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

  • this kind of reaction is cold fusion


    At any rate impacting TiDx with 10-25keV D is not LENR

    The Lipinski 2013 experimental results for Li +P fusion

    "

    The maximum rate occurred with protons incident on the
    target at an energy of about 500 eV,"


    look a good deal colder than the Helis 10 keV results

    but are still warm


    However the yield from such collision experiments is low.

    10 kev = 116,000,000 K(Boltzmann)

    500 eV = 5,802000 K .

    http://www.colby.edu/chemistry/PChem/Hartree.html


    by collisons only...

    some cold fusion might happen well below 1eV.. but there wouldn't be much

    of course there are catalytic and orientative mechanisms proposed

    but these don't tend to happen if the collisions are happening at speeds much greater than bullets.


    https://journals.aps.org/prab/…ysRevAccelBeams.22.054503


    S. Lipinski and H. Lipinski, Hydrogen-lithium fusion
    device, Patent No. WO 2014/189799 A9, 2013.

  • Gives credit where credit is due...

    Have Fleischmann and Pons been finally vindicated?

    YES


    On Synnefo

    https://synnefocorp.wordpress.com/


    Its only a question of money and time, like most things.” – Lawrence Forsley, physicist at the University of Texas and CTO of Global Energy Corp, on lattice confinement fusion scaling, 2020.


    "Developments in Lattice Confinement Fusion" By Kaiter Enless

    https://synnefocorp.wordpress.…ttice-confinement-fusion/


    Quote


    Lattice confinement was pioneered by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons


    (though they did not use the term) during their tumultuous 1989 “cold fusion” experiments at NAWCWD, wherein they used a cathode composed of a special type of Palladium (Pd) to absorb the hydrogen isotope Deuterium (D) from heavy water (D2O). Despite promising claims of nuclear reaction, Fleischman and Pons’ work was ill-recieved (MIT derided the nascent technology by holding a mock wake) and consequently sidelined.


    Recently, researchers at NASA’s Glenn Research Center of Cleveland, Ohio, in pursuit of energy sources for deep space missions, experimented with this third process by utilizing Deuterium in Erbium (Er) and Titanium (Ti) structures maintained at ambient temperature, wherein kinetic energies were raised to plasma-comparable levels. Fusion was produced by condensing D atoms to 1 billion times tokamak density (1023 ions/cm3) in the metal substrate and using a neutron source (2.9 MeV gama exposure causing photodisassociation of D, which splinters d-protons and d-neutrons) to heat the fuel, prompting *d-d (energetic-static) and Oppenheimer-Phillips reactions, producing a neutron and helium-3 or a proton and tritium (which may also react, producing more energy). - end quotes


    Author Kaiter Enless

    http://www.reconquistapress.com/

  • Yes this is similar with FPE.

    If you focus on the mechanism of FPE, please review my report

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…6756_Kodama-LENR-20210412

    FPE is just D absorption and by chance Cold fusion occurs.

    I do not agree with NASA's theory.



    Here is the related report of EDO.

    AS is explaied in the following papar, current nuclear physics ahs a huge miatake(meaning incorrect), so Cold Fusion must be validated after the nuclear physics society agrre with EDO theory and existence.

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ns_and_internal_electrons
    Here is the report on the EDO and


    Neutron to be the tightly bound proton-electron pair and the nucleus to be constituted by protons and internal electrons
    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ns_and_internal_electrons





  • Forsley of GEC and the NASA LCF 'cold n hot fusion' team has an office at Plum Bròok Station, completing the GEC NASA Space Act Agreement.

    Just a heads up... Plum Brook has been renamed.


    Plum Brook Station Renamed

    Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility

    Feb. 2021

    Ohio’s members of Congress have paid tribute to Neil Armstrong by renaming Plum Brook Station in his honor. Armstrong began his career at NASA Glenn and went on to inspire generations of scientists, engineers,

    and explorers.

    “I’m excited to share the news that NASA’s Plum Brook Station has been renamed NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at the Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility,” said Center Director Dr. Marla Pérez-Davis. “As the center where he began his NASA career, NASA Glenn is proud to share the name of the first

    person to walk on the Moon.”

    The center will be working with members of Congress on plans to officially unveil the test facility in the near

    future.


    AeroSpace Frontiers

    is an official publication of Glenn Research

    Center, National Aeronautics and Space

    Administration. It is published the second

    Friday of each month by the Office of

    Communications & External Relations

    in the interest of the Glenn workforce,

    retirees, government officials, business

    leaders and the general public.

  • Why not BuzzLightyear... to infinity and beyond?

    John H. Glenn Research Center at the Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility,

    Forsley seems to have a focus on co-deposition after so many years of research


    For introducing deuterium(H) into lattice co-deposition is convenient because it can be achieved at room T/P

    . it looks a lot easier than the use of millibar pressures( perhaps these are to remove oxygen as well) as used by Mizuno in the R20 or high energy ion implantation


    but the fundamental nature of the fusion.. does it really produce neutrons.. is still unknown

    also the Cr-39 measurement is post hoc..long after the fusion has occurred

    perhaps a gamma spectrometer in the 0-200 keV range is more instructive.

  • >For introducing deuterium(H) into lattice co-deposition is convenient because it can be achieved at room T/P

    YES this is very important to use Ni-D etc at the proximity of the reaction surface.

    Because the total excess heat is determined by the D supply speed so the very high D concentration at the proximity of reaction surface is critical.


  • Most of you expect me to bring this up from time to time. My opinion is that the GEC and Leonardo Corporation timelines highpoints mesh since 2012. Along this line of reasoning I have predicted market entry, with products, will be made by each in the same time period. I also believe GEC is already producing these products within national security agencies. GEC has safety certified these reactors and systems at NASA. Also, I expect other US groups, will quickly enter the market, many unheard of yet, including some we have just recently become aware of like the Google group... now with a defence contract/grant. NASA's safety standards for certification will allow the US to dominate entry into the CMNS energy market.


    Many disparage the Rossi claims of impending lighting/energy market entry...

    Yet

    Consider, if Leoardo Corporation does demo and start selling GEC will too.


    I note patterns and changes of behaviour. After years of making thousands of comments on the Rossi Blog thread here on LENR Forum, Jed Rothwel has gone silent. NO comment by him there for over a year. Strange. Almost as strange as his spat with me over the claims made by GEC


    What are your opinions of these bold claims made by GEC? By inference, these claims are being made by every research group that GEC is partnered with... you can quote me on this opinion of mine, which is strongly held.


    What are your opinions of these bold claims made by GEC?


    If GEC has this tech might Leonardo Corporation also have it.


    Is it market emerget?


    Why is Jed no longer bashing Rossi?


    "GEC is currently negotiating several new SMG construction contracts ranging from 250MWe to 5GWe around the world."

    Market entry claims GEC (Frank Gordon's research crew JWK, Forsley, Boss et al). GEC is a lead Lattice Confinement Fusion development partner at NASA and works with the Indian Head Division CMNS group..."GEC is several years ahead of what is presently disclosed."- Larry Forsley


    Journalist Study Slides (copied, for ease of study, from: GEC Hybrid Fusion Reactor Development and Manufacturing, GEC Solutions, Projects at the GEC website httpwwwgecsolutionswhatwedohtml)


    Slideshow A - The unique GEC electric vehicle (copied, for ease of study, from: GEC Hybrid Fusion Reactor Development and Manufacturing, GEC Solutions, Projects at the GEC website httpwwwgecsolutionswhatwedohtml) https://drive.google.com/file/…anKzF-8jCflYBiRLpE-y/view


    Slideshow B - GEC Reactor - Thorium as main fuel source (copied, for ease of study, from: GEC Hybrid Fusion Reactor Development and Manufacturing, GEC Solutions, Projects at the GEC website httpwwwgecsolutionswhatwedohtml) https://drive.google.com/file/…_02yzjg-D3T1cAkdO2N7/view

    • Official Post

    What are your opinions of these bold claims made by GEC? By inference, these claims are being made by every research group that GEC is partnered with... you can quote me on this opinion of mine, which is strongly held.


    What are your opinions of these bold claims made by GEC?


    If GEC has this tech might Leonardo Corporation also have it.


    Is it market emerget?


    Why is Jed no longer bashing Rossi?

    I can't figure out GEC either Greg. Like you, I have followed their story for years. How they could have signed a deal back in 2012 with Guam to use their hybrid LENR GENIE tech to power the island, and now this many years later there is nothing on the market to show for it, is beyond me. Were it not for Forsley being such a credible person, and now part of NASA, I would have written them off long ago.


    Maybe one day the book will explain it all. Surprised actually that whole SPAWAR/GEC/NASA crew haven't written one yet. They have quite the story to tell. Anyway, thanks for keeping this on the front page.


    As to Jed, I have wondered where he went. Hopefully he is not upset with something we said.

    • Official Post

    I can't figure out GEC either Greg. Like you, I have followed their story for years. How they could have signed a deal back in 2012 with Guam to use their hybrid LENR GENIE tech to power the island, and now this many years later there is nothing on the market to show for it, is beyond me. Were it not for Forsley being such a credible person, and now part of NASA, I would have written them off long ago.


    Maybe one day the book will explain it all. Surprised actually that whole SPAWAR/GEC/NASA crew haven't written one yet. They have quite the story to tell. Anyway, thanks for keeping this on the front page.


    As to Jed, I have wondered where he went. Hopefully he is not upset with something we said.

    GEC has struck me as a sort of mock up company, like a placeholder, with bold claims and a very cheesy looking and outdated website. Whoever keeps and maintains that website can’t really spect anyone to take those claims seriously. It is really intriguing that Larry Forsley has allowed his name to be in that page all these years.

  • Curbina The unprofessional website is by design. I expect it to change early next year.


    A bio... Forsley

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawrence-forsley-8b9b755

    Experience

    The University of Texas at Austin

    Research Fellow

    Feb 2018 - Present 3 years 6 months


    Austin, Texas Area

    Neutron Activation Analysis


    NASA GRC

    Sr Lead Experimental Physicist

    Aug 2014 - Present 7 years


    Cleveland, Ohio

    Study bremsstrahlung and other induced nuclear reactions in deuterated metals.


    Global Energy Corporation

    Chief Technology Officer

    Global Energy Corporation

    Jan 2009 - Present 12 years 7 months


    San Diego, CA

    Radiation testing and calibration for the US Navy. Development of commercial products using nuclear effects in solid state lattices. Fast neutron, prompt gamma ray analysis of biomass.


    Volunteer Experience

    ANSI X3/J14 Forth Language Standardization Graphic

    member

    ANSI X3/J14 Forth Language Standardization

    1987 - 1995 8 years


    Science and Technology


    Develop(ed) the ANS X3/J14 Language Specification


    Proposal Reviewer

    National Science Foundation (NSF)

    Sep 2018 - Present 2 years 11 months


    Proposal Reviewer

    Technical Expert European Commission

    2014 - Present 7 years


    Also

    It's strange that NASA "discovered" retracted then "announced" LCF AFTER my first posting... of their first post.


    Lattice Confinement Fusion: NASA Announces, then Un-announces, Discovery of “Potential New Power-Generation Method”

    https://e-catworld.com/2020/06…-power-generation-method/


    Also Dr Chubb has been with the GEC for decades.

    Issue 79

    May/Jun 2008

    Infinite Energy Magazine


    REPORT ON THE COLD FUSION SESSION AT APS MARCH MEETING

    March 10, 2008 / Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana by Evan Ragland

    https://www.infinite-energy.co…apscoldfusionsession.html


    It has been over a decade since Dr. Scott Chubb (a technical editor of Infinite Energy) first arranged to include a cold fusion session at the APS March Meeting. Over the years, cold fusion researchers have enthusiastically responded with submission of abstracts (in fact, I understand that a record number of abstracts were submitted in 2008). However, travel costs are high and many researchers are unable to attend to present their own work (the attendance of researchers has lessened over the years). In addition, audience attendance is sparse, which is unfortunate since cold fusion is rich in progress.


    For example, Dr. Melvin Miles opened the 2008 session with a report on replication of heat results obtained initially by Energetics in Israel. This work by Dr. Michael McKubre, Dr. Francis Tanzella, and Dr. Vittorio Violante was based on independent experiments performed at SRI and ENEA. Initial studies at ENEA and the University of Rome guided experiments evaluating a novel cathode current stimulus developed by Energetics in Israel. McKubre, Miles, Violante, and Tanzella are world class scientists. This paper, “The Significance of Replication,” is landmark science.


    Session Chairman Dr. Edmund Storms (who did a tremendous job filling in for Dr. Scott Chubb, who could not attend) then introduced Dr. Thomas Grinshaw, who spoke on “Public-Interest and Level-of-Evidence Considerations in Cold Fusion Public Policy.” Grinshaw addressed two policies—the potential benefits and the reality of cold fusion. Finding clear and evident probability for cold fusion beyond reasonable doubt, he argued for change in public policy toward cold fusion. This paper argues, based on reality and public benefits, a unique and refreshing insight to public policy. It is well worth reading.


    Dr. Storms then spoke on his research paper, “Anomalous Radiation Produced by Glow Discharge in Deuterium Containing Oxygen.” (Storms is the author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. His research in the field is renowned, particularly his thoroughness of research and extensive bibliography.) His and Dr. Brian Scanlan’s research of glow discharge exemplifies thoroughness. These glow discharge experiments do not seek to initiate nuclear reaction but to discover if above a critical voltage glow discharge evidences radiation. The intensity of such radiation might then permit a power function to be applied to voltage. The clarity of Storms writing, extensive attention to bibliography, and experimental thoroughness exemplify the progress of cold fusion (LENR) research.


    Also puzzling me...

    Still curious about Jed's educated opinion. He is fairly thick skinned, not easily offended I imagine. I'm happy with an honest refusal to express an opinion, as a valid scholarly response. I also wonder about any implied acceptance of Rossi in Jed's absence on the blog thread. I can be misguided though.

  • I suspect at least part of the problem is that it’s really hard to sell this technology. Forsley said something to that effect during his ICCF presentation. A new reactor that purports to break the laws of physics and that nobody understands? What committee would ever sign off on that?

  • No, the retracted document is a by-product from experimentally estabilished whispers of dubious neutrons and the conseguent failure to provide a 10 kW thermal reactor, as pretended from umbrella JWC-NASA 24838_SAA3-1529 agreement. NASA needs robust energy source for lunar and planetary exploration as KRUSTY, don't need papers demonstrating low neutron fluxes drowded in noise. Sorry.


    https://www.lanl.gov/discover/…June/0630-krusty-test.php