New Industrial Heat Patent: “Methods and Apparatus for Triggering Exothermic Reactions”

Thanks to Alan Smith for letting me know about a new patent application that has been recently published by the World Intellectual Property Organization by IH IP Holdings, which is connected with Industrial Heat, LLC for “Methods and apparatus for triggering exothermic reactions”

Inventors listed are Dennis G. Letts, Joseph A. Murray, Julie A. Morris and Tushar Tank

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2017127423A2?cl=en

Here’s the abstract:

“Methods and apparatus are disclosed for triggering and maintaining an exothermic reaction in a reaction material comprising a metal occluded with hydrogen. The reaction material is prepared by loading a hydrogen absorbing material, e.g., a transition metal, with a hydrogen gas that comprises one or more of hydrogen isotopes. Different conditions and system configurations for triggering the exothermic reaction are also disclosed.”

From the Summary:

“In some embodiments, a device comprising a metal container and an electrode is used for triggering an exothermic reaction. The metal container is plated with a hydrogen absorbing material. The metal container has one or more open ends. The electrode is received through a first open end into the metal container. The metal container is filled with a pressurized hydrogen gas. To trigger an exothermic reaction, a voltage between the metal container and the electrode is applied. In some embodiments, the magnetic field may be optionally applied. The strength of the magnetic field is set above a pre- determined threshold. For example, the strength of the magnetic field may be between 500 and 700 Gauss. In some embodiments, the voltage applied between the metal container and the electrode is selected to be dependent on a dimension of the metal container. For example, the voltage may be dependent on the distance between the metal container and the electrode. In one embodiment, the hydrogen absorbing material plated on the interior wall of the metal container comprises nickel, palladium or other metals or metal alloys capable of forming a hydride or deuteride. In one embodiment, a layer of gold is plated underneath the hydrogen absorbing material. In another embodiment, a layer of silver or other metals that do not dissociate hydrogen or deuterium is plated underneath the hydrogen absorbing material.”

  • Pietro F.

    Jed Rothwell where are you? 😉

    • John Littlemist

      Elaborate a bit, please.

  • Bob Greenyer

    They are getting there.

    • LION

      Hi BOB, is their choice of the word – OCCLUDED- a nod of thanks to you.

      • Bob Greenyer

        In part this is a variation of the expired Cannon patent, just like Clean Planets with a not too inventive step. And all these use the wording of Thomas Graham FRS.

        By the way, 1.3V

  • AdrianAshfield

    Anyone see a link to the figures?

  • Jerry Soloman

    They already paid 10 million for the fuel, they have it.

    • LION

      Hi Jerry,
      I have to say reading it gave me a fit of the Giggles. I thought the IH Team said that –It did NOT work—-Ha Ha. Oh what a fun Planet we are living on.
      As all Know my deep sympathy in all of this lie with Andrea Rossi, I will be very interested to see what he has to say about it.

      • Brent Buckner

        This particular article pertains to a system involving hydrogen gas, so rather different from what IH claimed did not work.

        • Ged

          The E-cat involves hydrogen gas and always has. The systems are homologous.

          • Brent Buckner

            As I understand it, what IH claimed did not work did not involve “a pressurized hydrogen gas” metal container (as in the patent application quotation above). As I understand it, what IH claimed did not work involved a pre-treated fuel powder.

          • Ged

            The fuel powder releases hydrogen gas upon decomposition to quite high pressures in situ. MFMP tested this and blew up a reactor at one point. The “pressurized hydrogen” part is the same between this and the E-cat.

          • Brent Buckner

            OK, I’ll revise: “This particular article pertains to a system fueled differently from what IH claimed did not work”.

          • Ged

            It seems that way on the surface, though in practice I don’t see a difference in the fueling. Both get pressurized hydrogen as their “active” ingredient. Same with the nickel.

            The difference is the use of voltage as the primary driver in this new patent, not the use of hydrogen. It turns it into what sounds suspiciously like a dusty plasma reactor, and that may be quite important.

          • Brent Buckner

            In practice perhaps IH never managed to process fuel powder as required for proper function and were left believing that overall system did not work.

          • Ged

            Maybe, that is always possible, but impossible to know unfortunately. We do know from MFMP that loading the fuel with hydrogen is the easy part, but is it the only important part? That is the bigger mystery–that we don’t know if there is another critical componant to fuel prep that we, and maybe IH, are unaware of.

            But the voltage part sticks out as the biggest core novelty in this patent, to me. People like Parkamov and MFMP and me365 and others have been chasing the fuel formulations for years with intermittent success. It seems we know the plain mix rather well, but something has been missing to make it reliable. Could it be plasma generation? It would explain a great many things for the successes and failures alike–maybe IH’s stated troubles as well.

      • Ged

        And Murray is there. Seems they had every motive to sink Rossi to make way for their knock off patent. Consider too how long a patent takes to make, all this was going on at the same time as the Rossi fight or even leading up to it. The art of war–deception and all that!

  • Steve D

    Any opinions about what becomes of the co-inventor status of patents (applications) between Rossi and IH now that their partnership “is” dissolved, or do they still have a relationship of sorts? Co-invent means that IH has made an intellectual contribution to new IP during the period of their partnership. It seems that Rossi recovered sole rights to his own IP- presumably the IP available at the time contract signing, so what happens to the joint IP?
    “Over the past three years Industrial Heat has initiated a number of patent filings that include the name of Andrea Rossi, at least as a co-inventor.”
    http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue127/the-rossi-industrial-heat-lawsuit.html