoid the temperature gradients and they brush aside the tritium factor, whilst pointing at the no-neutron, no-gamma radiation aspects which are not relevant anyway to the tritium producing reaction. Two deuterons fuse to create a proton and a triton having 3 and 1 Mev of ‘heat energy’, respectively.

(b) Therefore, if the test is based on detection of neutrons or gamma radiation it is not relevant owing to the fact that deuterons that come together in a cool environment need not combine by producing a neutron but may simply release the 4 Mev surplus heat energy that comes from conversion to a triton and a proton. That Mev of energy is not carried by fast beta particles but rather by the relatively very heavy triton and proton and the latter are able to transfer heat directly to the phonon system to which they belong when arrested. There is no reason to insist on any gamma radiation such as one associates with excessively hot beta emission.

(c) If there is no effort to supply any current confined to a circuit including the cathode but not the anode and there is no provision for setting up a temperature gradient in the cathode then the disclosure does not bear at all upon the Applicant’s invention.

Proceeding now to specific comments and concerning the new references:
Fleming reveals no excess heat: comments (a) and (c) apply.
Broad: This concerns doubt about the 2.2 Mev gamma ray detection but two and half years on Fleischmann is presumably satisfying his backers in their onward development of larger heat generators and a March 1991 newspaper report should not given undue attention.
Henderson: This reveals no neutron or gamma emission and assumes fusion reaction with a helium product: comments (b) and (c) apply.
Note specifically the statement: ‘We did not measure products from reaction (2)’. It is reaction (2) that this Applicant sees as the relevant reaction.

Bosch: This was again a search for neutrons and gamma radiation. Equation 2 in Table III is followed by comment ‘For those reactions which don’t create directly gammas, the generation of fast charged particles would create secondary gammas…’ This is a sweeping assertion based on experience with radioactivity and hot fusion. If those workers have no experience of cold fusion in producing excess heat but know from hot fusion work that primary gamma radiation can create secondary gammas, how can they declare what would happen if no primary gammas are produced? Evenso, in their article, concerning temperature measurement there was some modest temperature differential in the cathode region (bottom p. 169) but they observed ‘non-equilibrium effects attributed to exothermic loading and said ‘clearly better measurements were needed to draw more significant conclusions’. Comments (b) and (c) apply.

Rogers: This is a review paper and not one reporting new experiments but it states in the last paragraph that tritium has been measured as a reaction product, though trying to excuse this as being possibly due to preferential electrolysis.

Albagli: This dismisses the tritium feature by attributing growth in tritium to electrolytic concentration. Comments (a), (b) and (c) all apply.

Nova: Confusion in a Jar: This evidences the debate surrounding the subject but is not evidence that shows that the scientific community deems the ‘cold fusion’ suggestion as ‘bordering on the incredible’. To the contrary, the fact that such a forum of debate was taking place shows that that community is so concerned that the claim could be ‘credible’ that they seek to drive the question forward to a termination point at a faster rate than the proponents can proceed to secure experimental clarification.

Balke: Here the temperature was varied as a test parameter but all the emphasis is on detecting neutrons. Comments (b) and (c) apply.

Myers: This does focus on the reaction producing tritium, but with strict temperature control, meaning that in searching for the fusion products, the open cell electrolytic conditions by which temperature perturbations in the cathode can occur are not present. Comments (a), (b) and (c) apply.

Wilson: This discusses calorimetry of the F & P cell and points to possible errors but (see p. 2) ‘these do not lead to significant errors in their calculation of excess heat and (abstract) ‘we cannot prove that no excess heat has been generated in any experiments’. This, again, is a situation where, if there are temperature differences in the test system, these are a source of potential error in heat calculations, but excess heat in any quantity that is worth considering necessarily will involve a temperature differential in the cell. By precluding one, one precludes the other. The runaway escalating heat generation condition that F & P reported is not really considered. It is the real clue to follow. If excess heat generation is proportional to temperature gradient and temperature gradient increases with such heat generation, that is an exponentially escalating action. Once that action is triggered in a cell which lends itself to that temperature gradient condition, the runaway situation develops but will be moderated if the heat escapes in a different direction or the electric current developing the field, assuming Nernst Effects apply, is diverted. Hence, finding fault with F & P data by criticizing sources of temperature difference in a calorimeter test, is to put the whole picture out of focus.

Silvera: This again is irrelevant in that comments (a), (b) and (c) apply. The calorimeter used to measure excess heat does have regard to the changing thermal gradients during the ‘slow’ increase from 77K to room temperature. However, note the commentary in the middle of the first column on p. 42. ‘During the warm-up, the power sensitivity fell by as much as two orders of magnitude due to changing thermal gradients in the cell’. The researchers were only concerned with looking for excess heat at a steady temperature and so they discounted what they were finding during the step changes of the controlling temperature, because their equipment had lost its sensitivity owing, one can assume, to excess heating!

Williams: Comments (b) and (c) apply, but the calorimeter test data reported is very curious. At p. 375, right hand column, middle section, it is said that there was an ‘apparent endothermic period at the beginning of the run..this was due in part to .. a temperature gradient …an analogous effect at the start of electrolysis was reported by Lewis et al, who showed that the apparent heating coefficient of a similar cell varied during the first part of a run. Because of this effect, we excluded the first 10,000 minutes of data from each cell when calculating the statistics.’ So, if a researcher is looking for evidence of excess heat after running a cell for an initial priming period and what he finds instead is is an apparent cooling over that initial period, he can discount that finding as irrelevant. It may be relevant that the Nernst Effect in metal can provide cooling or heating and if the temperature gradient settles down to a value where cooling balances a limited fusion heating effect, there would be no heat excess. If it takes a while before fusion heating occurs that gives initial cooling. If the cell used does not force a sustained temperature gradient then there can be heat balance. The citation, therefore, is not convincing evidence of the ‘no-excess-heat’ proposition and, to the contrary, it merely opens the issue for further study.

Ewing et al: This is solely concerned with neutron tests. Comments (b) and (c) apply. The Examiner includes ‘Ewing et al’ in his statement ‘These references provide further clear evidence that no excess heat is generated in such ‘cold fusion’ systems’ but the Applicant can find no reference to ‘heat’ in the Ewing paper!

The question then is whether any of the references cited by the Examiner in his earlier report needs further comment. If the references involve calorimeter tests with very stable monitoring of temperature they do not represent the open cell structure used by F & P with its scope for a temperature gradient up the palladium cathode nor do they represent the situation where there are heating effects of an a.c. cathode circulating current. If they base the rejection of cold fusion on non-neutron emission or no-gamma emission then it is submitted that they have no bearing on Applicant’s invention or on the F & P experiments.

With these points in mind, the Applicant has reviewed all the art cited earlier. Applicant’s earlier response to that cited art was addressed directly to those which involved special cell excitation techniques and he trusts that his earlier response has been adequate in respect of those specific citations.

Concerning the remainder which debate the cold fusion issue, the Applicant had assumed that, by deleting the cold fusion theme from his specification, the need to comment on those citations had been removed.

The above commentary has, it is submitted, shown that, in spite of the art cited, the case in favour of cold fusion is still open, given that the neutron, gamma ray and stabilised calorimeter tests all fail to test the deuterated cathode cell with a cathode specially activated electrically and cooled in ways which can set up a temperature gradient.

Concerning the Examiner’s point on page 10 of the 12/16/92 action, that there may have been insufficient response to the issues raised on pages 5 and 6 of the 6/15/92 action, the following comments apply.

Firstly, the Examiner has questioned the Applicant’s theoretical arguments and said, that, absent proof to the contrary, existing theory is deemed correct, so discarding Applicant’s reasoned basis for understanding a cold fusion process. The Applicant deleted that theoretical subject matter and has been required to reinstate it by the Examiner.

It is pointed out that at line 26 on p. 25 of the specification there is the statement: ‘The above description of the invention has been based on certain theoretical statements. These should in no way be seen as essential to the definition of the invention. They are merely the inventor’s personal way of rationalizing the basis on which the invention operates.’

Concerning the adequacy of the description as an enabling disclosure, it is submitted that, just as so many researchers could build apparatus in the form of electrolytic cells with the object of testing the F & P cold fusion claims, and presumably by using their inherent skills as physicists or electrochemists, with no tuition from F & P, so an apparatus having the additional provision for the closed cathode circuit described and shown in the specification can be built to implement the Applicant’s invention. The very skills possessed by so many researchers who are trusted to build cells deemed to offer valid tests which replicate the F & P cell are those which are appropriate and available, without specific enabling additional instruction, for building and testing what the Applicant’s disclosure shows.

The Applicant cannot add new matter to the specification at this stage and so must rely on contending that the specification does suffice. Given that the processes by which palladium electrodes adsorb hydrogen are known in the relevant art, the size and form of the cathode would be determined by known criteria and the current supplied to the cathode by the added closed circuit would be limited to avoid calculable I²R resistive overheating. It is conceded that, for the invention to be operable in promoting heat generating reactions with cathode-adsorbed ions, the ‘cold fusion’ scenario has itself to have technological foundation. However, if one can presume that is the case then the invention must contribute to enhancing the process. There is such clear physical basis for the current field action and the heat action to combine to create conditions which bring the ions into closer proximity. The well-known electrodynamic pinch effect on electron current in a wire is enough to explain how negative charge can be concentrated at the seat of the positive ions and that must bring them into more active relationship. If, on the other hand, ‘cold fusion’, as a matter of Patent Office policy, is to be classified as a ‘taboo’ subject that is on a par with perpetual motion then, absent the experimentation which the Applicant has not, as yet, performed, this invention, which concerns structure based on standard electrical engineering principles, has utility only as test apparatus aimed at verifying that ‘cold fusion’ is a reality.

It is submitted that it should be judged with favor in that light, just as the schematic form of electrical apparatus to test a new idea for a hot fusion reactor is proper subject matter for a patent, notwithstanding lack of prior knowledge as to how it will perform in that function.

7. In view of the Examiner’s rejection on the basis of inoperability (section 8 of the 12/16/92 action) some further comment seems necessary.

The Applicant has an onus to show that what is proposed will work and it is submitted that it is beyond question that the apparatus described can be built and it will most certainly function to enhance the thermal activity of any deuterons that are absorbed into the palladium cathode. Palladium has a notorious ability to absorb protons and deuterons.

The question at issue is whether the particular structure shown, if built and tested, will produce excess heat, but the Examiner insists that the disclosure as filed assumed fusion reactions were involved and it must therefore be shown that any such heat would be attributable to fusion.

Now, there are many reports of success on the cold fusion issue, but is seems that these are immediately branded as from ‘non-reputable’ sources and so have no weight in this argument. Nevertheless the Applicant makes reference to an abstracted report in FUSION FACTS at pp. 9 and 10 of the September 1993 issue. This refers to work performed by Reiko Notoya of the Catalysis Research Centre, Hokkaido University, Japan under the title ‘Cold Fusion by Electrolysis in a Light Water – Potassium Carbonate Solution with a Nickel Electrode’. It is claimed that what was measured was a progressive transmutation of potassium into calcium resulting from fusion of hydrogen and potassium at laboratory temperatures. It is stated that the measured rate at which the calcium concentration in the electrolytes increased due to electrolysis was comparable with the excess heat involved.
Now, this is not evidence that the Applicant’s invention has merit, but it is evidence that we are destined to see research which will lead to the eventual commercial exploitation of the transmutation of elements by processes in which protons and deuterons are adsorbed into metal activated by electrical current.

It is mentioned because the use of a nickel cathode has particular relevance to an aspect of the subject invention which the Applicant has researched experimentally. Nickel has a very high Nernst coefficient, as is well known, and it is a ferromagnetic material which means that it comprises microscopic domains that are fully saturated magnetically. The Nernst Effect is that by which EMFs are set up transverse to the magnetic field when a temperature gradient exists in the mutually orthogonal direction. If, therefore, heat is generated within that nickel as by applying an electric current or by internal processes or heat is introduced to set up even modest temperature gradients the result is that the nickel behaves microscopically as a thermoelectric power converter. It has minute 100 micron regions of action involving cooling and producing electrical current flow and adjacent regions where a balancing heating occurs. This activity is ongoing in that nickel by standard and proven physical principles.

What, however, can easily be overlooked is the fact that the Nernst Effect is one by which that EMF is set up within the metal and that, as the thermal gradient is not uniform, that EMF varies within the metal, which means that the inside of the metal has pockets of positive and negative charge. Now, if a proton were to be adsorbed into a nickel cathode of porous design complementing that 100 micron domain structure so that heavier ions from an electrolyte penetrate those pores, at a region of negative charge, one can conceive the possibility of charge neutralization leading to a merging of atomic nuclei.

The point made here is that one must not take the physics of nuclear processes as observed in high energy reactors as being the governing criteria where unusual electrical constraints are applied to free ions at the ultramicroscopic level when adsorbed into a host metal. On the contrary, one must heed the reported discoveries, even those giving spurious results, and since this ‘cold fusion’ field has become one of protracted evaluation, one ought, from a patent viewpoint, to judge on the basis of novelty and not on there being a proven and tested product. This is a situation, as with a new medical composition, where it may take a while before the relevant scientific community is ready to digest the product as having proven benefit. It is important to keep in mind that the grant of a patent is not an endorsement that the invention has commercial value. It is something conferred on the merits of innovation that can advance technological knowledge, even if that advance proves unrewarding in the sense that it does not lead to what eventually proves to be the best mode for taking the technology forward. In this instance, a novel apparatus useful in research aimed at tests in a promising and useful technological field warrants protection, just as a novel reactor aimed at hot fusion might warrant a patent grant even though it may never survive in its 17 year life long enough to protect an actual commercially viable energy producing reactor.

8. The Applicant responds next to a further comment in section 8 of the Examiner’s action of 12/16/92. This concerns the assertion that utility of the claimed invention is based upon allegations that border on the incredible or allegations that would not be readily accepted by a substantial portion of the scientific community.

In the perception of a scientific community studying the invention what is claimed would be seen as an apparatus in the form of an electrolytic cell with provision for passing a strong electric current through the cathode without having that current cross the cell from anode to cathode.

No member of that scientific community could, in good faith, possibly deny that this apparatus will work for its intended purpose of influencing the thermal activity of ions that are adsorbed into the cathode.
The intended purpose of such apparatus has utility in that, just as there have been claims accepted by that scientific community, that deuterons in a low pressure gas in a reactor carrying high current discharges can be expected to fuse if the current becomes so concentrated that very high temperatures can be sustained, so the scientific community (excluding those whose personal self-interest in the hot fusion project depends upon excluding competition) must accept the logic of a project that aims to test the low temperature possibilities.

Every hot fusion reactor and all its ancillary equipment that has become subject to granted patent protection in the U.S.A. would not warrant patent protection on the test of utility that requires ‘substantiating evidence of operability’ if that test referred to the practical utility of the proven hot fusion power-generating reactor. Whatever the case law on this subject, it surely takes account of the technical design feasibility of the apparatus as being related to the immediate intended purpose of value to the applicant and consequent value to the public at large. The intended purpose is that intended by the applicant and stated as an objective in the specification. In the hot fusion reactor situation it may be the provision of reactor structures, magnetic systems, test apparatus etc, all of which are meaningful technological pursuits of immediate commercial value but none of which necessarily means that hot fusion electrical power generation is, or will be, a practical reality.

In the preamble to the Applicant’s specification headed ‘The Field of Invention’, the starting point is a reference to knowledge that a sufficient concentration of deuterons in a palladium cathode can be caused to combine ‘in what appears to be a process of nuclear fusion of the deuterons’. It is then said that the invention, adds a secondary electrical action aimed at the enhancement of this process.

Given that it was known that there is reported evidence of excess heat and what appears to be, or was stated to be, a fusion reaction, the Applicant’s specification as filed, merely stated the field addressed by the invention as at the time of filing. The utility of the invention has to be judged on whether the apparatus proposed has value in providing that secondary electrical action that is to enhance the heat generation process.

If someone submits a patent specification which begins by asserting that deuteron fusion is a route to a future source of energy that is not ‘something bordering on the incredible’. If that person tries to secure a patent on apparatus in which an electric ring discharge is produced to enhance that fusion process that is not ‘something bordering on the incredible’. The starting point acceptable to the scientific community is the hydrogen bomb and the nuclear reaction equations that one sees in atomic physics books. Those books include reference to heat generating reactions which occur without producing neutrons, such as two deuterons fusing to create a triton and a proton with release of 4 Mev of energy. This fact appears repeatedly in much of the art cited by the Examiner.

If it is suggested to the scientific community that such a reaction can occur there is no basis for thinking also that it must be a chain reaction which involves neutrons and so be overwhelmingly explosive and involve very high temperatures. The scientific community can accept simple teachings in their textbooks and since those textbooks tell us that two deuterons can fuse to create a triton and a proton, with no neutrons, it seems inappropriate for it to be said, in invoking case law, that the idea of ‘cold fusion’ can possibly ‘border on the incredible’. The Examiner has judged the mood of the scientific community on this question by reference to the writings of scientists who reacted to the announcement of the F & P discovery, who have sought to replicate results which were, in any event, admitted by F & P to be spurious and elusive but nevertheless real. One needs then to weigh the balance of probability as between the persistence of these two highly-reputable scientists, who know their experiments and have seen the relevant evidence, in carrying on with their research in successful and progressive way (albeit surrounded by a commercial screen of confidentiality) against the institutional and media reports which question the cold fusion claims.

At the very least, the wisdom of a court of law judging such an issue, would rule that the case needs time to be proved either way. The issue of whether or not cold fusion occurs at all cannot be decided on the reports cited. Given that the doubt exists and that, apart from such confidential knowledge of a positive nature as may be possessed by workers such as F & P, there will be attempts to develop special test cells and apparatus aimed at a better understanding and making the process reproducible commercially. The Applicant’s invention has that aim and, as it has not been tested in any of the cited reports, it is submitted that it is inappropriate to deny the Applicant the right to a patent on the basis that ‘the claimed invention borders on the incredible’ and ‘would not be readily accepted by a substantial portion of the scientific community’.

In applying case law which is expressed in that way, it is submitted that the judge in such a case would have in mind devices and machines that needed demonstration to prove something unusual. The case could hardly apply, for example, to a claim that a drug can extend increase one’s lifespan, even though no specific ailment is addressed. That borders on the incredible but it could not be proved in the time normally allocated to patent prosecution. Yet, it is submitted that, even though that is the object of the invention, and its basis might be elusive as by enhancing one’s appetite for healthier food, the Patent Office would judge the patentability of the drug on its novelty rather than its proven effectiveness in extending life, leaving it to other administrations and the public generally to judge the invention in the longer term.

In summary, therefore, taking hot fusion as the relevant precedent, and having in mind that the progress of hot fusion has beeen so slow and such an expensive failure that one might expect a majority of the scientific community to vote ‘thumbs down’ against supporting further government research investment, it is submitted that ‘cold fusion’ has not yet had its day and that Applicant’s invention should be judged for its novelty and potential as a test apparatus for exploring that avenue of energy research.

9. The new claims 26, 27, 28 and 28 are believed to overcome the objections raised against the earlier claims. The suggestion that it is obvious to combine Trzyna with other references so as to render the use of the a.c. cathode circuit obvious as applied to a cold fusion cell is questioned for the following reasons.

Firstly, the emphasis in cold fusion research is on concentrating deuterons in the host cathode, whereas Trzyna is concerned exclusively with etching, that is removal of ions from the surface of a metal cathode. Secondly, Trzyna suggests a.c. activation with the object of preventing an insulating coating from developing on the cathode material and seems mainly concerned with the a.c. that feeds the anode-cathode circuit. The role of the a.c. in the cathode plate 34 is not well explained but is in any event small in relation to the anode-cathode current. A scientist reading Trzyna with a cold fusion cell in mind would assume that the a.c. activation would retard or preclude the loading of deuterons into a metal cathode, whereas in reading the applicant’s specification it is implicit that the a.c. has no role until the deuterons have been loaded into the cathode, whereupon it operates to render them thermally active.

It is submitted that, by wording the new claims so as to bring out the distinction by which the cathode a.c. current is greatly in excess of the anode-cathode d.c. current, Trzyna is distinguished and that it is not obvious from the Trzyna disclosure to suggest that its structure could be used with advantage in a cell aimed to exploit cold fusion.

This amendment is being submitted together with a petition in the hope that this application can be revived.

This statement and the accompanying amendment have been prepared by the Applicant.

_____________
Harold Aspden

October 15, 1993

---

---

This is the major part of the substantive technical part of the response to the U.S. Patent Examiner’s Office Action of June 15, 1992.

---

In view of the very extensive nature of the Examiner’s rejection the Applicant seeks to clarify the basis of this response before separately discussing the amendment formally by reference to the art cited.

Firstly, the Examiner states on p. 6 of his remarks that it is apparent from the specification that Applicant’s concept is workable or operative only if “cold fusion” systems are already operative.

The Applicant does not wish to be drawn into the argument as to whether excess heat in deuterated palladium signals a fusion reaction. The Applicant’s invention concerns apparatus by which that rate of excess heating is enhanced and the invention requires that the d.c circuit which promotes the absorption of deuterium into palladium is a closed d.c. path only partly shared by the low resistance closed circuit path for a.c. through the cathode. It is essential to the Applicant’s invention that there is an excess heating phenomenon attributable to the presence of deuterium in the host cathode.

The Examiner is now requested to process this application on the basis that the phenomenon of excess heating in deuterated palladium is an established fact (for reasons set forth below) and the Applicant has, on that basis, amended the specification to exclude all reference to the so-called ‘cold fusion’ phenomenon, including all the theory which refers to the nuclear nature of deuterons. This suggestion is made in order to expedite this application, notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant is aware of the very considerable support now being given to ‘cold fusion’ research by the Japanese government. The latter support arises from the positive evidence of energy production found by Dr. A. Takahashi of Osaka University’s Department of Nuclear Engineering. (See pp. 1 & 2 of the July 1992 issue of FUSION FACTS, a publication issued from the University of Utah Research Park in U.S.A.) Undoubtedly, the general ‘cold fusion’ issue will be debated for a period extending well beyond the span of time for processing the early patent applications in this field.

Reference is now made to the Examiner’s posture (p. 1 of the rejection remarks) that there is no reputable evidence of valid record to support any allegations of claims that there is reproducable “excess heat” due to nuclear and/or chemical reactions in deuterated palladium. The examiner qualifies this by the words ‘capable of operating as indicated and capable of providing a useful output’. The latter factor is one of scale and the Examiner will understand that if, hitherto, a phenomenon exists at a level below the threshold of utility and a way is later provided which must enhance that activity, then one cannot really in fairness deny utility for the enhanced implementation.

If there is anomalous excess heat produced in deuterated palladium, the apparatus prescribed by this invention must enhance the heating effect. It would be beyond scientific credibility to assume that electrical current activation could diminish the thermal activity underlying the anomaly. If cooling to avoid thermal ‘noise’ effects is conducive to activation of excess heat then the action would be a one-shot process and not productive of continuous heating. Therefore, one must assume activation helps the process. Note that the nuclear aspect is ignored in this discussion and the question at issue is whether there is anomalous heat generation in deuterated palladium. It is noted also that the Examiner is attentive to what he terms ‘reputable’ sources and, perhaps for this reason, the evidence will be easier to accept if its source is not tainted by the saga of current interest in the subject.

Accordingly, the Applicant refers to the extensive scientific work on the anomalous heat effects in deuterated palladium reported as long ago as 1957 by Donald M. Nace and J. G. Aston between pages 3623 and 3633 of volume 79 the Journal of the American Chemical Society. Their research was performed at Pennsylvania State University aided by contract from the Office of Naval Research and it was later extended by reports by Paul Mitacek and John G. Aston of that same university and with National Science Foundation support (see p. 137 of volume 85 of the Journal of the American Chemical Society). In addition, the work was further extended and confirmed by C. A. Mackliet and A. L. Schindler of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington D.C. as reported on pp. 1363-1365 of the Journal of Chemical Physics, volume 45, 1966.

These workers reported evidence of anomaly in the specific heats of hydrated palladium and the anomaly was further characterized by an effect by which a continuous heat evolution occurred after the test specimen reached eqiuilibrium temperature. The latter was the subject of Fig. 2 in the Mackliet and Schindler reference, but they had confined their tests to a very low temperature of 4.1 K and were studying hydrogen in palladium and not deuterium. Concerning the latter it is relevant to scrutinize Fig. 2 of the Nace and Aston paper (see p. 3628). This shows the specific heat of palladium due to the presence of deuterium and there is a distinct anomaly centred on a temperature of 55 K and further an anomaly which develops at just above room temperature.

Now, in the analogous situation where ferromagnetic materials are studied, an anomalous hump in the specific heat versus temperature curve signifies a transition of state through the Curie point. Ferromagnetism is an ordered state which involves magnetocaloric effects. Heat has to be added in addition to that normally required to account for temperature increase, the added heat being needed to destroy the state of ferromagnetism. Conversely, extra heat is produced when the temperature is reduced through the Curie point. Where magnetic domain wall movement is involved in a.c. excitation of a ferromagnet over the lower range of polarization there is no specific heat anomaly. However, even at normal room temperatures, where magnetic flux rotation is involved in the higher states of polarization secured by combining d.c. with a.c. excitation, there can be genuine energy anomalies in the ferromagnet. The Applicant has a Ph.D. from Cambridge University in England dating from 1954 for researching energy loss anomalies in nickel and iron, which anomalies can involve discrepancies between theory and observation as great as a factor of 10. However, the Applicant is also aware of reports of converse anomalies in which excess energy is generated when current with d.c. and a.c. components are caused to flow through the physical body of a ferromagnet. The latter were the subject of a British Intelligence Committee Report (B.I.O.S. Final Report No. 1043: Item No. 31: entitled “The invention of Hans Coler, relating to an alleged new source of power” and eventually available after declassification from the U.K. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

The point made here is that reputable evidence in U.S.A. dating from 1956, 1963 and 1966 indicates that hydrated and deuterated palladium can reveal anomalous heat generation (including continuous heat generation) coupled with a phase transition that resembles that associated with the state of ferromagnetism. Also, evidence of less repute, owing only to the government secrecy imposed at the time (the aftermath of World War II), though evidence which the report clearly shows was verified experimentally and independently by several German professors and U.K. government and Norwegian army scientific investigators, has shown that very substantial excess energy can be derived from magnets when subjected to the special current excitation conditions.

Quite independently also, and unaware of these prior energy anomalies in deuterated palladium and magnets when they are carrying current through their metal bodies, the Applicant’s research on the nature of ferromagnetism had suggested that the state of ferromagnetism really is governed by interatomic electron forces in relation to containment by material stress capability, a factor depending upon Young’s modulus being sufficiently high. Only certain atomic Z number values can satisfy these conditions, one group being around Z = 26, one around Z = 45 and one having a broader band around Z = 60. This is the subject of chapter 3 in the Applicant’s 1969 book ‘Physics without Einstein’, (ISBN 0 85056 001 2) a book published in U.K. and dealing with magnetic field reaction anomalies using a non-relativistic treatment. There are several rare earth materials centred on Z = 60 that are ferromagnetic and iron, nickel and cobalt fit the Z = 26 region. However, though paramagnetism was shown at Z= 45 and Z = 46 in the figure presenting the relevant data in that 1969 text, there was no ferromagnetic material that fitted the indications of the theory at Z = 45 or Z = 46, the latter being the element palladium. The atomic electron shell occupancy of palladium is rather special, being filled to the 4d states. Conceivably, however, the evidence of the specific heat anomalies in deuterated palladium points to a spurious electron activity where ferromagnetism is involved owing to electrons neutralizing the deuteron ions but such ferromagnetism may not emerge as a stable state. The effect of forming the hydride and deuteride forms of palladium must also introduce internal stresses which affect the stress versus electromagnetic force criteria involved in ferromagnetic action.

In these circumstances, the Applicant believes that there is just cause and, indeed, merit in combining the above evidence and concluding that, since deuterated palladium can generate excess heat, that heat can be enhanced by an anode-cathode d.c. current which assists in the deuteron absorption process combined with the closed circuit flow of a.c. through the host cathode, the latter being confined to a flow path which excludes the electrolytic circuit supplying the deuterium.

It is all too easy to discredit claims that seem to suggest anomalous energy generation, merely because the theory which can justify the action has not been developed or become generally accepted. There is an anomalous energy issue posed by the passage of quite small electric current through the body of a permanent magnet. The palladium cathode containing deuterons has been said to generate anomalous heat when carrying the current feeding those deuterons into the cathode. It has not been helpful to the technology researching the energy issue centre all the criticism around the nuclear fusion theme and dwell on the absence of neutron emission.

Indeed, the Applicant admits that the implementation of this invention in a practical embodiment has been retarded owing to the hostile climate for research funding, as engendered by those who decry the ‘cold fusion’ claims. However, concerning the ‘state of art skill requirements’ the Applicant urges the Examiner to accept that it needs little skill for a laboratory technician in an electro-chemical laboratory to couple a palladium cathode in an electrolytic cell so that it can be a closed secondary circuit fed by a transformer operating at power frequency. Furthermore, given that electro-chemists know how to design cells for loading hydrogen or deuterium into a palladium cathode, whether by gas pressure or by electrolytic means, the design skills in adding the circuit a.c. feature are minimal. Any person qualified in electrical engineering design should be able to design a transformer. This involves also estimating copper loss in the windings. The objective in this instance is to set up an EMF gradient in the secondary circuit through the host cathode large enough to add significantly to that component in the cathode represented by the d.c. effect of the electrolytic current drive. Once the relevant d.c. potential drop has been measured the applied a.c. potential can be determined at a greater level chosen, as in any commercial development project, by putting a limit on the power supply rating which optimises the net advantage, meaning that the ohmic loss from electron conduction must be kept sufficiently low. The design and construction involved in implementing the invention is hardly demanding, even using state of art skills of half a century ago, but one cannot be expected to say this in the patent specification and the Applicant cannot provide the performance data from a functioning device at this time in support of this application. As with many patent specifications involving electrical and mechanical art, the filing of the patent applications fits in the time frame between conception and practical implementation and the disclosure which presents the invention rests on the merit, novelty and orginality of what is proposed, bearing in mind that function is in this case predictable from accepted physical law and technical design knowledge. It suffices to feel assured that the activity by which deuterium in palladium generates heat must be enhanced if an added EMF can supplement the EMF causing deuteron inflow through the host cathode surface. The task confronted by the invention was that of avoiding surface effects and unnecessary ohmic heating attributable to a current flow component not wholly confined to a closed metal loop path of very low resistance.

The structure implementing the latter as defined by the claims is what has to be tested for anticipation by the art cited. The true physical nature of the excess heat which is produced by the deuterated palladium is not a factor which is relevant to the invention, provided the Examiner is willing in the light of what has been said above to accept that the anomalous heating effects exist and are reproducible. Note then the statement under Fig. 2 of the Nace and Aston reference (extract appended) that “The heat capacities in all the temperature regions are quite reproducible for palladium hydride”.

With regard to the objection that ‘one cannot rely on the skill in the art for the selection of proper quantitative values to present an operative nuclear cold fusion system, since those in the art do not know what the values would be’, the Applicant can but stress that excess heat has been observed in deuterated palladium cathodes and that there is copious scientific literature on the subject of introducing hydrogen and deuterium into the metal palladium. The books (Volumes 28 and 29) entitled ‘Hydrogen in Metals I’ and ‘Hydrogen in Metals II’, edited by G. Alefeld and J. Volkl in the ‘Topics in Applied Physics’ series published by Springer-Verlag (New York) suffice as giving the state of the art in 1978. They refer to the scientific papers already mentioned and at page 114 of the second volume the ‘continuing heat evolution’ feature is discussed, this being in a text addressed to those involved in hydrogenation of palladium.

In these circumstances, with the nuclear fusion notion issue set aside, the Applicant feels justified in urging the Examiner to look with favor upon the amendment submitted above.

---

The Applicant has amended the body of the specification to excise all reference to nuclear fusion and trusts that the Examiner will sanction that the word ‘fusion’ can, where there is needed for editorial cohesion in the ‘Field of Invention’ section, be replaced by an expression such as ‘anomalous heating’.

The whole section headed ‘Background of Invention’ has been deleted but it is hoped that the inability to replace this with new text, which would be adding new matter, will not affect the allowability of the application.

Schutze 2240914 discloses a dual power source, one to feed the anode-cathode circuit and the other to put a high voltage on an ‘accelerating electrode’. This is functionally distinct from the subject invention inasmuch as there is no current path around a closed all-metal circuit including the host cathode. Schutze teaches acceleration of ions in a gas discharge by a strong electric field, whereas the subject invention necessarily involves high current and low voltage effects because of the all-metal closed circuit path restriction.

Childs 3616315 is not relevant because it concerns two separate power supplies which are both effective in feeding current in the anode-cathode circuit of the cells. There is no suggestion that current around one circuit should flow through an electrode without flowing between anode and cathode. The latter condition is the essential feature of the invention in issue and so Childs is not anticipatory.

Pons et al has been cited as showing pulsed current at pp. 22, 62, 66. The reference to relaxation time in Pons means that the power in the single circuit is intermittent. This is not a separate power input confined to the host cathode, whilst a primary input feeds the main cell. The remarks on p. 62 show also that a.c. ripple is virtually eliminated from the primary d.c. supply. The reference to multiplexing on p. 66 is not a reference to two electric circuit paths through the same host cathode. Pons is not anticipatory.

Rabinowitz discloses the use of short duration power pulses but these are confined to a single circuit through the anode-cathode system. There is no reference to passing current also through a circuit including the cathode but excluding the anode.
Also Rabinowitz has a date after the priority date which this Applicant is claiming and so is not prior art under the applicable International Convention.

Zachariah (as with Rabinowitz) discloses in claim 4 the pulsed d.c. but again this is current through the anode-cathode route and not confined to the cathode to the exclusion of the anode. Again, this citation is not applicable owing to its late date under the International Convention.

Brumlick similarly suggests electric pulsing of the anode-cathode current but not a current separately activated for confinement to a circuit excluding the anode. Brumlik also is not applicable owing to International Convention protection of the Applicant’s priority filing date.

Lewis cannot be applied owing to the International Convention and the publication date several months after the Applicant’s priority date. It is not relevant because mere reference to pulses in the circuit between anode and cathode does not disclose the dual excitation feature of the Applicant’s invention.

None of the above citations can be combined with Diller, Vincent or Childs to disclose the Applicant’s invention. Childs does not show a circuit flow path excluding an anode. Vincent discloses an etching bath 4 which has a single throughput circuit and so there is no way that the teachings of Vincent combined with any of the other art cited can disclose how current can flow in separate routes though the cathode, one excluding the anode.

Diller similarly shows cells with anodes and cathodes but there is no showing of any route for current through a cathode which does not also pass through the anode.

The Examiner contends that where one decides to use a pulsed or a.c. excitation in combination with a d.c. excitation it is obvious that one has a choice of mode of generating the composite signals either in a common source or by using two separate sources. Thus it is said to be obvious to use two separate power sources where the object is to pulse excite and have the underlying d.c. Applicant agrees but does not agree that any of the art cited or any inference as to obviousness from what is cited teaches the concept of feeding the d.c. anode-cathode circuit in the normal way, which may include intermittent pulsing or relaxation phases, and in addition separately driving a high current through the virtually short-circuit loop confined to the cathode hosting the hydrogen isotope.

The whole purpose of the Applicant’s invention is to activate the cathode by powering a source of current that does not have to contend with the gap between anode and cathode. Note that functionally the pulsing of the anode-cathode circuit can lead to deterimental overvoltage conditions which will not result in deuterium charging the cathode properly and will cause overheating, but that does avoid the problem of electron flow because of the polarity effects of the cell. The Applicant prefers to accept the electron current in the closed path including the cathode, even though this is a high current and the EMF involved is small. The reason is that the ohmic loss in the all metal low resistance cathode circuit loop will still be very small and the EMF which does exist will work to displace the deuterons in the cathode and still be higher than any EMF that can develop as normal potential drop in the cathode arising from the low current d.c. anode-cathode circuit which charges the deuterons into the cathode.

It is submitted that this is not obvious from the above-mentioned art as cited whether taken alone or in combination.

Dexter has a priority date which is one month later than that of the Applicant and so is not anticipatory under International Convention rules. Evenso it discloses a dual excitation system which is designed to operate and function differently from that suggested by the Applicant. The object of the Dexter circuit is to provide the normal anode-cathode d.c. charging using one circuit and periodically back-charge the system by reversing current flow in the anode-cathode circuit, the latter being said to be intermittent current and shown as a periodically driven a.c. source. This is entirely different from the claimed invention. Dexter is concerned with ion movement in the liquid between anode and cathode, whereas this Applicant is concerned in addition with special means for securing ion movement within the host cathode. Weber and Banks illustrate that heat removal from electrolytic cells is conventional.

Examiner states that Claims 1, 2, 5, 18-21 are indefinite in that they fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. Accordingly, the claims have been replaced by new claims which it is hoped will overcome the latter objection.
Note also, that the Applicant understands that the WO documents refer to work done in the U.S.A. Hence one needs to be careful about interpreting their relevance as prior art if one is arguing in terms of their late publication date. However, concerning these documents the Applicant has based the argument above on their late priority date, it being that this Applicant’s earlier priority date was 15th April 1989, which is ahead of all but the Pons citation. Fortunately, however, they are not seen as being relevant to the claims as now amended, but if they were and the Examiner were to persist in applying them as prior art then one presumably needs to establish an interference proceeding to decide the issue inasmuch as they are of U.S. origin.

In conclusion, the Applicant recognizes the care which needs to be exercised in deciding to allow grant of a patent which might bear upon the so-called ‘cold fusion’ issue. It is believed that the amendment proposed avoids the debate on that issue. If cold fusion is ever verified then the Applicant’s invention provides apparatus which should be useful. In the alternative, the Applicant’s invention will serve its intended function given that for some reason or other there is mounting evidence that anomalous excess heat can be produced by cells involving cathodes charged with deuterium or hydrogen.

It is hoped that this amendment which excises all reference to cold fusion will be acceptable. The Applicant has tried to be fully responsive to the objections raised and feels that the specification as amended meets those objections.

---

---

This is a chronological account of my experience to date in seeking the grant of a patent on the subject of ‘cold fusion’, by application to the United States Patent Office. The invention in its primary form is that disclosed in the British Patent Application discussed in Cold Fusion: My Story: Part I as illustrated there by the Fig. 1 illustration of the granted British Patent No. 2,231,195.

February 16, 1990

The application as filed on this date was assigned its U.S. Serial No. 07/480,816. It was based on a claim to the priority date of the above-referenced British Patent Application by virtue of the International Convention applicable to patent rights.

March 2, 1990

The United States Patent Office (USPTO) advised that the subject matter of the application appeared to be useful in the production or utilization of nuclear material or atomic energy. To head off a ‘Formal Requirement’ being issued within 45 days, requesting the filing of an oath or declaration describing the circumstances giving rise to the invention, I duly confirmed that “I had made and conceived the invention on my own time using my own facilities, funds, information etc.” I added that was a retired scientist with a Visiting Senior Research Fellow connection with Southampton University in England, but had no contractual ties with the university.

February 19, 1992

The USPTO issued the first Office Action. All 17 claims were rejected. It was said that claims 1-9 were drawn to ‘apparatus’, and claims 10-17 to a ‘method’. These were deemed to be two inventions. The Examiner said that the inventions were ‘distinct’ and would need different classification for search purposes, which meant I must choose by restricting to one of these two categories.

The Action further declared that a choice had to be made of one of three species, so proceeding either with the embodiment shown in Fig. 1 or that shown in Fig. 2 or that shown in Fig. 3.

The Action went on to say that if the first specie choice was made I must restrict the claims to either the embodiment where the hydrogen isotope-containing fluid is a liquid or the embodiment where the hydrogen isotope containing fluid is a gas. Subject to that choice I was required further to elect one of the following disclosed species for prosecution on merit, namely the embodiment where the conductor is hollow or the one where the conductor is solid.

Examiner Harvey Behrend had been assigned and the above were his requirements. A shortened statutory period for reply was allocated, this being 30 days from the date the Examiner’s Office Action was issued. Note that I live in England and was handling this application myself and postal communication both ways across the Atlantic does eat into that thirty day period.

February 24, 1992

Acting like lightning I made my response and mailed it to the USPTO on this date.

I made the appropriate elections, based on Claims 1-9, Fig. 1, the hydrogen isotope containing fluid being a liquid and the conductor being of solid form. I also submitted some minor corrections with a modest revision of claim, substituting new Claims 18-21 for Claim 6.

June 15, 1992

Examiner Behrend issued his second Office Action. Although I had air-mailed my reply to the first Action on February 24 it was stated by the USPTO that it was not received until March 6. This second Action gave me 3 months for response. It declared that Claims 1, 2, 5, 18-21 were all allowed, seemingly an error, because the Examiner’s commentary appended to the communication was a very substantial document that attacked my application. I counted 36 items in the package of ‘prior art’ cited. Of these, only 10 items were patent specifications which were ‘prior art’, as understood by that term in the patent profession. The rest, mainly journalistic comment about cold fusion, were items published after the priority date on which I was basing my claim.

Some of the key features of the Examiner’s remarks, spread over 14 pages, were as follows.
1. ‘There is no reputable evidence of record to support any allegations that the invention involves nuclear fusion nor that any of the allegations or claims of “excess heat” due to nuclear and/or chemical reactions are valid and reproducible, nor that the invention as disclosed is capable of operating as indicated and capable of providing useful output.’ In short, I was told that my invention had not been tested and proved operative by what was of record in the ‘prior art’. Had it been, then the Examiner would have been in his rights to reject my patent application by citing that specific prior art.

2. ‘The invention is based on the “cold fusion” concept set forth by Fleischmann and Pons (F & P) (see March 24, 1989 article by D. Braaten). This “cold fusion” concept is still no more than just an unproven concept’. This statement was backed up by references to laboratories that had performed tests to confirm the F & P claims, but ‘It was also the general consensus of those working at these various laboratories that there is no reputable evidence of neutron, gamma ray, tritium or helium production to support the allegation or claim that nuclear fusion is taking place, nor is there any reputable evidence to support the allegation or claim made to excess heat production.’

3. ‘Claims 1, 2, 5, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention as disclosed is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.’

4. ‘Applicant at best has set forth a what may be considered a concept or an object of scientific research. However, it has been held that such does not present a utility within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101. See Brenner v. Manson, 148 U.S.P.Q. 639.’

5. ‘Claims 1, 2, 5, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Pons et al, Brumlik et al, Lewis et al, Zachariah or Rabinowitz et al, in view of any of Diller, Vincent or Childs.’

Now, there is no point in reciting further from the Examiner’s Office Action, but readers who are interested in more detail can scan parts of my response, sections of which are included as Appendix I as an attachment to this Essay.

August 14, 1992

I decided to argue my case, but run the contest by the tactic of trying to escape from the ‘stigma’ of the ‘cold fusion’ topic and concentrating my fight to secure grant based only on four new claims, Claims 22-25. My response was mailed on this date to the USPTO. See that Appendix I.

Now, at about this time I had visited USA and had had occasion to meet with a representative of an organization in UTAH, originally named FEAT, but later named ENECO. Interest was being shown in my patent efforts on the cold fusion front and overtures were made to bring my patent applications under the licensing umbrella of that organization. In the event, during the months ahead, my British rights based on the two patents I had pursued on cold fusion inventions were assigned to ENECO. A similar transfer of my pending U.S. rights had also been agreed, but then came the first ‘shock’ in this fiasco.

August 8, 1993

I understood that there were problems in processing the numerous ‘cold fusion’ applications in the U.S. Patent Office and was still awaiting the USPTO Office Action in reply to my submission of the last Amendment, when I received a communication entitled ‘Notice of Abandonment’ on the basis that I had failed to respond to the ‘Office Action mailed on December 16, 1992’.

In fact, no such Office Action had been received by me in U.K. I was quite bewildered, especially so as I had been arranging for the transfer of the case to ENECO’s in-house Patent Agent in UTAH. I surmised that the communication had got itself lost in the pre-Christmas mailing activity, though I did wonder if its absence was contrived in some way, because nothing had gone amiss in my communications with the USPTO before, apart from my concern that their mailing practice to overseas locations could be surface mail. However, I could but advise ENECO’s Agent, who, as a matter of urgency, was able to procure a copy of the missing Office Action from the USPTO. The Notice of Abandonment had been dated August 3, 1993 and I was able to mail my Response to them on August 16 coupled with a notification that I intended to petition to have the application revived.

Concerning the substance of the December 16, 1992 Office Action, this advised me that one of my claims fell foul of the election of specie requirement and that the other three were rejected. The Examiner cited several items of new ‘prior art’ and took another 15 pages plus 4 attachment sheets to summarize his rejection.

He said I had ‘added’ new matter, by deleting from the ‘Background of Invention’ section some ten pages of introductory material which he had found objectionable by his earlier comnments. I was required to cancel the ‘new matter’ as part of my response, meaning I had to put the ‘old matter’ back into the specification!

He then went to great lengths to explain that I could not have ‘a single point of connection to a metal conductor by which its output current returns to the d.c. power source’. I had, in fact, disclosed two separate current circuits, but the cathode potential was common to both circuits and so it only needed one common connection to assure that. Then he argued that I had not supported by my disclosure the structure by which ‘a.c. circulates in an all-metal closed path which, within the housing, is exclusively that of the cathode’. He said that some current of that circuit would leak through the electrolyte. Here, knowing that the electrical conductivity of metal versus electrolyte can be of the order of 10,000, indeed 100,000, times greater, I was bewildered at such an objection.

Although I had done everything I could to purge my disclosure of all dependence upon ‘cold fusion’ as an essential phenomenon, the Examiner persisted in declaring that:

“The invention is to the generation of heat by the interaction of deuterium in a palladium material wherein the deuterium has been electrochemically charged into the palladium so as to undergo nuclear fusion. This particular concept or expedient has become known in the art as ‘cold fusion’”.

The Examiner then persisted in denying the possibility of excess heat or nuclear fusion and so concluded that my invention could serve no useful purpose. His onward remarks included comments such as:

“The Broad article in the March 17, 1991 issue of the New York Times indicates some of the data relied upon by F & P as showing evidence of fusion was faulty.”

Since my priority date on which I was basing my claim was April 15, 1989 and since the comments in the New York Times did not refer to tests based on what was disclosed in my patent application, such remarks were not, in my opinion, relevant. The essential comments in my response are presented in Appendix II as part of this Essay, but I was here facing not only the fact that the Examiner declared his rejection as being ‘FINAL’ but the fact that I was about to seek revival of the application by lodging a Petition at the USPTO.

I did, shortly thereafter, compose a text which I headed ‘A Commentary on the Physics of Cold Fusion’. It was dated 12 October 1993 and I sent it to ENECO suggesting that it could be used in the onward struggle with the USPTO to help in the quest to procure patent grant in this field. ENECO did not use it for that purpose, but I included it as an Appendix in a U.S. Patent Application that I did contrive to negotiate to the grant stage, namely U.S. Patent No. 5,734,122 and the full text of that patent, including the Appendix as there published is of record in these Web pages.

However, the saga of all this was only just beginning!

February 3, 1994

On this date ENECO mailed to me a copy of the Petition to revive Application Serial No. 07/480,816 coupled with the statement that ‘The filing of these documents will permit the filing of the continuation-in-part application that we discussed’.

So, noting that it is important in U.S. patent practice to preserve the earliest claim one can to the priority date to which one is entitled, we now move on to the next platform of this somewhat ‘theatrical’ performance.

February 15, 1994

I was notified by the ENECO Patent Agent that the Continuation filed to revive the abandoned application had been granted Application Serial No. 08/191,381, implying that the petition had been approved. The USPTO filing date was February 3, 1994.

This was followed by another USPTO (Department of Energy) request for confirmation that what appeared to be something “useful in the production or utilization of atomic energy” had or had nor emerged from activity involving U.S. government sponsored resources. Here was an Examiner saying that such inventions that relate to ‘cold fusion’ are not of any practical use and yet the official Department of Energy posture that vets the U.S. applications as filed requires an oath or declaration based on the contrary assumption!

April 3, 1995

Examiner Behrend issued his first Office Action on the revived application. He went through the same election of species tactics as before, and this resulted once again in an election to proceed with the species drawn to apparatus, the Fig. 1 embodiment, a new election restricted to palladium as a cathode material, an election of the liquid species and a further election of a hollow conductor as a cathode.

The opportunity was taken to revise all the claims in the application and the response substituted new claims 36 to 46 for those that were put on record by the continuation application. This response was sent to the USPTO by Express Courier on August 22, 1995 as part of a 30 page document. This explained the basis of the claims and, in the hope that this would head off another Examiner diatribe on the impossibility of generating excess heat by electrolytic methods deemed to involve ‘cold fusion’, the remarks submitted included substantial supporting explanation which could not be added to the text of the specification.

Owing to the possible interest of readers in the technical content of that document, sections of it are to be found in Appendix III. Note particularly the emphasis placed on the ‘stifling action’ of the caloriments used by those who purported to test cold fusion cells based on the F & P model. My argument essentially is that it is the setting up of temperature gradients in the cathode, as aided by injecting a strong circulating current through the cathode, that is the catalyst for the ‘fusion’ reaction. Those calorimeters, in seeking to measure heat generated by ensuring a uniform temperature through the test cell, were, in effect, ‘killing the goose that lays the golden eggs’.

December 7, 1995

Examiner Behrend now issues his Office Action presenting the prior art once again! This time, however, there were 53 citations, 10 of which were ‘prior art’ in the legal sense and the rest of which were mainly journalistic and research periodical comments about cold fusion, all published after the priority date claimed. The 10 items of ‘prior art’ were mainly old patents which illustrated the structure of electrolytic cells. In normal patent prosecution, only these items would be involved in the contest and the technical issues can be argued on their merits, without the saga of cold fusion being a dominant factor. However, processing the application by reference to the clear structural issues of the inventive features of the apparatus were not a dominant consideration for Examiner Behrend.

He rejected all claims. Again he argued that cold fusion was a non-viable pursuit, relying on articles in the New York Times, a television show “Cold Fusion in a Jar” and a book by John Huizenga &quotCold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century” plus other similar reports. On the more substantive issues he persisted in his argument that:

The claims were vague, indefinite, incomplete and misdescriptive in referring to the d.c. power source as being connected to a single terminal on the cathode. They were vague, indefinite, incomplete, inaccurate and misdescriptive in referring to the a.c. as circulating in an all-metal circuit, because it would appear that the a.c. would also pass from the cathode through the electrolyte to the anode.

Indeed, after reading that I wondered how I had survived in the patent profession for my whole working life, personally prosecuting countless patent applications concerned with electrical engineering and never, ever, encountering such criticism of my circuit descriptions from any patent examiner in the world until Harvey Behrend drew his sword!

However, here was my patent application and I had to fight to keep it alive, given that the rejection I confronted was not based on ‘prior art’ but on trivial issues.

February 17, 1996

On this date I mailed my response to the USPTO Office Action of December 7, 1995. This was a text some 40 pages in length, sections of which can be seen as Appendix IV. It was long because I had to respond fully to all the art cited by the Examiner. I could not dismiss it as ‘frivolous’ even though that was clearly the case. Two points drawn from my response that I present here, instead of deferring them to that Appendix, are evident from the following quotation from the document I mailed to the USPTO:

The following comments track the Examiner’s remarks by page reference to his Office Action.

Page 5: He stated that claims to initial positive results were generally retracted or shown to be in error by subsequent experiments (see article by Stipp in Wall Street Journal). I replied that: the Stipp article (ref. 8) said that the neutrons observed in the first experiment were based on false measurements and not confirmed in the second experiment but ‘the researchers said their second experiment yielded more heat than the first one’.

Page 5: He further applied the same statement to page A22 of M. W. Browne’s article in New York Times. I noted in my reply that: the Browne article (ref. 2) said that Caltech failed to find any symptoms of fusion in that no emitted neutrons, gamma rays, tritium of helium were seen, contrary to claims of the Utah group. Then it reads ‘The Caltech team intentionally reproduced experimental errors leading to the same erroneous conclusions reached by the Utah group, Dr. Lewis said. By failing to install a stirring device, temperature differentials in the cell led to false estimates of its overall heat, he said. This may have suggested to the Utah group that its cell was producing fusion energy.’

The applicant’s comments hold up. The Caltech work indicates that they discovered how not to generate excess heat energy but did not disprove the possibility, if that temperature gradient in the cathode is the key.

June 6, 1996

Examiner Behrend now issues a statement saying that I have been non responsive in my above communicaton, which was received at the USPTO on February 20, three days after it was mailed. His communication to me arrived nearly three weeks after it was mailed from USA and gave me one month in which to reply. His objection was that the claims were not readable on the elected species because they are not directed to a “thermally activated electrolytic apparatus” having a heat transfer means for heat generated within the cell.

June 28, 1996

Acting promptly I submitted an Amendment to the USPTO in which I submitted new Claims 50 – 52, meaning that the application was now in contest with only three claims, contracted to cover the specifics of the structure clearly disclosed in Fig. 1. I declared that my object was to ‘salvage from the disclosure and claims of the specification as originally filed a minimal cover for the invention’ as then presented. I then added the following comments:

The new claims define a novel, non-obvious structure that can be fabricated and which has utility in a technological field that is commanding extensive interest in spite of competitive pressures. The remarks made on pages 4 and 5 of the 2/20/96 response were aimed at directing attention to the structural aspect of apparatus according to the invention, in an effort to avoid the ongoing debate on the ‘cold fusion’ issue. Those researching this field are now finding that the metal composition of the cathodes can change by producing metal isotopes as well as excess heat and that signifies nuclear transmutation. (See ‘Anomalous Isotopic Distribution in Palladium Cathode after Electrolysis’ (authors T. Mizuno, T. Ohmori and M. Enyo) March/April 1996 issue of ‘Infinite Energy’). I further note that cathodes which are plated as laminar structures including nickel as well as palladium are reported as producing substantial excess heat. As will be appreciated, temperature gradients set up in layered bimetallic films on a cathode can promote closed circuit current flow by thermoelectric effects. My subject invention is wholly concerned with that closed circuit flow, though my invention provides a different structural implementation.

February 13, 1997

It was on this day that I received from the USPTO a communication dated February 3, 1997, that is 10 days after mailing, which was headed ‘NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT’ for the stated reason of ‘Applicant’s failure to respond to the Official Letter, mailed on June 6, 1996’.

I had responded, but here was the USPTO declaring that I had not responded and, sadly, I had no ‘proof’ of mailing from the U.K. I then wrote to the USPTO to explain my bewilderment and asked that they check their files and records pertaining to the application to trace the missing document, saying I had mailed it personally and enclosing a copy for their reference. I pointed out that my letter was really no more that an amendment submitted as a specific claim restriction worded as required by the Examiner. The circumstances were such that I would not abandon my application faced with such a request from the Examiner.

Circa March/April 1997

I received an undated communication from Charles T. Jordan, Supervisory Patent Examiner, Group 2200, which DENIED my request to withdraw the holding of abandonment. It stated that I may request reconsideration of withdrawal of the holding of abandonment by petitioning to revive the application on the grounds that the failure to respond was unintentional. To proceed I would incur more fees and, frankly, my patience was wearing a little thin, and, bearing in mind that I was fighting a similar battle on another front, a separate continuation on the same base patent application, also involving Examiner Behrend, I accepted that my struggle concerning U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 08/191,381 had ended in defeat.

I note that ENECO in Utah had been experiencing their own problems in their efforts to secure a U.S. Patent on the initial Fleischmann-Pons inventions and there came the time when they relinquished their interest in my patent rights and reassigned them to me, which is why I have continued the struggle with the USPTO on my own account.

---

An Equally-Shameful USPTO Treatment!

Here I shall refer quite briefly a separate pursuit of trying to secure a U.S. Patent corresponding to a U.K. Patent Application which I filed at the British Patent Office on January 12, 1991. It was entitled:

“Heat Generation by Ion-Accelerated Energy Transfer”

This was a development of the structural features of the invention which were the subject of the above primary U.S. Patent Application on the so-called ‘cold fusion’ topic. As one can see from the specification of that GB Patent 2,251,775 the third paragraph of the description of the ‘FIELD OF INVENTION’ reads:
“Although some reference to the nature of the atomic nucleus of a hydrogen isotope will be made in describing this invention, it is stressed at the outset that the energy processes exploited in this invention are non-nuclear and are not related to what is termed ‘cold fusion’. The energy technology is that of electrodynamics and ion acceleration.”

Here the cathode conductor comprised alternate segments of two different metals. This had the attribute, given a choice of metals, and especially if one metal is nickel, of setting up thermoelectric effects as well as phenomena related to the Nernst Effect. The latter involves the setting up of temperature gradients in metal, given a magnetic field which is inevitably present owing to current flow through the conductor. That generates electric charge in the cathode. There are also anomalous electrodynamic effects when the flow of ions (deuterons) carry, in some small measure, some of the current through the cathode. Accordingly, the invention was of potential value in the quest to generate heat in a manner deemed anomalous by orthodox physicist.

Reference was also made in the specification to a paper of mine published in 1986 in Hadronic Journal and entitled ‘The Theoretical Nature of the Neutron and the Deuteron’. There I had explained how, in order to give a precise theoretical account for the magnetic moment and mass properties of the deuteron, the deuteron must constantly flip between quark-like states, undergoing transitions involving, in effect, protons, antiprotons, electrons and, positrons. For 2 parts in 7 of the time it comprises two negatively-charged concentrations of mass energy of proton size. All this, activity in a host metal, seemed to militate in favour of the ‘cold fusion’ scenario, but my object in the patent application was to cover just the structure that could be conducive to the exploitation of whichever phenomenon was giving the anomalous generation of heat.

In any event the U.K. Patent was duly granted on April 20, 1994 as GB Patent No. 2,251,775 but the fate of the U.S. Patent Application was very different, as we now see.

We proceed chronologically, as before:

January 17, 1991

This was the date of filing of the U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 07/645,192 as a Continuation-in-Part of the primary application Serial No. 07/480,816.

February 19, 1992

The first Office Action was mailed by USPTO. The Examiner was Harvey Behrend. This, as before, was a request for election of species, a more elaborate sequence of species selection than applied to the parent application.

The embodiment choice was between Figs. 1 and 2. The fluid serving as the hadronic source had to be selected from the species ‘gas’, ‘molten salt’ and ‘water’, even though the structure of the apparatus claimed and its electrical excitation were the features of the invention that mattered from a claim point of view. Then further restriction as between ‘tubular’ cathode or a ‘cathode formed as a surface coating on an insulating rod or core’ was demanded, even though in both cases the cathode is ‘tubular’ in its fabrication!

Examiner Behrend added in his Action the comment that the background reference to GB Patent No. 2,002,953 in my specification, as filed, was effective as relevant prior art anticipatory of my application. That GB patent was one of which I was inventor. It dated from 1978. In my response to the Examiner I explained why this could not be anticipatory. Interested readers can inspect the relevant section of that as Appendix V.

June 8, 1992

Examiner Behrend mails his second Office Action. All claims are rejected. This was another diatribe attacking cold fusion. There were 39 citations, seemingly almost all comprising a standard set of journalist accounts on the theme of cold fusion, that Harvey Behrend had assembled and was citing against anything that hinted at the potential of such a technology.

I had been given three months in which to reply, dating from June 8, 1992.

August 14, 1992

On this date I mailed the following Letter to the USPTO:

The subject application (07/645,192) was filed as a continuation-in-part in respect of earlier-filed application 07/480,816.

The first substantive examination report, which rejects all the claims, has been issued one week ahead of the corresponding report on the parent application. The Applicant had expected that most issues concerning the first application would have been resolved before having to determine action on the continuation-in-part application.

In these circumstances, the Applicant seeks the indulgence of the Examiner in the following respect.

The full response to the action on the parent application, with a new set of claims and severe restriction of the specification, is being lodged together with this communication.

Since the claim cover sought in the parent application, if allowed, would now, in present circumstances, suffice for the Applicant’s onjectives, it is requested that the processing of the subject application should be deferred pending the outcome of the Examiner’s evaluation of the response now submitted on the parent case.

It is the Applicant’s intention to abandon the subject application if the new claim 22 of the parent application is found allowable.

Please advise whether or not this request is acceptable

Yours truly,
H. Aspden

I thought this was a reasonable posture to adopt. It was an appeal to the Examiner for direction and it was aimed at easing his task considerably whilst appeasing my situation. I awaited advice.

January 25, 1993

This was the date of mailing by USPTO of the next communication I was to receive in connection with Application No. 07/645,192. It was a ‘Notice of Abandonment’ owing to ‘failure to respond to the Office Letter mailed on June 8, 1992.

My reply of August 14, 1992 had been ignored!

Upon petition to have this holding of abandonment withdrawn I was advised that the USPTO had been unable to locate my August 14, 1992 letter and that upon scrutiny of the copy of that letter sent with my petition, that, as a response, would not in any event ‘entitle the petitioner to reconsideration for further examination’. This advice was signed by Robert E. Garret, Director, Group 220/290 at the USPTO.

So it was that my second attempt to secure the grant of a U.S. patent that came under processing by Examiner Harvey Behrend died an unnatural death! In both cases my letters sent to USPTO as responses to Office Actions in the later stages of examination had somehow gone astray!

That plus the fact that the parent U.S. application of both of these continuation applications, ‘killed’ owing to mail ‘loss’, also died an unnatural death. It was also killed by a ‘loss’ of mail in the transmission of an Office Action in the latter stage of prosecution and that is, indeed, quite remarkable. Three patent applications in this ‘cold fusion’ category all deemed abandoned owing to mail loss! Yet, apart from these ‘cold fusion’ applications in USA, I have never experienced any such mail loss in all my years in patent professional work.

---

Here I shall come now to the worst part of this whole saga, the third attempt to secure a U.S. Patent based on a third U.K. Patent Application which I filed at the British Patent Office on May 25, 1993.
It was entitled:

and its subject matter can be understood from the following abstract of record in the published UK Patent No. GB 2,278,491, which was later granted on March 26, 1997.

In order to research the generation of heat by promoting the fusion of protons or deuterons adsorbed by a host metal, the apparatus provides a structural configuration by which the direction of heat flow through the metal is transverse to the direction of an applied magnetic field. Thermal priming means, which may include pre-cooling on the heat output side or electrical heating of the host metal, provide the initial temperature gradient triggering fusion. Alternating current activation of the magnetic field, the intensity of which may be enhanced by using nickel as the host metal, combined with a non-uniformity of the magnetic field and/or heat flow through the metal, assure the abnormal presence of a residual negative electron pooulation in the metal. Such charge nucleates the merger of positive charge and enhances the fusion process.

The relevant figure of the patent is Fig. 7 reproduced below. It merely shows the functional detail of a segment of the main tubular structure shown in Fig. 6 of the patent, which includes a metal conductor along its central axis. The flow of a very strong current I in that conductor, which is a closed circuit and involves small power input for very large current, sets up the circumferential field acting on the deuterated metal mesh inside the thermally insulating sleeve 25. By virtue of the heat insulation 24 metal flanges 20 provide cooling surfaces for heat developed within the sleeve or within the liquid electrolyte in the inner tubular section of the structure. Heat flow through that deuterated metal mesh is directed parallel with the central axis. The design aims to exploit the Nernst Effect by which a transverse magnetic field and a heat flow in metal produce, within that metal, an electrical field, in this case a non-linear radial field which implies space charge within that deuterated metal mesh.

By setting up a negative space charge within metal containing deuterons, those deuterons are more likely to come together in a cold fusion reaction, this being the basis of the invention described in the specification.

Now I shall continue my account in the same chronological manner as I did for my primary U.S. Patent Application on this subject of ‘cold fusion’. The story I tell is based on my initial British patent filing which developed into the parallel filing by ENECO of an International Patent Application via the USPTO under the provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty, with the result that both applications ran together in parallel. I allowed this to occur deliberately, even though customary practice is to process only one International Application and let that develop into national patents. I knew I could not secure a patent in U.K. by both applications, but I was playing safe and could back-off on one after seeing how things developed.

May 25, 1993

The U.K. Patent Application was filed at the British Patent Office. This served as a priority record. One then has one year in which to determine the filing of onward national and foreign patent applications.

May 3, 1994

The U.K. formality was completed by which the U.K. Patent Application was assigned its effective national application date, namely May 3, 1994. This resulted in an Examiner’s search for prior art, the only two items cited being my own earlier cold fusion cases GB 2,251,775 and GB 2,231,195.

May 23, 1994

This was the date assigned to the patent filing by the Receiving Office handling Patent Coperation Treaty applications under the auspices of the administration of the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva (WIPO). Since in this case the Applicant was ENECO in Utah, this patent application was processed by the arm of the United States Patent Office that assists in the processing of such applications. Had the application been filed through the British Patent Office as a Receuving Office, the search examination would have been assigned to an international body in Holland, the IIB, and then the later substantive examination phase would have transferred to the European Patent Office in Munich, Germany. As it was, the application was duly committed top processing by US Patent Examiner Harvey Behrend.

Now, it should be understood that there are certain standards to be complied with in processing such International Applications, particularly concerning timing of the various steps involved. The intentions of the Treaty are that a search of relevant prior art will be conducted and a Search Report issued in due time so that it can feature as part of the publication of the patent specification, which should occur little more than 18 months after the initial priority filing. That priority date in this case was May 25, 1993. You can understand then why it was that WIPO in Geneva published the International Application, WO 94/28197, on December 8, 1994.

November 30, 1994

The U.K. Patent Application was published as GB 2,278,491A. It had 18 claims, the above prior art only being cited with respect to claims 1 and 6. The prospect of securing grant was good.

December 8, 1994

The International Application, WO 94/28197, as published on that date, was a 40 page specification plus three sheets of drawings having 10 figures, carried the legend:

‘Published without international search report and to be republished upon receipt of that report.’

What this meant was that Harvey Behrend had not provided the necessary Search Report in due time.

December 28, 1994

However, there was a swift follow-up, presumably owing to an official interjection from the WIPO in Geneva, because the U.S. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, being responsible for the ISA/US (International Search Authority/US) now issued that Search Report.

Examiner Behrend, true to style, had gone to town, as it were. There were 13 citations of prior art, but, in this case, no Washington Post or New York Times articles. Now, there are eight separate catgories under which prior art is cited in PCT proceedings. These range from items categorized as A, meaning ‘of general interest to the state of the art but not of particular relevance to the invention’ to X, meaning ‘document of particular relevance; the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken alone’.

Harvey Behrend did not categorize any of those 13 citations with that X symbol. He could not have contended that, given the facts he confronted. My claimed invention was certainly something new. In the event, however, Harvey Behrend applied the category Y to 11 of the 12 of the 13 citations. Y means ‘document of particular relevance; the claimed invention cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is combined with one or more other such documents, such combination being obvious to a person skilled in the art’.

Moreover, for 11 of those 12 uses of the category Y, he specifically declared that it applied to every single one of the 18 claims of record in the application.

Now, there would be little point in ever filing a patent application on an invention on something so simple and mundane that it is anticipated in every respect by numerous items of prior art applied to so many separately claimed features in the manner suggested here by Examiner Behrend. On this basis one can, in effect, take a standard textbook on electrical power generation technology and apply it to every patent application purporting to concern such technology. One cannot patent what is obvious, but there are criteria in patent work which temper how one judges what is or is not obvious. To Harvey Behrend, this PCT application disclosed an invention that was so obvious that the legal hurdles could not be overcome. Yet I knew I was destined to secure the grant of a British Patent on precisely this invention, based on the identical patent specification and a review of all that prior art, taking ‘obviousness’ factor into consideration. I knew that British Patent Examiners work to the same standards as the European Patent Office and indeed the standards expected by WIPO in the handling of International Patent Applications. So, apart from protesting about the unity of invention issue which the Search Report said was lacking, I decided to await the outcome of the formal examination stage.

Behrend’s objections were following the standard pattern of his earlier comments in the other US cases already mentioned. The fluids for removing heat could have different forms and the invention could not be common to all. The thermal priming means could involve ‘pre-cooling’ or ‘direct electrical heating’ and he deemed that these had no common significance and so there was no unity of invention. All this was manifestly unreasonable and was surely calculated to block progress and any prospect of securing patent grant in the designated countries in which national patents emerging from the PCT process could be procured.

November 30, 1995

On this date, another year gone, I was sent by the U.S. Commisioner of Patents, acting as IPEA/US (International Patent Examining Authority/US), a ‘Notification of Transmittal of International Preliminary Examination Report’. This bore the name ‘Harvey Behrend: Authorized Officer’. It stated that the application lacked ‘unity of invention’. It stated that ‘in response to the invitation to restrict or pay additional fees the applicant had paid additional fees under protest. It further stated that there was a lack of inventive step based on the disclosure in my own British patents GB 2,251,775 and GB 2,231,195.

Now, here, I must explain that the whole idea underlying the International Patent Cooperation Treaty is to expedite the grant of patents on an international scale and so save the applicant and officialdom excess duplication of work. However, the price paid for these treaty obligations is the acceptance by those responsible for the examination activity that they keep to time and meet deadlines. When Harvey Behrend issued that Preliminary Examination Report some 30 months plus 5 days had lapsed from the ‘Priority Date’ of record. The Notification of Transmittal to which that Report was attached said:

“The applicant must enter the national phase before each elected Office by performing certain acts (filing translations and paying national fees) within 30 months from the priority date.”

In short, although the U.S. Patent Office did allow this PCT application to enter the national phase in their country, I had, thanks to the dilatory processing by the IPEA/US, for which the U.S. Commissioner of Patents carries responsibility, been denied the entitlement of having sufficient time in which to act in proper manner to secure the related patents elsewhere. Note that full translations into languages such as French, German, Japanese etc as well as transmittal by mail cannot be accomplished in ‘negative time’. The Report was not issued until the ‘negative time’ count had reached minus 5 days, and adding time for mailing from U.S. to my U.K. address that made things far worse.

Accordingly, the chance to extend the filing to several National Patent Offices was lost. It was prudent of me to retain the British application active and separate from this fiasco.

The substantive arguments presented by the Examiner in the Report do not warrant comment. They are much the same as those used by Harvey Behrend in the three U.S. applications already discussed. There was one concession which he made. I had protested about the assertion of lack of unity of invention which said that there was no common technical feature in the setting up of a temperature gradient in a metal core by cooling or heating. This was an absurd proposition. If you seek to get heat to flow through metal, you can either cool one side or heat the other side; what is seen in the metal is a flow of heat and a temperature gradient and that is what the invention is all about! So, in the event, the Report declared that my ‘protest had been found justified to the extent that partial reimbursement in the amount of $280 will be made in due course’. That was advice dated November 30, 1995.

In spite of three reminders addressed to the U.S. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks over the period since that time I have not received any intimation of when that repayment will be made!!!!

Take note that such is the manner in which the USPTO in their International role as an agency administering under the Patent Cooperation Treaty do their business. I interject at this point that years ago I visited WIPO in Geneva many times to participate in international meetings on topics concerning patents etc. Though this was normally as a representative of the International Chamber of Commerce there was one occasion when, owing to a crisis situation affecting U.S. representation, being with IBM, I was called upon at two days notice, without a briefing, to represent the interests of NAM, the U.S. National Association of Manufacturers, at a meeting where we discussed the chapter-by-chapter details of a draft of the Patent Cooperation Treaty. In retrospect, I can but say that, being aware of the good intentions on which that Treay was founded, I am very saddened by my experience with the subject PCT/US94/05797 application.

October 27, 1995

On this date the above PCT application entered the U.S. National phase. This was the date of filing accorded to Application Serial No. 08/256,872.

March 26, 1997

The U.K. Patent Application was granted as GB 2,278,491B. All 18 claims had been allowed and the British Patent Examiner had not disputed the technical description or the ‘cold fusion’ issue, though he had become aware of the fact that an International Patent Application was in process for the same invention and had alerted me to the consequences should a separate U.K. patent be sought upon conclusion of the international proceedings.

October 16, 1997

The first Office Action is mailed from the USPTO on Application Serial No. 08/256,872. Harvey Behrend is the Examiner once again. There is again the requirement to elect species. Notwithstanding his concession on the unreasonable nature of the species election in the parent PCT application, already examined by Harvey Behrend, he still requires election as between species Ia, where the thermal priming involves pre-cooling and species Ib where it involves heating. Indeed, the tactics are the same on all counts. It is almost like a re-run of a computer program!

October 28, 1997

Again I responded promptly and fully to the Office Action. I mailed it to the USPTO on this date.

January 21, 1997

On this date the USPTO mailed to me, under the reference 08/256,872 of the above pending application, a message reading:

which declared in block capital letters:

THE EXAMINER OF RECORD HAS RECENTLY MOVED AS PART OF THE PTO CONSOLIDATION INTO TECHNOLOGY CENTERS. PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN FUTURE RESPONSES AND INQUIRIES TO THE PTO.
EXAMINER: BEHREND, HARVEY — NEW GAU: 3641

June 1, 1998

On this date I received from the USPTO, under the reference 08/256,872, an undated communication signed by examiner Harvey Behrend. It was headed ‘NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT’ and stated that no response had been received in reply to the Office Letter of October 16, 1997.

As stated above I had in fact mailed such a response on October 28, 1997!

So, here again, we see the same tactics at work. Harvey Behrend had adopted the posture that no reply had been filed.

Now, in this particular case I had paid the British Postal Authorities to provide a Recorded Delivery service and send to me a confirmation of delivery of my letter. That confirmation record came back duly stamped by the USPTO and bearing the stamp legend:

The USPTO had received my response but Harvey Behrend declared that it had not been received.

June 1, 1998

On this day I wrote to the U.S. Commissioner of Patents drawing the above situation to his attention, including a copy of the response I had mailed on October 28, 1997 together with a photocopy of the Official Advice of Delivery, bearing the USPTO date stamp, and requesting reinstatement of the application. I sent the message by fax and mailed its confirmation on this same day.

I now await any USPTO action in this matter, well realizing what is implied by this development.

January 29, 1999

On this day the U.S. Patent Office sent me a letter entitled:

It said that my letter received by the USPTO on June 8, 1998 would be treated as a petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment. It went on to say:

Since a timely response to the Office letter was filed, the holding of abandonment is withdrawn and the application is restored to pending status. The application is being forwarded to the Examiner via the Sepervisory Legal Instruments Examiner for prompt action on the merits of the application.

---

---

---

---

Abstract: My story is about the shameful way in which the United States Patent Office has treated my application for the grant of a patent concerned with what has come to be known as ‘cold fusion’. It spans the first decade of science history that will come to be written about the cold fusion saga. My voice is that of a European Patent Attorney who, in retirement from long service as IBM’s European Director of Patents, returned to academia to pursue a lifelong research interest in energy science. I speak with authority on my subject, as both a patent expert and an inventor, and I say that the United States Patent Office has acted shamefully in the handling of my ‘cold fusion’ applications!

Introduction

To most people it is not the ‘patent’, but the ‘invention’ that inspires imagination, and even then it is the ‘inventor’ as an individual, rather than the subject of the invention, that captures the popular interest. This is because the normal individual cannot judge the technical merits of an invention, unless it concerns something useful in the home environment.

Judging the merits of an invention is a specialist function, the province of a specialist profession. These specialists are not lawyers practicing their legal skills. They are not scientists of the kind one meets in academia. They are men and women who have opted for a career in one of two pursuits, one being that of the government official, the patent examiner, and the other being that of the ‘agent’ who writes the patent specification covering the invention and negotiates with the patent examiner to secure the eventual grant of the patent.

Both of these roles are very demanding in those countries that set high standards of patent examination, based on a comprehensive international patent search, and those involved need to have considerable technical knowledge to underpin their legal training in patent law. That patent ‘agency’ training is not just concerned with book knowledge, the statutes and rules of the subject, but the hands-on experience following an initial period of personal tutorship of learning how best to define and present an invention before it begins a journey encountering the unexpected pitfalls that the patent examiner sees as obstructions standing in the way of grant.

The ingenuity, experience and skill required of the patent ‘agent’ are much more demanding than are those of the patent examiner, but both need to be equally skilled in technology and science, albeit with some speciality bias, typically as between the chemical and engineering fields and, at the extreme, as between the biochemistry of the drug industry and the electronics of the computer industry.

One must here keep in mind that the patent profession is kept busy by the ongoing struggle to protect inventions by securing patent grant. Very few inventions ever mature to the stage where they become contentious issues in a court of law. Patent suits to enforce one’s rights against infringers are rare events, but the ‘attorney’ role has a part to play in that the person who writes the patent specification and formulates its claims has to anticipate the pitfalls of life, even after grant, just in case the patent finds itself in an infringement suit.

Now this introduction may seem to be tedious, bearing in mind we are going to discuss a cold fusion case, but my tactics here are deliberate. I want the reader to be under no illusion that the interaction between a patent agent and a patent examiner in processing a patent application is a routine exercise, merely involving completing forms and going through a few editing formalities.

I want further to ‘educate’ a little concerning the nature of the patent system, before I come to the details of my ‘cold fusion’ experience. We will, however, bring that theme under a new heading.

Why have patents?

The Patent System as we know it is like an invisible dinosaur. It trundles on, doing very little good, but provides a focal point for industrial prestige, especially in an international sense. The drug industry needs it to protect investment in research. How else to pay for the research that is discarded and yields no product? How else to cover those years of testing, essential before one dare market a product? How else, bearing in mind that it can be very easy to replicate such a product, once proven, but where the ‘invention’ is a ‘one-off’ so far as a particular product is concerned? By that I mean that there can be a one-to-one relationship between product and patent. Yes, there has to be a one-to-one relationship between invention and patent, but, think of a computer as a product and ask yourself how many different patented inventions might be at work inside a single device such as a laptop computer.

When you reflect on that and on the often-debated thought that patents could be granted for computer software, you could well wonder whether patents serve any useful purpose. Even without regard to patentability in a technical and legal sense, just ask yourself how an attorney can ever understand the machine code and decipher the routines and sub-routines operative in a computer program so as to be able to explain to a client what they cannot do if they are to avoid infringement. The attorney cannot say simply: “Do not copy.” You do not have to copy what is in a patent to be liable for infringement! If you design something without any prior knowledge of what is the subject of a patent and you just happen to have trespassed on territory you have never seen, you can still be liable for infringement of a patent. Ask yourself how that attorney can describe the detailed operation of the invention in a specification, given that there is no sense in just dumping a print-out of machine code and hoping that the patent examiner can check it against all past computer programs to see if it really is new. Ask yourself, how soon, if we sink into that abyss, the patent system will crack up and destroy itself.

We have a patent system today, but if you think patents are intended to reward the inventor, then you are wrong. If you think they are granted to allow the inventor or his assigns to manufacture and use what has been invented, albeit for a limited time, then you are quite wrong. No, all a patent does is to confer the right to obstruct. Your reward for making an invention, contesting its merits successfully against an obstructive patent examiner, and incurring considerable expense in the process, is no more than the right to stop others from exploiting your invention for their sole benefit.

To assert that right you must first have the good fortune of finding that someone has appreciated the merits of your invention sufficiently to set about making and selling products incorporating the invention. As an inventor you should be pleased to see your brainchild working for the service of mankind. However, your patent sows the seeds of discontent once you see a trespasser and your sense of greed is aroused as you feel obliged to assert the rights which your government have conferred upon you.

You must, however, have the good fortune of discovering that early enough for enforcement to be of any significance. Chances are that after a few years of paying renewal fees, which escalate progressively over time, you have ceased payment long before the end your 20 year patent lifespan and the patent is no longer in force.

Should your patent still be alive, you must then have the good fortune of possessing sufficient resources to be able to pay for the very high legal costs that you will encounter if you consider court action. If you go ahead, you must have the further good fortune of finding that what you think is your invention is really what the judge comes to think is covered by your patent claims. Besides that you need the good fortune of finding that the judge accepts your case that what the infringer is actually doing is within the scope of your patent claims, as he, the judge, interprets those claims. Then you need the good fortune of finding that the victims of your attack have been left high and dry by their own patent attorneys being unable to discover something that the patent examiner might have missed in his official search. There is a saying: “Seek and ye shall find.” and, to be sure, you will have a case to answer because the validity of your patent will surely be challenged.

Then there is need for further good fortune, which is that the judge, who is normally trained in law, rather than as a physicist or chemist, far less as microbiologist or computer specialist, will understand the technical merits of your claims sufficiently to form a fair judgement. By ‘computer specialist’ I do not mean someone who knows how to use a ‘mouse’ or press buttons on a computer keyboard or ‘surf the net’. I mean someone who knows what is inside those microchips, how to configure their circuit patterns and the reasoning of the design of those circuits.

You need the further good fortune that your expert witnesses will be more helpful to your case than the infringer’s expert witnesses are adverse, and further that the judge will not get too bored with the technical proceedings and the protracted court time involved, so that you have the good fortune of not seeing the costs escalate beyond reason. In summary, you need good fortune, and the good fortune of making an invention on which you eventually secure patent grant is only your first stepping stone along a very hazardous path.

What is so stupid about the whole patent system which the world tolerates is the futile effort of processing patents through examining patent offices before one knows whether the inventions involved have any commercial value. Yet the inventor cannot publish and then apply for a patent later when he knows that the invention, thanks to his contribution, has proved useful, whether to him or others. He would find that his own publication had anticipated his right to seek his patent monopoly.

How much better it would be if an inventor could publish his invention freely, subject to authority from those funding the research leading to the innovation, and leave it for destiny to decide the utility of the invention. Those patent specialists need not come into the act at all, until someone, the inventor or those who have funded the development of the invention, decide to stake their claim for a reward. This would not be a claim for the monopoly right to stop others from using the invention, but a claim against the government in the country of use, seeking their tangible appreciation for having contributed to the success of the national economy. Any successful invention earns money for those who manufacture. It benefits mankind. Commercial success means that there has been some profit which surely attracts tax revenue for the government. So why not provide for a procedure by which the Patent Office can confer patents on what an inventor has already published, aimed solely at recognizing the merits and originality of an invention based, as now, on a precise definition of what lies within the scope of the invention? There will still be work for those patent agents and patent examiners. Then, patent in hand, the owner of the rights can, every two or so years for a limited period, get his accountants and lawyers to assess the commercial value. The government revenue authorities would then weigh the case, allowing for the situations where research and development costs involved government funds, as normally applies if the invention is born in a university. The case showing the benefits of the invention would include the commercial success of those who had trespassed in the use of the invention, but they would not be penalized. They, too, will have paid their taxes, so, the revenue authorities being the only beneficiary, it is proper for them to confer on that patent owner a right to a remission of tax or refund commensurate with the true value of the invention.

The special circumstances of the drug industry would need to be treated differently, as by adhering to the present patent system, given that it works well for that industry. However, it works not at all well for the majority of the technological fields of invention. The patent system gets by at the present time, because there is a degree of tolerance and a powerful professional rapport between those who work in the patent field, a rapport which bridges national boundaries, but so much intellectual power goes to waste Even so. Inventors seldom find reward for their endeavour, but they do take pride in seeing their inventions recorded in a granted patent. My point is that the patent need not be a monopoly right, but should really be a right to a reward if the invention achieves commercial success.

Governments tend to assume that inventions are a product of industry and so industry should pay for the rights those inventions confer. It is a sad situation, one in which the governments encourage companies to acquire weapons which can only be used to obstruct competition. Why cannot the governments intrude to regulate competition where inventions are concerned and let that intrusion take the form of preferential rewards which benefit inventors and those who fund the work of inventors?

A glimpse at cold fusion

The reader may sense at this stage that I am limbering up for my confrontation with the history of the saga of my cold fusion patent application in the United States Patent Office.

I will begin by noting that it all began in the weeks immediately following the announcement in USA that Professors Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons had discovered something rather remarkable. The implication was that atomic nuclear fusion might be possible for heavy hydrogen adsorbed into a palladium cathode operating in an electrolytic cell at room temperature. Here was the possibility of something that could shake the world and perhaps help to solve our future energy problems in a quite wonderful way. Martin Fleischmann’s professorship was at Southampton University in England. I had retired in 1983 to become a full-time Visiting Senior Research Fellow engaged on energy science research at that same university, the university local to my home. My office and laboratory facilities were in the Faraday Building of the Department of Electrical Engineering, in very close proximity to the Department of Electrochemistry, the discipline of Professor Fleischmann.

I had no prior knowledge of Fleischmann or his work, but my mental faculties were duly aroused when I heard the news from Utah, the venue of Stanley Pons. That was in the March/April period 1989.

There are special reasons for my exceptional interest in this news item, apart from what has just been mentioned. I explain that elsewhere in these pages. See: Hadronic Journal article ‘The Theoretical Nature of the Neutron and the Deuteron’. However, here we are concerned with patents and I wish to stay with that theme.

Obviously, being a patent expert and having my own research ideas on generating energy by rather unusual means, I weighed the position confronting Fleischmann and Pons. They would surely be subject to constraints concerning the patent situation. They would probably have filed one or more patent applications covering their process by method claims. The emphasis would be on the electro-chemical features. Was there scope for invention in suggesting something quite new and very relevant in the design of the apparatus needed to operate a cold fusion cell?

That was my problem. I knew no more than what was emerging from the publicity surrounding the event in Utah. I soon became conscious that the university authorities at Southampton were feeling a little uncomfortable and it seemed to me that they would try to avoid comment. Their Professor Fleischmann could speak for himself. The Physics Department at Southampton was running on a conventional track. Nuclear physics was high energy physics. To suggest that there could be a nuclear reaction without neutron emission, as seemed to be implied from this cold fusion discovery, was simply not something that could be reasonably contemplated. So, the university posture was ‘low profile’.

My freedom to invent was unfettered by my university connection. My research facilities had been funded by an IBM donation to the university as part of my retirement package. I was free to seek patent cover for my own benefit at my own expense and I grasped the opportunity. I acted quickly and filed three patent applications at the British Patent Office in rapid succession, all in March/April 1989. All were on the theme of cold fusion and all were based on the foundation stone I had seen laid by the efforts of Fleischmann and Pons. It was a gamble. I knew that there would be a rush to file patents and here was my chance to project what I had been working on myself as my research subject. That was how it all began. I could never, ever, have believed the fiasco we were to witness later, if I had encountered the truth in a dream concerning the future!

It really is not for me to describe the whole picture of events. A very comprehensive account published in 1991, just two years from ‘start date’ is that of Dr. Eugene F. Mallove in his book: ‘Fire from Ice’, ISBN-0-471-53139-1, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. It title caption reads: ‘Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor.’

I was not ‘searching for the truth’. I was experiencing my own problems and the truths I ‘knew’ about, first-hand, were my information source.

Now, I am going to jump ahead in a kind of quantum leap to mention a U.S. patent that was issued to James A. Patterson on June 7, 1994. It includes in its list of cited references, a paper entitled: ‘Measurements of Excess Heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-Type Electrolytic Cell Using Palladium Sheet’, published in Fusion Technology, vol. 23, March 1993. Note, however, that there is now a related, later-granted Patterson patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,672,259 and I shall be referring to that in Essay No. 10.

I further note that the abstract of the Patterson patent issued in June 1994 declares that it covers an electrolytic cell and method for electrolyzing and heating water contained in a conductive salt in solution. Heavy water in the electrolyte features in some of the test data. There is evidence in the test data of spurious phases where excess heat is generated. The electrical power fed to the cell promotes a flow of electric current through a stack of metal-coated beads immersed in the electrolyte. The metal on those beads has adsorbed protons or deuterons from the solution.

Another point concerning this patent is that Patterson applied for it by a filing dated July 20, 1993 and it was granted, with remarkable speed, on June 7, 1994.

I want you to keep that in mind when you take stock of my story concerning my U.S. patent applications bearing upon cold fusion. Note that Patterson’s application was, seemingly, classified for examination by an examining group separate from that assigned to handle cold fusion cases.

Now, I will come back to the relevance of the Patterson patent presently,
but note here for the record that it is U.S. Patent No. 5,318,675.

I am writing this in late March, 1998, nine years from the cold fusion ‘start date’. That Patterson patent, with its brief but quite successful 1993-1994 journey of less than one year through the U.S. Patent Office, came on the scene midway between now and our ‘start date’.

Keep that in mind, because you should begin to wonder why we have not seen other ‘cold fusion’ patents issued by the U.S. Patent Office over the past nine years.

Now, let me tell you about my three inventions of March/April, 1989. As I have indicated, they were all based on a speculative gamble, but I was guided by my research interest, which concerned how heat could convert into electricity within a metal in breach of the normally-accepted interpretation of thermodynamic law and certain anomalous effects associated with that activity.

April, 1989

The scientific community had been aroused by the Fleischmann-Pons claim in March, 1989. The passage of electricity through heavy water in an electrolytic cell had caused the heavy hydrogen nuclei, deuterons, to be adsorbed into the metal cathode. That metal was palladium, notorious for its ability to adsorb enormous amounts of hydrogen. It was claimed that heat was being generated at a rate substantially in excess of the power input and that the excess could not be attributed to normal chemical activity, as by hydride formation.

Whether in the patent literature or in respected scientific periodicals, I had written about the anomalous acceleration forces known to exist when heavy ions, as opposed to electrons, carry electric current between an anode and a cathode. I am not talking here about a gain of a few per cent, but a gain of 100 or 1,000 times! Even in hot fusion research it was known that energy could transfer anomalously from electrons to protons with a 1,000-fold discrepancy as between theory and experiment. What was not known to those in hot fusion research was why those protons acquired that excess energy. The researchers just assumed that it must come from the power source driving the electrons.

So that was the scene in March/April 1989. However, long before that, some thirty years before, I had discovered that, to unify the form of the law of gravity and the law of electrodynamics, one would need to modify our interpretation of the empirical evidence concerning electrodynamic interaction forces. There would need to be scope for setting up an out-of-balance force in circumstances which eluded the gravitational action but did not elude electrodynamic interactions where there was a lack of continuity in the current circuit. That led me to explore how that force anomaly might arise where current is carried in a closed circuit by electrons exclusively in one segment and by protons, partially, in the remainder of the circuit. The result implied an enormously escalated anomalous acceleration of protons driven into the cathode plus the problem that, to keep faith with Newton’s Third Law that action and reaction are equal and opposite, I needed to accept that the aether itself was able to assert a force and shed energy.

I was, therefore, no longer standing on that ‘secure’ platform of knowledge shared by academia in science. I knew there was something shaky about its foundations and so I went looking for that firmer ground. I had my living to earn in a conventional discipline and found my way into the patent profession where I was at the forefront of innovation, initially in the electrical power industry but later in the computer world of IBM.

However, my scientific interest was my obsession. With a Cambridge Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering for research on the anomalous energy properties found in magnetizing steel, I knew I could pursue a career in research or teaching, but I would be just a fish in a deep sea. I preferred to keep my head above the surface and navigate accordingly, which I why I floated into the world of patents.

That said, and moving on those 30 years to when I had retired from my corporate venue and dropped back into that ocean of academia, I felt a kind of resonance building up when I experienced the vibrations set up by that tidal wave launched by Fleischmann and Pons.

The question I asked myself was whether deuterons inside a liquid electrolyte as part of the ion D₃O⁺ or even in a metal conductor, as heavy ions (bare deuterons) in a sea of electrons, could suffer anomalous acceleration forces tapping energy from the aether. If not that, then could those forces suffice to drive a deuteron into collision with one held at rest? That might cause fusion and then the anomalous heat could be nuclear in origin. Furthermore, since I had the impression that searching for that heat was like searching for food where none exists, I felt that, to get something to grow and escalate into a spontaneous blossom of power, one ought to seed that growth. By this I mean that, if the excess heat was generated within the cathode, one should send some electric current through the cathode, current that is not part of the current flow in the electrolytic circuit. This must surely stir action, if it needed something to trigger the ion combination and it would require very little energy input to sent current around a closed all-metal short-circuit. Certainly what I knew, from my research on the electrodynamic law needed to support the unification with gravity, told me that, the higher the current in a closed circuit confined to a metal cathode, the greater would be the anomalous acceleration of those deuterons adsorbed into the cathode.

I realized that this meant adding some heat and that seemed unnecessary if generating heat was the objective. However, I knew that invention has to have an element of surprise and avoid what is deemed obvious, whilst, of course, being founded on something workable. Here was my difficulty. I did not have the resource to test my ideas experimentally. So, my tactics were to file my patent applications and watch events. I would be on the look out for evidence of progress on the cold fusion scene to see if problems were encountered which could cast light on what I had claimed and perhaps add weight to my beliefs.

Whether I would have started along that road of trying to secure patent cover for a ‘cold fusion’ invention, had I known the problems I could have with the United States Patent Office, I just cannot say. Certainly, I do not go looking for trouble when all I have to wave on the battlefield is my own flag and no demonstrable research armament to back me up.

As a side remark here, I just note that when a U.S. Patent Examiner confronts a situation where he is really intent on stopping that flag from claiming the monopoly territory of an issued patent, the normal tactic is to ask for a show of strength, namely ask to see some evidence of that armament strength. The examiner asks for authenticated reports by those who may have witnessed the operation of the invention. That may or may not end the contest, but in my case I would probably have withdrawn at that point. In the event, however, I was confronted with an examiner who decided to play me out to the point of exhaustion by, in effect, telling me to wave a series of smaller flags and advance under one of those flags as a first step. This was followed by telling me that the territory I had in mind claiming was already occupied or said to be uninhabitable by others who wandered onto the scene long after my entry, even though the territory I had in mind was still vacant and sound.

In effect, I felt that the U.S. patent examiner was acting under orders from a general somewhere in the background. The order seemed to be: “Do not ask for evidence. Just let no one pass and fight to their death.”

Well, you will see what I mean when I present the case history of that U.S. Patent application.

As to my three initial ‘inventions’, I filed my first patent application at the British Patent Office on March 31, 1989. It was accorded the filing number 8,907,249. This was based on the anomalous acceleration effect occurring within the heavy water electrolyte and the apparatus described comprised a multiple anode array positioned around a central cathode with the electrolytic current being a pulsed discharge jumping between anodes in a timed sequence. My specification was 30 pages in length and contained 17 claims.

In the event, however, as I read more about the Fleischmann-Pons work, as it became available later, I decided not to proceed with this patent application. It seemed more probable that the anomalous heat generation was occurring within the cathode.

Meanwhile, however, by April 15, 1989, I had filed my second patent application at the British Patent Office. It was assigned the filing number 8,908,571 and it was eventually published and granted as GB Patent No 2,231,195. It was granted with 17 claims and there were no citations of prior art raised by the examiner from his international search efforts.

The scope of the invention can be judged by the official abstract of the patent and Fig. 1 of the patent specification, as reproduced below:

The process by which deuterons adsorbed into a palladium cathode to generate heat energy is enhanced under the control of an electrical current flowing around an all-metal circuit including the cathode. The current is an a.c. current very much greater than the ionic anode-cathode current involved in deuteron adsorption. It causes adsorbed deuterons to excite fusion-triggering vacuum energy fluctuations when traversing field boundaries inside the cathode in the presence of a strong electron counterflow. Deuterium may be adsorbed into the cathode by electrolysis or by corona discharge.

The invention described and claimed in this patent contained claims to both apparatus and the process disclosed. Only two of the 17 claims conveyed any implied dependence upon theory as to why excess heat is generated. Indeed, it is not necessary in describing an invention to say why it works. It suffices to describe what it is that is the embodiment of the invention. The embodiment, as such, is not a theory. However, tentatively one can surmise, based on one’s research, why it might be better to use one element of structure in preference to another, as that gives basis for a further claim. So, in my claim 15, I did venture to say that: “the conductor (meaning the cathode) being of a substance which comprises atoms, which when grouped together with the adsorbed deuterons form molecular entities (meaning hydrides) that have a resonant mass equal to an integer combination of 102 and 6.6 atomic mass units.” Here I was venturing to let some theory dictate the terms of one of my patent claims.

The reason for that was that my research interest had spread to embrace the anomalous energy activity associated with ‘warm superconductivity’ and that research was telling me that deuterons as part of a water molecule were more active in a thermal gravitational sense than those which had merged with a heavier atom, given the right overall mass condition. If that surplus energy was being shed then that might explain the anomalous heat generated. You see, in April 1989, one did not really know why excess is generated in the Fleischmann-Pons cell. Fusion was just one of the options and, indeed, we have, in 1998, yet to settle the true question as to the excess heat source. That, however, is no reason for blocking the patenting of novel devices used for testing how that heat can best be generated.

However, the main thrust of the patent concerned that short-circuited turn on the secondary of the transformer, that short-circuited conductive path being through the body of the cathode without involving any significant current passage through the electrolyte, the latter being served by the d.c. fed to the anode-cathode circuit.

The third patent application was filed at the British Patent Office on April 18, 1989. Its official application number was 8,908,670. This, in a sense, aimed to combine the subject of the two prior applications by describing apparatus which suggested an advantage by pulsing the electrolytic discharge in synchronism with current pulsations through the closed metal conductor path through the cathode circuit.

For the record I present here Claim 1 of that application:

Ion fusion apparatus, in which a current of hydrogen isotopes flows into a metal conductor, comprises means for passing an electrical current through the conductor independent of and in addition to the electric current attributable to the inflow of isotopes and means for regulating the strengths of the two electric currents, characterized in that both currents are caused to flow simultaneously for successive short periods at strengths which are substantially in excess of their mean current values.

Once lodged at the British Patent Office, these three patent applications could lay dormant for up to one year pending decision to proceed by formally seeking examination and patent grant, whether in U.K. or by filing in other countries. In the event, I abandoned the latter application along with the first and decided to proceed with the one having the April 15, 1989. I restricted overseas filing to a single application in USA, the one that initiated the ‘saga’.

The British application proceeded through its patent examination with no difficulty whatsoever, there being no prior art of relevance, and so it was that the patent was granted as British Patent No. 2,231,195. The grant date was January 13, 1993. Its grant was reported in ‘FUSION FACTS’ in the April 1993 issue.

Another Glimpse at the Patterson Patent

I intend now to close this Part I account and leave it to Part II to introduce the U.S. phase of this saga. First, however, I wish to make one point of importance and I will do that by reference to the technical data reported in the Patterson U.S. Patent No. 5,318,675.

Once it became evident that independent researchers were unable to reproduce the excess heat of the Fleischmann-Pons cell by enclosing the apparatus in a housing for calorimetric measurement so as to get a proper measure of temperature by assuring it is uniform, I suspected that they had actually ‘killed the goose that was laying golden eggs’. My thermoelectric research interest and my knowledge of anomalous energy effects in power transformers was my inspiration. Maybe a temperature gradient in the cathode was essential. I had good reasons for suspecting this. So I was on the look out for evidence of fluctuation cathode temperatures in conjunction with anomalous heat generation.

Run a cell aiming for perfect steady-state operation and you will kill the chance of generating excess power. Make things a little difficult in a measurement sense by allowing temperature to fluctuate up and down to keep heat flowing anyway, or set up a temperature differential as a steady state condition of the cell, and you could find that excess heat appears.

Now take a look at Table III in the Patterson patent and Fig. 10 which applies to the data in that table. If you inspect the printed specification of Patterson U.S. Patent No. 5,318,675 you will see that he has tabulated a series of tests giving a measure of power output in units that are different compared with those used for electrical power input. The heat output is stated as a change in temperature in degrees C times a water flow rate of milliliters (ml) per minute. Input electrical power is given in watts. 60 ml/min times T, as a temperature difference, is a rate of T calories per second or 4.2(T) watts and so, to have over-unity performance, meaning ‘excess’ heat, we must have an output of more than 14.3 of these heat units per watt.

For most of the data presented by Patterson, as for his tests on normal water, and for test periods using heavy water, the heat output measured did not match up to the electrical power input, indicating that some heat was being conducted away and escaping the main measurement track or that the tests underestimated the heat generated. However, particularly for table III, once the flow rate was increased sufficiently, the data reveal spurious states such as one where the heat output was as much as 103.6 units versus an electrical input of 2.11 watts.

This indicates operation with 340% efficiency! Here, then, is data indicating the excess heat can be produced by a cell operating somewhat along the lines described by Fleischmann and Pons.

Now my purpose in drawing attention to this is the fact that the generation of this anomalous excess heat occurred as the temperature profile of the cell was fluctuating. That can be seen from Fig. 10 of the Patterson patent.

Now look at that figure:

and you may see why I am especially interested in what is shown. It confirms my long-held suspicions that a temperature gradient in the deuterated cathode, if it can be maintained, is a recipe for inducing excess heat generation.

As you read more about my patent struggle with the U.S. Patent Office, you will come to see this feature stressed again and again. What surprises me is that so little has been reported of research on cold fusion specially directed to keeping cathode temperature non-uniform. Yet so much has been written about negative tests which go out of their way secure a precise measure of heat generated by keeping temperature steady for calorimetric purposes. I say that those who perform such tests are simply ‘killing the goose that lays the golden egg’, and I will not feel content on this issue until someone assures me that the ‘however you inject heat to warm the goose it will still not lay those golden eggs’.

---

---

---

In this Essay I am going to show my disdain for the way in which the ‘peer review’ system works. Once you get into the academic world that thrives on getting scientific papers published and serving as ‘peers’ reviewing the research findings of one’s rivals, you have become one of the sheep grazing on the farmlands that are helped by government funding. To succeed, you have to be sure you join the right flock and are seen to blend in well with that flock and move with the flock as a whole.

If you dare to wander off a little to discover greener pasture then you will be shunned and denied recognition as a member of that flock. You are not then one of the sheep, in that metaphorical sense, but you deserve respect, because you have made efforts to explore new ground rather than playing it safe and moving only with the body of opinion that endorses the common consensus.

Referees of scientific papers submitted to learned journals for prospective publication express their views anonymously. They can criticize without being reproached or without having their opinions put on public record. It is no wonder therefore that, as experts in their field, they only allow intruders to trepass if those intruders pay homage in their submitted papers to the reviewer’s own beliefs and, preferably, refer with favour to the reviewer’s own prior work of published record.

You might think that, in the main, this scenario applies to the leading journals, the ones which dominate university library shelves, because the lesser journals are seen to specialize on publishing contributions which are peripheral to mainstream beliefs or lack the quality needed to find their way into the primary chain of periodicals. Not so, as even maverick sheep have a way of flocking together and developing that instinct of ‘consensus’, even though the facts of science are not tailored to our taste, nor can they depend upon our opinion. What is taught about science in schools and universities is the product of consensus opinion. It may not be, and indeed it certainly is not, 100% factual.

So long as we are governed by ‘opinion’ then those who influence that ‘opinion’ by asserting their authority behind the scenes should not act behind a cloak of anonymity. It is not ‘peer’ review if the ‘peer’ is frightened of putting his name to what he writes about the work of others.

Like many, if you are a physicist, you will have tried to make some sense out of what is written about ‘Big Bang’ creation and expanding space. You may even have heard of the Higgs field, but been confused by the story which tells you things like:

“One must assume that the early universe had regions that were hotter than about 10²⁷ degrees and were also expanding. In these regions thermal fluctuations would drive the Higgs fields to zero and symmetry would be unbroken. … The system would supercool to a negligible temperature with the Higgs field remaining at zero, and the resulting state would be considered a false vacuum.”

I am quoting from Scientific American (p.99 in May 1984 issue) which goes on to refer to “EXPANDING BUBBLES of broken symmetry…” and from there progresses to:
“Roughly speaking, the isolated bubbles that were discussed in the original model are replaced by the domains. The domains of the slow rollover transition would be surrounded by other domains rather than by a false vacuum, and they would tend to be spherical. The term ‘bubble’ is therefore avoided.”

So here is something sharing that consensus opinion of the main flock that grazes on the pastures of the early universe and it is sufficiently developed to warrant an article in Scientific American in May 1984.

Towards the end of 1984 I had prepared a paper entitled ‘G as a Step-Function at Creation’ and I offered it to Foundations of Physics, billed on their letterhead as ‘An International Journal Devoted to the Conceptual Bases and Fundamental Theories of Modern Physics, Biophysics, and Cosmology’. I wish to draw your attention to an anonymous referee opinion sent to me with a rejecting cover letter by Alwyn van der Merwe, Editor of that journal, on April 4, 1985 from his address at the Department of Physics at the University of Denver, Colorado. It reads:

“(a) There is no astronomical evidence for the gravitational domains which Aspden postulates. Instead, a single gravitational field appears to fill the entire universe. This determines, first of all, cosmological behavior including the expansion of the universe from, apparently, a complicated singularity. Then there are groups of galaxies held together gravitationally. Next, there are the individual galaxies held together gravitationally. Then the various star systems are held together gravitationally, and so on.

(b) There is no evidence for gravitational changes induced by movements across domain boundaries. Presumably, the boundaries do not exist.

(c) The observed red shift of distant objects indicates the universe is expanding from a point in time when it was so small none of the particles or atoms we know now could exist.

(d) The present submicroscopic arrangements of matter developed gradually. The heavy elements found in the earth were generated in nova or supernova and ejected into space. This process occurred eons after creation. Only later did the solar system condense out. The condensation was not induced by the onset of gravitation.”

So you see, ‘God’ has spoken and there are no domains that have boundaries which affect gravitation. They are just thermal domains that have something to do with the Higgs field, according to Scientific American which tells us that those domains are not ‘spherical bubbles’.

It seems not to have occurred to the common flock of cosmologists that, if gravity is confined to interactions between matter within a common space domain, that would explain why stars form, one single or binary system within each domain. Galaxies would still form because, with passage of time, stars would wander across space boundaries and begin to cluster together, just as a chain holds together in spite of becoming slack in places. Surely, someone on Mars viewing a tug boat on Earth pulling a ship through a chain link might not see the chain and so think that, because boat and ship seem to move in a coordinated way, there is some direct force acting between. Why is it that we cannot imagine a broader horizon? What we think we see out there in remote space may well be different if viewed from a closer distance. If we infer actions based on the physics of what we see occur within the confines of our laboratories here on Earth, then we may be extrapolating beyond the limits justified by our observations.

The anonymous referee says that ‘The condensation was not induced by the onset of gravitation’. He or she ‘knows’ which came first, the chicken or the egg, because the chicken was born at a discrete point in space along with billions of other chickens all compressed into that ‘singularity’. No need for the eggs! The creation of protons and electrons in a steady state universe, followed by cooling which brings the ‘onset of gravitation’ and then the formation of stars is ruled out. Instead you are told, as I read in a book by Barry Young intended for science-minded Internet users, “At 10^-42 seconds after the big bang, the electromagnetic and strong and weak forces remained as one indistinguishable force, but were separated from the force of gravity. In other words, gravity came into being.” I quote this from page 127 of Free Stuff for Science Buffs, published in 1996 by the Coriolis Group, Web address http://www.coriolis.com

So those poor chickens all cooped up in that point singularity had to suffer for a good 10^-42 seconds before even experiencing the force of gravity, but then, instead of that force holding them together in what really would be a ‘black hole’, they all found they could fly away and become the ‘expanding universe’! But chickens lay eggs and, if you have read what I have written in the Tutorials in these Web pages, you know that the aether creates protons! Lecture No. 5 tells you how the Sun and planets were created.

I believe that even God might be laughing at the account of Big Bang creation which man has invented. He is surely whispering to us to urge us to look again at Maxwell’s equations and ask how waves can disturb the aether with lateral field vibrations without being dynamically balanced. The message is that there is a dual, or reciprocal, electric displacement and that can explain how energy from electromagnetic waves can be absorbed in transit through the aether to give dispersionless wave propagation, but propagation where frequency reduces over distance travelled. You see, the idea of the expanding universe sinks into oblivion once you understand that the cosmological red shift is not a doppler effect. Search these Web pages and you will understand more on that subject, beginning by abstracts [1982a] and [1984e]. Go on read Lecture No. 11, The Hubble Constant: Its ‘Free Energy’ Role, Then, read on below to see that paper that should have been published in 1985, but never was, because the Editor of the journal Foundations of Physics decided it should not be published.

Abstract: Developments in particle theory which suggest that the space-time metric has properties analogous to the ferromagnet are applied to the gravitational-electromagnetic field unification problem. It is shown that the onset of gravitation may have occurred at the time the solar system was created, as the space-time metric acquired order by cooling below its Curie temperature. The proposal is verified by deducing theoretically the quantity (angular momentum)²/mass for the planets in relation to the mass and radius of the Sun.

The ultimate unification of electromagnetic and gravitational actions may well emerge from enquiry into the initial phases of the creation of our universe. An aspect of this problem which has received little attention hitherto is the pre-creation phase. As will be shown, there is good reason for believing that at the initiation of creation the forces of nature involved a step function at time t=0, as if the primary cosmic property, gravitation, actually came into existence at that moment. Before that event, mass existed in a flat space-time metric, but later the effect of mass was to cause curvature of this metric.

In order to assess such a proposition, it is worthwhile to consider
(a) the analogy with the magnetic state with which unification is sought and (b) the special consequences of the proposal that G changes suddenly from 0 to its present value at t=0.

There is a positive analogy between the sudden onset of gravitation and magnetism, bearing in mind the situation in a ferromagnet as it cools below its Curie temperature. The ordered spin state of ferromagnetism is destroyed by heat but is eventually restored as the ferromagnet cools down. Then a mutual magnetic attraction between the spins appears as the substance becomes magnetically polarized. The analogy gains strength if one looks into the realm of particle physics and the question of parity breaking, from the viewpoint of Goldstone [1]. Goldstone pictured a vacuum state with aligned two-dimensional vectors at each point in space, the particle property arising from an oscillation in their direction. Phillips [2] later posed the question: ‘Is the graviton a Goldstone boson?’, whereas Biritz [3] related the broken symmetry of the Goldstone vacuum to the material state of ferromagnetism. This idea was advanced by Durr [4] who imagined the vacuum to be a very large isoferromagnet, a proposal which led Breit [5] to question the vacuum analogy in relation to temperature effects and domain structure. In a recent survey Weisskopf [6] refers to the Higgs isotopic spinor field which requires the vacuum to have a certain fixed direction in isospace and, by analogy with a ferromagnet, retain this direction so long as the energy transfers are smaller than the Curie temperature. From this background Rebbi [7] now writes about space-time having a cubic structure allowing calculations to be made concerning quark confinement. However, lacking in this earlier work is the clear proposition advanced here that, as in a ferromagnet, the state of gravitation actually comes about as the space-time metric cools to form a lattice arrangement of ordered spin states.

Breit’s question about domains in the vacuum deserves attention. It can be conceived as a large scale domain structure, each domain having its own spin direction and the boundaries setting the range of the attractive force operative within the domain.

Keeping this thought in mind, imagine now that the pre-creation phase is a state of no gravitation, with matter dispersed throughout space as a highly tenuous gas. However, as soon as the underlying order appeared, spreading rapidly so as to be virtually a spontaneous transition within each domain, the matter in that domain would be drawn together by gravitation and coalesce to form a single star or binary system.

There is a fascinating aspect to this hypothesis which justifies its conception. The idea that G switches on, as it were, at t=0 means that for an initial period the positive heavy nuclei of the dispersed and partially ionized matter are subject to a mutual acceleration of gravitation that is far greater than the mutual acceleration of gravitation applicable to the electrons. The matter forming the primordial Sun would come together with a positive charge initially to be neutralized later when the slower moving electrons arrived. Full analysis shows that the positive charge build-up is retarded by its electrostatic repulsion to become:

during the transitional phase. Here M_s is the mass of the Sun, less the mass of electrons bringing the balancing charge, relatively a minute quantity.

This, of itself, would have little consequence, were it not likely that something of basic consequence might happen during this period when the Sun was charged. There could be an interaction between this
powerful electric condition and the underlying spin metric coextensive with the body of the Sun. The metric has isospin and it is the seat of a resonance condition with which we associate the graviton. The same metric is known to have an affinity for the frame of the local observer since it adapts its properties to assure isotropic propagation of electromagnetic disturbance. Equally, if subject to an electric field, such as the radial field set up by the charge (1), it could well respond to exhibit a neutralizing radial electric field by a kind of displacement conforming to Maxwell’s equations. Relativity holds as a valid description of such a metric, subject to the one condition that if there are two observers moving relative to one another at an infinitesimal spacing then the metric adopts the inertial frame of one to the exclusion of the other. This implies quantum properties and eases the resolution of the clock paradox.

Picture now an expanse of such a metric coextensive with the body of the primordial Sun. Consider a state of rotation of the lattice of the metric about a central axis. Each element of the metric will then have a motion comprising two components, its intrinsic spin and its rotation about the central axis. It was Goldstone’s basic requirement [1] that particles in the metric could exhibit zero mass, because when they rotate in phase there is no energy gain because symmetry is preserved. Thus, we impose the condition that the phase is universal in the metric, meaning that the compounded spin angular velocity has to be constant. The result is a radial displacement of the metric about its axis of rotation and, conversely, a forced radial displacement implies a state of rotation.

To understand this let the element of the metric be at a radius R from an axis about which the system rotates at angular velocity W. The axis makes an angle A with the directions of the isospin vector
which we connect with a spin velocity at radius r of W_o. Note that r and W_o are respectively very small and very large, being of the magnitude we might associate with electron spin states. The compounded velocity is the vector sum WRcosA+W_or in planes perpendicular to the isospin vector. Goldstone’s in-phase condition requires this to be a motion for which the angular velocity in the inertial frame is W_o. This can only be the case if the spin radius of the element varies to become (W/W_o)RcosA+r. The metric at radius R is displaced from the central axis by the radial amount (W/W_o)RcosA.

To convert this into an electrical condition we assign the metric
a uniform charge density s which is normally exactly balanced by
background charge density -s. Only one of these is associated with
the spin elements of the metric. It then follows that the displacement by the radial proportionality factor (W/W_o)cosA will imply a uniform induction of charge density of magnitude W(2s/W_o)cosA to develop in that metric.

If we write the Sun’s charge in (1) as a charge density (G)^1/2d_s, where d_s is the mean mass density of the Sun, the metric will rotate exactly to neutralize this. If the Sun shares this state of motion its primordial angular velocity before ejecting the planets becomes:

(W_o/2s) is, of course, a fundamental property of the space-time metric. It offers interesting prospect for future quantitative correlation of the lattice structure of the field medium and the large scale cosmological phenomena.

The significance of the above analysis is that during the transitional period when the primordial Sun had its positive charge the coextensive space-time metric reacted by deploying angular momentum from its otherwise invisible spin world and developed a rotation shared by the Sun, which cancelled the charge in the body of the Sun and transferred it by displacement as a metric charge near the Sun’s surface. When the neutralizing electrons arrived they took up positions at the Sun’s surface cancelling this displaced metric charge, but the Sun and its coextensive space-time metric retained the state of rotation.

Such a model of the Sun affords an explanation of the induction of its magnetic field. It is beyond the scope of this paper, but we mention that the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis as discussed by Blackett [8] reqiures a neutralized electric charge exactly as given by (1) to produce a magnetic moment as if it were not neutralized. There was excitement in finding that the hypothesis worked for the Earth, the Sun and the star 78 Virginis, but the hypothesis really had no basis and was discounted when research showed that the Earth’s field was of the form of a central dipole. In fact, both of these objections are met by the space-time metric proposal by noting that the metric neutralizes electric charge but does not develop a magnetic field inasmuch as it constitutes the frame of reference (an inertial frame) for such fields. Also, the magnetic moment comprises a positive core component and a double negative component owing to the surface electron population and this combined system gives what is an apparent dipole field.

Of greater interest here is the scope for understanding the creation of the planetary system. The Sun formed centrally in its own space domain but the accreted matter would retain its momentum. Eventually, therefore, the Sun would move across the boundaries of its own space domain and enter an adjacent domain in which the isospin vector has a different direction. The effect upon the charge balance is then quite dramatic. Imagine that A=0 in the initial domain and that A=180^o in the adjacent domain. A traversal of the boundary will cause the polarity of the displaced metric charge to reverse. Instead of neutralizing the Sun’s positive core charge it will now act to double the charge in the body of the Sun so that 2G^1/2M_s will act on the electron charge -G^1/2M_s. M_s is the Sun’s mass.

Such an electrical condition in a rotating system is conducive to a diamagnetic reaction effect which transfers angular momentum to the outer regions of the body. This results in a quasi-equilibrium between the electrical forces and the centrifugal forces on the surface substance, given by:

Put H_p as the angular momentum acquired by the electron-populated outer substance of mass M_p moving at angular velocity W_p about the Sun’s radius R_s. Then (3) can be written in the modified form:

This state only holds for a limited time because the core charge will be neutralized by discharge processes as the surplus electron population transfers from the surface to the body of the Sun to balance the inverted polarity of the rotating metric of the changed domain environment. Then, the substance of mass M_p will move away from the Sun to break up into planets which settle eventually in orbits controlled by normal gravitation. Since the angular momentum of a planet of mass M’ in orbit about the Sun at radius R’ is M'(GM_sR’)^1/2, we can write:

The summation applies to all the planets formed at the first traversal of a domain boundary. This no doubt includes all planets in the solar system, because almost all the Sun’s initial angular
momentum would be transferred to the surface at the first boundary encounter. There would be insufficient rotation of the Sun to sustain the angular momentum needs of equation (4) at a second boundary crossing.

We can, therefore, combine (4) and (5) and apply it to the data for the solar system to verify the resulting formulation:

If this equation holds for the solar system, then this theory of creation is supported. From the following data tabulated in Earth units we find that the summation of M’ is 447 and the summation of M'(R’)^1/2 is 1179.

	Planet       M'	    R'  	M'(R')1/2
	Mercury    0.05	  0.387	        0.03
	Venus      0.82	  0.723	        0.69
	Earth      1.00	   1.00	        1.00
	Mars       0.11	   1.52	        0.135
	Jupiter   317.8	   5.20	      724.6
	Saturn     95.2	   9.54	      294.1
	Uranus     14.5	  19.18	       63.5
	Neptune    17.2	  30.07	       94.3
	Pluto      0.11   39.44         0.691

These values cannot be expected to have changed since the solar system was created. We find from (6) that M_sR_s is 1,555 at creation. M_s can have changed only a little from its original value and so is known to be 332.800 and R_s today (in astronomical units) is 1/224. M_sR_s is 1,486 from this, a value in extremely close agreement with the theoretical value. Exact agreement could not be expected, because the planetary material would become isolated from the Sun only after reaching a height above the Sun’s visible surface commensurate with the normal surface eruptions. The small discrepancy of 4.6% can therefore be explained in terms of the mean height of solar flares, taken together with the increase of R_s due to the solar oblateness accompanying the much higher primordial solar spin state.

It is submitted that a viable account of the creation of the solar system has been presented. It is realised that the proposed existence of space domains commensurate in numbers with the stars and defining the local range of gravitation might upset some cosmological theories, especially those based on the Mach Principle. However, a theory for the creation of the solar system which provides verifiable equations should take precedence. Furthermore, there is an experimental avenue for verifying the theory. There is a case for arguing a limited application of the Mach Principle to the extent that it affects the mass of an electron in proportion to the local gravitational potential. The mass in spin is not affected and so the
gravitational potential might become measurable from otherwise inexplicable discrepancies in the measurement of the electron g-factor. Aspden [9,10] has shown that almost all of the discrepancy is accounted for in terms of a gravitational potential equal to that of the solar system. These experiments are of such precision that the small changes in gravitational potential arising from the Earth’s elliptical motion about the Sun could soon be detected. Experimental electron electrodynamics promise, therefore, the possibility of unravelling the mysteries of our creation and confirming that G did change from 0 to its present value to initiate that event.

1. J. Goldstone, Il Nuovo Cimento, 19, 154 (1961).
2. P. R. Phillips, Physical Review, 146, 966 (1966).
3. H. Biritz, Il Nuovo Cimento, 47A, 709 (1967).
4. H. P. Durr, Proceedings of the 1967 International Conference on Particles and Fields, Interscience Publishers, p. 328.
5. Breit, ibid, p. 340.
6. V. F. Weisskopf, Physics Today,34 tLI1, 71 (1981).
7. C. Rebbi, Scientific American, 248, 36 (February, 1983).
8. P. M. S. Blackett, Nature, 159, 658 (1947).
9. H. Aspden, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 32, 114 (1981).
10. H. Aspden, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 37, 169 (1983).

INTRODUCTION
In this Essay we shall see how easy it is to explain why iron, nickel and cobalt are ferromagnetic. This is a physics exercise which really should be included in all of the principal textbooks on magnetism, because without it students are left mystified by the mention of ‘exchange forces’ and the ‘Pauli exclusion principle’, with no real understanding of what is so special about iron, nickel and cobalt.

In summary, the state of ferromagnetism is a condition of least energy arising from the contest between the attractive forces set up by electrodynamic interaction of the orbital motion of atomic electrons in the 3d state, which move in synchrony, and the accompanying repulsion caused by electrostatic interaction. The 3d electron state is one where the electrons have an orbital motion that is quantized as 2 Bohr magnetons, equivalent to the condition n=2 in the Bohr theory of the atom. Ferromagnetism can only appear in a material having crystal form and only occurs where that material is strong enough to withstand the out-of-balance stresses set up by the above contest between those two forces. Loss of ferromagnetism will occur when temperature increases to the level where the cohesion of the atoms forming those crystals is weakened sufficiently. This occurs at the Curie temperature, before the substance melts. Phase changes in the crystal structure can also affect the ferromagnetic condition.

To explain why iron, for example, is ferromagnetic, all we need to do is to calculate the stresses set up by those two conflicting forces to see which combinations of atomic number Z, and electron orbital quantization n, can allow tolerable levels of internal mechanical strain. The task is quite straightforward provided we do not confuse the problem by looking for a short cut route in our analysis. It is tempting to calculate the magnetic energy density and compare this with the strain energy density, taking that comparison to be decisive. Here, however, energy is something which is pooled amongst the vast number of interactions that arise within the ferromagnetic crystal, whereas the force components which are decisive in determining mechanical strain are individual to the charges that they act upon. The positions or states of motion of those charges, as electrons, is determined by the specific values of those force components and not by some statistical average.

Another pitfall which must be avoided is that of thinking that ferromagnetism arises from something termed ‘electron spin’. Remember that ferromagnetism, as the property of the lodestone, and gravitation as a universal force affecting all matter, are phenomena that have mystified mankind throughout the ages. Also, the challenge of unifying the theories governing electromagnetism and gravitation have eluded physicists right through the period of the development of atomic theory. Once the atom began to yield its secrets, they studied that atom in isolation, as an ionized particle, which emitted a radiation spectrum when duly excited. They were then looking at properties of the atom which had no real bearing upon the way those atoms interact when locked together in a crystal. Furthermore, they were looking at the atom in an era when science had turned its back on the idea that there was something of an aethereal nature filling space devoid of matter. So when they saw effects in those atoms that might betray a reaction property involving energy exchange and interaction with that aethereal 19th century medium, they had to hold faith with their new 20th century beliefs and this required that the inner workings of the atom were self-contained. If the numbers governing their quantization conditions then had to imply that electrons had special characteristics, a ‘spin’ that was not the kind of spin that engineers contemplate, then, so be it. ‘Spin’ became the magic word. It compounded the problem of understanding ferromagnetism.

The consequence of this was that those physicists who turned their minds to ferromagnetism became convinced that ferromagnetism arises from ‘electron spin’, but yet they still cannot explain in terms, meaningful to the discerning student, how it is that iron is ferromagnetic, whereas copper is not ferromagnetic. Nor can they begin to explain gravitation, which is, in a sense, a property analogous to ferromagnetism. It is an attractive influence which is seated in the synchronous motion of electric charge, but which involves extrapolation of ferromagnetism, as a property of crystalline matter, to the realm of a ‘crystalline’ medium permeating all space.

THE NATURE OF FERROMAGNETISM
This was the title of Chapter 3 in my book Physics without Einstein, which was published in 1969 (See Books and Reports section of these Web pages). I shall here be extending this account of ferromagnetism well beyond what was covered in the book, but, even though there is a little repetition of what has been said in the above Introduction, it is appropriate to reproduce, in full, the text of that chapter. My object is to show that I did put my findings on record at that time and, as the substance of what I had discovered is very relevant in understanding how we can apply ferromagnetism to tap energy from the orbital motion of the quantum underworld of our environment, I want to assure the reader that my thoughts on the matter have had time to mature. Indeed, as will be seen, there is much progress to report.

Do not be misled by the title of that book ‘Physics without Einstein’. The title means precisely what it says, but it does not mean that I was ignorant of Einstein’s theory or had not understood it. No, it means simply that we can progress further to reach new horizons in the field of energy technology, if we follow a route alternative to that taken by Albert Einstein. It needs physics of the kind meaningful to the engineer who can apply the underlying scientific principles to technological advantage. The pathway forward was a track through the jungle of ferromagnetism, a subject, the principles of which are not well understood by the physicist, but which is at the very heart of virtually all electrical machines that generate the power on which we are so dependent.

The text copied from my book now follows. Bear in mind that the book was published in 1969. It gave an insight into the nature of ferromagnetism that you will not find elsewhere, even though the research reported on ferromagnetic properties generally is vast in its extent. Yet what I disclose here is only an ‘insight’ as there is very great scope for academic research projects aimed at performing the computer analysis that can take forward what I have outlined in this brief account.

HEISENBERG’S THEORY
Heisenberg’s theory of ferromagnetism attributes the ferromagnetic state to an alignment of electron spins in atoms due to exchange forces. In wave-mechanical terms, the probability that an electron in one atom will change places with an electron in an adjacent atom is given by an exchange integral which is positive or negative according to the ratio of the radius of the relevant electron shell r and the atomic spacing d. In general, this integral is negative since the attractions between the atomic nuclei and the electrons are greater than the repulsions between the nuclei and between the electrons. It is positive when there exists a certain ratio d/r of the distance between the adjacent atoms of the crystal and the radius of the electron shells containing the uncompensated electron spin. Slater (Physical Review, v. 36, p. 57, 1930) presents the data:

Metal  Fe   Co   Ni   Cr   Mn   Gd
d/r   3.26 3.64 3.94 2.60 2.94 3.10

The conclusion drawn from this is the empirical presumption that, for ferromagnetism to exist, d/r must be greater than 3.0 but not much greater. [It is noted that the symbols r and d are used here to denote the dimensions in an atomic lattice are the same as used by the author in his theory pertaining to the quantized orbits and lattice dimensions of structured form of the vacuum medium. The coincidental feature that the ratio d/r is slightly more than 3 in the lattice of the vacuum medium is deemed to be fortuitous.]

As Bates (Modern Magnetism, 3rd Edn. Cambridge University Press, p. 327, 1951) points out, in Heisenberg’s theory the exchange forces depend upon the alignment of the electron spins but the forces between the spins themselves are not responsible for the ferromagnetic state. Ferromagnetism is presumed to be due to interaction forces between the atoms because these forces apparently have a common feature if the ratio d/r has an approximately common value, evidently greater than 3.0 but not much greater. However, is this a sufficient explanation of the ferromagnetic state? Also, accepting that the exchange forces do have values coming within certain limits which are conducive to the ferromagnetic state in the ferromagnetic substances, what really is the link between these forces and the intrinsic magnetism? How do the electron spins get aligned and why is it that so few electrons in each atom have their spins set by action of the exchange forces? Why is Heisenberg’s theory so vague in its quantitative account of the ferromagnetic state? Also, since in Chapter 2 it has been argued that ferromagnetism is not primarily associated with electron spin, as is popularly believed, but is in fact due to the orbital motion of electrons, how is this to be related to Heisenberg’s theory?

THE CAUSE OF FERROMAGNETISM
In considering the nature of ferromagnetism, the idea that magnetic energy is a negative quantity, presented in the previous chapter, has immediate significance. Magnetism may have a tendency to become the preferred state and ferromagnetism will result if the other forms of energy which go with this magnetic state can be fully sustained by the source of magnetic energy itself. This is simple physics without recourse to exchange integrals defining probabilities of electron interchanges between atoms.

On this point of negative magnetic energy, it is appropriate to note that it is included as a negative term in magnetic domain theory where the equilibrium states of magnetic domain formation are evaluated (see Kittel, Rev. Mod. Phys., v. 21, p. 9, 1949). “The minus sign merely indicates that we have to supply heat in order to destroy the intrinsic magnetization.”

To say that energy has to be supplied to destroy intrinsic magnetism is to say that energy is needed to restore the undisturbed state of the field medium (the aether) since the disturbance, which is magnetism, has yielded energy and needs it back to be restored to normal. If ferromagnetism, meaning an alignment of the magnetic moments of adjacent atoms in a crystal, needs other energy to sustain it, such as strain energy, this other form of energy can participate in the return to the demagnetized state. But the question of whether a substance is or is not ferromagnetic must depend upon the ratio of the available energy from the magnetic source and the sustaining energy needed, as by the strain. If this ratio is greater than unity, there is ferromagnetism. Otherwise there is no ferromagnetism.

Why is iron ferromagnetic to the exclusion of so many other elements? The answer to this question is that it so happens that in the atomic scale iron is positioned to have properties for low interaction forces between atoms, with a significant alignment of certain electron states. In addition, iron is strong enough to withstand the effects of these forces, which are many tons per square inch and do approach the normal breaking stresses of metallic crystals. Further, iron, as well as nickel and cobalt, does happen to have a rather high modulus of elasticity so that the energy needed to sustain the strain is relatively low.

Why does the ferromagnetic property disappear as temperature is increased through the Curie point? There are the conventional explanations for this in the standard works on magnetism, such as that of Smart, (Effective Field Theories of Ferromagnetism, W.B. Saunder & Co., 1966). A simple alternative answer which appeals to the writer is that, since the modulus of elasticity does decrease rather rapidly with increase in temperature, by the right amount, the strain energy needed to sustain magnetism increases to cross the threshold set by the ratio mentioned above. This threshold is at the Curie point.

If ferromagnetism is so closely related with internal strain, and if this internal strain is high, and if at high strain the modulus of elasticity becomes non-linear, all of which are logical, then, at least in some ferromagnetic substances, there should be significant changes in the modulus of elasticity at the Curie point. This is found to be the case. The phenomenon has been discussed by Doring (Ann Phys. Leipzig, v. 62, p. 465, 1938).

It is shown below how the elements of a theory of ferromagnetism can be based on the above argument. The analysis is simplified by the expedient of regarding the Bohr theory of the atom as applicable. This merely serves to allow easy calculation of the stresses mentioned.

STRESS ENERGY ANALYSIS DUE TO ORBIT-ORBIT INTERACTIONS IN A FERROMAGNETIC CRYSTAL LATTICE
In view of the different account of the gyromagnetic ratio given above (i.e. in Chapter 2 of ‘Physics without Einstein at pp. 32-36), the ferromagnetic state can be regarded as due to electrons in orbital motion, rather than a mixture of spin and orbit actions. The electron in orbit traversing a circular loop at a steady speed will be taken seriously, notwithstanding the wave-mechanical aspects and the accepted improbability of such steady motion in an atom. The purpose of this is to facilitate the approximate calculations presented here. Offset against this also, one can argue that the Principle of Uncertainty, as used in wave mechanics, may well only have meaning when viewing events in atoms on a statistical basis. This principle is no warranty that, in some atoms, those of certain size, arranged in certain crystal configurations and under certain energy conditions, just one electron could not defy the principle, as viewed by an electron in an adjacent atom, and actually be in a harmonious state of motion with such electrons in adjacent atoms. The motion of electrons in atoms is not random. Statistically, wave mechanics helps us to understand the systematic behaviour of atomic electrons, but they are a mere mathematical tool used for this purpose and not a set of laws which a particular electron has to obey. If, energetically, it suits the electron to move steadily in an orderly orbit, it will do so. Such is the premise on which the model to be studied is based, and with it the Bohr theory of the atom will be used.

Imagine two adjacent atoms arranged in a crystal lattice with their electron orbits aligned along the crystal direction linking the particles. This is illustrated in Fig. 3.1. Only one electron per atom is taken to be in this state.

The atoms are spaced apart by a distance d. Each atom has a nuclear charge Ze, an electron system depicted as a cloud, shown shaded, of charge e -Ze, and a single electron of charge -e describing a circular orbit of radius r and velocity v. In effect, it is assumed that one electron in each atom has adopted a motion in strict accordance with Bohr’s theory, whereas the other electrons form, statistically, a charge centred on the nucleus, but not screening the orbital charge from the electric field set up by the nucleus.

The orbital electrons are taken to move in synchronism in view of their mutual repulsion. Then the following components of interaction force between the two atoms may be evaluated in terms of the radius r of the electron orbits and the velocity v of the electrons.

These force components are, simply, the electrostatic and electrodynamic interaction forces between the two electrical systems defined. If the last term is expanded, then, neglecting high order terms in r/d, since r is less than d for all cases and very much less for most, it becomes:

Combining the force components, the total force between the two atoms becomes, approximately, (v/c)²-3(r/d)² times e²/d², as an attractive force.

On Bohr theory:

where a is the Fine Structure Constant 7.298 10^-3, and n is the quantum number of the electron level in the atom. Also:

where r_H is 5.29×10^-9 cm.

It follows that, as Z increases, the attractive force component diminishes and the repulsive force component increases. The zero force state occurs when:

if d is 2×10^-8 cm. This gives, for n=2, Z=23. For iron, Z=26, and it so happens that the measured value of the effective value of n is 2.2. This represents the number of Bohr magnetons per atom applicable to iron in its state of intrinsic magnetization.

The above calculation is merely to demonstrate that the approach being pursued may prove profitable.

To develop the theory on more realistic, though still approximate, terms, the transverse forces have to be taken into account in stress energy considerations. The force in the lateral sense between two atoms in the crystal lattice will be effectively all electrodynamic. The electrostatic action of the orbital electron of one atom will, on average, tend to act from a point close to the nucleus when its action on the other atomic nucleus is considered. It follows from the law of electrodynamics developed in Chapter 2, that the force (ev/c)²/d² will act in the lateral sense. This will create components of stress energy precluding the total stress energy from passing through zero as Z increases. This will make the ferromagnetic state less likely to occur and very much will depend upon the value of the related magnetic field energy and stress energy.

To proceed, the stress in the substance will be taken to be of the order of 1/d² times the elemental force just deduced. This is taking into account only forces between adjacent atoms in a cubic lattice. The actual force will be greater than this, perhaps by a factor of two or three. Although there are many atoms interacting, when the spacing doubles the forces are reduced in inverse square proportion. Further, the harmonious nature of the electron motions may not be seen as such for interactions over large distances. In travelling a distance d of 2×10^-8 cm at velocity c of 3×10^-10 cm/see, the electrodynamic action, for example, involves a transmission time of 0.67×10^-18 seconds. In this time, for Z=23 and n=2, equation (3.1) shows that the electron may move 1.7×10^-9 cm. This is slightly more than one quarter of a revolution. This really means that this approach to explaining ferromagnetism requires a redefinition of the synchronous state assumed in Fig. 3.1. In fact, since energy considerations are involved, the mutual repulsion forces between the electrons in orbit urge maximum separation, subject to the propagation velocity. This velocity may be different from c, but this does not matter. We take it that synchronism exists as viewed by each individual atom. This means that electrons in adjacent atoms are out-of-phase in their motion as viewed from remote positions. It also means that atoms not adjacent to the one under study will be seen by that atom to have orbital electrons also out-of-phase. There is an exception for successive atoms along the magnetization direction and transverse to it along the crystal axis, because the effective value of d increases in integral steps. From considerations such as this, it may be shown that the prime term is the energy due to interaction with atoms adjacent in the crystal lattice directions. The energy will be greater than this only provided the surrounding atoms are seen to be in synchronism and make a significant contribution to the energy required. If these atoms are out of synchronism, they may add to, or subtract from, the energy, but, overall, should have little effect.

Along the direction of magnetization, there will be a stress F_x,
given by:

In the orthogonal directions, there will be forces F_y and F_z, both given by:

From (3.3) and (3.4):

where:

In terms of Young’s Modulus Y and Poisson’s Ratio s, the strain energy density is:

and, if s is approximated as 1/3, from (3.4), (3.5) and (3.6):

From equations (3.1), (3.2), (3.4), (3.6) and (3.7), it is possible to evaluate 2YE/e⁴ as a function of Z for different values of n, provided d is known. The value of d depends upon the nature of the crystal, the atomic weight and the density of the substance. Consistent with the degree of approximation involved in deriving (3.7), it seems feasible to assume that d changes linearly with increasing Z. It will be taken as the cube root of the atomic weight divided by the density, and referred to two substances, say, iron and lead, for which Z is 26 and 82 respectively. The crystal lattice will be taken to be simple cubic, even though iron is body-centred, with lattice dimension 2.8×10^-8 cm. The value of d, derived as indicated, is given by:

The plot of 2YE/e⁴ is shown in Fig. 3.2 for n = 1, 2, 3 and 4. In the same figure, along the abscissa, the short lines indicate those atoms for which the atomic susceptibility has been found to exceed 10^-4. The broken lines indicate the values of 2YE_mag/e⁴, plotted for different values of n and on a base value of Y of 2×10¹² cgs units. E_mag is the magnetic energy density, evaluated as 2πn²/d⁶ times the value of the Bohr magneton (in cgs units) squared. The Bohr magneton is 9.274 10^-21.

The pattern of the high susceptibility atoms has a grouping matching the minima of the strain energy curves. This encourages the strain analysis approach to explaining ferromagnetism. The minima of the strain energy curves corresponds to the increased likelihood of ferromagnetism, though this latter state can only occur if the magnetic energy (being negative) exceeds in magnitude the strain energy. Of importance here is the fact that the strain energy density and the magnetic energy density are of the same order of magnitude, thus making select states of ferromagnetism feasible in some materials but not in others. The strain energies of the order of 10⁷ ergs per cc, correspond to stresses of tens of tons per square inch. This means that selectivity for the ferromagnetic state may also depend on the rupture strengths of the materials; ferromagnetism clearly being more likely in strong materials of high Young’s Modulus.

DISCUSSION OF NEW THEORY

Theoretically, ignoring the error factor in the under-estimation of the strain energy, the curves show that a simple cubic crystal of oxygen (Z=8), if it could exist and if its Young’s Modulus were 2×10¹² or higher, would be ferromagnetic. For n=1, the prospect of a ferromagnetic state has to be ruled out for other atoms, except possibly carbon. Diamond has an extremely high Young’s Modulus, some five times that assumed for the comparison curve. However, with Z=6, carbon, to be ferromagnetic, would have to sustain very high internal stresses and these probably preclude ferromagnetism. For n=2, iron, nickel and cobalt have to be given favoured consideration. They all have a relatively high Young’s Modulus, some 50% higher than for copper, for example. They are all strong enough to sustain stresses accompanying the ferromagnetic state. Note that for Fe, Co, Ni and Cu, Z is 26, 27, 28 and 29 respectively. The broken curve in Fig. 3.2 has to be placed 20% or so higher for Fe, Ni and Co and the same amount lower for Cu. Fig. 3.2, therefore, explains why iron is ferromagnetic and copper non-ferromagnetic. Of course, in applying the curves in Fig. 3.2, it should be noted that the analysis has only been approximate. Perhaps, also, it was wrong to ignore the screening action for some of the electrons in inner shells or perhaps this, and an accurate evaluation of the strain energy allowing for surrounding atomic interaction, will shift the minima of the curves very slightly to the right. This would better relate the minima to the susceptibility data and permit a higher error factor in the strain energy evaluation. Note that if the strain energy is underestimated by much in Fig. 3.2, nickel is only marginally ferromagnetic. With n=3 and n=4, the screening action of electrons will assume more importance and the evident prediction of a theoretical state of ferromagnetism in several substances shows some qualification of the actions to be necessary. It is significant that Gd with Z of 64, located near the minimum of the n=4 curve, is ferromagnetic. It may well be that the higher n and the higher Z, the more electrons there are in the shell which can be ferromagnetic. Then the less likely it is for the synchronous action to remain as a preferred energy state. The interference from the effects of other electrons could well suppress this condition in the larger atoms. [A footnote here indicated that in Physical Review Letters, v. 22, p. 1260, June 1969, E. Bucher et al. report the discovery that Pr and Nd, of atomic numbers Z=59 and Z=60, respectively, are ferromagnetic in their face centred cubic phases.]

The understanding of ferromagnetism by its relation to stress properties may prove of interest in that it may be that under the very high pressures prevailing inside the earth, even materials which are not ferromagnetic at the surface may become ferromagnetic. Young’s Modulus may then be of no importance and a compression modulus may be the factor which is deciding the state of balance between stress energy and magnetic energy.

SUMMARY
In this chapter, it has been shown how the nature of ferromagnetism can be explained without recourse to wave mechanics, The law of electrodynamics developed in Chapter 2 and the principles of negative magnetic energy are applied successfully in the analysis. In the next chapter we will explain how the theory is reconciled with wave-mechanics. It will be shown that an electron can spend some time in a Bohr orbit and some time in its wave mechanical state. Thus, a factor has to be applied to lower the magnetic energy curves in Fig. 3.2, so limiting the elements in the ferromagnetic state still further.

The text of Chapter 4 in ‘Physics without Einstein’ ended here, but I shall now update the discussion.

ONWARD DISCUSSION
The main contribution I had made in developing the above theory of ferromagnetism is summarized in Fig. 3.2. The threshold condition for ferromagnetism was determined by internal mechanical stress and the ferromagnetism was quite definitely seated in the orbital motion of electrons and not in that notion of ‘electron spin’.

I was gratified that the theory seemed to work for a single orbital electron in the 3d state, which had that orbital component matching the n=2 quantum level of the Bohr atom theory. The measured quantization in Bohr magnetons per atom in iron was 2.221, which seemed close enough. However, that small difference worried me. It needed explanation. Note also that I had to reconcile in my mind the reasons why the mutually attractive electrodynamic forces between atoms in an extended structure were not over-dominant. I wanted the synchronous orbital motion of electric charge, as a quantized state, to play a role in gravitation, which seems unbounded in its range of action, but yet there had to be something limiting the range of action of those corresponding electron interactions in the ferromagnet. Otherwise the iron crystal would surely crush itself to the point where ferromagnetism collapses.

Looking back, I expect that is why I laboured with the problems of propagation delay in determining phase shifts in the synchrony of the electron motion in adjacent atoms. I saw, however, that that meant there was inconsistency between my account of ferromagnetism and the account I gave in that book for gravitation, even though I had shown how to calculate the precise value of G, the constant of gravitation, from first principles.

My hope, however, in publishing my theory was to stimulate interest which could lead others to contribute improvement and clarification, but, some 30 years on, that was obviously mere wishful thinking as I have seen no such response. I attribute it to the fact that physicists in general were satisfied with Einstein’s doctrines and had less interest in understanding ferromagnetism in spite of its direct association with the machine technology which powers the world. Even nuclear power, which many see as arising somehow from the work of Einstein, depends upon electrical machines, which all depend upon ferromagnetism. Then there is the technology of the aerospace industry which depends upon striving to conquer gravitation, which many see as a subject also vindicating Einstein’s theory, even though Einstein never did discover the Holy Grail which hid the unifying link between electromagnetism and gravitation.

[I cannot resist here noting that the caption on the cover of my book immediately below the title ‘Physics without Einstein’ reads ‘A confrontation with the anomalies of electromagnetism which reveals a unified explanation for the physical phenomena of the universe’].

In the years which followed publication of that book I did solve that problem of reconciling 2.221 and 2 as the atomic quantization of iron atoms in their ferromagnetic saturation state. The secret, as will be fully explained, comes, in the first instance, from the realization that there might be two electrons in each atom contributing to set up that 2.221 Bohr magneton state. Basing this on electrons in orbital motion corresponding to two Bohr magnetons, to reach the 2.221 figure, all one has to do is to say that the magnetic field produced by charge in motion is really twice as strong as we think it is but that there is a reaction in the enveloping space medium which halves its average effect. If the field were produced by current in a solenoid then twice what is expected, halved, is what is expected, but what is involved in this game of ‘action and reaction’ is a thermodynamic activity of motion charge in the reacting field and energy transfer by thermodynamic processes can involve time delays which are hidden by the retardation inherent in magnetic inductance.

Two electrons in an atom, each quantized in 2 Bohr units, will develop a field action that is, not 2 Bohr magnetons in strength, but 8 Bohr magnetons. However, the ferromagnetic state could flip sequentially between the three mutually orthogonal x, y, z axes of the body-centred cubic iron crystal to spend equal times in each of the directions +y, -y, +z, -z, +x, +x, where x is the direction of polarization. This means that the primary effect of the Bohr magneton quantization is 8/3 or 2.667, but this is offset by half of this amount being effective for equal times in those same six directions. The offset in the x direction is then one sixth of 2.667, which is 0.444, so that the overal quantization observed is 2.222, less a very small amount to allow for the time of transition in the reorientation process. So, 2.221, as measured, fits quite well and we have here the clue we need to advance the theory.

I was, of course, not just seeking to explain a number. That numerical factor was a clue but there had to be more support for the physics involved. This support came from the consideration of strain anisotropy and anomalies connected with volume magnetostriction effects, notably in the transition between ferromagnetic and non-ferromagnetic states.

However, I then ran into a problem. I had to picture how two electrons in orbit in the same atom can contribute to magnetic polarization in the same direction, whilst retaining much the same result for the mechanical stress analysis. If those electrons were moving in juxtaposition about the atomic nucleus their interaction, electrostatically and electrodynamically with counterpart electrons in other atoms has a compensating effect which substantially reduces the stress levels already estimated. Yet I knew that there was clear evidence of the existence of very high mechanical stress in iron and nickel, attributable to the ferromagnetic condition.

It took a while, but I eventually came to a choice between two alternative explanations. I have presented one of these in the latter part Essay No. 6, where I contemplated a statistical migration of electrons in orbits that were mutually orthogonal, the two electrons jumping from position to position in their respective orbits but, in the main, not making those jumps at the same time. However, keeping that possibility in mind, I will not be satisfied on this matter until I have made a thorough analysis of the following alternative possibility. I would welcome initiatives by any reader who leads the way on the analysis involved, because I shall not get around to that for quite a while.

The alternative is this. I see the electrodynamic interaction forces between the contributing electrons in each atom as arising from their mutually parallel motion. These forces are attractive, sufficiently so as to offset the repulsive electrostatic forces set up by the synchrony of these electrons and keep the overall mechanical stress within the stress limits of the crystals forming the ferromagnet. Now, this electrodynamic effect implies a negative energy potential condition which could make it easier for the two electrons of a given atom to adopt positions in their common orbits that are not those giving the dynamic balance. You see, in the normal dynamic balance condition, they always move in opposite directions and that means that, in setting up interactions with their counterparts in adjacent atoms, they will have an attraction force as between those that are nearest and a repulsion force between those that are more separated. The question then is whether the energy potentials involved would favour a relative phase shift of the electrons in their orbits, albeit thereby affecting the dynamic balance (a state applicable anyway to an atom of odd Z). By this is meant one which has the two electrons chasing one another around in orbit with a 90 degree phase shift so that their electrodynamic current vectors are at right-angles to each other. This would eliminate the repulsive electrodynamic action as between the electrons in adjacent atoms. It should, therefore, be a state of minimal potential energy.

On such an assumption those two electrons in common orbit at any instant in an atom would satisfy the analysis above leading to that 2.222 Bohr magneton quantization.

It is doubtful, however, that the condition just described could ever be detected by experiment, since the electrons are too close to the atomic nucleus in the ferromagnet crystal. However, there is scope for rigorous calculation of states of stress and strain and the study of the effects of stress on magnetic properties might indicate ceertain threshold levels which affect such measurements.

Although I now suspect that the ferromagnetic condition in iron really stems from two orbital electrons in the n=2 shell, it has sufficed to accept the traditional picture and regard two 3d electrons as contributing in each atom and dividing their contributions to magnetism along one of the x, y, z axes, in the following way, the 2 symbolizing that there are two electrons contributing to that state of magnetism in each of the following alternative states:

		period	x	y	z
		(a)	+2	 0	 0
		(b)	 0	+2	 0
		(c)	 0	 0	+2
		(d)	+2	 0	 0
		(e)	 0	-2	 0
		(f)	 0	 0	-2

occurring for equal times, not necessarily in the order listed.

You can then see that, on average, the primary polarization effect in the x direction is 1/3 times the contribution of the two electrons, whereas there is no net polarization along the y and z axes. However, in mechanical stress terms, given that stress, whether compressive or tensile, is proportional to the square of force, we see that each axis has an equal share of the stress state. The action overall produces isotropic strain, which fits well with what is observed having regard to the known levels of high strain locked into the ferromagnetic condition.

We can now proceed with our analysis on the basis that two 3d electrons in the n=2 orbital condition will contribute 4g Bohr magnetons, where g is the gyromagnetic ratio which scales up the effective magnetic moment by a factor of 2. This gives 8 Bohr magnetons for each atom or 8/3 per atom effective along the x axis of magnetic polarization.

Note that the reaction field which operates, instant by instant, to halve this primary polarization will be directed against the instantaneous polarization vector, each of unit strength. This means that the 4/3 reaction will be asserted against the 8/3 amount for only one third of the time, giving 2.666 minus 0.444 or 2.222 Bohr magnetons as the theoretical net polarization per atom, not allowing for retardation in the transitional activity.

The task of reconciling the observed Bohr magneton polarization in iron at saturation is therefore accomplished and we have preserved the basis of the mechanical stress calculation as developed by the author in ‘Physics without Einstein’.

On the strength of this we can revisit the formulation quoted in Part I of this Essay from ‘Physics without Einstein’:

This applied if d were set at 2×10^-8 cm. Now that we can take n=2 as the definitive value, we can advance the analysis using the more representative value of 2.8×10^-8 cm for d applicable in iron. This alters that 4,000 figure to 2,000 and, with n=2, results in Z having the effective value of 19. However, we have altered the geometry of the relative positions of the electrons and so the basic calculations need to be reworked. Also one needs to perform the calculations by computer and extend the range of computation over many atoms.

The analysis has value, apart from testing the interest in ferromagnetism, because it should allow the verification of a proposition used elsewhere in developing aether theory. The synchrony of electrons in orbit should imply electrodynamic interaction forces to be calculated without concern for retardation effects. This is based on the assumption that if energy is not changing then the forces cannot be retarded. I well know that, in the 1969 Chapter 3 text of my book ‘Physics withour Einstein, I was following convention when I referred to the restrictive effect of retardation effects on the analysis, but I am now holding to my no-retardation position, given no energy change. Somewhat similar, and indeed even stronger considerations, apply to the electrostatic force interaction, but that is a subject I do not wish to develop here. See [1988a]. Suffice it to say that one needs to perform the rigorous computer calculation needed to explore the overall value of that 4,000 approximation factor. The interaction calculations should be extended to cover a whole section of the atomic lattice of the body-centred cubic structure, making due allowance also for the fact that such a structure intermeshes two simple cubic atomic lattice arrays.

I have not hitherto performed such calculations, but I may do that eventually and, in that case, will extend this Essay to present the findings. Meanwhile, I will be attentive to feedback should any reader undertake this task. I end this Essay by drawing attention to the case I have put elsewhere in a published paper referenced in these Web pages for the ‘half-field reaction’ theory as applied also to nickel and cobalt. See [1987c]

As to the conflict in what I have just described and what I wrote in the latter part of the Essay on the Exclusion Principle which introduced this ferromagnetic topic. I have argued two separate reasons for the 2.221 Bohr quantization. One is a kind of quantum-electrodynamic effect and the other is a more classical kind of electrodynamic interaction. Both give the same result, but I would prefer to know which interpretation is correct. That issue is something that will, I trust, be resolved by performing those computations I have just mentioned.

Priority attention has, however, to be given to the experimental projects which aim to exploit this knowledge of the quantum-orbital state of ferromagnetism as powered by reaction involving the vacuum medium which I call the ‘aether’.

Readers may find it interesting, therefore, to move on from here to Lecture No. 7 which discusses the ‘free energy’ technology demonstrated by Hans Coler.

---

---