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

  • Outlandish claims as you said, great communicants and mythomaniacs remain almost 95% of my Lenr understanding since 2 decades i'm involved in this field.

    We should stop to dream.

    She hasn't retired. Pam is employed by Global Energy Corporation. Lawrence Forsley is employed by both NASA and GEC, with an office, labs and testbeds at NASA. It's more interesting to have curiosity and knowledge about this group's workings and outlandish claims than those of the ECat, Rossi and Industrial Heat orchestrated fiasco. We all remember GEC and Guam. While not asking Pam or Larry pointed questions in this regard, they both have made plans to attend the ARPA-E LENR workshop. So does Theresa Benyo. Industrial Heat is going to be there too.

    I would like Vladimir Pines to attend and show us his "guiding theories" essential to the design of reactors for GEC LENR space power systems.


  • Outlandish claims as you said

    Yes.

    This is the first time that I've said the claims made by GEC are outlandish.


    I trust that these BOLD claims are actually factual. I also assume Space Act Agreement milestones have been met. I know with certainty we shall learn more in due course. I also believe Rossi has what he says he has. The reasons for the bumps and delays along the way will become clearer with time.

    METHOD of SCIENTIFIC

    Straighten untangling

    Concept bound

    Better yet

    Always found

    Still questing


    Perhaps

    There are dopants that could be combined in thin layers, sputtered, or otherwise applied in a LEC LENR atomic battery type device... A concerted discovery process... hundreds and hundreds of possible combinations.... guided by evolving theory.


    Or in a LENR thermal Energy reactor design quest.


    Ongoing quest for quite some time...


    Early GEC 2007

    WO2009108331A2 - A hybrid fusion fast fission reactor - Google Patents


    From 2013

    NASA Technology Gateway – Spinoff – LENR Cold Fusion

    NASA Technology Gateway – Spinoff – LENR Cold Fusion – COLD FUSION NOW!

    The geometry of the structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to the resonant frequency of the material system.


    July 2021

    NASA/TM–20210016143

    "Frontiers of Space Power and Energy"

    Dennis M. Bushnell, Robert W. Moses, and Sang H. Choi

    Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia


    Quote

    LENR is apparently a non-obvious multistage process involving the weak force. Initial claims of “cold fusion” poisoned the well and became the energetics third rail. There was also lack of validated physics understanding and usually only low heat levels produced. There was also a dearth of experiments focused on validating theory (or not), mostly variations on previous

    experiments vice the basic physics and efforts to identify such. It was often considered simply too good to be true…incredulity. There were observations, beginning in the 1600s, and still ongoing, of transmutations including silicon, carbon, magnesium, potassium into calcium, and

    many others in biological systems. Experiments, many carefully done, were conducted before the late 1980s primarily in France, Germany, and Russia. These cited transmutations observed occurring in plants, seeds, bacteria, microorganisms, and mammals. An oft cited instantiation is

    the calcium shell on chicken eggs. If calcium is withheld in the diet, apparently mica and potassium are transmutated. If these are absent, there are no shells. This occurs with no observed heat or radiation. From refs 31 and 32, the LENR effect has been replicated hundreds of times while using different materials and five different methods of energy addition. Each method is found to produce energy well in excess of any plausible chemical source and that is

    correlated with identified nuclear products. LENR patent holders include: Airbus, Google,

    Leonardo, Brillouin, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Widom-Larsen, Boeing, MIT, and the U.S. Navy. LENR produces heat, which can be utilized directly or converted to electricity via such as Sterling Cycles, Thermoelectrics, Pyroelectrics, T-PV, Etc.

    Recent research in Japan via long and careful experimentation, has proven that a major “missing controlled parameter” in the decades now of previous LENR research is the requirement for nano sized discrete surface morphology. As already noted, that enables localized energy concentration by orders of magnitude. Major organizations (including Google) are now conducting research aimed at understanding and sorting out sensitivities and optimization. The major issues going forward include development of a viable, proven theory to

    allow engineering, scaling, and safety. Given that, which at this point appears to be a work in progress, much with regard to power and energy could change, for climate/transportation/HVAC, energy costs overall, and in-space for propulsion, habs, ISRU, on body transportation.

  • I didn't specifically wanted to alter the mind of our readers but only wanted to share a factual vision. A lot of researchers have seen things but mostly very small things that they have oversold.

    In fact, everyone is over-communicating in order to artificially appear the brightest in order to get ahead from others regarding potential funding possibilities.

    This is still the case, with for example this current virtuous attempt at US funding.

    Generally, countries which have had the most impact on Lenr field in its recent history was first of all, italy with piantelli as the beginning, japan took over with their current promising work and always USA with essentially their most massive financing capacities at any scale.

  • The following NASA LENR workshop is posted on the GEC website. Their market market entry claims are bold or outlandish depending on your insight.


    Should this be posted on one of the many Global Energy Corporation threads, the NASA Lattice Confinement Fusion thread or the LEC thread?


    I think they are best seen as one big well funded group and that the Indian Head Division LENR researchers/engineers are an important part of any applied engineering developments for military uses.


    I also think that the ARPA-E LENR workshop attendees and followers would benefit in reviewing the GEC website and all that is provided in the NASA workshop.


    Global Energy Corporation

    Home


    "NASA GRC Hosts Lattice Confinement Fusion Virtual Workshop" 20May2021

    Theresa L. Benyo1, Lawrence P. Forsley2, Leonard Dudzinski3, and Matthew J. Forsbacka3

    1National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, 44135

    2JWK Corporation, Annandale, Virginia 22003

    3National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Headquarters, Washington, DC, 20546

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205006546/downloads/LCF%20Workshop%20-%20May%2021%202020%20-%20Final%20Public.pdf



    Executive Summary

    Since 2014, the Advanced Energy

    Conversion (AEC) Project has examined

    novel nuclear reactions in materials that

    absorb large quantities of deuterium fuel

    tightly held in a lattice. These experiments culminated in a bremsstrahlung irradiation campaign that repeatedly induced nuclear reactions in deuterated metals. According to the theory developed during the project, the metal lattice’s negative electrons screened positively charged deuterons to overcome the electrostatic barrier to achieve nuclear fusion initiated by photoneutrons. This discovery opens a new path for initiating fusion reactions for the scientific community and possibly deep space power for NASA. The prestigious journal, Physical Review C (PRC), published the experimental observations and the underpinning theory in their April 2020 issue. A followup virtual Workshop was held on May 21, 2020 using the Webex platform to

    present the journal papers and have a NASA panel of experts evaluate the research and its application.

    Subsequently, NASA Technical Papers derived from the journal papers and Workshop material appearing on the NASA GRC LCF website garnered 244 visits in the first week of going ‘live’. One of the staff writers at IEEE Spectrum took an interest in our work after visiting that website, contacted the NASA GRC News Chief, interviewed 2 of the AEC team members, and ran an article viewed by 45,000 predominately engineers and scientists over its first five days online and within a month had been viewed 50,000 times.

    Consequently, the IEEE requested a full article for their monthly magazine. The American Nuclear Society also picked up the IEEE Spectrum article and published their own piece. The Asia Times published an article after reviewing the PRC journal papers. In addition, Popular Mechanics published an article as a result of visiting the LCF website and shared the LCF animation from the website. The US Army requested and received a briefing on September 14, 2020 that included civilians from the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head.

    The Workshop objectives were to disseminate and discuss the findings published in the PRC journal which were both successfully met and are detailed below. This report summarizes the Workshop presentations and includes the Panelists’ and Attendee Feedback, Question and Answer Sessions, the table of contents of and links to the NASA Theory and Experimental Technical Reports, and the Panelists’ biographies.


    Presenters, Panelists and Attendees

    The presenters were: Dr. Bruce Steinetz, (NASA GRC), Dr. Theresa Benyo (NASA GRC), Dr. Arnon Chait (NASA GRC), Mr. Len Dudzinski (NASA HQ), Mr. Lawrence Forsley (GEC and NASA GRC), and Dr. Vlad Pines (Pines Consulting and NASA GRC).

    The NASA Panel members were: Dr. Matthew Forsbacka (NASA HQ), Dr. Ron Litchford (NASA HQ), Dr. Mike Houts (NASA MSFC) and Mr. John Scott (NASA JSC). Each of the Panel members came from different NASA Centers. They had also participated in previous NASA HQ requested reviews of the AEC Project. Furthermore, each brought different, and independent, expertise to bear on both the Physical

    Review C papers and the Workshop.

    Some of the notable attendees included: Dr. Marla Perez-Davis (GRC Center Director); Dr. John Grunsfeld (former Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate); Dr. Arden Bement (former NIST and NSF director) and Dr. Michael Salamon (former NASA Program Scientist). Several participants provided feedback regarding possible follow-on LCF research.

  • Thanks Gregory Byron Goble


    I had a look at the website. Very interesting.


    I agree that the GEC claims are, on the face of things, outlandish.

    I do not dispute the technology; it seems likely have something along the lines of what they claim.

    I do not dispute their 20 years of development and expertise.


    It is their stated plans to conquer the world that I find incredible.


    Certainly if they can demonstrate the technical breakthroughs that they claim then financing will not be a problem, they will quickly find they have more money than they know what to do with.

    But they have a Thorium based power reactor that they want to sell at scale.

    They also say they want to build GEC cars with their new trickle charging technology.

    They want to do both these things at scale, on top of many other irons in the fire such as working with NASA and likely various other government/defense departments.


    As far as I am aware GEC are a small company.

    Entry, at scale, into the energy market or the automobile market will likely take many, many years and require a massive growth in the company.

    To do what they want to do they will need fabrication facilities, which will need to be built to fabricate the new technologies.


    Just looking at automobiles;


    Tesla was founded in 2003 and under Elon Musk, one of the most driven entrepreneurs on the planet. They had a steep learning curve and a very ambitious schedule to create gigafactories around the world. And now seven years later, Tesla's global vehicle sales were 499,550 units in 2020. Musk now has 0.7% of the world automobile market.


    I just cannot see how GEC can seriously talk about building their own cars and dream of taking over the market.

    Google is a large company but if they said they were going to start designing and building automobiles I think there would be some incredulity. Most of their hardware projects have ended in failure (Google Glass anyone).


    What might be more feasible is if GEC either lease the technology or partner with a large car manufacturer, but then the latter option would limit their market to whatever models the car manufacturer was selling.

    Another option, if they make a big enough impression is that somebody may just buy them out.

    I hear the Saudis have a lot of money, or possibly Musk.


    So I am a bit concerned that their technology may be great but their delivery aspirations seem unrealistic. Maybe that is just for financing purposes but I would be more reassured with a realistic short to medium term business plan. If they try to grow too fast or head off in too many directions they will likely trip up.

  • ZenoOfElea

    Thanks for your well studied response.


    With Musk among the few first in line to recieve CMNS energy technology for Space Power from NASA SPAWAR/GEC. As CEO of Space X he knows more about these developments than I do.


    GEC is a spin-off of JWK and this tech out of the SPAWAR San Diego team Forsley et al. Note that the U S Secretary of the Navy retains rights on GEC patents and likely controls aspects of market entry and licensing agreements.


    My hope is that the plans for a GEC trickle charger "that plugs into any EV" takes off. That Tesla designs a megafactory for them, builds the first dozen for its own use. This becomes part of the package included with GEC licensing agreements.


    The bulk of Musk's wealth is Space X... Not Tesla. 80% if my memory serves me right.


    Thanks again considerations and thoughts that get me to thinking...

  • Tesla just got a 100,000-car order form Hertz (thru 2022) putting its valuation over $1T

    Oh. You mean Tesla's stock valuation is over $1 T. I thought you meant the 100,000 car order is for $1 T! I think that order is for ~$1 billion.


    Let's see . . . Hertz has 430,000 cars, so 100,000 is believable. It depends on how many years the delivery period is:


    Hertz Global Holdings: U.S. car rental average fleet 2020 | Statista
    In the fiscal year of 2020, Hertz Global Holdings Inc.'s U.S.
    www.statista.com


    Here is an article about the purchase:


    NPR Cookie Consent and Choices

  • Privately held... Musk owns 43% of Space X


    Reference article


    "SpaceX could make Elon Musk world’s first trillionaire, says Morgan Stanley"

    SpaceX could make Elon Musk world’s first trillionaire, says Morgan Stanley
    Most of world’s richest person’s fortune so far has come from electric car company Tesla
    www.theguardian.com

    Rupert Neate Wealth correspondent

    @RupertNeate the Guardian

    Wed 20 Oct 2021 07.10 EDT



    Quote

    Most of world’s richest person’s fortune so far has come from electric car company Tesla


    He added: “More than one client has told us if Elon Musk were to become the first trillionaire ... it won’t be because of Tesla. Others have said SpaceX may eventually be the most highly valued company in the world – in any industry.”


    Also


    He said: “As one client put it, ‘talking about space before Starship is like talking about the internet before Google.’”



  • I agree with ZenoOfElea, and I recall saying elsewhere that the only credible path for them is to partner with an OEM.


    Manufacturing automobiles is a notoriously capital intense, high fixed cost and punishing business. There's a reason why the automakers all get bailed out at the bottom of every business cycle. Fools rush in etc.. And the automotive supply chain is complex and fragmented; their best bet would be to work with a battery manufacturer directly. Anything else would strain credulity.


    The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Khim is perhaps being a little loose with the facts.

  • Maybe somebody could clarify some context questions for me.

    The NASA Lattice Confinement Fusion paper is very interesting.


    The fact that Vladimir Pines and Lawrence Forsley and therefore GEC are involved raises some questions around GEC.


    Presumably this means the lattice confinement approach is part of the GEC tech, is this correct?

    The suggestion is that they are getting some level of energy out but currently not enough to be a standalone power source, hence the trickle-charger and hence the Thorium hybrid reactor.



    I am confused by the private vs government relationship in the USA.

    On the one hand GEC are a private company and presumably want to keep their IP and research confidential.

    On the other hand Gregory Byron Goble has said that “the US Secretary of the Navy retains rights on GEC patents and likely controls aspects of market entry and licensing agreements.”

    On the other, other hand (three hands :/) NASA publish a paper about research that GEC and NASA are involved in.


    So what is NASA's role in this? Clearly NASA are interested in a space energy tech. So are NASA just providing funding and possibly lab resources?


    And why is NASA able to publicly post details of tech that belongs to GEC and the US Navy?


    Does NASAs involvement mean they have some ownership of the research?


    Does the publication of the Physical Review C papers mean that GEC is now confident enough to make details of their research public?


    Hoping for some enlightenment.

  • This latest iteration became available for public viewing two months ago. It exhibits control methods and theoretical modeling.


    Methods and Apparatus for Facilitating Localized Nuclear Fusion Reactions Enhanced by Electron Screening

    Abstract

    Methods and apparatuses for facilitating localized nuclear fusion reactions in a globally cold deeply screened fuel source are disclosed, where the volume of cold fuel is much larger than that of hot fuel participating in fission reactions, maintaining structural integrity. Such a deeply screened environment may facilitate the combination of shell and conduction electrons and plasma channels created from external x-ray and/or gamma irradiation. Deeply screened fuel nuclei can tunnel at lower energies, and can much more effectively scatter at high angles, leading to increased tunneling probabilities. Local "hot" fusion conditions may be created by providing neutral hot particles (e.g., hot neutrons) that are substantially more effective at high angle scattering off charged fuel nuclei and can deliver around a half of their kinetic energy in one collision to result in a hot fuel nucleus. Such methods and apparatuses may have various applications, such as heat or medical isotope production.


    EP3864671A1 - Methods and apparatus for facilitating localized nuclear fusion reactions enhanced by electron screening - Google Patents

    Publication of EP3864671A1

    2021-08-18 Status - Pending


    0276] THEORETICAL SUMMARY [0277] Electron screening plays a critical role in the overall efficiency of nuclear fusion events between charged particles. The kinetic energy transfer to fuel nuclei (D) by neutral particles, such as energetic neutrons or photons, is shown above to be far more efficient than by energetic charged particles, such as light particles (e , e+) or heavy particles (p , d, a). A theoretical framework is provided for d-D nuclear fusion reactions in high-density cold fuel nuclei embedded in metal lattices, with a small fraction of fuel activated by hot neutrons. Also established is the important role of electron screening in increasing the relative probability Psc(ji/2 £ q < p) to scatter in the back hemisphere (p/2 < q < p), an essential requirement for subsequent tunneling of reacting nuclei to occur. This will correspondingly be reflected as an increase in the astrophysical factor S(E).


    0294] 3. PHOTODISSOCIATION NEUTRONS

    [0295] With the beam operating above the deuteron photodissociation energy (2.226 MeV), photo-neutrons were produced. The peak and average photodissociation neutron energies were calculated, as shown in Table IV below.


    0301] 2. PROMPT NEUTRON SIGNAL POSTPROCESSING

    [0302] High -intensity primary Bremsstrahlung and secondary fluorescence x-rays from the Dynamitron beam were the most significant challenges for postprocessing the detector signal, even though the detectors were shielded in the lead cave. The strategy was to record all detector signals without any information loss with the fast data acquisition system (DAQ) throughout the beam exposure. A sophisticated model-based pulse-shaped discrimination (PSD) signal analysis procedure was developed for the postprocessing data analysis.


    DEUTERIDE VERSUS ERBIUM TRIDEUTERIDE


    [0334] Fusion Energy Neutrons: Comparing integrated fusion neutron counts of TiD2 and ErD3, one finds TiD2 produces 1.31 times more neutrons than ErD3. Recall that fusion reaction rates are proportional to the D-fuel number density squared (n2). TiD2 has slightly higher number density (lxlO23 D/cm3) than ErD3(0.8xl023 D/cm3). Squaring the ratios of the number densities one would expect to measure approximately 1.56 times more fusion neutrons for TiD2 than for ErD3. It is recognized that if the number density of TiD2 were just slightly less (0.92xl023 vs. lxlO23 D/cm3), one could account for the small discrepancy.



    [0388] Memory 1715 stores software modules that provide functionality when executed by processor(s) 1710. The modules include an operating system 1740 for computing system 1700. The modules further include a nuclear reaction control module 1745 that is configured to control the rate of nuclear reactions. Computing system 1700 may include one or more additional functional modules 1750 that include additional functionality. [0389] One skilled in the art will appreciate that a“system” could be embodied as an embedded computing system, a personal computer, a server, a console, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cell phone, a tablet computing device, or any other suitable computing device, or combination of devices. Presenting the above-described functions as being performed by a“system” is not intended to limit the scope of the present invention in any way, but is intended to provide one example of many embodiments of the present invention. Indeed, methods, systems and apparatuses disclosed herein may be implemented in localized and distributed forms consistent with computing technology, including cloud computing systems.