Reply To: Nuplex.

[Joeviocoe]

BSFusion wrote: Joeviocoe, its good to be skeptical, but what you are doing is unfair – you are falsely associating BSF with Teleyarkhan, which robs BSF of its credibility before it has had a chance to be properly considered. Also, are you sure lasers were used to ignite the fuel in “Chain Reaction,” and not just for measuring the size of the bubbles? If you are correct, then “Chain Reaction” would qualify as prior art, invalidating my patent.

I’m not too concerned about my website; it was only created to allow easy access to BSF patent documents & diagrams, without requiring the installation of special software that would otherwise be necessary for gaining access through the USPTO. Sorry, the patent application is quite long (100+ pages), poorly written, and contain a lot of “word salad.” Some reasons for that are, time is limited when writing a patent, I have no English training beyond the 7th grade, and this is just a hobby.

Some frequent misconceptions about BSF:
a) the size of the bubbles used in BSF are larger (~1 cm diameter) than those used in a typical sonoluminescent experiment with oscillating bubbles, which, at maximum dilation, are not much larger than the width of a human hair.
b) BSF is not sonofusion. BSF uses an extremely high energy laser to ignite the fuel. It is true that the bubbles get heated and pre-compressed using acoustical pressure, but this is primarily to trigger a focused laser cascade, not to ignite the fuel.
c) The on-target energy dumping capacity of BSF’s laser is greater than NIF’s. There are two reasons for this. First, BSF’s laser contains a larger volume of amplification material. Second, BSF uses liquid amplifier material that can handle a higher flux than the solid-state optics of NIF, which might warp, fracture, melt, etc.
d) BSF is a new and untested approach to fusion. Currently, no single device incorporates all of the necessary parts, interconnected in one unit. But, all of BSF’s technology (ie. liquid lasers, acoustical transport, piezoelectric harvesting, etc.) has been verified separately in other devices.

I’m not really comparing you two. But he was a PhD holding Nuclear Engineer, had worked at ORNL, several grants and peer reviewed publication, etc. The only thing he did wrong was that he did claim to to have gotten the closest to a real device when the research didn’t support that conclusions, and was found guilty of misconduct for “falsification of the research record” by a Purdue review board in July, 2008..

At your stage of development… Hypothetical (Pre-theoretical)… you should should strive to be compared to Teleyarkhan. Well, his earlier work anyway. He had quite a bit of real research done. And solid, Peer-reviewed stuff… to at least support that he was getting somewhere.

BSF does NOT have Zero credibility because of him… but yes, there is a stigma now. So anybody coming along after him, that has ideas even CLOSE to bubble sono fusion… will need to have at LEAST some credible peer reviewed papers.

The movie does not specify any real science. Mostly graphics with no explanation. So I doubt that the movie itself would bring up problems with your patent application. But… the science consultant for the movie must have seen it, or read about it, in order to base the plot around the idea.

However, Professor Andrea Prosperetti of Johns Hopkins HAS indeed done some work on Laser ignited Sono bubble fusion. Concluded to NOT WORK.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Sonoluminescence_-_Mechanism_of_phenomenon/id/2110704
http://www.me.jhu.edu/MENewsletter2012.pdf

He may not have a device patented though.
If you’ve never heard of him, or have seen any of his research, then you wouldn’t have based your artwork on his ideas… so there shouldn’t be enough similarities to be a big problem with patents.

————————–

But I think you are going about it all wrong. Since you were not formally trained in science, you may not understand how good science is conducted.

Patents are all good and well, if you have a unique process or apparatus to exactly what you already KNOW can be done. A Patent does NOT equal Scientific Discovery.
You really have to discover a new insight into scientific principle here. Not just invent a machine. The patent will come later, after all the ground work and you get a peer reviewed confirmation that your basic idea is sound. So far, Bubble Fusion is not proven to be feasible. And you will need to write a good paper to propose the idea again.

If you are serious about this… you will need to fully read and understand the research that came before. And understand its shortcomings. You need to contact the professors that have research this, and see where they left off. You need to contact or visit the universities and labs that have done this work, and see if you understand the problem first.

And if you are REALLY serious, get a formal degree. It is not necessary for a garage inventor that simply takes known scientific principles and invents new practical useful applications for them. But for Bubble Fusion, yeah, that is going to require that you get all the prerequisites and join a real research team.

Good luck.