NASA Report on Low-Energy Photo-Nuclear Experiments


  • "Experimental Observations of Nuclear Activity in Deuterated Materials Subjected to a Low-Energy Photon Beam"

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.j…Ntt=NASA%2FTM-2017-218963

    http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20170002584


    "Gamma Energy Evaluation for Creation of Cd-111(sub m), In-113(sub m), and In-115(sub m) Isotopes"

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190001453

    "Investigation of Deuterium Loaded Materials Subject to X-Ray Exposure"

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170002544


    and, a preprint (published April 25, 2019) proposing a theory explaining these results --

    "Photo-induce nuclear cooperation"
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.11379

  • NASA motivation for this work: they are running out of plutonium for radioisotope power generation.


    The ideal energy source would be light and compact, maintenance free, would deliver gigajoule levels
    of energy over a decade in operation, would not rely on enriched fuel, and could be actively controlled.
    To date, nuclear-based power generation is the only known technology with the required power or energy
    density (power or energy per unit mass) that could continuously operate for an extended period. The
    Advanced Energy Conversion (AEC) effort at NASA Glenn is exploring alternative power sources that
    preferably subscribe to the above set of attributes.
    Deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron, has been used as a nuclear
    material for many decades for applications ranging from inertial confinement fusion (ICF) reactors
    through neutron generators. Deuterium owes some of its key properties to its Z = 1 nuclear positive
    charge and therefore possesses the lowest barrier for tunneling the electrostatic barrier for nuclear fusion.
    Deuterium fusion, however, generally requires at least 10 to 15 keV in kinetic energy (corresponding to
    over 100 million degrees Kelvin) to raise the probability of tunneling to occur. Although the subject of
    intense work over many decades, no “hot fusion” nuclear reactor with a coefficient of performance
    greater than 1 (net positive power output) has been demonstrated to date. Deuterium is also a stable
    isotope of hydrogen, meaning that it poses no danger to the environment via launch risk. Deuterium is
    available in nature, and it is separated from seawater, where it has natural abundance of 0.0156%. From a
    nuclear standpoint, it has the lowest binding energy of any isotope (although still quite significant at
    2.225 MeV) (Ref. 2). Indeed, deuterium has been the focus of attention of many attempts over the years to
    exploit one or more of its unique properties to achieve alternative forms of nuclear activity.
    If a novel nuclear reaction were to occur, it must follow conventional rate relations that describe all
    nuclear processes. Essentially, the rate of nuclear processes is proportional to the product of the respective
    number densities of the reactants, as well as other parameters (e.g., the Gamow factor describing the
    probability of two particles to overcome the electrostatic repulsion barrier in nuclear fusion). Therefore,
    for deuterium to participate in a reaction, it would be advantageous to bring its number density to near
    solid-state condition. In nature, such conditions are possible using deuterated metals, where the atomic
    ratio of deuterium to the host metal can be greater than unity under certain conditions. Moreover, many
    metals can be deuterated (i.e. loaded with deuterium) and do maintain such stoichiometry with easily
    accessible pressure and temperature conditions. There are also many materials, including organics, in
    which the hydrogen could be replaced with deuterium using conventional chemical means. For example,
    in the past, ICF targets have used deuterated polyethylene (DPE) (Ref. 3) as a source of deuterium at
    near-solid-deuterium densities.


    This is "respectable" investigation of LENR. They are hoping for some higher than expected thermal energy generation from highly loaded deuterium, and willing to try stuff and see.


    Two very different experiments:


    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/….nasa.gov/20170002544.pdf


    Uses low energy 50keV - 200keV x-ray exposure. The xrays were generated from a few 100W electron beam impinging on a tungsten target.

    Results are marginal and unexplained: long-lived alpha or beta radiation after exposure at very low rates (ie typical background, but clearly larger than the before exposure levels). Also results did not occur for control samples.


    Typical LENR-type results, marginal, and NASA seem to reckon that there is not enough here for further investigation (though I might be wrong?).


    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/….nasa.gov/20170002584.pdf


    Uses gamma flux with distribution up to 2MeV (so chsen because 2.2MeV is conventional photodissociation energy.

    Nice work showing indisputable nuclear reactions and transmutation.


    Unfortunately the photon energies required to make it happen are not very low (2MeV gamma). One issue, they try to make sure there is nothing higher than 2MeV but cannot guarantee this, and above 2MeV they will get expected photodisscociation of D anyway.

    It looks like the cross section is still very low - nothing like what would be needed to use this as an energy source, as they might hope. Or they would have done the calculations.

    But they have a cross-section many orders of magnitude higher than what would be expected from considering single deuteron interaction with photons, which is interesting, and a decent mechanism (assuming you are happy with QFT, standard model, and virtual particles of course).

    Is it possible that something like this might end up being a switchable energy source, as they hoped originally? Well, not based on these results, but never say never...


    This is the type of experimental data that would convince anyone there really are nuclear reactions, and the methodology would be useful for LENR researchers claiming nuclear reactions due to gamma spectra etc.


    (1) double controlled (D vs H and nonloaded lattice)

    (2) transmutations identified by

    (a) locating the largest expected peak from the product.

    (b) checking that other peaks occur at the intensity expected from known reaction rates and the largest peak

    (c) checking half-lives are as expected for reaction products bases on these peaks decaying. Complex calculation for reaction chains due to production and decay, with initial production uniform over radiation period

    (3) detection of neutrons


    So what to make of this?


    The low rate betas could be an artifact. They have eliminated some artifacts, but at these low levels, with no coherence, some type of unexpected contamination can't be ruled out and fits better than any other explanation (since they have no other explanation).


    The stuff from high 2MeV gammas looks good - with slight reservation about whether they are getting a few higher energy gammas slipping through. But that mechanism does not seem likely to work with a much lower energy photon source, not to be at a high enough rate to work for power generation. Shame. But often investigating things leads to unexpected spin-offs, and they have lots of data here, so it is not wasted.

  • Very interesting and detailed study, with theoretical analysis to follow. Confirms neutron release in deuterated systems, but not in hydrogenated systems - so confirms deuterium as a superior fusion fuel to hydrogen. (One wonders with a Rossi influencing all the cold fusion data output since the 90's whether all the Ni-H data could have been made up - I mean F&P used H20 as a control for D20 - so always use deuterium not hydrogen). This study also parallel's Holmlid's recent work exposing essentially deuterated targets to photon irradiation without invoking the complication of ultra dense deuterium which mainstream physicists have never accepted. He recently reported Kaon, Pion and muon formation in his system and has proposed using the muons to stimulate further fusion. Maybe NASA have also detected muons which might appear as 'high energy electrons':


    Integrating this flux over the energy range noted results in 1.71014 photons per second per steradian. Over the range of these photon energies
    photoelectrons, Compton-scattered electrons, and pair-production electrons were created in the specimens. Though further work needs to be completed, it is believed there was some level of high-energy electrons that also made their way through the braking target.


    Which if true would be the first independent experimental confirmation of Holmlid's exceptional work.


  • Very interesting and detailed study, with theoretical analysis to follow. Confirms neutron release in deuterated systems, but not in hydrogenated systems - so confirms deuterium as a superior fusion fuel to hydrogen. (One wonders with a Rossi influencing all the cold fusion data output since the 90's whether all the Ni-H data could have been made up - I mean F&P used H20 as a control for D20 - so always use deuterium not hydrogen). This study also parallel's Holmlid's recent work exposing essentially deuterated targets to photon irradiation without invoking the complication of ultra dense deuterium which mainstream physicists have never accepted. He recently reported Kaon, Pion and muon formation in his system and has proposed using the muons to stimulate further fusion. Maybe NASA have also detected muons which might appear as 'high energy electrons':


    Integrating this flux over the energy range noted results in 1.71014 photons per second per steradian. Over the range of these photon energies
    photoelectrons, Compton-scattered electrons, and pair-production electrons were created in the specimens. Though further work needs to be completed, it is believed there was some level of high-energy electrons that also made their way through the braking target.


    Which if true would be the first independent experimental confirmation of Holmlid's exceptional work.



    Perhaps this does replicate Holmlid's results, but note the different interpretation, which is nothing weird:


    (1) No mesons or weird unexpected particles

    (2) Plausible mechanism from QFT that allows < 2.2MeV photons to dissociate D the same way as > 2.2MeV photons - but this will not work with MUCH lower energies.

    (3) Not solid yet due to possible leakage of higher energy photons.

  • 최근 미국 해군연구소 및 JWK사의 공동연구에서 LENR에서 발생한 높은 에너지

    를 가진 중성자를 검출하였다고 발표하고 논문을 국제 학술지에 게재하였다. 이것

    이 사실이라면 매우 쉬운 방법으로 핵융합 에너지 및 중성자를 생산할 수 있게 되

    어 새로운 산업혁명을 일으킬 수 있을 만큼 엄청난 발견이 된다. 따라서미래기술의

    선점기회를 놓치지 않기 위하여 조기에 미국의 연구결과를 검증하고 LENR의 과학

    기술적 타당성을 평가하고자 본 과업을 수행하였다.

    미국 연구결과에 대한 실험적 확증에 목표를 두고 1) 중성자 검출데이터의 통계

    적 신뢰도 확보, 2) 두 종류의 계측기를 사용한 고에너지 중성자 검출 결과 간의

    상호 일치성, 3) 검출된 신호의 동시 다중성 확인 (두 종류 이상의 방사선을 동시

    검출) 등의 세 가지 조건을 확증요건으로 수립하고 이의 적합성을 독립 자문을 통

    하여 확인하였다. 본 검증연구진은 세 가지 기준을 모두 만족하는 방법을 도출하고

    이를 핵융합중성자 발생장치를 이용한 실험으로 확인하였으며, 측정결과를 미국 연

    구결과의 검증에 사용하였다.

    미국 연구진은 다양한 방법으로 중성자의 발생흔적을 검출하였다. 그 중에서

    CR-39 고체비적검출기로써 특이 형상의 삼중 비적(triple track)을 다수 분석하여

    고에너지 중성자 발생량을 산출하였고, 여기에 최소한의 통계적 신뢰성을 보였다.

    그러나 확증 기준인 상호 일치성 및 동시 다중성을 충족하는 방법 중의 하나인

    Liquid Scintillation Detection 기술은 미국 연구진이 필요성을 공감하여 개발 중에

    있으나, 아직 측정결과를 획득하지 못하였다. 본 검증연구진이 확립한 방법을 미국

    연구진에 제공하여 상호 일치성 및 동시 다중성의 감증에 필요한 데이터를 획득하

    고자 하였으나, 미 해군연구시설 출입허가에 최소 30일이 소요되는 문제로 인하여

    본 과업 기간 내에 확증을 완료할 수 없었다.

    만약 미국 연구진이 제시한 고에너지 중성자의 발생이 확증된다면, LENR은 과도

    한 화석연료의 사용으로 인한 에너지-환경 위기의 경제적인 해결책이 될 수 있으므

    로, 조기에 한미 공동연구개발 사업으로 추진할 만한 가치를 갖는다. 확증 측정 및

    분석에 필요한 모든 기술을 본 검증연구진이 본 과업을 통하여 이미 확립하였으므

    로, 중성자 발생에 대한 확증 작업은 미국 LENR 실험장치가 정상 작동하는 조건하

    에서 2개월 이내에 완료될 수 있다고 판단된다. 따라서 본 과업의 후속 조치로서

    미국 연구진과 협력하여, 검증에 필수적인 Liquid Scintillation Detection 데이터를

    획득함으로써 고에너지 중성자 발생과 LENR의 사실 여부를 확증할 것을 권장하였

    다.

  • Well I don't know whether NASA have as yet looked for muons or any other exotic particles they have tended to concentrate, understandably, on what might be expected ie neutrons, betas etc. The betas probably originate from tritium decay to helium 3? There's a hell of a lot to analyse in these experiments and the SM may prove inadequate to account for all the data. So its groundbreaking research.

  • From 'Who's Who in Cold fusion 2019'.


    JWK (USA): ACTIVE. Dr. J.W. Khim
     Government and private test and verification services, developing ‘clean nuclear technology’.
     Affiliates include Dr. Larry Forsley.( See also Global Energy Corp.)



    Global Energy Corporation (GEC) : ACTIVE
    Dr. Jay W. Kim, CEO and Chairman
     Dr. Larry Forsley see ‘JWK’ above, Executive VP and Senior Scientist
     Builds upon 20 years of R&D and product development in conjunction with US Navy SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare
    Command) carried out by Pamela A. Boss, Frank E. Gordon, Stan Szpak and other SPAWAR scientists
     GEC is negotiating 250 MWe and 5 GWe reactors, to be deployed on-site of nuclear power plants using nuclear waste
    as fuel
     Genie hybrid fusion/fission reactor is claimed to be inherently safe and clean and is powered with used fuel from
    conventional atomic plants. Under development with NASA support/input.
     Subsidiary GEC Global LLC is building conventional power plants (coal, gas, diesel, hydro power, solar, wind, bio,
    geothermal, and wave energy).

  • Namaste alfors

  • I am probably not alone in wondering about Holmlid;s ultra dense deuterium theories which have much in common with R Mills' eccentric hydrino ideas too. But NASA could do a simple test - include some KFeO2 catalyst which is used to synthesize UDD in the reactor with the deuterated metals and determine whether much lower photon fluxes could be used to achieve the same density of neutrons - perhaps from fusion catalysed by muons? Monitoring beta activity might also establish a tritium source decaying to He 3. Would any of the scientists at NASA take Holmlid or R Mills' theories seriously?

  • Would any of the scientists at NASA take Holmlid or R Mills' theories seriously?


    I am sure they would. Who knows, they may already be trying to duplicate Holmlid, and do not forget that the DOD visited Mills this past December. NASA has been involved with LENR since FP's announcement in 1989, and along the way even had a run-in, or two, with Rossi.


    Amazing to me how so many people ignore, overlook, or minimize that. I consider NASA'a involvement one of the most convincing, and reassuring aspects of my core LENR beliefs. At the least, it should make the mainstream science community, and the public curious enough to want to know more.


    Their most recent efforts in their ongoing, and growing relationship with GEC (Forsley), is probably their most comprehensive so far. We talked about that many times before, with the last time being here SPAWAR JWK LENR and the claims made by Global Energy Corporation (GEC)


    There will be more to come I bet.

  • The biggest stumbling block for Holmlid's UDD theories? Probably the fact that Silvera's group has produced atomic metallic hydrogen in a diamond vice structure having to use around 500 Gpa pressure and temperatures close to absolute zero - and yet Holmlid claims a very similar hydrogen nuclear state can be simply synthesized using a KFeO2 catalyst:

    Looks like the laser induces fusion reactions in the metallic hydrogen too, what else could lead to these diamond explosions?


    But this time, the energy from the laser immediately destroyed the system, and caused one of the diamonds to disintegrate.

    "As soon as we turned the light on, 'click', the diamonds broke. One of them catastrophically, it just became powder," explained Silvera.

    "It's one of the things we knew had happened to other teams, but we thought we'd been safe. We'd already tested it before, but evidently something changed over time. Perhaps defects developed in the diamond, perhaps there was diffusion of hydrogen. We don't know what happened."

    Silvera is confident that they'll now be able to make more metallic hydrogen - if not in this next round of experiments, soon afterwards.

    And he hopes that repeating the process will help to convince some of the doubters.

  • Nice if it turned out to be a proof of Holmlid's work - presumably the inter-nuclear distance in UDD (around 1-2 pm) is similar to that in atomic metallic hydrogen so both systems are in a way on the verge of nuclear fusion, just takes a few photons to set off the Coulombic explosions.

  • Nice if it turned out to be a proof of Holmlid's work - presumably the inter-nuclear distance in UDD (around 1-2 pm) is similar to that in atomic metallic hydrogen so both systems are in a way on the verge of nuclear fusion, just takes a few photons to set off the Coulombic explosions.



    UDD is a speculative new state of deuterium in which the nuclei are packed incredibly tightly with a density close to that in a neutron star. It has no experimental backing (other than Holmlid's work) and very little theoretical backing - what there is appears not consistent with Holmlid's later experiments, which claim UDH as well, whereas the highly speculative theoretical support for UDD specifically requires deuterium.


    Metallic H (or D) is a known phase of H (or D) that is difficult to make because of the very high pressures but it is theoretically predicted (I'm not sure there is convincing evidence anyone has got there yet). Metallic H has a density of 0.4 - 4g/cc (double for D).


    Interestingly one of the people claiming possible metallic H is Holmlid - made from Rydberg H precursors (where Rydberg H here is a well understood very low density form - not the specualative "Rydberg" UDD). In that case the inter-nuclei distance was 150pm. That would mean a density 1,000,000 X less than the claimed UDH.


    Badiei, S.; Holmlid, L. (2004). "Experimental observation of an atomic hydrogen material with H–H bond distance of 150 pm suggesting metallic hydrogen". Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter. 16 (39): 7017–7023. Bibcode:2004JPCM...16.7017B. doi:10.1088/0953-8984/16/39/034.

  • To reconcile the "incredible density" with ordinary physical chemistry, can we assume that the loss of one, or even two, degrees of freedom in a surface environment might explain the formation of ultra dense deuterium. So the packing on a solid surface might enable not only charge-charge shielding, but also relatively fixed positional proximities not seen in any ordinary gaseous context.