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

  • Russian simmetry


    Separation of signals from neutrons and gamma quanta by the method of normalized signals [CAEN DT5730 digitizer]

    Neutron Detection Using Proportional Counters at the HELIS Setup

  • Not cold fusion- but something else NASA are keeping an eye on.


    EMDrive electric rocket- the fundamentals by Roger Shawyer.



    External Content vimeo.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Negative and positive mass chase each other!

    negative mass has negative momentum (p = mV) .... Oh dear, is now the velocity negative or the mass ???


    Uncharged negative matter would repel itself gravitationally.

    Charged negative matter would attract itself strongly ... great gravity is stronger that em force!!!!


    How much crack did they take?

  • How much crack did they take?

    Landis has published poetry and science fiction as well..


    I shall recommend... the idea of rotation in 4D and higher dimensions as

    an alternative to supposed negative energy from gravitational field.

    ..truth can be more wonderful than fiction..

    "

    Because in SO(4) all masses are generated by rotation (are of magnetic origin) the transportation (scaling) of magnetic flux involves two radial dimensions ..Chapter 11.

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…context=ProjectUpdatesLog

  • Public Policy Planning for Broad Deployment of Cold Fusion (LENR) for Energy Production
    Thomas W. Grimshaw, PhD, MPAff Research Fellow, Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA, [email protected] https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrimshawTpublicpoli.pdf

    PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
    Staff, resources, and facilities for proactive public policy planning for CF/LENR are primarily in two organizations at The University of Texas at Austin – the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy (CIEEP) and the Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs. CIEEP joins the capabilities of the LBJ School with those of the College of Engineering and the Jackson School of Geosciences.

    As the University’s first center dedicated to energy and environmental policy, CIEEP seeks to inform the policymaking process with the best scientific and engineering expertise and strives to become the academic leader in integrated, science and engineering-based energy research and education. CIEEP provides interdisciplinary assessments of current and emerging global energy and environmental issues and develops policy options for dealing with the issues at the global, national, and local scales.
    Since its founding in 1970, the LBJ School has built a proud tradition of public service and cutting-edge research on the most important public policy challenges of our time. LBJ School's mission is to develop leaders and ideas that will help the nation and the international community address critical public policy challenges in an ever increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. A broad array of academic and research programs has contributed to the LJB School’s reputation in energy policy, international affairs and trade, technology policy, leadership, economics, energy and environment, and public and nonprofit management.


    Feb 17, 2020
    Enhancing Sustainable Energy is the Aim of New UT Collaborations
    AUSTIN, Texas — https://news.utexas.edu/2020/0…of-new-ut-collaborations/ A team of researchers at The University of Texas at Austin is creating a new technology for the economic recovery of rare earth elements from fly ash to alleviate the materials bottleneck in the manufacturing of sustainable energy technologies. Across campus, another group is finding ways to eliminate blackouts by reducing power grid vulnerabilities during intense storm events, droughts and wildfires.

    These and nine other projects have won a campus-wide competition to identify and support the most promising global energy transition research at UT. The teams include 53 faculty members and researchers from nine schools across the university — from the Moody College of Communication and the Jackson School of Geosciences to the School of Architecture and the Cockrell School of Engineering. Interdisciplinary collaboration was a key criterion for award evaluation, and the selected teams reflect different approaches from departments and disciplines throughout the university.

    “These collaborations will the unique ability of team-based projects to approach energy research at UT in unconventional and creative ways,” said Vice President for Research Dan Jaffe<. “The range of topics underscores our researchers’ commitment to being responsive to global energy demand while reducing environmental impacts and leveraging groundbreaking technology. The remarkable quality and imaginativeness that the projects demonstrate shines a bright light on the amazing community of UT researchers in the energy domain.”

    The selected projects emerged from a diverse pool. UT’s Energy Institute, which facilitates interdisciplinary research and engagement at UT to transform the future of energy worldwide, received 30 research proposals from 127 researchers across 11 different schools. During the past four months, these 30 teams presented transformative research ideas under a core theme of “Fueling a Sustainable Energy Transition.”


    Also of interest

    CHEMICAL ASPECTS OF THE PD/NH – H2O SYSTEMIN ITS
    NUCLEAR ACTIVE STATE
    BY STANISLAW SZPAK WITH FRANK GORDON
    Prepared for Public Release July 2020
    Prologue
    An occasional gift to
    one who is interested in documenting research in a field is the emergence of a previously unpublished work. For me this has certainly been the case for Dr. Stanislaw Szpak’s book. Thanks go to Dr. Frank Gordon for making the book available for public release and to Dr. David Nagel for coming up with the idea and suggesting it to Dr. Gordon. I am pleased also for the opportunity to provide a summary of Dr. Szpak’s LENR research as context for his book. Dr. Pam Mosier-Boss, Dr. Melvin Miles and Dr. Nagel have reviewed all or portions of this document.
    The preparation of Dr. Szpak’s book for public release has been performed under the umbrella of the LENR Research Documentation Initiative (LRDI), previously at the Energy Institute of The University of Texas at Austin and now at LENRGY. Gratitude is expressed to the Anthropocene Institute for financial support of the LRDI.
    Thomas Grimshaw, Ph.D. President, LENRGY, LLC Austin, TX
    Preface
    Throughout his career, Dr. Stanislaw (Stan) Szpak was a friend, a mentor, and a co-worker to many people. He was respected for his expertise and knowledge by many including Dr. Martin Fleischmann and Dr. John Bockris with whom he shared many private communications both before and after the 1989 Fleischmann-Pons announcement that became known as “cold fusion” or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). Stan quickly applied his expertise toward understanding the underlying processes involved. One of his first contributions, which has been widely used, is the use of codeposition to prepare the cathode. LENR is a very complex problem and Stan recognized that it was not going to be solved during his lifetime so he decided to document his thoughts in a book. While this book as a whole has not been peer-reviewed, among those in the LENR community Stan had a high success rate in getting his LENR-related papers published and many of his peer reviewed publications are the basis for this book. This book is his legacy gift to the community of scientists and others, who are interested in cold fusion.
    We are grateful to Dr. Thomas Grimshaw for his efforts to format and prepare the book for publication and to Dr. David Nagel for his suggestions and encouragement.
    Frank Gordon, Dr. Engr. Head, Research and Applied Sciences Department (Retired) SPAWAR System’s Center San Diego, CA
    Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D. Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific, Emeritus San Diego, CA
    Melvin Miles, Ph.D. Naval Weapons Center Fellow (Retired) Naval Air Warfare Center China Lake, CA

  • NASA team confirms Neutron emissions in Pd co deposition electrolysis experiments.


    Electrolytic co-deposition neutron production measured by bubble detectors

    Phillip J.Smith , Robert C.Hendricks ,  Bruce M.Steinetz


    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, John H. Glenn Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, M.S. 302-1, Cleveland, OH 44135, United States

    Received 2 October 2020, Revised 14 January 2021, Accepted 15 January 2021, Available online 19 January 2021.


    Abstract

    Co-deposition electrochemical cells are a simple means to examine novel nuclear reactions. In this study, palladium and deuterium atoms were co-deposited on a cathode at stoichiometric densities, forming dendritic morphologies. Bubble detector neutron dosimeters were used to measure equivalent dose levels during electrolytic deposition. Cells expected to produce excess neutrons were denoted as experimental cells and contained an electrolyte consisting of palladium(II) chloride, lithium chloride, and heavy water. The control cells used copper(II) chloride, lithium chloride, and heavy water electrolyte. Thirteen experimental and nine control cells were supplied current, increasing from 0.1 to 100.0 mA over a period of 20 days. Neutron radiation levels detected near experimental cells were, on average, greater than those measured near control cells for the entire test profile. For test days 9 through 20, the experimental cells exhibited significantly higher average neutron radiation than the controls at a 99% confidence level.



    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…abs/pii/S1572665721000503


    Highlights


    Bubble detector neutron dosimeters measured electrochemical cell neutron activity (great improvement that removes the objections risen against CR-39 we are all familiar with).


    Case control: PdCl2/LiCl/D20 cells were compared with CuCl2/LiCl/D20 control cells (great they included a controle experiment, this is alone a very strong point for the experimental design).


    Experimental cells exhibited neutron activity greater than controls: 99% confidence


    Highest neutron-generating experimental cells produced dendritic cathode deposits (This is rather important as dendritic deposits are quite a topic in battery research, and also we have seen dendritic deposits in other LENR systems).


    Neutron activity cannot be explained by chemical reactions, only nuclear processes (this is a rather categorical statement of the authors and it means they are defending the LENR nature of the emissions, this is great because it means they are commited)




    This work as far as I can tell from the abstract, has two strenghts: Control cells without Pd but Cu co deposition, and use of Bubble detectors, which leave out the already known doubts about CR-39.


    I still think what is being detected are not neutrons, but at least the emission of "something" is becoming unambiguous.

  • These Results are quite unambiguous. I am very happy.


    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1572665721000503-gr7.jpg


    Look at those dendrites!


    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1572665721000503-gr8.jpg



    They used Pt as anode in both experimental and control, so this would answer Eric Walker 's doubts about the potential radiation detected coming from the emitting Pt isotopes.

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1572665721000503-ga1_lrg.jpg

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • What is the ratio of neutron count/background count ?

    I requested the paper from one of the authors at ResearchGate, hopefully they will share it, but from what is available so far I would say that the the ratio would be 1,6/1 (experiment neutron count/control neutron count, and I am assuming the control neutron count is same as background).

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • They used Pt as anode in both experimental and control,

    Cr-39 detectors compared Pd codeposition versus Cu-deposition.. both used Pt wires..as anode

    the inferred alpha particle generation only occurred for the Pd..

    perhaps other isotopes (trace.. metastable) rather than Pt190.. contribute alphas..

    Karahadian suggests tritium.. He3.. Li7..C12(via neutron action on CR-39).

    .possibly ,,


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…pe%5D=publicationDownload

  • Remarkable that they did not indicate the Lithium (hydroxide) deposit at the cathode.
    The role of Lithium is probably also catalystic.

    They do quote several papers that deal with the co-deposition process so those papers must cover that to some extent.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I just had read that paper while looking for the researchgate page of the NASA paper. I even commented to this author that NASA had just proven him right.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.