NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator

  • Plum Brook Station is a remote test facility for the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Located on 6,400 acres in the Lake Erie community of Sandusky,


    Plum Brook is home to four world-class test facilities, which perform complex and innovative ground tests for the international space community.

    The Space Environments Complex (SEC) houses the world’s largest and most powerful space environment simulation facilities including the Space Simulation Vacuum Chamber measuring 100 ft. in diameter by 122 ft. high.


    The Reverberant Acoustic Test Facility is the world's most powerful spacecraft acoustic test chamber, which can simulate the noise of a spacecraft launch up to 163 decibels or as loud as the thrust of 20 jet engines.


    The Mechanical Vibration Facility is the world's highest capacity and most powerful spacecraft shaker system, subjecting test articles to the rigorous conditions of launch.

    In-Space Propulsion Facility (ISP) is the world's only facility capable of testing full-scale, upper-stage launch vehicles and rocket engines under simulated high-altitude conditions. The engine or vehicle can be exposed for indefinite periods to low ambient pressures, low-background temperatures and dynamic solar heating to simulate the environment of orbital or interplanetary travel.

  • Larry Forsley, and his wife Pamela Bosier-Moss (formerly SPAWAR), both representing GEC (affiliate of JWK International) submitted an abstract for ICCF21. I think this is a first for them?


    Good to see them stepping up to the public podium. They have been a mystery too long. Surely they will have some very interesting things to say...especially so off the record:


    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sp7…ew=Forsley-Lawrence-1.pdf


    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sp7…=Mosier-Boss-Pamela-1.pdf

  • The Space Environments Complex (SEC) houses the world’s largest and most powerful space environment simulation facilities including the Space Simulation Vacuum Chamber measuring 100 ft. in diameter by 122 ft. high.


    The Reverberant Acoustic Test Facility is the world's most powerful spacecraft acoustic test chamber, which can simulate the noise of a spacecraft launch up to 163 decibels or as loud as the thrust of 20 jet engines.


    Certainly SEC can simulate some LENR too.

  • They are actually paying NASA to build something based on NASA's patent. This is still great news for LENR but Oy I wish them luck.



    BEC,


    I do not interpret it that way. If you keep reading, it is clear that GEC is paying NASA a nominal fee for the services/facilities they will provide, and that it is GEC doing most of the heavy lifting.

  • I believe this is what it is all about:


    https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…tring=&tab=PCTDescription


    [011] Recently, Boss (Boss, et al, "Triple Tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd-D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons", Naturwissenschaften, (2009) VoI 96:135-142) documented the production of deuterium-deuterium (2.45 MeV) and deuterium-tritium (14.1 MeV) fusion neutrons using palladium co-deposition on non-hydriding metals. These energetic neutrons were observed and spectrally resolved using solid state detectors identical to those routinely used in the ICF (DoE lnertial Confinement Fusion program) experiments (Seguin, FH, et al. "Spectrometry of charged particles from inertial-confinement-fusion plasmas" Rev Sci Instrum. 74:975-995. (2003).

    [012] Boss, et al, filed U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 60/919,190, on March 14, 2007, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Generating Particles", which is incorporated by reference in its entirety and Serial No. 11/859,499, ['499] "System and Method for Generating Particles", filed on September, 21 , 2007, which is incorporated by reference in its entirety. Although that patent teaches a method to generate neutrons and describes in general terms their use, this embodiment teaches another means to fast fission a natural abundance uranium deuteride fuel element driven by DD primary and secondary fusion neutrons within said fuel element. Consequently, a heavily deuterided actinide can be its own source of fast neutrons, with an average neutron kinetic energy greater than 2 MeV and greater than the actinide fission neutron energy. Such energetic neutrons are capable of fissioning both fertile and fissile material. There is no chain reaction. There is no concept of actinide criticality. Purely fertile material, like 232Th or non-fertile isotopes, like 209Bi, may fission producing additional fast neutrons and energy up to 200 MeV/nucleon fissioned.
    [013] This results in considerable environmental, health physics, and economic savings by using either spent nuclear fuel, mixed oxide nuclear fuel, natural uranium or natural thorium to "stoke the fires of a nuclear furnace" and is the basis for our Green Nuclear Energy technology, or GNE (pronounced, "Genie"). GNE reactors may consume fertile or fissionable isotopes such as 232Th, 235U, 238U, 239Pu, 241Am, and 252Cf, and may consume fission wastes and activation products in situ without requiring fuel
    reprocessing. GNE reactors may consume spent fuel rods without either mechanical processing or chemical reprocessing. In this regard, GNE reactor technology may be an improvement over proposed Generation IV fission reactor technologies
    (
    http://nuclear.enerqv.aov/aenlV/neGenlV1.htmh under development.
    GNE may: improve safety (no chain reaction), burn actinides (reduced waste) and provide compatibility with current heat exchanger technology (existing infrastructure). By employing a novel, in situ, very fast neutron source, GNE constitutes a new Generation V hybrid reactor technology, combining aspects of Generation IV fast fission reactors, the DoE Advanced Accelerator reactor, and hybrid fusion/fission systems. It may eliminate the need for uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing and, consequently, the opportunity for nuclear weapons proliferation through the diversion of fissile isotopes

  • GEC's old website is no longer accessible, but Vortex captured most of what was on there in the old posts. Here is one:


    About GEC:

    About Us The Global Energy Corporation was founded to develop and commercialize Green Nuclear Energy solutions based on a proprietary Green Nuclear Energy (GeNiE) Reactor technology that produces high-energy nuclear particles more efficiently than conventional approaches. These high-energy particles can be used to generate green nuclear energy by fissioning uranium, including un-enriched uranium. Current stockpiles of hazardous nuclear waste and associated actinides can also be fissioned to extract the remaining 95% of the energy from the fuel rods, thereby producing additional power while rendering the hazardous waste safer. GeNiE Reactor designs include a revolutionary Class V GeNiE hybrid fusion, fast-fission reactor that combines aspects of the Class IV fast fission and the DoE Advanced Accelerator Applications Program. Since a chain reaction is not required to generate the high-energy particles, the GeNiE Reactor greatly reduces the possibility of a melt-down and it is compatible with existing heat exchanger technology. Global Energy Corporation scientists and engineers are currently experimenting with small pilot GeNiE Reactors and are designing prototype GeNiE Reactors for commercial applications. GEC believes its GeNiE Reactor technology provides the most attainable long-term solution to the world's energy needs. GEC believes that the world market for construction of nuclear power plants will increase dramatically as the new technological advantages of the GeNiE Reactor are commercialized.

  • ...this important document that shows GEC ...signing an agreement on 12/20/2017, to partner with NASA GRC to develop an LENR based 10kW (later to be scaled to 100kWs) generator.


    Well, no. GEC will pay GRC 341 k to conduct tests of GECs reactor. GRC will provide space and utilities, and assist in data recording, The two organizations are not partners in anything other than running some tests. The responsibilities of GRC are quite specific, and participating in development is mentioned nowhere. Milestone 3, "The parties to jointly identify desirable fuel material," would seem to apply to safety and material handling issues. In light of the rest of the agreement it seems quite unreasonable to read it as suggesting that GRC will identify fuel material which will make GECs concept work.


    The purpose of the tests is developing several iterations of thermal generators, but that is GEC's purpose, not GRC's.


    There is some weirdness, I agree, in the last, 87k, payment, which is predicated on "demonstration of excess power (less than 10 Wth)". While I'm not a lawyer, this looks as if an unsuccessful test (no excess power) will exempt GEC from this payment. However, note that the power level specified is LESS than 10W, (Milestone 4) and LESS than 100W (Milestone 5) rather than greater than either 10 kW or 100 kW.


    Frankly, hyping this as a partnership smacks very strongly of Rossi touting a "partnership" with National Instruments, when all NI could possibly do is provide test instrumentation and advice on how to use it.

  • I believe this is what it is all about:


    https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…tring=&tab=PCTDescription


    [011] Recently, Boss (Boss, et al, "Triple Tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd-D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons", Naturwissenschaften, (2009) VoI 96:135-142) documented the production of deuterium-deuterium (2.45 MeV) and deuterium-tritium (14.1 MeV) fusion neutrons using palladium co-deposition on non-hydriding metals. These energetic neutrons were observed and spectrally resolved using solid state detectors identical to those routinely used in the ICF (DoE lnertial Confinement Fusion program) experiments....


    The problem with this is that the neutron flux claimed by the patent and the 2009 paper referenced above is orders of magnitude too low to make a useful fusion-fission reactor. They have admitted this, and that the reactor proposal assumes the neutron flux can be scaled up somehow. The papers they are presenting at ICCF just seem to claim some neutrons; there is no indication that they have succeeded in increasing the flux.


    If the claimed neutrons were real, the flux probably could be scaled up, but if they're not, obviously it can't be. A few years ago Faccini et al. set an upper limit of neutron production 100 times *below* what was claimed in the SPAWAR patent, so it's probably not real.


    Anyway, if it were real, and if they could scale up the neutron production, *that's* what they would claim first. If they could use the neutrons to cause fission of a small sample of U-238, (or to remediate a tiny sample of nuclear waste, which they also claim) that would be extremely easy to prove (and very difficult to fake), and by itself would rocket them to fame overnight. Instead, as is typical in this "field", they talk about blue sky reactors without laying the necessary groundwork. I begin to suspect the scientists exiled from SPAWAR are playing Rossi's game.


    Also, it should be noted that NASA is pretty careful in this agreement to insist that the agreement does *not* constitute endorsement from NASA. They, after all, do participate in some pretty far out ideas, like anti-gravity.


    In spite of the confidence expressed over on ECW, I'm all but certain that this too shall pass.

  • BTW, we have discussed the Genie concept before and I repeat, it is a pipe dream based on a few tracks in a CR-39 plastic detector.


    H-G, whilst your efforts to ape Mary Yugo (albeit a saner, more relevant, and less scatalogical version) are not unappreciated, you should avoid his ludicrous habit of not bothering to read the source material before passing comment...


    “Real-time gamma ray measurements were conducted during the course of the experiment. Changes in the baseline of the spectra and the shapes of the lines indicated that neutrons were generated, at a sufficient flux, to damage the detector. Neutron elastic scattering by Ge nuclei was modelled and the average energy of the neutrons was estimated to be 6.3-6.93 MeV. This was corroborated by the CR-39 results which showed the presence of triple tracks”


    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sp7…=Mosier-Boss-Pamela-1.pdf


    From nine posts up

  • https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sp7…=Mosier-Boss-Pamela-1.pdf


    Still, there seems to be no other support to the claimed findings than results from CR-39 chips.


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0360319916330968

    "Detection of high energy particles using CR-39 detectors part 1:

    Results of microscopic examination, scanning, and LET analysis"


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S036031991633097X

    Detection of high energy particles using CR-39 detectors Part 2: Results of in-depth destructive etching analysis


    I think that claimed production of neutrons needs to be verified by other methods.

    (Neutrons should be easiest since they can slip out of the electrolysis vial.)


    If it can be made certain that neutrons are produced it will be big news.

    But producing them in quantities sufficient to run a nuclear reactor is a VERY tall order, much like an impossible invention.

  • Still, there seems to be no other support to the claimed findings than results from CR-39 chips.


    Other than the excess heat, tritium, X-rays, and gamma rays, of course.


    http://research.missouri.edu/v…ar/U%20of%20Mo/spawar.ppt


    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…80.6033&rep=rep1&type=pdf


    If it can be made certain that neutrons are produced it will be big news.

    But producing them in quantities sufficient to run a nuclear reactor is a VERY tall order, much like an impossible invention.


    Wouldn’t a nuclear reactor help out by producing it’s own additional neutrons, chain reaction style?

  • Wouldn’t a nuclear reactor help out by producing it’s own additional neutrons, chain reaction style?


    Natural uranium consists of only 0.71% of U235, the rest is U238. It is only U235 that is fissionable by thermal neutrons.

    Therefore normal fission reactor fuel must be enriched with respect to U235 to a content of a few percent in order to get the chain reaction running. When the U235 is sufficiently depleted the chain reaction cannot be upheld and the fuel becomes spent nuclear fuel.


    Since the fuel is worn out when too few neutrons are produced it is pretty clear that you will have to produce enormous amounts of neutrons to continue to use the fuel. And these neutrons must be supplied evenly over the whole volume of the core. How do you do that?


    Another problem is that old fuel becomes brittle and the metal tubes containing the fuel pellets are prone to crack. This means that the fuel has to be reprocessed each time it shall be reused. Reprocessing is a rather dirty business that is best avoided.


    But yes, you are correct that the neutrons produced by the fission will help to sustain the chain reaction.

  • Other than the excess heat, tritium, X-rays, and gamma rays, of course.


    None are credible or (importantly) commensurate.


    "Wouldn’t a nuclear reactor help out by producing it’s own additional neutrons, chain reaction style?"

    If they were relying on chain reactions in U-235 e.g., they wouldn't need LENR.


    The idea is that fast neutrons can cause fission of the much more abundant U-238 (or even Th-232). However, unlike U-235, U-238 and Th-232 do not sustain chain reactions.

  • Tom Claytor, who is working with these guys knows as much about particle detection as anybody on the planet. If he signed off on this, you can bet he has analysed it 6 ways from Sundays


    Claytor spent a decade chasing tritium in cold fusion in the 90s, and in the early part, he was confident, but in the last report I found of that work in 1998, it's clear they hadn't answered any interesting questions about it, and hadn't gotten a single prestigious publication out of it. That 1998 paper explains that "due to the subtle and weak nature of the signals observed, we have taken many precautions and checks to prevent contamination and to confirm the tritium is not due to an artifact". And of course the tritium claims have led to nothing, so I wouldn't put much weight on him signing off on anything.

  • Well, no. GEC will pay GRC 341 k to conduct tests of GECs reactor. GRC will provide space and utilities, and assist in data recording, The two organizations are not partners in anything other than running some tests. The responsibilities of GRC are quite specific, and participating in development is mentioned nowhere.


    WRB,


    They say right there in the agreement that GEC is to be referred to as "partner", and that the partnership "shall be for the purpose of NASA and GEC to develop a 10kW thermal power generator".


    So the headline is not sensational, and is factual. That said, after further reading of the agreement, I made a comment in a later post that GEC is "doing the heavy lifting".


    This is quite a newsworthy story in LENR land, and it baffles me that you choose to focus on that, instead of the ramifications of NASA and GEC partnering up.


    And this is not all there is to the collaboration, as Ahlfors hinted to you about in his pictorial message.

    There are other areas of cooperation between NASA/JWK/GEC/SPAWAR that have been the topic of a few other threads.

  • Also, it should be noted that NASA is pretty careful in this agreement to insist that the agreement does *not* constitute endorsement from NASA. They, after all, do participate in some pretty far out ideas, like anti-gravity.


    In spite of the confidence expressed over on ECW, I'm all but certain that this too shall pass.


    LR,


    You are nit-picking. This is just a legal formality that in no way diminishes the significance of this partnership.


    And your attempt to discredit the NASA/GEC partnership by linking it to anti-gravity won't work. GEC is a legitimate company, and NASA is one of the finest, and most respected institutions in the world.


    You need to leave your Ivory Tower more often. Your ad-homs are a little rusty. :) And you shall see soon, real soon for sure, that this one may not pass as the others before.

  • LR,


    Curious what you and your colleagues think about all the transmutations being reported? Nothing new as they have been observed for 100 years, but it seems nowadays, whoever looks specifically, finds them; India, Japanese, Russians, Safire.


    They are very emphatic about what they are seeing also. Nothing subtle at all about their comments.

  • LR,


    You are nit-picking. This is just a legal formality that in no way diminishes the significance of this partnership.


    NASA has been involved in various capacities with LENR since the beginning, probably peaking with the Bushnell and Zawodny tag-team. Never led to anything significant before, so there is not much significance to diminish.


    "GEC is a legitimate company, and NASA is one of the finest, and most respected institutions in the world."


    GEC claimed to have a deal to sell working power reactors to Guam (was it?). If they're legit, then why would they go from selling working power reactors to validating a tiny reactor many years later? Their web site, when it existed, did not suggest legitimacy to me.


    NASA is fine and respected, yes, but they are huge, and huge companies can't help but hire a few crack-pots. Which is why they have investigated anti-gravity and cold fusion.

  • GEC claimed to have a deal to sell working power reactors to Guam (was it?). If they're legit, then why would they go from selling working power reactors to validating a tiny reactor many years later?


    Good point. With Forsley and Mosier-Boss becoming more accessible, maybe we will eventually get an answer to that.

  • LR,


    Curious what you and your colleagues think about all the transmutations being reported? Nothing new as they have been observed for 100 years, but it seems nowadays, whoever looks specifically, finds them; India, Japanese, Russians, Safire.


    Contaminants are easy to find when you look.


    It is a remarkable coincidence that of the new nuclides observed, they are all stable, and present in nature with very similar isotopic ratios.


    Of the more than 3000 nuclides that have been experimentally characterized, only 253 are stable, so the production of unstable products in nuclear reactions (especially involving larger nuclides) is overwhelmingly favored, and in many of the claimed reactions, are necessary intermediates. Plus, the sensitivity and specificity for unstable nuclei is a million times better. Yet they only claim stable, naturally occurring nuclides. Contamination is the only statistically plausible explanation.