NASA’s updated Lattice Assisted Nuclear Fusion revamped site (Have Fleischmann and Pons been finally vindicated?)

  • Everyone shows himself to me today

    From the most favorable side.

    And from near and far the dear ones

    Have touchingly written to me

    And have presented me with all

    That such a gourmand thinks about,

    That for the man in years

    Can still come into consideration.

    Everyone approaches with sweet tunes

    To beauty for me the day.

    Even the beggars without number

    Dedicate to me their madrigal.

    Therefore I feel elated

    Like the proud eagle.

    Now the day approaches the end

    I pay to you my compliment.

    You have made everything well,

    And the lovely sun laughs.

    -A. Einstein

  • Public record

    (who discovered/pioneered thin film cold fusion and the transmutation of radioactive waste?)

    My Recollections of Jim Patterson

    By Lawrence P.G. Forsley

    New Energy Times Issue #27

    I developed a working relationship with Jim Patterson and his company, Clean Energy Technology Inc., in the mid-1990s, before the development of the company's cold fusion demonstration kit called RIFEX (Reaction In a Film Excited complex).

    As I got to know Jim better, I learned of his predilection for fishing and the virtues of tiny plastic microspheres, informally called beads, used for industrial applications. I had become interested in these beads as a substrate for use in low energy nuclear reaction experiments after he and George Miley of the University of Illinois had begun collaborating on an alternative means to make a LENR surface. George had been struggling with thin films, and along came Jim with his sulfated, metal-coated beads.

    George and I had both worked in inertial confinement fusion (a.k.a. laser fusion), and I think we both saw the obvious advantages that a symmetrical bead as a substrate had versus a perpetually delaminating planar surface

  • My guess is that you know nothing and you are trying to blow smoke up our asses.

    Public record

    Jed threw the first insult here...

    As a prominent and respected person in the field of CMNS and librarian/editor of LENR CANR, Jed's words,. I would expect, hold some weight of credibility and importance. I am insulted, and in some ways due to his standing, harmed by his slanderous insult. His words are more than just an opinion, they are an outrageous lie. Jed knows this.

    I do not "blow smoke up your asses".

    For the record, I think the Navy and Joint Chiefs of Staff would be negligent if they did not have separate and independent team(s) working to develop CMNS energy tech and applied engineering into 'army after next' platforms. For important game changing tech, this is SOP.

    If doing this correctly, as needed, no one without a need to know would know. There is both a history and clear evidence this is being handled with prudence... Guam hit a bit of turbulence, the plan had to be abandoned. Alternative actions taken... Future historians or next year's disclosures will provide insight into these events.

    There is more than meets the eye, right Jed?

  • The company, in conjunction with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Department of Energy, says it has developed a “hybrid fusion-fast-fission” reactor called GeNiE which, according to GEC, “is compatible with the decades-long development of very high temperature, helium cooled reactors.”

    Not my words... those of GEC found in the news article.

    The question (in this curious mind) is, "What Department of Energy research/development project funded GEC?".

  • I am insulted, and in some ways due to his standing

    If you don't want to be insulted, stop blowing smoke up our asses.

    There has been no cold fusion research anywhere in the navy or any other part of the government since around 2013 when the admiral order Pam Boss and the others to stop. You say there has been. Maybe you are right, but who is going to believe you when you refuse to tell us who did the research or where they published?

    For the record, I think the Navy and Joint Chiefs of Staff would be negligent if they did not have separate and independent team(s) working to develop CMNS energy tech and applied engineering into 'army after next' platforms.

    Okay. So they are negligent. What is your point? Are you saying that because you think this would be negligent, that means they must have authorized research projects? You know for a fact they agree with you? Your opinion of what constitutes negligence probably does not matter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Have they consulted with you?

    I agree this is negligent, but the Joint Chiefs haven't asked my opinion either.

  • The most prominent that comes to mind is an ex Navy researcher, an employee with a desk and title at NASA, perhaps now affiliated with the DoE somehow; a contract or grant maybe in Los Alamos.

    Gamma Energy Evaluation for Creation of 111mCd, 113mIn, and

    115mIn Isotopes

    Theresa L. Benyo

    Bruce M. Steinetz

    and Lawrence P. Forsley

    1) NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH 44135, USA

    2) JWK Corporation, Annandale, VA 22003, USA

    3) Vantage Partners LLC, Cleveland, OH 44135, USA

  • P.A. Mosier-Boss, L.P. Forsley, and P. McDaniel, “Investigation of Nano-Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter: Final Report”, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, (June, 2016)

    Page 88

    Table 5-2. List of presentations to admirals and heads of government agencies.


    Aug. 2, 2006 NDIA Naval S&T Partnership Conference in Washington DC:

    RADM William E. Landay III (head of ONR), Dr. Mike McGrath (head of

    S&T at ASN, RDA), Lt. Gen. Lawrence P. Farrell Jr. (USAF, retired)

    Sept. 28, 2006 Capt. S. Black (Navy Liaison to the Vice President) in the Vice Presidents’

    ceremonial office in the old executive office building in Washington DC.

    May 2007 NDIA Joint Services Environmental Management Conference in Columbus,

    OH: Len Gollobin (Head of NDIA Energy Security Panel), Jim Woolsey

    (former head of CIA)

    Nov. 7, 2007 SSC-Pacific: RADM Charles (Grunt) Smith (Vice CDR of SPAWAR)

    May 2008 SSC-Pacific: James Colvard (retired SES, on special assignment to the

    Secretary of the Navy)

    Apr. 2009 SSC-Pacific: ADM James Hogg (four star admiral, retired

    Apr. 14, 2009 SSC-Pacific: Brief given to congressional staffers

    Apr. 27, 2009 SSC-Pacific: RADM Nevin P. Carr Jr. (Head of ONR)

    May 14, 2009 AFCEA C4ISR at the San Diego Convention Center

    June 26, 2009 SSC-Pacific: Dr. Richard L. Garwin (JASON Defense Advisory Group)

    Aug. 2009 SSC-Pacific: B.J. Penn (ASN)

    Sept. 24, 2009 SSC-Pacific: RADM Joe Rixey (Vice CDR of SPAWAR)

    Oct. 27, 2009 SSC-Pacific: Mr. Zachary Lemnios (DDR&E)

    Dec. 9, 2009 Chief of Naval Operations/Strategic Studies Group

    May 13, 2010 MITRE Corp., VA, EMIS

    June 29, 2010 Army Research Labs, Adelphi MD: RDECOM Power and Energy TFT

    LENR Workshop

    Oct. 14, 2010 SSC-Pacific: Congressman Darrell Issa

    Aug. 30, 2011 SSC-Pacific: Dr. Richard Carlin (ONR)


    RADM Kenneth Slaght (SPAWAR HQ);

    RADM Tim Flynn (when Captain of SSC-San Diego);

    Dr. John Fisher (DDR&E);

    Dr. Fred Saalfeld (senior civilian at ONR);

    VADM G. Peter Nanos (retired, Associate Director R&D at DTRA;

    Congresswoman Susan Davis;

    Senator Diane Feinstein

  • Technology

    GeNiE Reactor technology is based on 20 years of experimental research by Global Energy Corporation, JWK International, and SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego scientists and engineers. The results have been published in over 20 peer-reviewed technical journal articles. Our most recent publications document the ability to efficiently produce high-energy neutrons that are capable of fissioning uranium. We have answered the critical scientific questions:

    • Our experiments are repeatable.

    • Our experiments have been replicated by others.

    • Our experiments provide direct evidence that nuclear reactions are involved including the production of high-energy neutrons. Although our experimental results are not predicted by current nuclear physics theories, the results are real.

    The GeNiE Reactor takes advantage of the efficiently produced high-energy neutrons in a proprietary hybrid fusion, fast-fission reactor design to produce power from un-enriched uranium. The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn’t rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear Reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn’t required enriched uranium and it doesn’t produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. By fissioning existing hazardous waste, the GeNiE Reactor can generate power and mitigate existing hazardous waste at the same time. And by eliminating the need for enrichment, the GeNiE Reactor removes all requirements for uranium enrichment except for weapons production, thereby removing the uncertainty in the purpose of enrichment programs such as the current program in Iran.

    Global Energy Corporation and their collaborators are currently experimenting with small pilot GeNiE Reactors and are designing prototype GeNiE Reactors for commercial applications. While there are numerous products possible, GEC is currently focusing on the GeNiE Hybrid Fusion, Fast-Fission Reactor that will use either natural uranium or existing hazardous waste as fuel.


    (The facts according to the Global Energy Corporation)

    • Q. This sounds like Cold Fusion. Wasn’t “Cold Fusion” disproven?

    • A. While most people think that the Department of Energy concluded that the claims were wrong, this is not the case. In fact, after two reviews in 1989 and 2004, the DOE ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARD found that there wasn’t enough evidence to either prove or disprove the claims and that more research was needed. Furthermore, several other countries are awaking to the fact that the phenomena may be real as documented in a recent DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY TECHNOLOGY ALERT paper. GEC scientists and collaborators developed a different experimental protocol that allowed them to go beyond the initial claims of Fleischmann and Pons. Our experiments are repeatable, they have been replicated by others and our results have been published in peer-reviewed papers. Additionally, our experiments produce direct evidence of nuclear activity including emission of high-energy neutrons.

    • Q. How can this be real since it doesn’t match theory?

    • A. History is full of examples where the accepted theory had to be adapted to match new experimental results. At one time, theory held that the earth was flat. Galileo was put under house arrest by the church for observing that the earth was not the center of the universe. Cassini and other scientists held that the speed of light was infinite long after Romer had provided solid experimental evidence that it was 186,000 miles per second. There’s a statement in science that, “Theory guides, experiment decides.” A theory is only as good as its ability to predict or describe experimental results. If the experimental results don’t confirm the theory, it’s the theory that must change since the experimental results are controlled by nature. This is not to say that all current nuclear physics theories are wrong but that they are incomplete when it comes to explaining our experimental results. Each year, hundreds of PhD’s are awarded to students who have improved or evolved a theory so that it more accurately explains experimental results. These and many other examples show how theory must evolve to match observation. Several theories have been proposed but to date, none match all of our observed experimental results.

    • Q. How do you overcome the coulomb barrier?

    • A. Several possibilities such as a stripping reaction or the equivalent to “tunneling” in solid state electronics have been suggested as a way to overcome the coulomb barrier. More research is needed to determine the answer to this question.

    • Q. What technical challenges need to be overcome before this technology can be commercialized?

    • A. Our GeNiE pilot reactors have demonstrated the ability to produce neutrons with enough energy to fission either natural uranium, enriched uranium, or existing hazardous waste. We are currently working to optimize the reactions and increase the flux of high-energy neutrons. Once this is achieved, many commercial applications are possible.

    • Q. If this is real, you should all be dead because of the neutrons that would have been produced. How do you answer that since you’re obviously still alive?

    • A. One of the properties of our experiments is that the neutron flux is several orders of magnitude less than that predicted by conventional theory. The current flux levels are not hazardous however we are currently working to optimize the experiments to increase the flux. We recognize the dangers of high-energy neutrons and take appropriate precautions.