The Playground

    "Ronaldo" is full of empathy and understanding.


    > "Ronaldo" is full of empathy and understanding.


    And yet Rossi is ready to be able to start shipping 1 week after getting 1M orders....the cost of having those production lines ready to go must be crippling. Soon he will need 2M orders to cover his costs!

    A bit of playground ..

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Still think about this thing often thinking I would like to build one just to learn it.

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    wondering if something like this is going on in the earth..

    bang99


    Quote from bang99

    Which incarnation of "Ecat" do you mean?! :)

    Why do you think that any "Ecat" (past and present) can produce energy?

    I don't, but that doesn't mean it can't harvest energy going by. If you think that's impossible just consider the humble crystal radio. Putting the things in a Faraday Cage should stop that. Rossi also claims his device involves the Casimir Effect, which I figure also can be affected by strong radio waves. Again, the cage should stop that.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL099381



    Abstract

    Following the 15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption, several trace gases measured by the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) displayed anomalous stratospheric values. Trajectories and radiance simulations confirm that the H2O, SO2, and HCl enhancements were injected by the eruption. In comparison with those from previous eruptions, the SO2 and HCl mass injections were unexceptional, although they reached higher altitudes. In contrast, the H2O injection was unprecedented in both magnitude (far exceeding any previous values in the 17-year MLS record) and altitude (penetrating into the mesosphere). We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 ± 5 Tg, or ∼10% of the stratospheric burden. It may take several years for the H2O plume to dissipate. This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.

    Quote from GRMattson

    bang99


    I don't, but that doesn't mean it can't harvest energy going by. If you think that's impossible just consider the humble crystal radio. Putting the things in a Faraday Cage should stop that. Rossi also claims his device involves the Casimir Effect, which I figure also can be affected by strong radio waves. Again, the cage should stop that.

    His latest incarnation is indeed similar to a crystal radio, and the true output power is commensurate with the average power of the radio waves inside that tiny cuboid space.

    FAQ Sheet for Skeptics This is off topic. I'll move it to the Playground tomorrow.

    Meanwhile, This came from an older thread.

    • After 50,000 views I think it is important to bring up the purpose of this thread.


      What is your opinion of the bold market entry claims made by GEC? Others and I have provided plenty of links to the history and science behind the claims to provide a basis for an informed speculative opinion. Mine is that this group is several years further advanced in the science than what is presented. Also, I am of the opinion they have are well into the applied engineering of this energy and have it powering DOD mobility (prototypes) for future use.


      Also, that their 'legitimacy. and claims strengthen those made by Leonardo Corp.


      NOW the BOLD claims for 2020 market entry are

      GEC is currently

      Negotiating several new SMG construction contracts ranging from 250MWe to 5GWe around the world.

      Developing Space Power for NASA - On Board, Propulsion, and Planetary

      Offering EV Power to the market.


      I started the thread in Feb of '18 with this post...

      Reviewing twenty five years of U.S. funded ‘cold fusion’ projects including patents, contracts, publications and public/private sector partnership efforts towards LENR energy applied engineering and LENR energy commercialization. https://gbgoble.kinja.com/unit…18-a-review-of-1822335542

      “I began to compile this review in the fall of 2017. The reason being, I had asked a few editors of LENR news sites what they thought of the claims being made by Global Energy Corporation. Each editor asked me to provide any recent follow up to those claims. None that I could find; so I decided to compile this review as a frame of reference for the question: What are your opinions of these claims?” - Greg Goble

      I would like to hear the opinions of LENR Forum members. I find it odd that there is little to no discussion at LENR sites about GEC or their claims. If Rossi, Brillouin, the MFMP, or Randy Mills, were making similar claims, it would be discussed, scrutinized, and become the focus of our attention.


      Please keep comments on topic... Are these claims truthful or a scam? If truthful, what affect might this have on others racing to LENR commercialization. GEC has developed LENR Transmutation of nuclear waste. How will this help or hinder the nuclear power industry? Why haven't these claims been presented by GEC et.al. at ICCF? Other questions are sure to arise; Please pose pertinent questions to this thread...


      Google Inc LENR and the DOD


      The Google Inc. CMNS energy technology development lead is Munday Labs. They are now at U.C, Davis. I'm adding Google to my list of U.S. government funded LENR energy development groups. All these teams converge working with Larry Forsley CTO and Vice President of GEC (a spin off company of the DOD) during their energy market entry.

      “Munday Receives DARPA Young Faculty Award”

      University of Maryland News Published August 30, 2018

      https://ece.umd.edu/news/story…darpa-young-faculty-award

      Associate Professor Jeremy Munday (ECE/IREAP) was selected by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to receive a Young Faculty Award (YFA) in recognition of his status as a rising star in photonics and quantum technology. Munday will receive a grant of approximately $500,000 to be used to further develop his research during the next two years.

      Munday received the funding for his research project, titled “Engineering the Quantum Vacuum.” Prof. Munday’s research project seeks to advance the understanding of the quantum vacuum and its potential use for future technologies, including nanoscale electro-mechanical devices, chemical reactors, etc. His lab’s current research endeavors range from experimental probes of quantum mechanics (e.g. the Casimir effect) to photonics and alternative energy.

      DARPA’s Young Faculty Award program, sponsored by DARPA’s Defense Sciences Office provides funding, mentoring and industry and Department of Defense (DoD) contacts to awardees early in their careers so they may develop their research ideas in the context of national security needs. The selected researchers focus on concepts that are innovative, speculative, and high-risk.

      DARPA programs include basic science research performed on university and industry campuses and at research laboratories. This research may ultimately significantly advance a technology or application that is critical to national security. The long-term goal of the YFA program is to develop the next generation of academic scientists, engineers and mathematicians in key disciplines who will focus a significant portion of their career on DoD and national security issues.

      DARPA YFA Class of 2018 Awardees List https://www.darpa.mil/attachme…RPA_YFA_Class_of_2018.pdf


      Here a great paper about the

      SPAWAR/GEC/PineScie/VantagePartners project "Lattice Confinement Fusion at GRC".


      "Developments in Lattice Confinement Fusion" September 26, 2020 Published by: Kaiter Enless

      Author. Editor. Publisher.

      Sources

      1) A.V. Subashiev, et al. 2017. Nuclear fusion by lattice confinement. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 86(7), 074201.

      2) A.V. Subashiev, et al. 2017. Strong screening by lattice confinement and resultant fusion reaction rates in fcc metals. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 407, 67–72.

      3) D. Buckthorpe. 2017. Introduction to Generation IV nuclear reactors. Structural Materials for Generation IV Nuclear Reactors, 1–22.

      4) Caroline Delbert. 2020. NASA Found Another Way Into Nuclear Fusion. Popular Mechanics.

      5) Corey S. Powell. 2019. These New Technologies Could Make Interstellar Travel Real. Discover Magazine.

      6) Eberhard Haug, Werner Nakel. 2004. The Elementary Process of Bremsstrahlung. World Scientific.

      7) H. A. Bethe. 1947. Elementary Nuclear Theory: A Short Course on Selected Topics.

      Jan Wittry, Theresa L. Benyo. 2020. NASA Detects Lattice Confinement Fusion. NASA Glenn Research Center.

      9) Jean-Paul Biberian (editor). 2020. Cold Fusion: Advances in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. Elsevier.

      10) Jonathan Tennenbaum. 2020. NASA lands on a middle path to nuclear fusion. Asia Times.

      11) Larry R. Grisham. 2014. Nuclear Fusion. Future Energy. 199–211.

      12) Lyman Page. 2020. The Little Book of Cosmology. Princeton University Press.

      13) Matteo Barbarino. 2020. A brief history of nuclear fusion. Nature Physics.

      14) Michel Claessens. 2020. ITER: The Giant Fusion Reactor; Bringing a Sun To Earth. Springer.

      15) Michael Koziol. 2020. Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion. IEEE Spectrum.

      16) National Research Council. 2013. Assessment of Inertial Confinement Fusion Target. The National Academies Press.

      17) Nuclear News Staff. 2020. NASA work on lattice confinement fusion grabs attention.

      18) Vladimir Pines, et al. (2020). Nuclear fusion reactions in deuterated metals. Physical Review C, 101(4).

      19) Vladimir Pines, et al. (2020). Novel nuclear reactions observed in bremsstrahlung-irradiated deuterated metals. Physical Review C, 101(4).

      Quote the article


      “Its only a question of money and time, like most things.” – Lawrence Forsley, physicist at the University of Texas and CTO of Global Energy Corp, on lattice confinement fusion scaling, 2020.


      Lattice confinement was pioneered by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons (though they did not use the term) during their tumultuous 1989 “cold fusion” experiments at NAWCWD...

      (gbgoblenote NAWCWD - Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division is dedicated to excellence in U.S. military weapons research, development, acquisition, test and evaluation)

      ... wherein they used a cathode composed of a special type of Palladium (Pd) to absorb the hydrogen isotope Deuterium (D) from heavy water (D2O). Despite promising claims of nuclear reaction, Fleischman and Pons’ work was ill-received (MIT derided the nascent technology by holding a mock wake) and consequently sidelined.


      Recently, researchers at NASA’s Glenn Research Center of Cleveland, Ohio, in pursuit of energy sources for deep space missions, experimented with this third process by utilizing Deuterium in Erbium (Er) and Titanium (Ti) structures maintained at ambient temperature, wherein kinetic energies were raised to plasma-comparable levels. Fusion was produced by condensing D atoms to 1 billion times tokamak density (1023 ions/cm3) in the metal substrate and using a neutron source (2.9 MeV gama exposure causing photodisassociation of D, which splinters d-protons and d-neutrons) to heat the fuel, prompting *d-d (energetic-static) and Oppenheimer-Phillips reactions, producing a neutron and helium-3 or a proton and tritium (which may also react, producing more energy). -end quotes



    • 555-a56e61fc33c1f5f9d31d3064af039d205601e5da.webpOnline Alan Smith Administrator
      • Oct 14th 2020Thank you Greg, you have provided a very comprehensive overview of this particular part of the LENR landscape. The only question mark I see over any of this is 'what happened to the Genie reactor project that was scheduled for construction on Guam?'
      Like 1
    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    Fusion was produced by condensing D atoms to 1 billion times tokamak density (1023 ions/cm3) in the metal substrate and using a neutron source (2.9 MeV gama exposure causing photodisassociation of D, which splinters d-protons and d-neutrons) to heat the fuel, prompting *d-d (energetic-static) and Oppenheimer-Phillips reactions, producing a neutron and helium-3 or a proton and tritium (which may also react, producing more energy). -end quotes

    NASA/TP-20205001617 16

    by energetic heavy charged particles (p, d, α), or even by

    energetic photons.

    8.0 Summary of Results

    This study indicates the crucial role of electron screening on

    the overall efficiency of nuclear fusion events between charged

    particles. We show that neutrons are far more efficient than

    energetic charged particles, such as light particles (e–, e+) or

    heavy particles (p, d, α) in transferring kinetic energy to fuel

    nuclei (D) to initiate fusion processes. We provide a theoretical

    framework for d-D nuclear fusion reactions in high-density cold

    fuel nuclei embedded in metal lattices, with a small fraction of

    fuel activated by hot neutrons, which in this study are produced

    by γ-induced photodissociation. We also establish the important

    role of electron screening in increasing the relative probability

    Psc(π/2 ≤ θ ≤ π) to scatter in the back hemisphere (π/2 ≤ θ ≤ π),

    an essential requirement for subsequent tunneling of reacting

    nuclei to occur. This will correspondingly be reflected as an

    increase in the astrophysical factor S(E). We also clarify the

    applicability of the concept of electron screening potential energy

    Ue to the calculation of the nuclear cross section enhancement

    factor f (E). We demonstrate that the screened Coulomb potential

    of the target ion is determined by the nonlinear Vlasov potential

    and not by the Debye potential. In general, the effect of screening

    becomes important at low kinetic energy of the projectile. We

    examine the range of applicability of both the analytical and

    asymptotic expressions for the well-known electron screening

    lattice potential energy Ue, which is valid only for E

    >>

    Ue (E is

    the energy in the center of mass reference frame). We

    demonstrate that for E ≤ Ue, a direct calculation of Gamow factor

    for screened Coulomb potential is required to avoid unreasonably

    high values of the enhancement factor f (E) by the analytical—

    and more so by the asymptotic—formulas.

    References

    1. Steinetz, B.M., et al.: Novel Nuclear Reactions Observed in

    Bremsstrahlung-Irradiated Deuterated Metals (NASA/TP—

    2020-5001616), Phys. Rev. C, vol. 101, no. 4, 2020,

    p. 044640. https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/

    PhysRevC.101.044610 Accessed May 21, 2020.

    2. Martin, B.R.: Nuclear and Particle Physics. John Wiley,

    West Sussex, England, 2009, p. 264.

    3. Rolfs, C.; and Rodney, W.: Cauldrons in Cosmos.

    University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988.

    4. Strieder, F., et al.: Electron-Screening Effects on Fusion

    Reactions. Naturwissenschaften, vol. 88, 2001, pp. 461–467.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s001140100267

    Accessed May 21, 2020.

    5. Bonomo C., et al.: Enhanced Electron Screening in d(d, p)t for

    Deuterated Metals: A Possible Classical Explanation. Nucl.

    Phys. A, vol. 719, 2003. https://www.sciencedirect.com/

    science/article/abs/pii/S0375947403009552?via%3Dihub

    Accessed May 20, 2020.

    6. Greife, U., et al.: Oppenheimer-Phillips Effect and Electron

    Screening in d+ d Fusion Reactions. Z. Phys. A, vol. 351, 1995.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01292792

    Accessed May 20, 2020.

    7. Raiola, F., et al.: Enhanced Electron Screening in d (d, p)t

    for Deuterated Ta*. Eur. Phys. J. A, vol. 13, 2002, pp. 377–

    382. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10050-

    002-8766-5 Accessed May 20, 2022.

    8. Raiola, F., et al.: Electron Screening in d(d, p)t for

    Deuterated Metals and the Periodic Table. Phys. Lett. B, vol.

    547, 2002, pp. 193–199. https://link.springer.com/article/

    10.1007%2Fs10050-002-8766-5 Accessed May 20, 2020.

    9. Czerski, K., et al.: Experimental and Theoretical Screening

    Energies for the 2H(d, p)3H Reaction in Metallic

    Environments. Eur. Phys. J. A, vol. 27, pp. 83–88. https://doi.

    org/10.1140/epja/i2006-08-012-y Accessed June 2, 2020.

    10. Salpeter, E.E.: Electrons Screening and Thermonuclear

    Reactions. Austr. J. Phys., vol. 7, 1954, p. 373.

    11. Assenbaum, H.J.; Langanke, K.; and Rolfs, C.: Effects of

    Electron Screening on Low-Energy Fusion Cross Sections. Z.

    Phys. A, vol. 327, 1987, pp. 461–468. https://link.springer.

    com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF01289572.pdf Accessed May

    21, 2020.

    12. Fukai, Y.: The Metal-Hydrogen System. Springler-Verlag,

    New York, NY, 2005.

    13. Landau, L.D.; and Lifshitz, E.M.: Statistical Physics. Third

    ed., Part 1, Pergamon, Oxford, New York, NY, 1980.

    14. Jackson, J.D.: Classical Electrodynamics. Third ed., Part 1,

    John Wiley, New York, NY, 1999.

    15. Shukla, P.K.: A Survey of Dusty Plasma Physics. Phys.

    Plasmas, vol. 8, 2001, p. 1791.

    16. Pines, V.; Zlatkowski, M.; and Chait, A.: Kinetic Theory

    of Sheath Formation in Solar Wind Plasma. Adv. Space

    Res., vol. 46, 2010, pp. 942–959.

    17. Kittel, C.: Introduction to Solid State Physics. Eighth ed.,

    John Wiley, New York, NY, 2004.

    18. Kasagi, J.: Screening Potential for Nuclear Reactions in

    Condensed Matter. Proceedings of the 14th International

    Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and the

    International Society for Condensed Matter Science, vol.

    1, Washington, DC, 2008, p. 318.

    19. Sigmund, P.: Particle Penetration and Radiation Effects.

    Springer, New York, NY, 2007.

    20. Dapor, M.: Electron-Beam Interactions With Solids.

    Springer, New York, NY, 2003.

    21. Lamarsh, J.R.: Introduction to Nuclear Reactor Theory.

    American Nuclear Society, Inc., La Grange Park, IL,

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.