Quote from nkodama

this kind of reaction is cold fusion

Quote from RobertBryant

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.

Lawrence Forsley NASA Lattice Confinement Fusion Global Energy Corporation CMNS Energy Market Entry

Scopus

https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=6507707193

Also Scopus

https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=6507707193

Global Energy Corporation Products

http://www.gec.solutions/projects.html

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/

Quote from Curbina

I am opening this thread because it kind of flew under the radar, but I honestly think this is major news, and we really need to pay attention to this development.

In its new revamped Lattice Confinement Fusion page, NASA is openly admitting that fusion can happen “at room temperature” in a metal lattice.

https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/spac…ttice-confinement-fusion/

“Nuclear fusion is a process that produces energy when two nuclei join to form a heavier nucleus. “Scientists are interested in fusion, because it could generate enormous amounts of energy without creating long-lasting radioactive byproducts,” said Theresa Benyo, Ph.D., of NASA’s Glenn Research Center. “However, conventional fusion reactions are difficult to achieve and sustain because they rely on temperatures so extreme to overcome the strong electrostatic repulsion between positively charged nuclei that the process has been impractical.”

Called Lattice Confinement Fusion, the method NASA revealed accomplishes fusion reactions with the fuel (deuterium, a widely available non-radioactive hydrogen isotope composed of a proton, neutron, and electron, and denoted “D”) confined in the space between the atoms of a metal solid. In previous fusion research such as inertial confinement fusion, fuel (such as deuterium/tritium) is compressed to extremely high levels but for only a short, nano-second period of time, when fusion can occur. In magnetic confinement fusion, the fuel is heated in a plasma to temperatures much higher than those at the center of the Sun. In the new method, conditions sufficient for fusion are created in the confines of the metal lattice that is held at ambient temperature. While the metal lattice, loaded with deuterium fuel, may initially appear to be at room temperature, the new method creates an energetic environment inside the lattice where individual atoms achieve equivalent fusion-level kinetic energies.”

Have Fleischmann and Pons been finally vindicated, at least sort of?

This is of course not our usual LENR as they use gamma rays to drive the reaction, but hey, it’s within a metal lattice, and is fusion, and is room temperature, doesn’t it sound like Cold fusion to you?

External Content m.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

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.

let’s discuss.

Later added: The more I read, the more I feel I need someone to pinch me to be sure I am not dreaming all this.

In the text of the page, whoever wrote it is at the same time validating basically all the original claims of “cold fusion” and also politely calling “Hot fusion” a pipe dream.

Display More

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

Quote from Shane D.

Larry Forsley ICCF23 video:

http://ikkem.com/iccf23/MP4/2a-PL05.mp4

As is explained transmutation need H because H2molecule is compressed to be small H2 which is di neutron, which can break the larger nucleus.

D2O absorb H2O from the air so Iwamura use D2O and can enable transmutation.

I have already inform this to Iwamura and the researcher must read this post.

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?

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

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.

Quote from RobertBryant

Why not BuzzLightyear... to infinity and beyond?

Forlsey 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.

Display More

>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?

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

"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

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.

...perhaps we can locate the proposals Lawrence Forsley has reviewed, their authors, and other proposal reviewers. I wonder if any proposals are for the study of tax revenue and policy theory?

I sent my repot to Lawrence Forsley and Jan Wittry, Theresa L. Benyo the author of NASA Detects Lattice Confinement Fusion.

I hope they will review my report on cold fusion mechanism.

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?

Nasa Umbrella FAILED: at the end of JWC-NASA 24838_SAA3-1529-1 contract NO self-sustaining 10 kW thermal, 2 kW electric, hybrid generator for planetary space missions and planetary surface power.

https://www.nasa.gov/saa/domestic/24838_SAA3-1529-1.pdf

You know it failed because they took down a document?

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