EP 3 893 250 A1 relates to a method and an apparatus for energy conversion, especially about “cold fusion”, also known as “low energy nuclear reaction” (LENR).
Brief outline of the case
The SD issued a declaration under R 63(1) as a search was not possible.
The ED maintained this view and refused the application under Art 83 and R 42(1,e).
The board confirmed the refusal.
The applicant’s point of view
In essence, the applicant argued that a complete theory that explained all aspects of nuclear physics did not exist. Rather, a set of semi-empirical theories was used.
Therefore, there was no theory that could accurately explain the mechanism of cold fusion that took place in the invention.
It was importantly, however, that the invention was not in conflict with any of the generally accepted scientific theories, and the empirical evidence in the form of numerous measurement results was unambiguous in that cold fusion reactions were taking place. Hence, the invention merited the grant of a patent.
The applicant also explained why many experiments had problems in reproducing cold fusion. Often, such experiments used macroscopic palladium samples. During the process of loading the samples with deuterium, the initial paramagnetism of these samples turned to diamagnetism, thereby destroying the magnetic field necessary for the spin alignment of the deuterium nuclei. This problem could be avoided by using palladium nano-particles.
The applicant added that there was no problem in carrying out the invention and that the application provided numerous ways to do so. The invention was based on well-known and well-documented past experiments of cold fusion. The only additional measure was the controlled application of a magnetic field.
According to the applicant, the application provided a sound theoretical explanation for cold fusion. Also, the skilled person was aware of experimental evidence.
The applicant also pointed out that there was no general requirement to provide experimental data, and referred to several decisions from the boards of appeal on that matter.
The board’s decision
The applicant’s arguments were not held persuasive. Contrary to the applicant’s assurances, the explanations in the description of how fusion can be achieved at low temperatures in the presence of a magnetic field do not conform to generally recognised theories.
Firstly, the disabling of the electromagnetic force by neutrons, and the corresponding insulation of the proton of one deuterium nucleus from the electrostatic repulsion of the proton in a neighbouring deuterium nucleus, defies all recognized theories and experimental results, according to which the repulsion is felt despite the presence of neutrons.
Secondly, regardless of whether there is a screening effect by neutrons or not, it is not apparent how the neutrons and protons within a deuteron can be aligned with each other and with the nucleons of a neighbouring deuteron. The strength of the fields and the magnitude of the gradients required for this would be completely unachievable.
The board acknowledged that the applicant was right insofar as it was known that aligning the spins, “spin polarization”, of deuterium nuclei increases the fusion cross-section, and, consequently, the likelihood of fusion. However, this effect does not increase the cross-section more than by a factor of about 10, which is far below the many orders of magnitude that would be necessary to overcome the Coulomb barrier at the low kinetic energies available in cold fusion.
It was also known that influencing the distribution of electrons between the deuterium nuclei – an effect called “screening” – could lower the Coulomb barrier. However, at present, there is no known arrangement that could lower the Coulomb barrier by an amount that would bring cold fusion even remotely within reach of being applicable to energy production.
As neither the neutron’s ability to screen electric fields nor the influence the deuteron’s internal spatial composition is credible, it is implausible that the fusion of two deuterons to form helium-4 (plus one photon) should be favoured over the six orders of magnitude more probable fusion channels to form tritium (plus one proton) or helium-3 (plus one neutron).
Hence, the application’s explanation of why the invention works is not supported by established scientific theories and seems to be based on speculation. This does not necessarily mean that the speculations are wrong. However, it does mean that, in order to be plausible, there should be sufficient experimental evidence, which convincingly demonstrates that the invention does work.
The applicant’s main explanation for the lack of reproducibility, namely the absence of a properly oriented magnetic field, was not convincing.
Firstly, this is because, according to generally accepted theories, the magnetic alignment of the nuclei’s magnetic moments (spin polarization) only has a comparatively small effect on the nuclear cross-section, and the probability of fusion. In particular, it has no effect on the spatial configuration of the deuteron and its constituents.
Secondly, even if the effect were as suggested by the applicant, magnetic fields only slightly larger than the Earth’s magnetic field, which fall within the range used in the invention; see paragraph [0114], point 9; and paragraph [0379] of the published application, would only align a tiny percentage of the deuterium nuclei, because the energies involved, Zeeman energies, are insufficient, by far, to overcome the depolarising effect of thermal energy at room temperature.
Comments
Dealing with this kind of applications is way more difficult than with other devices which clearly go against well-known laws of physics, like perpetuum mobile. Those are much easier to dismiss. Corresponding applications can also be refused under Art 85 or 57.
For apparently ground breaking solutions like cold fusion, or the memory of water, it appears necessary to bring well reproducible experiments and not merely rely on theoretical aspects.
Comments
Leave a comment