SPAWAR JWK LENR and the claims made by Global Energy Corporation (GEC)

  • Greg,


    No one here is an idiot, and while annoying to you, and me, our skeptics do serve a useful purpose in keeping us grounded in reality. I find it best not to take anything personal.

  • Useful arguments that get me to thinking. Grrr...


    Others are of little consequence; NO?


    Polite consideration is extended... To a certain point.


    Talk to the folks at NASA GRC Plum Brook Station and our dear 'friends' at GEC.


    PineScie could 'talk-you-up' 'a-bit' 'as-well'... I'm sure of it.

  • Question and answer time.


    Elon Musk has plans to settle Mars, NO?


    By chemical means this is a difficult pipe dream, YES.


    With nuclear dense non-radioactive LENR energy and electric space drives (advanced Hall Thrusters) Mars is attained in 1 to 2 months instead of 9 to 14 months, easily conceivable... Perhaps.


    No fueling stations, along the way, required, YES.


    con·ceiv·a·ble

    Capable of being imagined or grasped mentally, NO?


    Space X

    Planetary Resources Inc.

    Deep Space Industries


    Each are in line to receive LENR space power systems coming out of the GEC/PineScie NASA GRC and Plum Brook Station contracts... For the most part, the bill for the development of this space hardened advanced LENR energy system is being subtly footed by JWK/GEC.

    Each of these three (aforementioned) companies plan to mine the asteroids.


    Are Elon Musk, Peter Diamandis and Warren Buffet crazy or what? NO or YES?


    I hardly imagine that to be so. Touched Yes - Crazy No.


    To succeed might they each need GEC?

  • Shane D. "I find it best not to take anything personal."


    Brilliant. While both of us are 'personable' fellows, I can't find fault with your statement that was directed at me personably. Thank you by the way. Still, I think Seven of T deserves his own thread where all his comments can be 'put in place'. Just an opinion, of course. Nothing personal.


    I take it you tend to believe the claims of GEC, NO? Or should I ask, YES? A confusing set of questions... pardon me. Bogus or spot on?

  • I'm not clear on this, it seems from your comments that you tend towards viewing the claims of GEC as trustworthy?


    @GBG: US hidden state will certainly not tell you/us what they did during the past 29 years. But it would be silly to believe that they did do nothing. F&P had to leave the country, what is a clear indication of the usual deep state violence.


    The only answer is: Do more research and present everything you find unless (but extremely unlikely) you can bring out a safe product within a few years...


    Thus: If you are not involved in research: Stop to speculate, wait and see what comes on the table!

  • I take it you tend to believe the claims of GEC, NO? Or should I ask, YES? A confusing set of questions... pardon me. Bogus or spot on?


    Greg,


    I have written about them almost as much as you. Like I said, some things do not add up, but overall the signs look promising. If I say I believe their claims, I will get a lecture from SOT, :) so will stick to saying I am hopeful.

  • Quote

    I'm not clear on this, it seems from your comments that you tend towards viewing the claims of GEC as trustworthy?


    It's never about views, opinions, claims, etc. That's all fluff and smoke and vapor. What matters is showing that the concept is valid using believable facts, data and evidence. Nobody has done that. Nobody has even proven that Mosier-Boss's results are replicable by methods not involving CR39 (at least I don't know of any such work). And nobody has ever made a hybrid fusion-fission device except, as we already discussed, for the hydrogen bomb. So GEC's claims are just unsupported claims, and those, especially when made to get contracts or respectability or money are never trustworthy. Seriously, I really have to say it? You believers are going to get me renamed to Captain Obvious. And the Rossi and GEC supporters could be renamed Captains Oblivious.

  • SOT - (edited out by Mod) Why the handle Seven of Twenty... Allow me to guess. Twenty... only seven in hand. Which hand? Why only seven? No idea. Thirteen left behind... Why? (edited out by Mod) GEC has plenty of money (at least I don't know of any such work ) and has never sought investors. Why? No need to. Hit that pipe again... fluff smoke and vapour. Idiotic statements, such as yours... are stupid. Views, opinions, claims, etc. Be truthful, such is obvious. I have never discussed the hydrogen bomb with you. Till now. GEC replication denied. Why? Please read up and study before making any such comment. Not your bailiwick, obviously mister or miss oblivious.


    1. The district or jurisdiction of a bailie or bailiff.
    2. One's sphere of operations or particular area of interest.

  • JedRothwell "They did not believe the claims and... "

    I'd like to hear your thoughts about the claims of GEC and the published works and academic efforts of Grimshaw and LENRGY. Vaporware or what?


    Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin... Forsley is 'just down the hall'... Meaning 'close by'. You remain eerily silent.


    Along with Grimshaw you created LENRGY, please tell us why.


    LENR Energy – Pursuing the Benefits of Cold Fusion Realization

    lenrgy.net/

    LENRGY LLC was formed by Thomas W. Grimshaw, Ph.D., to provide consulting services and pursue policy changes to help realize the benefits of LENR.

    The mission of LENRGY is to perform services to help realize ...

    Edmund Storms, Thomas Grimshaw, Grimshaw & Associates LLC and ...

    http://www.grimshawassoc.com/ It seems this collaboration is structured as LENRGY LLC, the affiliation that Edmund Storms used now when ...

    LENRGY LLC | LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

    ecat.org/tag/lenrgy-llc/

    May 26, 2017 - A new paper from Ed Storms, Research Scientist, with LENRGY, LLC, a Santa Fe, New Mexico company, has been published in Environmental ...

    Documenting Research

    You are here: LENR Energy > Researcher Support > Documenting Research

    A primary way that LENRGY provides services in the LENR field is to support researchers. These services are based on Dr. Grimshaw’s in-depth familiarity with the LENR field. The services are also underpinned by his engineering education and scientific and technical consulting services for environmental protection and cleanup.

    Documentation of LENR Research by Dr. Tom Claytor and Dr. Malcolm Fowler at Los Alamos National Laboratory

    (In preparation) http://lenrgy.net/researcher-support/documenting-research/

    Documentation of Dr. Edmund Storms’ 29 Years of LENR Research

    Currently Dr. Grimshaw is assisting Dr. Edmund Storms with documentation of his extensive research career in the LENR field. Dr. Storms began his investigations within a few weeks after the 1989 LENR announcement while he was a research scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. During his 28 years of LENR research, Dr. Storms has been instrumental in making advances in experiments and explamation of LENR. Dr. Grimshaw is facilitating a project to preserve and enhance Dr. Storms’ extensive research record. This “Storms LENR Research Documentation Project’ is being conducted in three stages – materials collection, organization, and documentation. Materials from six types of sources – published and unpublished reports, lab notebooks, electronic data files, hard copy records, and Dr. Storms’ extensive LENR library – have been assembled and described in a Stage 1 report. Stages 2 and 3 are currently underway.

    LENR Research Proposals: Drs. Storms, Claytor, and Fowler

    Prior to working with Dr. Storms to document his LENR research career, Dr. Grimshaw assisted Dr. Storms, Dr. Tom Claytor, and Dr. Malcolm Fowler – all retirees from Los Alamos National Laboratory – with preparation of a proposal for a new LENR laboratory to be located in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The proposal effort included preparation of custom resumes, detailed descriptions of the facilities and instruments at three current private research labs, and preparation of proposal and presentation documents. Funding is still being sought for this new laboratory.

    Beaudette’s “Why Cold Fusion Prevailed” – Assistance with Editing

    Dr. Grimshaw assisted Jed Rothwell, author of the LENR-CANR website (one of the foremost online LENR resources), in converting a book that was published in hard copy into electronic form. Charles Beaudette’s “Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Prevailed” has been a principal resource for the LENR field since it was first published in 2000. During the conversion to digital form, Dr. Grimshaw reviewed several chapters for accuracy, created new tables for those that did not convert well, and formatted references cited in each chapter. Recognition for this work was received from Jed Rothwell in March 2017, where he noted that the “job calls for a combination of tedious, rote secretarial labor, and extensive knowledge of cold fusion.”



    What do you think of the claims of GEC and their NASA (self funded 300K+) contracts?


    Or your thoughts about mitigating the negative effects of LENR energy?


    What do you think of PineScie?

    How about the moon?


    Forget about Rossi for a minute.


    Think about Vladimir Pines?


    Or LENRGY?


    Energy Institute Research Affiliation - Experience – LENR Energy

    lenrgy.net/experience/

    Dr. Thomas Grimshaw, LENRGY President, has been working in the LENR field for over 10 .... Most recently Dr. Grimshaw assisted Jed Rothwell, author of the ...

    Audio Video Science – COLD FUSION NOW!

    coldfusionnow.org/interviews/

    Lenrgy Labs. AUDIO [listen] July 20, 2014 Dr. Edmund ... Edmund Storms Lenrgy Labs. AUDIO [listen] Aug. .... Jed Rothwell Researcher, author Cold Fusion and ...

    JCMNS volume 20 - Physics - LENR Forum

    JCMNS volume 20

    Oct 14, 2016 - 5 posts - ‎3 authors

    on Vortex, Jed Rothwell make the following comment. Jed Rothwell ... Edmund Storms∗ LENRGY LLC, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA. Abstract

    Authors – Cold Fusion Community

    coldfusioncommunity.net/category/authors/

    by Y Ruby - ‎Related articles

    McKubre thanked Jed Rothwell and Jean-Paul Biberian for all the work on lenr.org and the ..... Thomas Grimshaw, formed LENRGY, LLC Working with Storms.


    "Mats Lewan: Losing all Balance"

    by Abd ulRahman Lomax

    Posted on December 18, 2017

    Categories: Lewan, Planet Rossi, Rossi v Darden


    New Energy World Symposium planned for June 18-19, 2018

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…lewan-losing-all-balance/

    What the... Comment by the by.

    Jed Rothwell says:

    December 19, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    You wrote: “While it has been speculated for almost thirty years that LENR would be cheap and clean, we do not actually know that, because we don’t know what it will take to create a usable device. There is real LENR, almost certainly, but there are also real problems with development, and the basic science behind LENR effects remains unknown.”


    I dispute your first statement. Yes, we do not know for sure cold fusion would be cheap and clean, but we have many reasons to think that is likely. We can make reasonable cost and performance extrapolations from existing products such as palladium thin film catalytic converters and NiCad batteries, which resemble cold fusion devices in important ways. We know the tolerances and material purity of cold fusion devices is not especially stringent, and that many cheap industrial products meet the levels needed.


    We know that cold fusion can produce the temperatures and power density a nuclear fission reactor pellet, which means it is compact enough with enough Carnot efficiency for most applications other than earth-to-orbit spacecraft. It also means the cost of materials per watt of capacity will be low. Even if palladium is needed, assuming the power density is roughly the same per unit of surface area as the heat that palladium catalytic converters survive, the cost of the palladium will not be too high, and there may be enough palladium to power the entire world. (Martin Fleischmann, who know a lot about palladium, estimated there would be enough for about one-third of global energy.) This high power density is rare today, but it will reached in any device once the reaction is understood and controlled. To take a similar example, any manufactured semiconductor in 1960 was far better than the best laboratory prototypes of 1952.


    It is true that the basic science is not known. Cold fusion technology is not likely to be developed until the science becomes known. Granted, many technologies were developed before modern science began, meaning the basic science was not known, but it seems unlikely cold fusion could be.

  • From AlainCo 2015


    GBG...personally I think SOT should bug off.


    Alain stated...

    I just found on academia.edu a new publication by Lawrence Forsley and Pamela Mosier-Boss, which present a list of key peer-reviewed CMNS/LENR papers, and patents, to challenge the usual claim that LENR experimenst are not replicated, and not peer reviewed.


    Pamela Mosier-Boss is a famous LENR scientists in US Navy SPAWAR


    Lawrence Forsley is today affiliated to JWK Corporation and GEC (Global Energy Corporation), beside U. of Texas.

    GEC is a company created with ex-Spawar researchers trying to develop an hybrid fission/LENR reactor (see old thread http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum-static/f-86.html ).


    https://www.academia.edu/17964…lear_Science_October_2015


    Here is the conclusion which tells the main intents:


    Quote
    This comprehensive collection of peer-reviewed papers clearly defines the existence of, and many ofthe parameters associated with, condensed matter nuclear science. The palladium/deuterium co-deposition protocol has shown itself to be robust, replicable and repeatable. As such, it provides an accessible doorway to investigate this novel, nuclear phenomena.

    It has the promise of controllable nuclear reactions without ionizing radiation; compact, green nuclear energy sources and a means to remediate existing nuclear waste. We ignore this new capability at our technological, environmental and commercial peril.

    Here is extract from the Executive Summary, where I underlined statement that I feel important :


    Quote
    In the 26 years since the ill-named, and ill-timed, announcement of “cold fusion” by Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah critics have consistently raised five concerns:


    • Fusion neutron production isn’t commensurate with observed heat
    • Lack of a theory.
    • Counter to “all that’s known in nuclear physics”.
    • Irreproducibility.
    • Lack of independent replication
    It can be argued that the phenomenon is neither “cold” nor “fusion”: but it is nuclear. Neutrons are not easily produced, nor, are they produced by purely chemical means. Hence, neutrons are the hallmark of nuclear reactions. Although neutron production isn’t commensurate with measured heat, several of our papers discuss neutron production.

    There is an abundance of contradictory theories, and hence, we’ve shied away from theory until we had data. Although the mantra, “theory guides, data decides”, doesn’t preclude experimental data, several voices outside the field refuse to recognize the phenomena unless there is a theory. However, our modeling has provided guidance and suggests previously unrecognized magnetic and nuclear effects that clearly enable condensed matter nuclear reactions.

    The major “cold fusion” criticism has been the need to overcome the Coulomb Barrier between two positively charged deuterons at room temperature, 0.025 eV, as opposed to the hot fusion ion temperature of 5 keV (55 million K). However, low energy accelerator experiments with metal deuteride targets demonstrate enhanced electron screening that significantly raises the Gamow Factor thereby increasing the low temperature deuterium fusion cross-section. Other nuclear theories have been suggested to lower the Coulomb Barrier, though few of these are consistent with our data.

    Most important, the co-deposition protocol discussed in these papers has shown independent reproducibility and replication across multiple laboratories in four countries negating two primary criticisms of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS): irreproducibility and lack of independent replication.
    The significance of condensed matter nuclear reactions cannot be overstated.
    The successful commercialization of the technology would be paradigm shifting, to say the least.


    The most intriguing sentence is :


    Quote
    Our research and implementation is a few years ahead of what we have published. Contact us regarding our current work in hybrid fusion-fission reactors, energetics and compact power generation.

    There is a paragraph about the replications of their co-deposition protocol:


    Quote
    Collaborative, International Effort
    We have sought to identify, characterize and elucidate the underlying mechanisms. Ours has been acollaborative effort with colleagues around the globe. To date, the SSC-Pacific/JWK team and colleagues have published 48-refereed papers in 14 journals and book chapters, spanning 25 years. Our colleagues include 44 authors and co-authors from nine countries representing 33 institutions. We have given more than three times as many conference talks and briefings. This is a well-represented, international effort.
    Several researchers have independently replicated our Pd/D co-deposition protocol, like Dr. Fran Tanzella et al, Dr. Kew-Ho Lee, et al and Pierre Carbonnelle; or modified it, including Dennis Letts and Dr. Mel Miles or, like Dr. Mitchell Swartz, independently developed their own. Drs. Peter Hagelstein and Dennis Cravens with Dennis Letts used co-deposition to create the gold-coated palladium structures they successfully laser irradiated.
    Twelve of the papers are co-deposition replications, including researchers in the US, Belgium, Japan and South Korea.


    The rest of the article include many information, like list of peer reviewed papers, their authors, patents, abstracts with link .


    A document to use to break the denial.

  • Just a load of BS, Yes? Grimshaw speaks with you... of you... or for you? What is your belief or denial? Once again... What are your thoughts about the claims and NASA contracts of GEC? No BS please.

    I speak with Grimshaw from time to time. I have uploaded his papers. We worked together on some books. But I have no idea what GEC or LENRG is. I have not been following the discussion here about whatever these things are. I do not understand why you think this is bullshit. Do you have the impression I am omniscient?


    How about you? Are you omniscient, all-knowing and all-seeing, and do you have opinions about things you have never heard of?

  • Sorry Jed for moving your post. Trying to corral Gobles posts to their appropriate place.


    And Greg, may I suggest that you ask a member a question once, and *only* once. If they do not respond, they do not want to respond, and further pursuit for an answer will be considered dogging.

  • "I have no idea what GEC or LENRG is." Jed, You are BRILLIANT. No need to be omniscient when caught up in a few lies. Please remain on topic... What are your thoughts about the claims of GEC? By the way... I do not know many things. I do know that you have heard of GEC (years) before this. Shane D, dogging him is not the intent of this thread. A question posed is clearly my intent. Should he respond or what? His comments are irritating and false.

  • I do know that you have heard of GEC (years) before this.

    Evidently you know more about me than I know about myself.


    Perhaps I heard about GEC but forgot all about it. In any case, I know nothing about it and I have no opinion. If you have read this thread, you know way more about GEC than I do, because I have not read it. I don't plan to read it, so there is no point to asking me what I think.