GEC 10 kW thermal power source at NASA Glenn Research Center
Thanks to Ahlfors for finding this important document that shows GEC, represented by Dr. Jay Khim, 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.
... are already working together.
Ah, you are a man of many words! 
OK, you have a point....so they have "partnered", and are already working together. My bad.
Perhaps they are using fusion as a neutron source to initiate controlled fission. See recent USPTO patent --
Nanofuel internal engine - USPTO 9,947,423 - April 17, 2018
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi…t/fission&RS=ABST/fission
Other patents and applications are at URLs:
Are nuclear devices allowed in CC2932 building?
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.
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.
...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.
WRB, I agree with you, LESS should be MORE. But not more than 10 kW or 100 kW, lose the k:s.
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.
Let us see what NASA can make out of this:
https://www.livescience.com/62…l?utm_source=notification
Might it be COLD FUSION?
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.
>>> Well, no ...
Ask Roshanak Hakimzadeh
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?
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
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.
