US Navy (SPAWAR)/Global Energy Corporation/LENR

  • I have always tried to apply skepticism as I do the scientific method...

    However, when each grain of sand that may represent a theory that works but without fully understanding and some are in this wilderness shouting fraud.. and at the same time standing on a large sand dune of evidence, is quite odd.


    And further, their desire to be correct which resides on a platform of ego instead of patience, is a poor acknowledgment of professionalism.

  • I have always tried to apply skepticism as I do the scientific method...

    However, when each grain of sand that may represent a theory that works but without fully understanding and some are in this wilderness shouting fraud.. and at the same time standing on a large sand dune of evidence, is quite odd.


    And further, their desire to be correct which resides on a platform of ego instead of patience, is a poor acknowledgment of professionalism.

    Beyond any conspiracy speculation, I have wondered for long about the reasons for the staunch resistance to a widespread acceptance of LENR as a valid research field, and the need of every researcher that decides to delve on LENR to proceed with extreme caution to avoid risking the few resources available to do the work that is being done.


    I have yet to find what those reasons are, without having to resort to plain human stupidity, which is an unsavory conclusion, but, unfortunately, the more likely to be the correct one, as long as one doesn’t want to entertain the possibility of some sort of concerted effort to keep LENR in the fringe.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • What do you think of the recent BOLD market entry claims made by Global Energy Corporation GEC?


    The Global Energy Corporation (GEC) Larry Forsley CTO

    https://drive.google.com/file/…anKzF-8jCflYBiRLpE-y/view

    (LENR) "trickle charger" gives the car a "10,000 mile range" without fueling or charging. Patented nanogenerator simply "attaches to battery pack of existing EVs... "


    If they mean to license the technology to automotive OEMs then that makes a lot of sense and would keep GEC as a capital light, profitable, IP & R&D focused company.


    If they mean to manufacture whole vehicles ala Tesla, as they seem to suggest is their aim, then that's discomfiting to say the least.


    As a very rough back of the envelope exercise, from the Tesla FY19 10-K (in USD):


    Current Assets: 12.1B

    Net Property, Plant & Equipment: 10.4B


    Operating Expenses: 4.1B


    This is an (admittedly very rough) guide to what it might cost to try to rebuild a Tesla scale enterprise from scratch. 22.5B in invested capital, and ~ 4B in annual central costs & R&D. This figure understates the total amount of capital required, because it doesn't include COGS.


    To this add the fact that Tesla has been at it for a while and, as of FY19, stillwasn't profitable.


    Furthermore, for FY19, Tesla's automotive sales were 19.9B and their automotive cost of sales was 15.9B. That's 4B in Gross Profit in the Automotive Sales segment and a gross margin of 20%. Compare that to ~40% at Unilever, Colgate at ~60%, Thermo Fisher Scientific at 45%, Lindt at 65%, Schindler at 70%, Nike at 43%, Henkel at 46%, &c.


    Honda & Toyota both have gross margins around the 20% mark, which suggests that there's really no room above 20%. Manufacturing cars is just a fundamentally punishing business. It's capital intense, fixed cost intense, the replacement cycle on cars is long, there's no brand loyalty and competitive pressures are intense. And there's a lot of room below 20%. Ford is 8.3%. GM is 10.3%. Daimler is 16%. Audi is 14.8%. Volkswagen is 18.4%.


    Moreover, because the business is so fixed cost intense, you never really get any operating leverage on your central costs. If you want to grow, you have to lay out a lot of money and take on a lot of incremental expense.


    Some businesses grow beautifully. They have solid, stable end market demand and whilst they grow they generate surplus cash that can be distributed to shareholders or reinvested within the business. A good example of this would be Visa. Because the cost of running an incremental transaction across its network is basically 0, as it grows, its profits are 'free' in the sense that they don't need to be reinvested to support growth.


    Some businesses are the exact opposite. Growth is extremely costly, and growing volumes requires a lot of supporting investment. These businesses consume cash as they grow. Often more than they actually produce in profit. It gets sucked up into new factories, expensive plant equipment etc. These businesses generally have to continue to tap capital markets to fund their growth.


    In a more practical sense, what this means is that they tend to have bad balance sheets, with a lot of debt. If you add a bad balance sheet to bad industry dynamics, and then throw in a business cycle or two, then you can see why we're forever bailing out car manufacturers.


    This is all just a long way of saying that businesses don't just die when they go into decline. They also die when they can't manage their growth. It's just my opinion, but I think it would be quixotic to assume that just because they have a genuine innovation, approximately 100 years of automotive industry dynamics won't still be a serious impediment to success.


    At least half the battle is knowing not to wade into the bad businesses. It's not just because they require a lot of capital, and it's hard to grow them in an efficient manner. It's also because they're intellectually and psychologically demanding. One is constantly stressed, distracted and fighting fires.


    F. W. Schwinn, of the Schwinn bicycle company, said:


    "A young man in business is in danger of thinking that some day, when he has really mastered his job, everything will go smoothly. It is never going to happen. You had better know now that business means trouble. The two words are inseparable. From now on, you won't be out of trouble until you're out of business."


    Some businesses are just trouble. IMO; It makes more sense to partner with them than to try to become them.

  • I have seen from inside some effort to launch LENR business. Everybody talk of conspiracy of militaries, but never seen, and strong symptom is that many people here are still alive (I wont give names to the most essential, thanks to them).


    What I have seen is that because of a very good public relation tragedy against cold fusion at the beginning, before ERAB panel who put the last nail to the coffin, this domain is just a joke for mainstream people. Journalists loves to play the mindguards, as Wikipravda mindguards, and politicians are always alerted by those easy advisors. no risk, as if alarm is unjustified, anyway since nothing is done, nothing is discovered. Precaution principle at it's worst level.


    Add to that theoretical and well funded plasma physicist who on one side despise chemist as lower species, but at the same time ignore the subtleties of electrochemistry, while thinking they master it... thinking that since they cannot understand it have to be a mistake by chemist... like the salesman thinking the accountant made an error on the balance...


    Add to that the comfort to think that cold fusion is a fraud, while you are funded by billions to build machines that will not be industrial before you are retired. It is not a conspiracy, just a bias. A comfortable bias, like thinking that a journalist is an essential part of democracy, when you are well paid to sell your own opinion to the masses.


    The result is that it is destroying career and amplifying the risk of an already very risky research... This is very hard, material science, quantum physics at its limits about collective effects and low dimensionality... I always compare it to semiconductors before quantum physics applied to material science.


    Add to that, that because of these risks, it is attracting crooks and crazies, beside the usual too honest to be politician scientists, that have seen its work despite their will.


    I have seen big money ready to invest, cooled suddenly by Mr Crook whose crookiness get unveiled painfully...

    Add to that, not the feel of the big oil and big weapon, but the reasonable expectations of small scientists who expect wealth but even more fame, and hide too much data...

    Add to that normal scientists in the modern world starved for long of public grants, and battling for the flour and eggs before the cake is in the oven...


    No surprise some of the most serious jobs is done in strange places like US Navy, Nasa, Japanese corporate labs, French researchers garden's hut, Californian startups.... As Asimov was explaining in Foundation, "at the other side of the Empire" (at the outskirt).


    There is just normal people, no conspiracy, just normal people... Whether the initial story of hasty Utah conference, Baltimore bashing conference, had been better managed, it would have been different.

    I'm always surprised how EmDrive is better accepted, with admitted uncertainties, in the news, with thousands less evidences...


    About research problem, I've found some articles which linked the antitrust laws weakening to the death of corporate labs (see Bell labs - Google labs are the nearest today )...

    Big corps prefers to buy competitors than to compete by research... They also expect the public sector does long research, while (it is very evident in France), public research is too often more short term in fact than is industrial's: a way to please sociological lobbies, political allies, showing big science, love science, sexy science, fashion science, to voters and giving comfortable grants to people with good network.


    https://marker.medium.com/why-…ve-up-on-r-d-43238193c29b

    https://ftalphaville.ft.com/20…ovation-through-the-ages/

    https://static1.squarespace.co…/1563536539717/c14259.pdf


    Synthesized in that Thread

  • AlainCo

    Everybody talk of conspiracy of militaries, but never seen, and strong symptom is that many people here are still alive

    "Conspiracy Theory" has a negative connotation. Please don't imply I am presenting a conspiracy theory. If that is not your intention please explain what you mean. The 'Manhattan Project" was not a conspiracy. It was a collaboration to harness nuclear energy before your enemies did. Same same for the 'Cold Fusion Manhattan Project'. Different methods were needed to keep it hidden from the public. Including a way to keep public research institutions from cracking the cold fusion puzzle before the department of defense. Now they are well into applied engineering and are transferring this tech to the private sector. NO conspiracy theory here. Just 'doing their job' sir... and I am glad they did.

    Here is the list of known GEC partners to date. The one presented from the 'First Colloquium on Nano-Nuclear Science, l'Université catholique de Louvain' (which you reference) is out of date and full of holes. No longer relevant except for a comparative analysis of cloaking the truth.

    GEC Research Partners
    Past and Present Partners
    NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) Pre-AEC: (1989-2014)
    – “Advanced Energy Conversion (AEC) Project” AEC: (2014 - )
    • Develop a non-actinide space power system
    • Understand Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions
    • US Navy (SPAWAR) (1989-2012)

    – NASA GRC and SPAWAR different processes, similar nuclear results

    – Additional funding provided by DTRA, ONR, DoE and NNSA
    • JWK/NAVY NCRADA (SPAWAR) (2008-2012)

    – “Study of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions I & II”
    • JWK/NAVY NCRADA (China Lake)

    – “Metal Interactions with Low Z Gasses” (2010-2012)
    • JWK/NAVY NCRADA (NSWC Dahlgren) (2015- )

    – “LENR Materials Design and Characterization”

    • DFT Model of LENR Active Materials

    • Correlate Co-deposition and B Field effects

    • Univ of Maryland (Tim Koeth, PhD) (2015-2016)

    – < 3 MeV LINAC unstable for our needs

    • DoE Jefferson National Lab (2016-2017)

    – AEC Project schedule and JLAB schedule did not match up

    • DoE Argonne National Lab (2017)

    – Van de Graaff generator unstable and did not meet our needs.

    • IBA Industrial (2017-2018)

    – Hosted most recent AEC experimental activity with 3 MeV Dynamitron

    • JWK/NAVY NCRADA (NSWC Indian Head) (2020- )

    – “Advanced Energy and Propulsion Research and Development”


    gbgoblenote JWK International Corporation was formed in the UK in and then allowed to lapse, existing for only two years. A subsidiary of JWK. It seems the only reason it was formed was to file the GEC GeNie reactor patent out of site in the UK. The a priori patent was not published (visible) for 6 years or so. Larry was in Europe walking the patent through the required legal events and 'keeping office' from time to time at UK Flag 136 Aldershot Road, Fleet, Hampshire, GU51 3GY UK.


    Legal Events

    2009-10-28 code121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application
    2010-04-29 DPE1 Request for preliminary examination filed after expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed from 20040101)

    2011-08-25 NENP Non-entry into the national phase


    JWK UK LIMITED https://companycheck.co.uk/com…ITED/companies-house-data

    "Réacteur hybride à fusion et fission rapide"

    WO WO2009108331A2 Jay Wook Khim; Forsley, Lawrence Parker Gallow

    Priority 2008-02-25 • Filed 2009-02-25 • Published 2009-09-03

    L'invention porte sur un réacteur hybride à fusion et fission rapide. Le réacteur hybride selon l'invention peut comprendre : une solution électrolytique composée de PdCl 2 , un sel conducteur, et de D 2 O; une anode dans un métal noble; une cathode composée d'un matériau conducteur à Z élevé (nombre …



    The Manhattan Project is not said to be a conspiracy is it?


    NO conspiracy theory here either.


    Both DoE studies recommended no funding for cold fusion.


    Forsley and Pam participated in the second one. Same with the 2016 report to congress.


    Here is what was presented by Forsley at the first colloquium in Louvain in 2009. The more recent disclosures I provide are WAY way better as a reference.


    For the past several years he has worked closely with Drs. Pam Mosier-Boss, Stan Szpak andFrank Gordon at SPAWAR where he has been developing and using charged particle andneutron diagnostics, and gamma ray detectors. These diagnostics temporally, spatially and spectrally resolve the nuclear emanations from palladium co-deposition experiments with high resolution cryogenically cooled germanium gamma ray detection, CR-39 solid state trackdetectors, witness materials, and both high resolution inductively coupled plasma massspectroscopy (ICP/MS) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with x-ray flourescence analysis.


    For more on 'NO conspiracy' it's a 'Cold Fusion Manhattan Project' please read:


    U.S. LENR Manhattan Project - U.S. Advanced LENR Technology

    Greg Goble 6/06/14 https://gbgoble.kinja.com/u-s-…ed-lenr-techno-1586883119

    In 1989, with the announcement of nuclear dense energy found in a jar, a U.S. nuclear ‘LENR Manhattan Project’ was initiated in the field of cold fusion/low energy nuclear reaction research and applied technology. Advanced LENR technology and engineering, now emerging from U.S. agencies, rivals all other energy sources.


    In a large part, the mission of the DoE, DoD, and NASA is to ensure U.S. technological advantage. It is a matter of U.S. security, economy, health, and comfort. A small portion of this obligation resulted in the World War II U238 nuclear Manhattan Project, which led to a U.S. nuclear advantage.

    Less than fifty years later, in 1989 the race to U.S. LENR energy began. The U.S. ‘LENR Manhattan Project’ will be of even greater interest to future historians. Recent evidence of both its’ existence, importance, and success is presented here. The advantage of clean abundant nuclear power was not lost on the U.S. government, as can be seen by these works which were initiated early on.

    For years U.S. cold fusion LENR research has been discredited. From the beginning the DoE has been putting up smoke screens and roadblocks, while at the same time the DoD and NASA have been quietly implementing deep LENR/cold fusion research, advanced LENR technology license agreements, and LENR energy applied engineering contracts.

  • AlainCo

    Of course what was presented to these DoD officials, defense corporation leaders, and congressional defense oversight members was more informative than made to the public to date. NO conspiracy theory here either. Ask any of them what they were told and they can't. Not yet anyways. Soon, like the Manhattan Project, disclosure becomes allowed. Agencies have incorporated this tech, related industries informed and the tech is being transferred to the public sphere.

    From Table 5-2. (page 88) List of presentations to admirals and heads of government agencies.

    Date / Meeting Place / Person(s) Briefed

    • Aug. 2, 2006 NDIA Naval S&T Partnership Conference in Washington DC: RADM William E. Landay III (head of ONR), Dr. Mike McGrath (head of S&T at ASN, RDA), Lt. Gen. Lawrence P. Farrell Jr. (USAF, retired)
    • Sept. 28, 2006 Capt. S. Black (Navy Liaison to the Vice President) in the Vice Presidents’ ceremonial office in the old executive office building in Washington DC.
    • May 2007 NDIA Joint Services Environmental Management Conference in Columbus, OH: Len Gollobin (Head of NDIA Energy Security Panel), Jim Woolsey (former head of CIA)
    • Nov. 7, 2007 SSC-Pacific: RADM Charles (Grunt) Smith (Vice CDR of SPAWAR)
    • May 2008 SSC-Pacific: James Colvard (retired SES, on special assignment to the Secretary of the Navy)
    • Apr. 2009 SSC-Pacific: ADM James Hogg (four star admiral, retired)
    • Apr. 14, 2009 SSC-Pacific: Brief given to congressional staffers
    • Apr. 27, 2009 SSC-Pacific: RADM Nevin P. Carr Jr. (Head of ONR)
    • May 14, 2009 AFCEA C4ISR at the San Diego Convention Center
    • June 26, 2009 SSC-Pacific: Dr. Richard L. Garwin (JASON Defense Advisory Group)
    • Aug. 2009 SSC-Pacific: B.J. Penn (ASN)
    • Sept. 24, 2009 SSC-Pacific: RADM Joe Rixey (Vice CDR of SPAWAR)
    • Oct. 27, 2009 SSC-Pacific: Mr. Zachary Lemnios (DDR&E)
    • Dec. 9, 2009 Chief of Naval Operations/Strategic Studies Group
    • May 13, 2010 MITRE Corp., VA, EMIS
    • June 29, 2010 Army Research Labs, Adelphi MD: RDECOM Power and Energy TFT LENR Workshop
    • Oct. 14, 2010 SSC-Pacific: Congressman Darrell Issa
    • Aug. 30, 2011 SSC-Pacific: Dr. Richard Carlin (ONR)
    • Others: RADM Kenneth Slaght (SPAWAR HQ); RADM Tim Flynn (when Captain of SSC-San Diego); Dr. John Fisher (DDR&E); Dr. Fred Saalfeld (senior civilian at ONR); VADM G. Peter Nanos (retired, Associate Director R&D at DTRA); Congresswoman Susan Davis; Senator Diane Feinstein
  • In a large part, the mission of the DoE, DoD, and NASA is to ensure U.S. technological advantage.

    This extends to the DOD financing Australian rare earth processing in Western Australia as a counter to Chinese monopoly.. the Japanese financed $500 million worth of refining of Lynas ore in Malaysia ten yrs ago... but Malaysia is not on the DOD A-list... of course some Re's such as erbium and samarium may be useful for LENR reactors..

    https://www.australianmining.c…arth-separation-facility/

  • The fact that this gets attention. LENR-alike energy solutions yet have to prove it excistance to a bigger audience.

    I agree, from the technical point of view the current NASA development of Lattice confinement fusion is old news for us LENR geeks, but from the Public Relationships war point of view, this is a huge change of tide, one that can be seized by all “boats”.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • The Google LENR patents are active and I predict this team will enter the market with a viable device within one to two years. They are now with the DoD (Munday Lab award) at UC Davis. Likely privy to all advanced US CMNS research and tech.


    GEC is now in the energy market with the SPAWAR/NASA CMNS technology. This fact will become very mainstream within one year. Likely sooner IM not so HO.

  • Max Nozin My name is really Mac... Mac Planx. Yeah yeah I know... Don't even think it!

    I'll tell you this much for sure 'cause I'm a virtual particle winking into and out of realities all the time. Sort of annoying till I got the hang of it. Think a thought and there I go.


    Max (I accidently said to myself).

    Before I could even complete my thought (which is way way faster than light, being a virtual particle and all)

    Boof... here IT is, and I'm listening to you!

    I'm sort of some kind odd cosmic (or comic is it) IT.

    Still in kinder garden though...


    Not at all like some others i've boofed into.


    Oh well


    Relatively your comment holds no bar that I can think of.


    Elucidate>>> Boof! I'm off again... weee ;)

  • The Bushnell Challenge for Advanced Technologies


    How do we create a world where no one wants to make war? - gbgoble


    First Law
    A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    Second Law
    A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    Third Law
    A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law


    In later fiction where robots had taken responsibility for government of whole planets and human civilizations, Asimov also added a fourth, or zeroth law, to precede the others.

    Zeroth Law
    A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.


    The Zeroth Law is referred to By NASA Langley Chief Scientist in: this "Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025] https://ia800303.us.archive.or…-2001testing-bushnell.pdf

    By Chief Scientist NASA Langley - Dennis Bushnell - July 20 2011


    Page 4 This presentation is meant to incite thought/ discussion and is based in all cases upon existing data/trends/analyses/technologies. (e.g., NO PIXIE DUST)

    It provides, in some cases, a somewhat broader view of prospective developments and issues.


    Page 7 Need to Plan “Differently”
    Our World is in the throes of triple/exponential (IT/Bio/Nano) Technological Revolutions.
    • Changes occurring at scales of months (instead of decades).
    Zeroth order potential effects upon Defense/Offense equipment/conops/threat.


    Page 22 The “Bushnell Challenge”
    “In this [Worldwide] economy our ability to create wealth is not bounded by physical limits/resources but by our ability to come up with new ideas.”


    Page 101 “Circa 2025”

    • Machines as creative/“smart” as humans “Robotics” the “norm”

    Zeroth order “warstopper” – Binary bio into nation’s agric./food distrib. system (every home/fox hole)

    • Next level of concern: Ubiquitous/Cheap micro-to-nano EVERYTHING (sensors, munitions, weapons swarms/hordes)

    • Battlefield attrition/CNN syndrome forces U.S. Army to look/act like SOCOM


    Page 106 Future “Warfare”

    “Defense” against the “then year” multitudinous conventional and unconventional delivery methods for volumetric and precision munitions is essentially neither doable nor affordable.

    • Suggested National Defense Approaches:

    – Work Technology, Intel, Diplomacy, SOCOM for detection/interdiction/deflection of the “pre-delivery” phases (causes of war, motivational and decision processes, design and construction, test)

    – Work and ADVERTISE a REALLY EFFECTIVE RETRIBUTION to deter delivery (ala MAD).


    Page 111

    In the second half of the 1900’s Nuclear/Bio Warfare was “Unthinkable”

    In the first half of the 2000’s “conventional” warfare may become so deadly/effective as to become “Unthinkable” (“Killer Aps” available to mitigate the “Causes of War”)


    Page 112 Approaches to Countering Group/Individual Deployment of IO/Bio

    WMD PREVENTION

    -Universal inexpensive Web based educ.

    – Biomass via sea water irrigation DISCOVERY

    – All Source Intel/Fusion/AI Analysis PREEMPTION/RETRIBUTION

    – SOF (Foreign)


    Page 113 (Usual) Reactions to this Presentation

    • Is in the “Too Hard Box”;

    • Not being done yet by anyone, therefore, will not be done;

    • They would not do that.

    We have to Hope they would not do that.

    Why go there, since there is no defense against it.

    Some Disbelief, but agreement there is too much there to disregard.


    This is the “Readers Digest” version of a 2-hour Presentation put together at the request of the Army War College/SSI. Presentation has been written up by Bill Stryker of DIA/Futures as the Future Threat for Global War Games etc., available on INTELNET

    THIS PRESENTATION BASED UPON
    “FUTURES” WORK FOR/WITH
    • USAF NWV
    • USAF 2025
    • National Research
    Council
    • Army After Next
    • ACOM Joint Futures
    • SSG of the CNO
    • Australian DOD
    • DARPA, SBCCOM
    • DIA, AFSOC, EB
    • CIA, STIC, L-M
    • APL, ONA, SEALS
    • ONI, FBI, AWC/SSI
    • NSAP, SOCOM
    • MSIC, TRADOC
    • JWAC, NAIC, IDA
    • JFCOM, TACOM
    • SACLANT