US Navy (SPAWAR)/Global Energy Corporation/LENR

    Quote from H-G Branzell

    This fantasy site is totally void of useful information: http://www.gec.solutions/home.html


    Of course there is not and never will be a reactor based on this crap.

    Well Mr. Branzell.


    Clearly you think GEC claims are hyperbole (a scam). Thanks for stating your opinion.

    hy·per·bo·le
    noun
    exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
    synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric, purple prose, puffery


    By the by,


    Your comment lends insight into you being an American, perhaps of Swedish descent or simply you are residing at times in Sweden. Still you speak like an ugly American, idiomatically correct.

    On one hand...

    Your comment is overtly harsh, at points way off base, and mainly filled with empty purple prose.

    On the other hand...

    Tighten it up a bit. Polishing may help your credibility somewhat.

    Purple prose is when language is flowery and ornate at the expense of plot and clarity.



    Quote from H-G Branzell

    Shane, do you mean one of these papers:


    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1704/1704.00694.pdf

    Quote from the paper summary:


    Exposure of highly deuterated materials to a low-energy (nom. 2 MeV) photon beam resulted in nuclear activity of both the parent metals of hafnium and erbium and a witness material (molybdenum) mixed with the reactants.


    Further study is required to determine the mechanism causing the nuclear activity. - end quote


    gbgoble note- If a nominal 2MeV photon beam is not the mechanism causing the (high energy) nuclear activity, what is? Perhaps the 2MeV photon beam is triggering LENR and those energetics released cause the (high energy) nuclear activity whose activation mechanism they seek to understand.


    Mr. Branzell,


    Are you taking this thread off topic or restating your opinion?


    Quote from the paper summary:


    Exposure of highly deuterated materials to a low-energy (nom. 2 MeV) photon beam resulted in nuclear activity of both the parent metals of hafnium and erbium and a witness material (molybdenum) mixed with the reactants.


    Further study is required to determine the mechanism causing the nuclear activity. - end quote


    gbgoble note -


    If a nominal 2MeV photon beam is not the mechanism causing the (high energy) nuclear activity, what is? Perhaps the 2MeV photon beam is triggering LENR and those energetics released cause the (high energy) nuclear activity whose activation mechanism they seek to understand.


    "Experimental Observations of Nuclear Activity in Deuterated Materials Subjected to a Low-Energy Photon Beam" https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1704/1704.00694.pdf


    By:


    Bruce M. Steinetz and Theresa L. Benyo National Aeronautics and Space Administration Glenn Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44135


    Vladimir Pines and Marianna Pines PineSci Consulting Avon Lake, Ohio 44012


    Lawrence P. Forsley JWK Corporation Annandale, Virginia 22003


    Paul A. Westmeyer National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546


    Arnon Chait National Aeronautics and Space Administration Glenn Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44135


    Michael D. Becks Vantage Partners, LLC Brook Park, Ohio 44142


    Richard E. Martin Cleveland State University Cleveland, Ohio 44115


    Robert C. Hendricks National Aeronautics and Space Administration Glenn Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44135


    Nicholas Penney Ohio Aerospace Institute Brook Park, Ohio 44142


    Annette M. Marsolais and Tracy R. Kamm Vantage Partners, LLC Brook Park, Ohio 44142


    ednote- I am adding this to the review:

    United States Government LENR Energy 2018

    https://gbgoble.kinja.com/unit…18-a-review-of-1822335542

    Patents by Inventor Paul Westmeyer

    Paul Westmeyer has filed for patents to protect the following inventions. This listing includes patent applications that are pending as well as patents that have already been granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

    METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR ENHANCED NUCLEAR REACTIONS
    Publication number: 20170263337

    Abstract: Nuclear fusion processes with enhanced rates may be realized by providing energetic electrons in an environment containing a suitable fuel gas, a liquid fuel source, a solid fuel source, a plasma fuel source, or any combination thereof. The fuel source may be deuterium, tritium, a combination thereof, or any fuel source capable of creating deeply screened and/or neutral nuclei when exposed to energetic electrons. Under proper conditions, at least some of the deeply screened and/or neutral nuclei fuse with other nuclei. Neutral versions of deuteron and/or triton nuclei may be created by bringing neutrons with certain energy levels (e.g., around 3 MeV, but optionally less or much less than 3 MeV) into interaction with other neutrons, forming neutral versions of deuterons and/or tritons. Such processes may be used for power generation, heat production, nuclear waste remediation, material creation, and/or medical isotope production, for example.

    Type: Application
    Filed: March 9, 2016
    Publication date: September 14, 2017
    Applicants: PineSci Consulting, NASA Glenn Research Center
    Inventors: Vladimir Pines, Marianna Pines, Bruce Steinetz, Arnon Chait, Gustave Fralick, Robert Hendricks, Paul Westmeyer


    Also

    System and method for detecting unauthorized device access by comparing multiple independent spatial-time data sets from other devices
    Patent number: 9749342

    Abstract: An authentication procedure utilizes multiple independent sources of data to determine whether usage of a device, such as a desktop computer, is authorized. When a comparison indicates an anomaly from the base-line usage data, the system, provides a notice that access of the first device is not authorized.

    Type: Grant
    Filed: September 30, 2016
    Date of Patent: August 29, 2017

    Assignee: The United States of America, as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Inventors: Frederick J. Krage, Paul A. Westmeyer, Russell F. Wertenberg, Jack F. Riegel

    ACCELERATION AND PRECISION CONTROLLED EJECTION OF MASS
    Publication number: 20170232578

    Abstract:

    Rotational motion generates velocity of a mass wherein the mass' release from the rotating system, becoming a projectile, and subsequent impact can result in cutting, abrasion, mixing of chemicals, coaling, and other surface and bulk volume effects including the transfer of momentum. Structures and devices are used to insert a mass into a rotating device. While inside the rotating device the mass gains velocity. Transitioning from the rotational system to a stationary surface is accomplished with a minimum of velocity loss by selecting trajectories, air flows, and surface finishes to reduce energy losses in the mass' transition onto the stationary surface and info a fixed stationary guide tube, and ultimately to an impact point. Single and multiple conduits, stationary and rotating, can be used to accomplish complex chemistry and physics affects.

    Type: Application
    Filed: February 13, 2017
    Publication date: August 17, 2017
    Inventors: Paul Westmeyer, Robert Edwin Woods, III, Robert Parker Woods

    Acceleration of a mass by a structure under central or gyration induced forces
    Patent number: 8820303

    Abstract:

    Gyration induced acceleration of a mass is modified by inserting changes in the pathway of a mass under the influence of gyration force resulting in an acceleration to re-phase after the phase disruption.

    Type: Grant
    Filed: September 11, 2012
    Date of Patent: September 2, 2014
    Inventors: Paul Westmeyer, Renee Mazaheri

    Acceleration Of A Mass By A Structure Under Central Or Gyration Induced Forces
    Publication number: 20130104864

    Abstract:

    Gyration induced acceleration of a mass is modified by inserting changes in the pathway of a mass under the influence of gyration force resulting in an acceleration to re-phase after the phase disruption.

    Type: Application
    Filed: September 11, 2012
    Publication date: May 2, 2013
    Inventors: Paul Westmeyer, Renee Mazaheri

    Method and apparatus for moving a mass
    Publication number: 20090314270

    Abstract:

    A combination for performing a variety of functions includes (a) apparatus for moving a projectile or other mass along an arcuate path and moving the path substantially radially along a local radius of curvature and (b) a tool, vehicle or other article for receiving such projectile and being moved thereby.

    Type: Application
    Filed: February 3, 2009
    Publication date: December 24, 2009
    Inventors: Paul A. Westmeyer, Renee Mazaheri

    Method and apparatus for moving a mass
    Patent number: 7500477

    Abstract:

    A combination for performing a variety of functions includes (a) apparatus for moving a projectile or other mass along an arcuate path and moving the path substantially radially along a local radius of curvature and (b) a tool, vehicle or other article for receiving such projectile and being moved thereby.

    Type: Grant
    Filed: June 20, 2005
    Date of Patent: March 10, 2009
    Inventors: Paul A. Westmeyer, Renee Mazaheri

    Method and apparatus for moving a mass
    Patent number: 7013988

    Abstract:

    A combination for performing a variety of functions includes (a) apparatus for moving a projectile or other mass along an arcuate path and moving the path substantially radially along a local radius of curvature and (b) a tool, vehicle or other article for receiving such projectile and being moved thereby.

    Type: Grant
    Filed: May 20, 2003
    Date of Patent: March 21, 2006
    Inventors: Paul A. Westmeyer, Renee Mazaheri

    Method and apparatus for moving a mass
    Publication number: 20050249576

    Abstract:

    A combination for performing a variety of functions includes (a) apparatus for moving a projectile or other mass along an arcuate path and moving the path substantially radially along a local radius of curvature and (b) a tool, vehicle or other article for receiving such projectile and being moved thereby.

    Type: Application
    Filed: June 20, 2005
    Publication date: November 10, 2005
    Inventors: Paul Westmeyer, Renee Mazaheri


    Method and apparatus for moving a mass
    Publication number: 20030221867

    Abstract:

    A combination for performing a variety of functions includes (a) apparatus for moving a projectile or other mass along an arcuate path and moving the path substantially radially along a local radius of curvature and (b) a tool, vehicle or other article for receiving such projectile and being moved thereby.

    Type: Application
    Filed: May 20, 2003
    Publication date: December 4, 2003
    Inventors: Paul A. Westmeyer, Renee Mazaheri

    Microwave energy generation device used to facilitate removal of concrete from a metal container
    Patent number: 5481092

    Abstract:

    An apparatus for mixing concrete adapted to facilitate removal of hardened concrete therefrom includes a metal container and a microwave energy generation device. The metal container is adapted to contain concrete and to enable concrete placed therein to be mixed or agitated, the container having inner walls to which the concrete may adhere when the concrete hardens. The microwave energy generation device generates microwave radiation energy into the metal container and is capable of liberating water molecules from the concrete placed in the container so as to weaken the chemical structure of the concrete to thereby facilitate breakage of the hardened concrete and removal of the concrete from the container.

    Type: Grant
    Filed: December 2, 1994
    Date of Patent: January 2, 1996
    Inventor: Paul A. Westmeyer

    • Official Post

    Thx CW.


    That is why I consider GEC/JWK/Guam, the most interesting story in LENR. Make's you wonder where that tech went? As Zeus pointed out, Guam has a huge military base. I believe someone from the base attended some of those negotiations with Guam. JWK does a lot of DOD work. JWK is well connected to the DC political power structure. It would be only natural for the military to pick up on the tech after the Guam deal fell through. They surely were aware of it.


    They have some bases scattered throughout the Pacific, tailor made to put the Genie tech to work. Kwaj, Wake, Johnson Islands would have been a perfect fit. No local populations, isolated, with existing military bases. Put it there, work out the kinks, and you have a leg up on your adversaries.


    This is not the makings of a conspiracy, or tin foil hat stuff....it really happened. Question is, what happened after Guam?

    Quote:

    Quote from CWatters

    GEC get a mention here...


    http://enformable.com/2013/03/…uct-fast-breeder-reactor/


    Thanks for the article CWatters, adding it to the review. Correct me if your wrong, your comment lends credit to GEC having plenty of money and that they might have built it anywhere on Guam (I opine on Naval property)...


    You opine trusting the claims of GEC.


    Opine: Hold and state as one's opinion. As in: You may opine about anything you want... or, “The man is a genius,” he opined. Synonyms: suggest, say, declare, observe, comment, remark, submit, put forward. Origin: late Middle English:

    from Latin opinari, ‘think, believe’.


    from the article


    Quote:

    The terms of the deal sound eerily similar to a deal which Global Energy Corporation offered to Guam in February of 2012, in which the location of the reactor was not even discussed until after a memorandum of understanding had been signed.


    Later that month, the press reported that Global Energy Corp. was proposing to build a 50-megawatt plant as a pilot project on Guam, on a build, operate and transfer basis for which GEC would obtain its own financing. The reports argued that Guam ratepayers would pay only for the electric power generated. GEC CEO Dr. Khim even said that he would finance the estimated $250 million plant himself.

    “No initial money for Guam at all,” Khim assured the press. “I’ll pay all the money; I’ll run it; and give Guam cheap electricity.” - end quotes


    Quote from Shane D.

    It would be only natural for the military to pick up on the tech after the Guam deal fell through. They surely were aware of it.

    The military has no need to pick up on the tech... They own it. GEC is the private sector entity (spawned from JWK SPAWAR LENR research partnership) commercializing this LENR energy technology. Quote: Khim explained. “We’ve been working with the U.S. Navy for about 22 years and the basic science phase is now over. Now we’re going into commercial development, which the Navy is not going to do.” But Khim says the science has been repeatedly duplicated by the Navy, and has been proven, recognized and published. - end quote


    Quote from Shane D.

    Question is, what happened after Guam?

    Epic question which future historians are sure to answer.

    As I see it they continued to pursue the same course after Guam was derailed due to unexpected and unrelated events (Filial's impeachment). As commented, the Navy has plenty of resources in the area... or in Saudi Arabia for instance... to assist their daughter company, GEC, with the insertion of an operating and commercially available GeNie SMG reactor. I also firmly believe that the DoD has perfected this reactor and integrated it into their energetics program for deployment. The Navy would not have released this technology for commercialization if this was not so. I also believe that Rossi's progress has forced the Navy (and NASA) to pick up the pace towards LENR energy applied engineering and market insertion. The secret deal on Guam would have kept it out of sight, giving the DoD a bit more time for further adoption of LENR tech. As opined, out of sight and out of mind is a GEC goal. After Guam failed they achieved it elsewhere, and are ready to move forward. Hence the GEC update of website and announcement of construction of 250Mw to 5Gw LENR energy power plants, most likely comprised of multiple singlet modular SMG of 50Mw.

    • Official Post

    What surprises me is that this did not get some coverage from the science media at the time. 2012 was yesterday, and the internet was almost as vibrant then as now, so how could this not have caught on somewhere? Had it been picked up, there may have been follow-ups with reporters dogging the company for answers...if reporters even do that anymore. Maybe it will take some intrepid, determined amateur journalist to get to the bottom.


    As I said, I tried to contact GEC about a year ago on their contact page, and got no response. Although, I have noticed a black SUV with government tags, antennas, and a CIA logo following me around, so maybe they took notice.

    Quote from Shane D.

    What surprises me is that this did not get some coverage from the science media at the time.


    I mentionned it once before:


    Feb 23rd 2016

    Today NZZ the world wide known Swiss newspaper developed a story about the renewal of the strategic US submarine fleet. They cited a marine press statement, where it is claimed, that the new submarines will have no need to undergo the costly fuel changes of a classical nuclear reactor...

    • Official Post

    I remember that now Wytten. I blew it off at the time, but with the US military responding to Putin's boast about the nuclear propelled cruise missile, with a "meh, we are not worried", it is a wonder there has been no follow up on that.


    That said, it was odd that a Swiss newspaper picked up on the story, and not a US one. Then nothing since. Like the Genie reactor Guam/Saipan story.


    Thx for the reminder.

    The Ohio-class nuclear powered submarines need refueling after 20 years. This is very time consuming, it takes 40 months:

    http://www.csp.navy.mil/Media/…tegic-mission-since-2011/


    The new Columbia-class submarine has a reactor that does not need refueling during the design life of the ship, 42 years:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1B_reactor


    And the subs will not be powered by nickel powder but by uranium enriched to more than 20% U235, aka HEU that can also be used as bomb material: https://www.armscontrol.org/print/7820


    The latest generation of U.S. attack submarines, the Virginia-class, however, is equipped with cores designed to propel them for their entire 33-year design lives. The cores of the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines also are being designed to propel them for their full (42-year) design lives. The basis for the Office of Naval Reactors’ conclusion that U.S. nuclear submarines could not be converted to LEU use was that LEU cores of the same size as the current HEU cores would not provide enough energy to last a submarine’s lifetime.


    The Genie is still in the bottle ...


    Added:

    There is an ongoing discussion regarding the HEU / LEU choice. Since you cannot make bombs from LEU there are good reasons to stop making HEU. Whether the Columbia subs are going to use HEU or not may still be an open question.

    http://sites.utexas.edu/nppp/f…RERTR-2017-Paper-rev5.pdf

    The heart of the Genie reactor concept is a LENR based neutron generator. This generator must produce in excess of one neutron for each fission. In standard fission reactors each fission produces around two neutrons that in principle could initiate two more fissions, this is the chain reaction. But due to various losses you will have to design the reactor with great care to get a sustained chain reaction. And with even greater care to avoid a runaway reaction!


    This means that a Genie reactor will need an ENORMOUS neutron source. If GEC had such a source the first thing to do would not be to try to sell a complete power station. Neutrons have many uses in industri and elsewhere. There are commercial neutron generators available, but they are not very efficient and in many applications a point source is required. In these cases one can use e.g. Californium 252 as a neutron source.


    A good example is the active rod scanner used by Westinghouse at the nuclear fuel factory in Västerås, Sweden. This machine checks the enrichment of the uranium dioxide pellets along the whole fuel rod. The pellets are made slightly radioactive by fissioning some of the U235 using neutrons from Cf252. By measuring this activation it is verified that each pellet has the right enrichment. The source weighs 1 mg and costs more than US$1m, and it seems like a bad investment because the half-life is only 2.6 years. It has been said that Cf252 is the most expensive element on earth.


    The GEC neutron source, if it exists of course, would have a great commercial value, so the first thing to do would be to patent the source and nothing else. Failing to do so reminds me of Rossi who invented a both efficient and cheap method to make highly enriched Ni62. Did he patent it? Of course not. And the Genie reactor is not even crap, it is non-existent and forever will be.

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.