Belgian LANR Patents

In work done over many years, a Belgian industrial chemist and patent attorney, Joannes Van den Bogaert, had several LANR patents granted in his home country of Belgium.  While the devices are different in many ways from those currently being researched in the LENR/LANR arena, they also bear striking similarities to them. Those similarities are:  The same metals, nano-particles, lattices, vortexes, some input energy source, hydrogen (deuterium), liquid cooling etc, and the release of energy in the form of heat, by overcoming the Coulomb barrier. The patents in question were originally written and submitted in Flemish and have existed in obscurity until now. They were issued some 20 years ago and Mr. Van den Bogaert has translated two of these patents into English for the purpose of wider viewing and dissemination.  A third patent (BE1003296) was sequestered by Belgium Ministry of Defense for a period of time, apparently due to safety concerns, and an English translation is not currently available.  The two available patents can be viewed and downloaded by clicking the following patent numbers,  BE1002780 and BE1002781.

My first impression is that the same phenomenon is involved as the many and varied LENR/LANR results over the years. They perhaps would be useful additions to development efforts, but that is hard to say at this moment.

In addition, Mr. Van den Bogaert who is a chemist, developed a theory attempting to explain the reactions observed. A very brief examination of the theories shows that a serious mathematical analysis regarding the source of mass in particles, and its relationship to spin, and the foundation of a means by which a “spin vortex” might give rise to the creation of particles, and anti-particles. I am not qualified to comment on the potential validity of this theory, but I will make a few general comments about it.

This theory, like the Wladimir Guglinski theories found at the Journal for Nuclear Physics website (Rossi’s site), and several other theories, including the Widom-Larson theory now in vogue, is reductionist in nature. It seeks to understand the phenomenon at a subatomic level, and basically competes with the standard model (although Widom-Larson is largely consistent with the standard model). The problem for these theories is that the standard model explains so much, so accurately (by far the most precise predictive tool ever discovered) that any proposed replacement theory would have an immense burden in supplanting it. While there are areas where the standard theory is not an exact match to experiment, it seems quite unlikely that the Van den Bogaert theory would stand up to serious scrutiny. That being said, it IS clear that LENR/LANR phenomena do seem to lie outside of the predictive power in any current physical theories. It is my belief that LENR/LANR is emergent from the the properties of quantum sized particles, and only exists in a lattice of deuteride in a particular size range (see Ahern’s  slides). I have struggled to grasp Mr. Van den Bogaerts theories and compare them to the little I actually know of the standard theory, and hope that someone far more trained than I will take the time to comment more fully.

There is no doubt that there is a battle raging at the outskirts of science, and it will not go away. As far back as 120 years ago, it was thought that science had completed it’s work and all that was left to do was add more and more detail. That is except for a few stray threads, like black body radiation and the speed of light thru the ether. These few stray threads led to a revolution in physics so profound as to stagger the mind. Bertrand Russell, the philosopher/mathematician, along with Alfred Whitehead, thought that mathematics was complete, and were working on an algebra which would encompass ALL of it. They almost succeeded but, thanks largely to the intellectual honesty of Russell and the few pernicious paradoxes which he could not overcome, he concluded that the quest was in vain. That was followed not too long after by Curt Godell, who put a stake through the heart of the logical positivists with his incompleteness theory.

Physics now plods along in the pristine clarity of string theory and, while it is a remarkable intellectual and mathematical accomplishment, it has left the realm of science behind. The few vexing problems, the incompatibility of the classical and the quantum worlds, have not gone away. Super conductivity, quantum computing, strange “action at a distance” via Bell’s inequality and startling modern demonstrations of it’s repercussions will not go away…and the LENR phenomena will not go away.

The problem with Dick Smith in his honest (perhaps) efforts to help, is that exposing a fraud, while useful, is trivial compared to the results he might obtain by funding a PLAN X prize…and NOT for the production of a mega or kilo watt, but for ONE SIMPLE PROOF, an experiment ANYONE can do, that verify LENR/LANR are unavoidably real phenomena. The tiny thread, sir, follow the tiny thread! Rossi and DGT do not matter, they are irrelevant. If they have the magic sauce GREAT and, if not, who cares. The tiny thread is unavoidable, and tugging on it seems more than likely to produce miracles like computers and lasers and television and, well, the whole modern world that resulted from pulling on that small thread 120 years ago.

Look everyone who cares about LENR, either skeptic or fanatic, the repercussions are so profound that it is impossible to avoid the fact that they (Rossi and DGT) must be under tremendous stress if they DO have a practical working device. It is inconceivable that governments, and the Military Financial Complex, are not poised to move on them in one way or another. So, Mr. Smith, having read at ecatnews.com that you are extending your $1M offer to ANYONE who can demonstrate a 1 kilowatt device – BRAVO! But please consider amending your offer to include any device which reliably produces an unambiguous result of any size, so long as that device can be made available to anyone who cares to test it hands on. We must have the “Thread that Roared!” to shake the physics community out of its angels wrapped in string self hypnosis!

Here’s another urban myth propagated by the pathoskeps: Large amounts of money has already been spent in pursuit of LENR/LANR, and nothing to show for it. Well, I doubt it! Can some one of the expert historians out there put together a credible spreadsheet of how many projects and how much money has gone into LENR/LANR and then compare it to the money spent researching Rogaine, or Solar Power, or Viagra, Hot fusion, or the search for the Higgs, which, if found will be fascinating, but will have NO practical value!

I wish to thank Mr. Van den Bogaert for his work, and invite him very much to comment here regarding my clearly amateur representation of his theories. I do not say they are wrong, I simply say they have an awfully steep hill to climb!

To the relief of many pathoskeps, I will be off on vacation for ten days, but will have an iPad with me, so I will watch the e-Cat news, and make some small, badly typed postings if I am so moved.

████████████████████████████████████

Admin Note:  If it is not apparent, credit needs to be given to Tom Baccei for the above write up.  He spent many days examining the patent documents and I thank him for the work he has put in.  Unfortunately, he flew off to his mid-winter trip to a warm beach and neglected to upload his draft in a manner where he could be proper credit for all the time he put in.  Definitely a forgivable (and understandable) oversight, don’t you think?

In addition to Tom’s assessment of the patents, I also had the good fortune of having Dr. Edmund Storms take the time to review the patent documents as well.  He was very gracious to do so and provided his assessment to both Mr. Van den Bogaert and to myself.  His assessment was similar to Tom’s but, more specifically, he felt the patents had no practical utility.  In an e-mail he stated:

“As is well known, a useful patent must show exactly how an idea can be reduced to practice.  If the idea can be explained well enough to show how various paths can be taken to achieve a successful application, so much the better.  People make a mistake when they propose a mechanism that cannot operate based on well established experience in nuclear physics, is known not to occur, or is so general or imaginative to have no theoretical support.  In addition, the phenomenon is now sufficiently well understood that a collection of behaviors must all be explained at the same time if the proposed mechanism is to be believed.  I have given up trying to explain how each proposed mechanism violates either conventional scientific understanding or what is now known about the phenomenon. Eventually, someone will find the correct idea and the discussion will focus in more productive directions. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened. “

In yet another e-mail, he added:  “However, everyone in the field welcomes any interest we can attract even when the contribution is not particularly useful, as is the case with the patents.”

To that, I would just like to add that although the patents may not have practical utility, I find them interesting for a number of reasons.  As Tom pointed out, they do cover ideas now widely considered in the field, including the use of nano-particles, emphasis on the importance of the lattice in the reactions and use of the gas phase.  He WAS SUCCESSFUL in getting his work patented, something that many researchers have failed to do for a variety of reasons, often prejudicial.  And, regardless of the seeming lack of practical utility of the documented patents, one of them (which is unfortunately not available for review) was considered to be of enough interest to be sequestered by the Belgium Ministry of Defense.

In some ways, Mr. Van den Bogaert was ahead of his time and my hat is off to him in that regard.  Also, although Mr. Van den Bogaert is aware of the criticisms of his work, he is willing to make himself available to answer your questions on this site.  I thank him for this willingness to so and would request all readers to be respectful in your questions to him  whether you agree with his ideas or not.

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail he sent to me that gives just a little more insight  to his ideas contained in the patents and his awareness of potential controversy:

I have read the e-mail directed to you by Dr. Ed Storms and as a former patent agent I fully agree that the basis for a useful patent is reduction to practice.  I must confess that in the last early nineties I tried to circumvent the Fleischmann-Pons electrolysis method for “cold fusion” and I directed my ideas to “cold fusion” in gas phase. At that time the terminology “lattice assisted nuclear reaction” (LANR) did not exist yet. I tried to understand how a Coulomb barrier could be surmounted in a deuterium absorbing crystal, e.g. Pd, and found it acceptable to introduce “electrostatic wetting” as a phenomenon having an analogy to the idea of proton orbital broadening in the presence of a strong surplus of electrons as explained in BE1002780. I am of the opinion that orbital condensation of single particles (e-) is a well known phenomenon in carbon-type organic chemistry and may also work in metal crystals having absorbed deuterons in the presence of an electron sea being present in a conductive metal cathode. Free protons are elementary particles that may behave as electrons and I consider them not as tiny point particles but flexible enough to become a large smeared out orbital associated with the surplus electrons in the crystal lattice of the metal.  Reversing the polarity of the cathode (becoming anode) will drain off the electrons very rapidly but leave the protons captured between the metal cations of the crystal grid and make them to condense with the neutrons to form cations , e.g. triton+, that can leave the crystal lattice, (helium cannot from Pd) hereby resulting in mass defect.”

████████████████████████████████████

Please see the article LANR by Coulomb Explosion for more details about patents  BE1002780 and BE1002781, and  the full text of patent BE1003296.  See the article Cold Fusion Catalyst for Mr. Van den Bogaert’s thoughts on that subject.

__________________________________________

For the latest news and updates see Headlines/Chatterings.

__________________________________________

e-mail Admin
Short URL for this page:  http://wp.me/p1SDhJ-12r
About these ads
This entry was posted in Articles, News, Science and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Belgian LANR Patents

  1. Pingback: Current Event Articles Related To Chemistry | Living History

  2. Pingback: Current Event Articles Related To Chemistry | Living History

  3. Pingback: Belgian LANR Patents | E-cat Live

  4. Ruby Carat says:

    Thanks for highlighting the work of early researchers. The history of this science may prove to go back further than we yet know.

  5. Ben says:

    While we touch on theory in this article, I think it is important to point out a recent post by Defkalion on their forum.

    Since the last 2 decades, several theories have been proposed to explain LENR phenomena and “Huizenga’s three questions: Question #1: of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated; Question #2: the lack of strong neutron emissions; Question #3: the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays. A short summary of most of them is presented in alphabetic order here. This incomplete presentation includes:

    Bazhutov-Vereshkov Theory, Chubb (Scott) Theory, Chubb ( Talbot) Theory, Fisher Theory, Gareev Theory, Hagelstein Theory, Hora-Miley Theory, Kim-Zubarev Theory, Kirkinskii-Novikov Theory, Kozima Theory, Li Theory, Preparata Theory, Sinha-Meulenberg Theory, Storms Theory, Szpak Theory, Takahashi Theory, Widom-Larsen Theory. Whilst several other proposed theories are omitted from this list such as (not included all): Frank Znidarsic theory, Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev/ M. Kanarev theory, Yeong E. Kim theory, Wladimir Guglinski/ C. Stremmenos theory, Y.T. Didenko/K. S. Suslick theory, etc

    All of the above proposed theories are base on the assumption that only one type of reaction can occur in LENR: either those related with “strong forces” or those related with “weak forces”. In most cases, results of such theories contradict with existing general theories or dogmas of present incomplete models of theoretical physics.

    There is a strong possibility of a forthcoming “LENR theories war” between the members of the existing small community of LENR/CF researchers (possible conflicts closely related with government funding to be released in the area). Such “war” could turn out to be a new “War of Religion”, similar to the 1562- 1598 war between the catholics (the strong force fans in this case) and the protestants (the weak force fans), where all involved parties will claim their “one faith” slogan against all the others.

    We are following the orthodox approach, which is not to get involved in such conflicts, even though we already have a pretty good understanding on what really is going on during all phaces of what we have called as a”dynamic multistage chemically assisted low energy nuclei reactions”. Our decision is to do our job, which is to provide to the market safe and stable high performance products and to the scientific community with all the hard evidence from LENR phenomena measured with new type of specially designed instrumentation that we had to build to support our product’s R&D.

    As history of science and philosophy teaches us, when there is a conflict because of “duality”, in all cases the truth lies in their synthesis (Plotinus- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus )

    Thank you
    link

    I think the proposition there may be 2 reactions occurring in the “cold fusion” reaction is an interesting proposition, and not one widely considered. This may explain why few of the theories mentioned explain all observed phenomena.

  6. Bernie Koppenhofer says:

    Great reporting and good to hear from Mr. Storms, more, more, more.

  7. Pingback: Belgian LANR Patents | e-Cat Site

Comments are closed.