The "groundbreaking" neutron flux out from Forsley/NASA machinery:
3 x 10-22 neutrons in the entire solid angle for D atom/second.
The "groundbreaking" neutron flux out from Forsley/NASA machinery:
3 x 10-22 neutrons in the entire solid angle for D atom/second.
10 Kw [the same of NASA/Forsley umbrella agreement device] KRUSTY small space reactor neutron flux
3 x 10-22 neutrons in the entire solid angle for D atom/second.
Just one tip: What gets published by NASA or Los Alamos is only diversion not the real solution. I know much better solution.
Send a mail to Steinetz with yours much better.
Send a mail to Steinetz with yours much better.
Why???? We do our own projects...
Still listed here:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def…ctive_as_of_3-31-2021.pdf
and here:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def…_3_31_2021_domestic_0.pdf
And still available here:
https://www.nasa.gov/saa/domestic/24838_SAA3-1529.pdf
I guess we’ll have to see what happens when they update for the June quarter.
And still available here:
https://www.nasa.gov/saa/domestic/24838_SAA3-1529.pdf
I guess we’ll have to see what happens when they update for the June quarter.
Thanks orsova . Looks like the agreement was extended to 1/7/2023:
List of Active Space Act Agreements (as of March 31, 2021) with U.S. Non-Federal Partners
267 | 24838 | Global Energy Corporation | Development and Testing of a High Power Space Generator | 1/7/2018 | 1/7/2023 | Reimbursable | ----- | GRC | SAA3-152 |
Thanks orsova
I figure Larry speaks honestly when he said they are several years further advanced then disclosed. Studying published works only gives us a veiled glimpse.
Other government spin offs, from other research groups, with tech fully developed, will hit the scene soon.
The products GEC offers are already in use, being end-use engineered to provide future military energy needs. Eliminating battlefront fuel supply risks and logistics is paramount. Leading in these capabilities even more so.
I also suspect a few GENIE reactors are producing power plant levels of electricity at, as yet, undisclosed locations.
NO - the time table and reactor test protocol are RETRACTED.
Find on line an official copy of 24839_SAA3-1529-1 [official copy: PDF file signed from Jay from a public NASA server]
Bye
Display MoreNO - the time table and reactor test protocol are RETRACTED.
Find on line an official copy of 24839_SAA3-1529-1 [official copy: signed from Larry PDF file from a public NASA server]
Bye
My gosh, don't take it personal. You have seldom been wrong, so until someone shows differently, I will assume the contract is cancelled as you say. Very disappointing if so.
Now...no more of that "bye" stuff. You will not leave us, and that is an order.
I see. So the annex has been taken down, but the original umbrella agreement, that runs from 2018 thru 2023 is still online, and one infers, still alive (?). I’m no expert, but it seems like a jump from there to pronouncements of failure. It’s certainly possible, but other possibilities seem plausible too.
Ahlfors, do you have a copy of the annex?
Why???? We do our own projects...
You have been crunching the numbers for 3 years now. Silence is not going to save the planet, so how about you give us an update on your projects?
You have been crunching the numbers for 3 years now.
To many sharks in the pond!
We started our own project. But I do not believe that we can profit from LENR Forum support. We have to raise about 100k euro for the first 1-2 years. The rest we pay ourselves.
The problem is that people with money rarely can distinguish between ideas, nice experiments with anecdotal effects and a real effect like e.g. Takahashi sees.
Further there is never a guarantee for success. The only things we can invest is serious scientific methodology and the knowledge gained from past projects and the related modelling.
Without experimental verification all modelling is just ideas, not worth publishing.
Display MoreTo many sharks in the pond!
We started our own project. But I do not believe that we can profit from LENR Forum support. We have to raise about 100k euro for the first 1-2 years. The rest we pay ourselves.
The problem is that people with money rarely can distinguish between ideas, nice experiments with anecdotal effects and a real effect like e.g. Takahashi sees.
Further there is never a guarantee for success. The only things we can invest is serious scientific methodology and the knowledge gained from past projects and the related modelling.
Without experimental verification all modelling is just ideas, not worth publishing.
Heard this too many times before, but good luck.
people with money rarely can distinguish between ideas, nice experiments with anecdotal effects and a real effect like e.g. Takahashi
Maybe you need a nice video $10K???
As to Jed, I have wondered where he went. Hopefully he is not upset with something we said.
No, I have been in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania, with no internet, no telephone, no air conditioning . . . Roughing it, you might say, but mostly eating to be honest.
NASA’s updated Lattice Assisted Nuclear Fusion revamped site
E-CAT Mechanism
Both are based on the same mechanism of bond compression.
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/wp-c…links-July-17-Final-3.pdf
Lattice confinement mechanism is the same of mine(confinement at surface T site)
Compression stress on D-M bond causes the creation of small D atoms.
https://www.researchgate.net/p…6756_Kodama-LENR-20210412
Confinement in lattice by E-CAT
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.01261.pdf
On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production
by the E-Cat
Norman D. Cook1 and Andrea Rossi2
Display More
Previous versions of these documents had two entries for GEC, one for the umbrella agreement, and another for the annex. Given that this latest version has only one, for the umbrella agreement, it seems reasonable to infer that whilst the annex has been terminated, the umbrella agreement is still alive.
Why the annex was terminated is an open question, though. Perhaps they've failed to live up to the terms of the annex, but NASA still wants the work to proceed?
Science fiction
Science fiction
Yes, that is the original agreement between GEC and NASA, and yes it may be "science fiction", but I still do not see where the deal was canceled as you claim? To the contrary, orsova linked to a NASA document showing the deal was extended until 1/7/2023.
Could you provide something that supports it being canceled?