US Navy (SPAWAR)/Global Energy Corporation/LENR

  • As NASA plays a part in roll-out of this Navy CMNS technology keep an eye on this space. One way is to Google "NASA Booz Allen Hamilton 2020" for insight. Better than just 2020 hindsight.

    I've been following this space since they 'placed' to the second round of a NASA Mars Habitat contest. The BAH entry concept included a cold fusion reactor to power the habitat and construction process. Booz Allen has been watching the "cold fusion ecosphere" for as long as any of us. They are prepared for full use of LENR energy systems.


    "Booz Allen Hamilton will play a major role in the transfer of advanced U.S. CMNS technology and applied engineering to industry." -gbgoble2020


    "Since we assisted with NASA’s founding 60 years ago, Booz Allen has helped further the U.S. space mission—from working on the theoretical strategy for Apollo 11 to systems engineering for the International Space Station. Happy Space Day from all of us." (at Booz Allen): https://bit.ly/2LfOAsK

  • Imagine LENR Electric (either GEC or Leonardo Corp SKL) CMNS energy tech. on the wingtips instead of the two big turbine generators powering the all electric propulsion.


    Imagine that Larry Forsley or Carl Sandifer ll of GEC and Justin S. Gray (all working at NASA GRC) chat around the coffee machine from time to time.


    Or perhaps they do lunch at the much more intimate Plum Brook Station where the 'test-bed' for both the Electric Propulsion (full size) wiring/load/bus and GEC Space Power (LENR Electric) systems are optimized/safety certified for use.


    Imagine the conversations they imagine.


    "Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Framework with Coupled Derivative Computation for Hybrid Aircraft"

    Author(s) Justin S. Gray - NASA John H. Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 44139 Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion System Analysis Branch;

    also

    Authors, Alessandro Sgueglia, Peter Schmollgruber, Nathalie Bartoli, Emmanuel Benard, Joseph Morlier, John Jasa, Joaquim R. R. A. Martins, and John T. Hwang. Published Online: 21 Jun 2020 https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C035509

    https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.C035509

    Abstract

    Hybrid-electric aircraft are a potential way to reduce the environmental footprint of aviation. Research aimed at this subject has been pursued over the last decade; nevertheless, at this stage, a full overall aircraft design procedure is still an open issue. This work proposes to enrich the procedure for the conceptual design of hybrid aircraft found in literature through the definition of a multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) framework aimed at handling design problems for such kinds of aircraft. The MDO technique has been chosen because the hybrid aircraft design problem shows more interaction between disciplines than a conventional configuration, and the classical approach based on multidisciplinary design analysis may neglect relevant features. The procedure has been tested on the case study of a single-aisle aircraft featuring hybrid propulsion with distributed electric ducted fans. The analysis considers three configurations (with 16, 32, and 48 electric motors) compared with a conventional baseline at the same 2035 technological horizon. To demonstrate the framework’s capability, these configurations are optimized with respect to fuel and energy consumption. It is shown that the hybrid-electric concept consumes less fuel/energy when it flies on short range due to the partial mission electrification. When one increases the design range, penalties in weight introduced by hybrid propulsion overcome the advantages of electrified mission segment: the range for which hybrid aircraft have the same performance of the reference conventional aircraft is named the “breakdown range.” Starting from this range, the concept is no longer advantageous compared to conventional aircraft. Furthermore, a tradeoff between aerodynamic and propulsive efficiency is detected, and the optimal configuration is the one that balances these two effects. Finally, multiobjective optimization is performed to establish a tradeoff between airframe weight and energy consumption.

  • GEC Deep Space Power Generator

    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.

    GEC has developed a deep space power generator using the Hybrid Fusion Fast Fission technology.

    • Official Post

    GEC Deep Space Power Generator

    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.

    GEC has developed a deep space power generator using the Hybrid Fusion Fast Fission technology.

    NASA, DoE Fund 3 Nuclear Space Propulsion Concepts
    Nuclear-powered spaceships for fast trips to Mars may now be one step closer to reality. NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have teamed up to fund…
    www.realclearscience.com


    Sadly, I do not see GEC listed in this new article.

  • Conundrumish


    This vid 2017 a year before Forsley presented the Space Act Agreement at ICCF21.


    Credibility/advancement seen in the NASA GEC LCF collaboration?yes/no


    GEC market entry?

    Trickle charger

    Megawatt powerplant multiple projects


    Iceberg tip disclosure of Indian Head Division DoD continuing GEC collaboration.


    Defense/space industry partners/spin offs?


    Broad, deep and far reaching rapid market entry along many orchestrated and well planned fronts?


    A few years further advanced than presently disclosed?


    Or


    As unimpressive as this vid/slide show?

  • After cycling the D2 gas through the coiled tubing for several months,

    Pd25Ag samples showed an increase in Cu and Fe

    compared with the amounts in unexposed Pd25Ag.

    Chromium, manganese, and zinc were detected in gas-cycled Pd25Ag samples,

    whereas they were not detected in unexposed Pd25Ag samples.

    In particular, Zn was present in the gas-cycled Pd25Ag material in larger quantities than either Cr or Mn.

    Although a small amount of Cu was present in the Pd25Ag coil before the D2 gas cycling,

    7 times more was present after the cycling.

    Multiple material characterization techniques were used to obtain both pre-test and post-test elemental composition.

    The results indicate that novel post-test elements, primarily on the surface, were created by unknown nuclear mechanisms at low energy.

    ===>

    based on the atomic number, this transmutation is not simple addition of proton, but nuclear fission disintegration.

    So I guess that di-neutron(small hydrogen) can be created on nano-particle not small D2.

    The reactor can have the H2O and H+ is absorbed in nano-particle and surface T site can create small H2(di-neutron).

  • Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium silver metals with deuterium gas

    Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium silver metals with deuterium gas
    Hydrogen, deuterium, and helium gases were separately cycled through a Johnson-Matthey purifier containing coiled palladium silver alloy tubing: Pd25A…
    www.sciencedirect.com


    Abstract

    Hydrogen, deuterium, and helium gases were separately cycled through a Johnson-Matthey purifier containing coiled palladium silver alloy tubing: Pd25Ag (75 wt% Pd and 25 wt% Ag). During the cycling of D2 gas, evidence of anomalous heat production was observed. However, during the cycling of H2 and He, very little (H2) or no (He) unusual heat events were observed. After cycling the D2 gas through the coiled tubing for several months, Pd25Ag samples showed an increase in Cu and Fe compared with the amounts in unexposed Pd25Ag. Chromium, manganese, and zinc were detected in gas-cycled Pd25Ag samples, whereas they were not detected in unexposed Pd25Ag samples. In particular, Zn was present in the gas-cycled Pd25Ag material in larger quantities than either Cr or Mn. Although a small amount of Cu was present in the Pd25Ag coil before the D2 gas cycling, 7 times more was present after the cycling. Multiple material characterization techniques were used to obtain both pre-test and post-test elemental composition. The results indicate that novel post-test elements, primarily on the surface, were created by unknown nuclear mechanisms at low energy.

    >However, during the cycling of H2 and He, very little (H2) or no (He) unusual heat events were observed.

    ==p+p fusion does not occur, so no heat is generated, however this is advantageous.


    The below tranmutation reactor has a risk to generate heat and it is susceptible to the crack of the thin Pd layer.


    So the transmutation reactor need to use H2 gas in place of D2 gas.

    Transmutation by small D2 or small-H2, which can be die-neutron.

    and this is H2 through thin Pd so the efficiency is by far better than original work by Iwamura.


  • Although H2 possibly has more tendency to cause transmutation..

    it can happen with D2 as well..


    Keeping transmutation to a minimum may be beneficial to maintaining the

    material properties of a 2D2->He reactor


    "

    Transmutation reactions of Cs into Pr were observed by D2 gas permeation for about one week through Pd complexes

    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf

  • Although H2 possibly has more tendency to cause transmutation..


    it can happen with D2 as well..

    ==YES, right, however, it generate the heat and the thin metal film is fragile due to the crack of the high-temperature.

    THinner metal film has very higfh efficiency for transmutation.

  • If placed in the Players category...

    This thread could be titled,

    "United States Government Funded (1989 - 2021) CMNS Energy Research Applied Engineering and Market Entry"


    Now that the Google Inc. CMNS energy development team is at LLNL under a government contract developing patents with the DoE...

    These players could be categorized together.

    US Government Funded.

    GEC/JWK/SPAWAR are subjects near and dear to me. As have you, I have written about them also. Who could not after that Guam episode? That is the most interesting story to ever have happened in LENR IMO. I remember you did a nice round up of it a few years back. I tried to contact them about a year ago for an update, and never received a reply. Hard to imagine after Guam they would just go silent. Well, maybe not totally silent:


    You do know that NASA Glen Research in Cleveland, Oh. has teamed up with Forsley of JWK/GEC, and Pam Moss-Bosely formerly of SPAWAR? On the NASA side is an old familiar name (Fralick), who has been involved with LENR almost as soon as FPs announced in 1989. They put out that Arxiv paper (Moss-Bosely not an author) about a year ago, and followed up with a patent application this past September. It appears the master brain behind the collaboration is a man named Pines of PinesSci. Or at least that is how I, and Ahlfors interpret their effort to grant him another uncontested contract.


    A very tangled web as the title of your thread shows, and amazingly it goes back to 2005. So much we do not know. Too bad no one will, or can talk about it. Who knows, if they would, they may light a fire in LENR, and maybe even spur the mainstream into taking notice. Yes, I am a dreamer.

    Is this the first cold fusion LENR CMNS energy patent that has been assigned to the U.S. Department of Energy?


    2020-03-02

    Application filed by University of British Columbia, University of California, Google LLC


    2020-03-02

    Priority to US16/806,760


    2020-03-02

    Assigned to THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA


    2020-03-02

    Assigned to GOOGLE INC.


    2020-12-07

    Assigned to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA


    2020-12-16

    Assigned to UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


    2021-05-20

    Publication of US20210151206A1


    Source

  • A Review of U. S. Government Funded LENR Energy 2018

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/review-u-government-funded-lenr-energy-2018-gregory-goble


    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.


    The government of the United States of America has filed many ‘cold fusion’ patents. These low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) patents take time to develop, often a number of years before filing with a patent office; each being a tedious project unto itself.


    One patent’s development began with a contract from NSWC, Indian Head Division in 2008, “Deuterium Reactor” US 20130235963 A1, by Pharis Edward Williams. This patent was not filed till 2012, four years later. Another delay can occur between the patent filing date and publication date if the patent is deemed a matter of national security.


    This may be the case with the 2007 SPAWAR patent, System and Method for Generating Particles - US8419919B1, with a filing date of Sep. 21, 2007 and publication date of Apr. 16, 2013, a delay of six years. Usually a patent gets published (becomes exposed) within one year of the filing date, rarely longer; for a delay of six years there seems no other explanation.


    U.S. LENR patent development has been funded through the Air Force, NASA, the Navy and many other Department of Defense labs.The government may retain rights to any of these LENR patents and control licensing agreements.


    Patent licensing may be granted to those who partnered with government labs in the development of LENR technology, as in the case of SPAWAR JWK LENR technology and the Global Energy Corporation.


    Included with the patents in this review are U.S. Government funded LENR energy applied engineering programs and presentations, along with a few from related company partners.


    A chronological review of U.S. funded ‘cold fusion’ projects and patents, accompanied with a list of the individuals, companies, universities and agencies involved may be helpful in understanding the history of, and to determine the direction of, United States of America government funded LENR energy technologies entering the marketplace.


    Boeing, General Electric and many others team up with NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration developing LENR aircraft.


    Both the SpaceWorks contract with NASA and the many Universities/NASA/Companies joint LENR aerospace presentations point towards NASA partnering with private industry on spaceplanes and Mars. Together they are preparing the way for low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) non-radioactive nuclear flight (NRNF).


    The SPAWAR and JWK partnership developed a different form of LENR energy technology. This SPAWAR JWK LENR technology transmutes nuclear waste to benign elements while creating high process steam. The SPAWAR JWK LENR tech group is partnered with the Global Energy Corporation (GEC). Applied engineering has culminated in the GeNie reactor placed within an electrical generating unit called the Small Modular Generator (SMG). Recent commercialization claims are, “GEC is currently negotiating several new SMG construction contracts ranging from 250MWe to 5GWe around the world”. This LENR energy technology leads towards massive electrical power generation and the worldwide cleanup of nuclear waste.


  • Omitted from your list is this patent application of Salvatore Pais on behalf of the US Navy:

    US20190295733A1 - Plasma Compression Fusion Device - Google Patents


    It is apparently abandoned (classified?) and might not be considered directly LENR-relevant. At first glance, it could involve EVO-like structures created from rotating magnetic fields. Or it could be intentional mis-direction as has been suggested elsewhere in lenr-forum.

  • magicsound

    Thank you, it will be added as I create a 2022 update to the 2018 compilation. There is alot to add. The U.S. government controls more cold fusion patents than any other nation.


    A few interesting things about the Pais U.S. Naval patent...

    No patents listed as 'cited by' this patent.

    This patent does not cite any other previously filed patent ever filed.

    Unusual

    Others here are better at searching the USPTO for this than I am. I would like to learn anything anyone else finds.


    Also


    I look for patents found under 'Similar Documents'

    CN107533867A 2018-01-02

    "For Producing the Method for Energy and the Device of Correlation"

    2016-03-31 Application filed by Reton Holdings Ltd, Cage Spalla


    This is the only cold fusion patent listed there. Quite advanced IMO similar to GEC or LCF or Google/DOE patents... though I'm no expert.

    Certainly one worth studying and learning more about.

    Abstract

    According to present inventive concept, there is provided a kind of method for producing energy. Methods described includes:By the way that first object material is exposed in electromagnetic radiation input energy, and the first object material is set to enter higher energy state via ripple resonance, so as to produce the skew of the first isotope, and the neutron that generation is offset to obtain by first isotope in the first object material;The neutron is captured by the second target substance, so as to produce the skew of the second isotope and electromagnetic radiation output energy in second target substance.Further, present inventive concept further relates to a kind of related device.


    gbgoblenote

    Exploring this Chinese patent's citations I found one of my favorites listed there by the patent examiner.


    US20140140461A1

    *2005-04-252014-05-22

    Reginald B. Little "Magnitites Pycnonuclear Reactions within Electrochemical, Radioactive and Electromagnetic Medias"




  • I expect significant actions by GEC in 2022. Full market entry, they continue to make the boldest claims in the field of CMNS energy technologies. I believe their earliest claims and still do. Are they truthful? We shall see.

    Meanwhile

    A bit of GEC history from 2013 for review... -gbgoblenote The significance of National Security Technologies, LLC (at LLNL), under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25946 working with Global Energy Corporation before 2013 from the US Department of Energy. The DoE now holds a cold fusion patent with Google (at LLNL). The DoD/GEC patent is long held and well known.


    Acknowledgements

    This work was funded by the SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific ILIR and S&T Initiatives Programs, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and JWK Corporation. The authors would also like to thank Dr. G. Phillips, nuclear physicist, retired from the Naval Research Laboratory, US Navy, Radiation Effects Branch, and P. Carbonnelle from Université catholique de Louvain for valuable discussions in interpreting the optical data. It was G. Phillips who first pointed out the existence of triple tracks in our CR-39 photomicrographs. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Dr. S. Szpak, retired from SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, who pioneered the Pd/D co-deposition process. This manuscript has been co-authored by National Security Technologies, LLC, under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25946 with the US Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.


    Technology

    GeNiE Reactor technology is based on 20 years of experimental research by Global Energy Corporation, JWK International, and SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego scientists and engineers. The results have been published in over 20 peer-reviewed technical journal articles. Our most recent publications document the ability to efficiently produce high-energy neutrons that are capable of fissioning uranium. We have answered the critical scientific questions:


    Our experiments are repeatable.


    Our experiments have been replicated by others.


    Our experiments provide direct evidence that nuclear reactions are involved including the production of high-energy neutrons. Although our experimental results are not predicted by current nuclear physics theories, the results are real.


    The GeNiE Reactor takes advantage of the efficiently produced high-energy neutrons in a proprietary hybrid fusion, fast-fission reactor design to produce power from un-enriched uranium. The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn’t rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear Reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn’t required enriched uranium and it doesn’t produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. By fissioning existing hazardous waste, the GeNiE Reactor can generate power and mitigate existing hazardous waste at the same time. And by eliminating the need for enrichment, the GeNiE Reactor removes all requirements for uranium enrichment except for weapons production, thereby removing the uncertainty in the purpose of enrichment programs such as the current program in Iran.

    Global Energy Corporation and their collaborators are currently experimenting with small pilot GeNiE Reactors and are designing prototype GeNiE Reactors for commercial applications. While there are numerous products possible, GEC is currently focusing on the GeNiE Hybrid Fusion, Fast-Fission Reactor that will use either natural uranium or existing hazardous waste as fuel.


    FAQ - GEC


    Q. This sounds like Cold Fusion. Wasn’t “Cold Fusion” disproven?

    A. While most people think that the Department of Energy concluded that the claims were wrong, this is not the case. In fact, after two reviews in 1989 and 2004, the DOE ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARD found that there wasn’t enough evidence to either prove or disprove the claims and that more research was needed. Furthermore, several other countries are awaking to the fact that the phenomena may be real as documented in a recent DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY TECHNOLOGY ALERT paper.


    GEC scientists and collaborators developed a different experimental protocol that allowed them to go beyond the initial claims of Fleischmann and Pons. Our experiments are repeatable, they have been replicated by others and our results have been published in peer-reviewed papers. Additionally, our experiments produce direct evidence of nuclear activity including emission of high-energy neutrons.


    Q. How can this be real since it doesn’t match theory?

    A. History is full of examples where the accepted theory had to be adapted to match new experimental results. At one time, theory held that the earth was flat. Galileo was put under house arrest by the church for observing that the earth was not the center of the universe. Cassini and other scientists held that the speed of light was infinite long after Romer had provided solid experimental evidence that it was 186,000 miles per second. There’s a statement in science that, “Theory guides, experiment decides.” A theory is only as good as its ability to predict or describe experimental results. If the experimental results don’t confirm the theory, it’s the theory that must change since the experimental results are controlled by nature. This is not to say that all current nuclear physics theories are wrong but that they are incomplete when it comes to explaining our experimental results. Each year, hundreds of PhD’s are awarded to students who have improved or evolved a theory so that it more accurately explains experimental results. These and many other examples show how theory must evolve to match observation. Several theories have been proposed but to date, none match all of our observed experimental results.


    Q. How do you overcome the coulomb barrier?

    A. Several possibilities such as a stripping reaction or the equivalent to “tunneling” in solid state electronics have been suggested as a way to overcome the coulomb barrier. More research is needed to determine the answer to this question.


    Q. What technical challenges need to be overcome before this technology can be commercialized?

    A. Our GeNiE pilot reactors have demonstrated the ability to produce neutrons with enough energy to fission either natural uranium, enriched uranium, or existing hazardous waste. We are currently working to optimize the reactions and increase the flux of high-energy neutrons. Once this is achieved, many commercial applications are possible.


    Q. If this is real, you should all be dead because of the neutrons that would have been produced. How do you answer that since you’re obviously still alive?

    A. One of the properties of our experiments is that the neutron flux is several orders of magnitude less than that predicted by conventional theory. The current flux levels are not hazardous however we are currently working to optimize the experiments to increase the flux. We recognize the dangers of high-energy neutrons and take appropriate precautions.



    National Security Technologies

    National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec) was formed in 2006 as a joint venture between Northrop Grumman Corporation, and three other corporate partners. These partners are AECOM, CH2M Hill, and Babcock & Wilcox (B&W). With some 2,450 employees, NSTec manages operations at the 1,360-square-mile Nevada National Security Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and at its related facilities and laboratories for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Site Office. The company has satellite offices in Los Alamos and Albuquerque, New Mexico; Santa Barbara and Livermore, California; and Washington, D.C., along with a small number of employees located in nine other states and two foreign countries.

  • lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6737/
  • Solid State Fusion

    One year after Pons and Fleischman.


    From March 1990, this may be the earliest paper using the term 'solid state fusion'.


    By the Bendix Field Engineering Corporation working for the Naval Research Laboratory.

    NRL Memorandum Report 6617

    Naval Research Laboratory

    Washington, DC 20375-5000


    Title

    "Nuclear Fusion in a Solid via a Bose Bloch Condensate"

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1990/1990ChubbT-NRLReport6617.pdf


    T.A. CHUBB AND S.R. CHUBB*

    Bendix Field Engineering Corporation

    Oxon Hill, MD 20745

    *Space Sensing Branch and Space Applications Branch

    Space Systems Technology Department

    March 5, 1990


    Abstract

    We present a theory of solid state fusion based on the formation of a D+ bosonic Bloch condensate within a metal deuteride. The first step towards fusion is a coalescence reaction which converts a 4-fold occupation state of zero point motion size into state of nuclear dimensions. Reaction rates for the coalescence reaction are calculated using the Fermi Golden Rule.


    Introduction

    This paper discusses a concept of solid state fusion based on the formation of a D3 boson Bloch condensate (BBC) 1 within a

    palladium deuteride host lattice. Evidence for such solid state

    fusion has been presented by Fleischmann and Pons, who have

    described episodic generation of anomalous heat in Pd cathodes following extended overvoltage electrolysis of LiOD solutions.

    Other evidence for solid state nuclear interactions in PdDJ

    includes the observations of surface hydrogen isotopic anomalies in Pd cathodes subsequent to such electrolysis"4 and the possible observation of a small number of 20+ Mev energy release events in a Si charged-particle detector adjacent to a Pd electrode charged with D+ ions by ion implantation.