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

  • Erbium is cheap enough.


    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Erb…352b62:g:abUAAOSwNjlfzHEq


    As is Hafnium.


    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Haf…35ab51:g:gUIAAOSww55fzH5L


    There is a surprising amount of these exotic materials availlable cheaply since they have very few uses in what might be called 'domestic markets'.. I recently bought some zirconium foil in Ebay ex 'Goodfellow' metal suppliers in the UK, still in it's original packaging. I paid around £5 for it, Goodfellow charge around £300.

  • Interesting error in neutron detection:


    "We did not publish the results of this work in 1992 because the field monitor

    RUP-1 with a fast-neutron counter is not a reliable device to be used for scientific

    purposes. We have procured the radiometric device SRPS-2 having fast-neutron

    counters with a lamp SI-18H filled by 3He. Using this new device, we deformed

    about 50 samples but no appreciable neutron fluxes were registered.

    After that, we conducted a joint experiment with a group of scientists from

    Ekaterinburg, on neutron detection in the process of saturation of our samples by

    deuterium. Whereas MKS-01 (a device similar to RUP-1) registered neutrons, the

    device SRPS-2 (the sensitivity of which is 100 times higher than that of MKS-01)

    did not register. Having performed this experiment we assumed that we registered

    electromagnetic radiation with a spectrum in the radio frequency regime."

  • the word 'conclude' is ambitious withour further evidence..

    I would tend to use the word speculate.. as in

    "Activation of Er and Hf is reasonabe to speculate"

    I am happy to call this speculation on my part, as I'm just a hobbyist.


    In addition to the other evidence of neutrons present in the system in the case of the deuterated materials (the activated Gd and Cd, the CR-39 pits, the bubble dosimeters), note as well that some of the short-lived species (163Er, 171Er, 181Hf) were ones with 1 neutron greater in mass than species present in nature (162Er, 170Er, 180Hf). If several lines of evidence show neutrons doing other things, I would be surprised if Er and Hf were not activated by the same neutrons.


    The authors assume neutron activation, writing that "there are several plausible mechanisms for the observed neutron activations". Their question, and the thing that is interesting in this experiment, is to figure out what caused the neutron activation (and the activating neutrons).

  • (163Er, 171Er, 181Hf)

    While there is strong evidence for 171Er . .The evidence for the others is less strong. especially for

    163Er which relies on 1 spectral peak which I cannot find on the stated reference

    http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.…lifeMin=2520&tMinStr=42+m.

    what caused the neutron activation (and the activating neutrons).

    the formation of new isotopes.. 171Er Mo99 Mo101 .. seem to require the presence of deuterium as deuteride.


    since these isotopes are not formed when only hydrogen is present as hydride.

    The authors say "observed neutron activation" but they only observed new isotope gamma peaks.

    They might speculate some time on how deuterium forms neutrons rather than just saying that neutrons are present.

    and then... as Eric says how(what reations and energy levels) these neutron activate what isotopes.

  • Whatever (as they form, melt and reform) is taking place at the tips, of these dendritic hydrydes in these environs and control stimuli...

    Extremely pointy items that are charged form extremely high electrostatic field densities at the tips.

    High electrostatic field densities are required to form plasmas.

    In this case Pd dendrides are formed. Since these Pd dendrides are part of the cathode also Deuterium is formed. This is of course an interesting combination.

  • I just came across this -apologies if it has been posted before- it dates back to 2010.


    Inertial Confinement Fusion Propulsion for Deep Space Missions Revisited


    George H. Miley and Xiaoling Yang


    Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 61801


    Kirk A. Flippo


    P24 Plasma Physics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 87545


    Laser-driven Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) is extremely attractive for deep space propulsion and has been the subject of several conceptual design studies. However, these studies were based on older ICF technology using either “direct “or “in-direct x-ray driven” type target irradiation. This leads to rather low energy gains. Plus, traditional DT fusion was selected, requiring tritium breeding and delivering 80% of the fusion energy in neutrons that cannot be directed thorough an exhaust nozzle. However, important new directions have developed for laser ICF in recent years following the development of “chirped” lasers capable of ultra-short pulses with powers of TW up to a few PW. This has led to the exciting concept of “fast ignition (FI)” where the peta-watt laser beam strikes a pre-compressed target, creating a hot spot in the interior of the target burn that propagates outward into the surrounding fuel. This then gives a much higher energy gain, since part of the input energy required is replaced by the propagating burn.

    In the present study, we employ a new type of FI, termed "block ignition". In this approach, a non-laser interaction causes a plasma block to be accelerated into the target to ignite the hot spot. This is very efficient in giving very high gains while maintaining a low electron temperature, allowing ignition of more demanding fusion fuels like p-11B. The p-11B reaction is employed here and releases energy by energetic alphas particles that can be very effectively guided through a magnetic nozzle to produce thrust while avoiding tritium involvement or neutron induced radioactivity. These advances are considered here and are shown to meet and exceed the requirements anticipated (but not then available) for optimum ICF fusion propulsion ship design.


    Inertial_Confinement_Fusion_Propulsion_f.pdf

  • Very interesting however still very speculative.

    I expect rather that US teams will update former NERVA technology first.

    External Content www.youtube.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.


  • Thanks Alan Smith , I had not seen this in particular but other very similar to this one, only focused in the hot fusion “inertial confinement” method of fusing those pesky atoms over the Coulomb barrier. But This is still quite “good old fashioned” high temperature/ high pressure fusion.


    We know that Miley, Lawrence and Holmlid cooperated and jointly published back around 2009 up to 2011, give or take, and from that interaction they picked up Holmlid’s idea of hydrogen reaching high densities (1x1024 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter), only with the difference that this happens within a lattice, and which is still being talked around now in the context of “lattice confinement fusion”.


    As NASA has always researched this with a space application focus (in order to justify the research within the Space Agency), finding a way to justify the research as a way to create a system for to space propulsion was a must. We all must remember that the Tokamak reactors were originally conceived as space propulsion devices by Sakharov.

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

  • I know many researchers thought that very high density of D cause fusion and I think it is reasonable, but experimental data of hydrogen population in nanoparticle shows that hydrogen occupied surface T site.

    Thus I think the compression at surface T site cause cold fusion.

    But I need to thank many researchers who think that very high D density cause fusion because these research papers were my motivation why I looked for the experimental data of hydrogen population in metals.

    I could not find the proper reference of the study of hydrogen in metal in English so I am lucky to read Japanese papers because hydrogen has been the research topic in industry not in science society. The most important experiment is the high compressibility of hydrogen which is also the research in industry,

    I would like to thank all of the engineer in Industry in Japan.

  • Not new, but the original made available at ResearchGate. It's the same paper therefore.

  • Not new, but the original made available at ResearchGate. It's the same paper therefore.

    I do not think that they understand the mechanism of ColdFuion. Cold Fusion do not generate the neutron but FPE can generate the neutron.please read my paper, which I explain the both mechanism. I will send you the manuscript.

    Here I explain briefly.

    FPE is just the D2O electrolysis NOT ColdFusion so PFE need very long chargingtime to make resistance of PD so high that the local high temperature to trigger fusion.and it is often the case that cooling down of metal Rod is insufficient PFE has the very high temperature reaction to cause 4He excited state, and neutrons are generated.

    The above is the real cold fusion.Note that cold fusion is the phenonena after D absorption.

    So the reaction occurs under very low temperature with sufficient cooling because cold fusion reactor must be based on the real cold fusion mechanism. Fusion is caused by small D2 atoms wchih shiled the coulomp repulsive force perfectly, so fusion is softer that FPE and it must NOT generate neutron, I meat the reactor of Cold Fusion Must NOT generate the neutron by the proper design of cooling metal surface.

    I remember that I explained elsewhere, now the link is broken, so I reexplained here.

    it is better to read my manuscript, send me email.

  • Fusion Drive.


    External Content youtu.be
    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.

  • I would disagree with the “no consequences”. Forsley clearly mentions a high density of Deuterium Can be formed in the lattice, and that notion might have its roots in the collaboration with Holmlid. The 2009 paper of Holmlid, Miley and Yang talks about 1029clusters /cm3, Miley and Yang published the same year a paper where they talked about achieving 1024 clusters/cm3 so I think they got some influence after all, even if they parted ways since their collaboration with Holmlid, it left a mark.

    For some time I wondered whether NASA indeed may be have included the existence of Ultra Dense Deuterium in their research as published lately. Looking at some numbers in their paper on 'lattice confinement fusion', they mentioned a deuterium loading of up to 1023 atoms per cm3. Combining that with the lattice constant of Erbium (355 pm), this boils down to roughly 1 deuterium atom per Erbium lattice unit. It is however not clear whether they based that number on calculations rather than measurements.


    If I am not mistaken, the atomic distances of UDD are roughly 2.3 pm which is far less than the metal lattice constant of most metals. The 2009 paper of Holmlid, Miley and Yang mentions about 1029clusters /cm3, which therefore is roughly 106 larger as indicated in recent NASA publication. B.t.w. there are versions of that paper that include or exclude Forsley as co-author.


    Combining this, the suggestion that NASA is in some way confirming the possibility of UDD in their recent research is not strong.

  • For some time I wondered whether NASA indeed may be include the existance of Ultra Dense Deuterium in their research as published lately. Looking at some numbers in their paper on 'lattice confinement fusion', they mentioned a deuterium loading of up to 1023 atoms per cm3. Combining that with the lattice constant of Erbium (355 pm), this boils down to roughly 1 deuterium atom per Erbium crystal. It is however not clear whether they based that number on calculations rather than measurements.


    If I am not mistaken, the atomic distances of UDD are roughly 2.3 pm which is far less than the metal lattice constant of most metals. The 2009 paper of Holmlid, Miley and Yang talks about 1029clusters /cm3, which therefore is roughly 106 higher as indicated in recent NASA publication. B.t.w. there are versions of that paper that include and exclude Forsley as co-author.


    Combining this, the suggestion that NASA is in some way confirming the possibility of UDD in their recent research is not strong.

    I agree they do not confirm the UDD concept, at all, but I was addressing the idea that there was no consequence to their interaction with Holmlid, which I think influenced their work, probably much more than they would ever publish or admit.

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