Un Reportage de CBS 60 Minutes sur les derniers developpements de cette technologie qui si jamais atteignait l'utilisation courante, changerait notre monde de maniere si profonde, qu'il est presqu'impossible de l'evaluer actuellement.
Imaginez vous un monde ou la production d'energie en abondance, de maniere tres simple et a des echelles de grandeur les plus variees, est une realite
Robert W. Bussard (11 août 1928 - 6 octobre 2007, Santa Fe) est un physicien américain qui s'est surtout fait connaître pour ses recherches dans le domaine de la production d'énergie par le biais de la fusion nucléaire et la propulsion nucléaire thermique pour les voyages spatiaux notamment en proposant en 1960 le concept du collecteur Bussard. Il était fellow de l'International Academy of Astronautics.
Sur son reacteur de fusion Polywell
wikipedia a écrit:
Le polywell est un procédé de confinement du plasma qui combine des éléments du confinement inertiel électrostatique et du confinement magnétique dans le but de produire de l'énergie par fusion nucléaire. Le nom polywell est un mot-valise regroupant polyhedron (polyèdre) et potential well (puits de potentiel).
Le polywell est composé de bobinages d'électroaimant disposés selon une configuration polyédrique, au sein de laquelle les champs magnétiques assurent le confinement d'un nuage d'électrons. Cette configuration piège les électrons au centre du dispositif, ce qui produit un potentiel électrique négatif quasi-sphérique utilisé pour accélérer et confiner les ions que l'on souhaite voir fusionner. Il a été développé à partir de 1983 initialement par Robert Bussard dans le cadre d'un contrat de recherche de l'US Navy comme une amélioration du fuseur de Farnsworth-Hirsch, les financements occasionnels du DoD commençant en 1987 suivi de l'US Navy en 1992. A sa mort en Octobre 2007, une équipe était déjà rassemblée pour continuer son travail et actuellement le développement se poursuit sous la direction de R. Nebel avec un financement de l'US Navy. Le but du contrat actuel est de construire le prototype WB8, huitième prototype "Wiffle Ball", devant servir à affiner les conditions de fonctionnement avant de construire un démonstrateur de fusion WB8.1. La caractéristique générale des financements est qu'ils ont été rares, irréguliers et insuffisants pour assurer un développement régulier et rapide des prototypes.
Interview du Dr. Richard Nebel, Directeur de la societe EMC2 Fusion, chargee du developpement du reacteur de demonstration de fusion par technique polywell, par le gouvernement americain. Notemment la navy, qui espere d'ici 2020, utiliser ce reacteur pour tous ses bateaux et sous-marins.
Question: Could you provide an overview of your nuclear fusion process?
Answer: Our machine is a hybrid machine - part magnetic confinement and part electrostatic. Our approach involves holding plasma together and heating with electrostatic fields. With the parameters that we have put into this device, we have gotten the results that we expected. We are currently using low magnetic fields, and the major issue with this is to what degree it will scale. At this point we don't know the answer to that question.
Question: How is your concept for nuclear fusion different than that of the Government's tokamak project?
Answer: Tokomaks are pure magnetic confinement devices, so the physics on our devices are considerably different than for Tokamaks. The advantage of our system is that high temperatures are not difficult to obtain, but we struggle to get the high densities that magnetic confinement devices do easily. We have disadvantages as well - the things that are difficult for us are easy for them and vice versa. But overall we believe we have a superior concept for several reasons. First, our hybrid system uses PB-11(proton-boron 11) for fuel, which doesn't produce radioactive material. Second, our system is compact, and could be portable enough to be used on ships. Third, this system is cheap to develop and to run - we don't require enormous development budgets like the tokamak does.
Question: How close are you to creating a fusion machine capable of actual energy generation?
Answer: We are hoping to have a net energy production product within six years. It could take longer, but this definitely won't be a 50 year development project.
Question: You are currently operating on a shoestring budget. How are budgetary limitations hampering your work?
Answer: Unsurprisingly, our biggest constraints relate to funding and schedules. Due to time limitations, we haven't been able to test the device as thoroughly as we'd like, and we couldn't put all of the diagnostics on the machine that we initially wanted. But these constraints compel us to operate efficiently and expediently. My biggest concern at this point is getting things right the first time, which is difficult when doing fundamental research.
Question: When is the earliest that an actual fusion plant based on your concept could be built?
Answer: The project that we hope to have out within the next six years will probably be a demo, which won't have the attendant secondary equipment necessary for electricity generation. Hopefully the demo will demonstrate everything that is needed to put a full-scale working plant into commercial production. So if the concept works we could have a commercial plant operating as early as 2020.
Question: How safe would these fusion plants be, relative to fission reactors? What byproducts would they produce?
Answer: There are no radioactive materials or waste made with this process. The only serious hazard with operation are the high voltages involved, which pose a risk to the workers. But that is a risk that conventional powerplants have as well. These machines shouldn't require containment vessels, like the fission machines have. The only byproduct of our fusion process is helium.
Question: How portable could these devices be made? Could they be used to power ships?
Answer: The navy is funding our work because they are interested in using our fusion technique to power their ships. The minimum size on these machines isn't yet clear, and that will depend on how this scales. Dr. Robert Bussard was very interested in using this fusion technique to power spaceships.
Question: What do you estimate a kilowatt hour from your fusion reactor to cost?
Answer: We are looking at 2-5 cents per kilowatt hour. That should make electricity generation less expensive than any alternative, including coal and nuclear. So if this technology works it will be like a silver bullet, and be fundamentally superior to any competing technology. The issue is whether it works or not.
Question: What fuel sources could your fusion system use?
Answer: Our system uses a proton and the boron11 isotope , which is called PB-11. It is easier to run a fusion device on helium 3, since it is easier to generate power out of helium 3. But there are accessibility issues with helium 3, so it is currently extremely expensive. People have argued that we should be mining the moon, since helium 3 is abundant on the moon. But I believe that PB-11 is a superior approach, if we can make it work.
Question: What is your assessment of cold fusion? Will it ever become feasible?
Answer: I don't know if it will ever be feasible or not. What we have seen so far is excess heat production, and we don't know the cause of that. But we should wait and see what the cold fusion proponents accomplish.
Question: Are there any corporations/civilian agencies funding your research?
Answer: There are, but I am not at liberty to discuss that at this point. We currently have multiple funding sources, and certain corporations and private organizations are very interested in this technology. We have had numerous inquiries from various sources, and we tend to be forthright and explain the inherent risks involved. Some corporations are more amenable to funding high-risk projects than others.
Question: If this technology progresses as you hope, how could it affect society?
Answer: If we get super excited about this, than we will lose perspective, and that is deadly for science projects. People who lose perspective tend to start misinterpreting the data to meet their expectations. This technology will either be a world-changing process or a bust. If it works, it will dramatically alter the world within the next two decades. This is a truly disruptive technology, and if successful will result in a safe, cheap, and nearly limitless source of energy. _________________ La vie est un privilege, elle ne vous doit rien!
Vous lui devez tout, en l'occurence votre vie
HiPER's layout from a preliminary design study. The ignition lasers are on the left, the drivers on the right (just visible in the cutaway). The main amplifiers (in darker blue) are at the upper left end of the building, driven by the capacitor banks in the smaller buildings on either side. Spatial filters are shown in green. The large silver boxes contain diffraction gratings that compress the passage of the light into a very short pulse of about 10 ps. The ignition system is focused onto a single spot entering on the left side of the chamber, whereas the compression beams are reflected to shine into the chamber from all directions
_________________ La vie est un privilege, elle ne vous doit rien!
Vous lui devez tout, en l'occurence votre vie
Est un projet initie par un ingenieur, qui a quitte son job, pour initier ce projet de construction d'un reacteur type polywell et de publier tous les resultats de son epopee selon le principe Opensource c.a.d. libre d'utilisation par tous.
Vous pouvez suivre son aventure sur cette page: http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/ _________________ La vie est un privilege, elle ne vous doit rien!
Vous lui devez tout, en l'occurence votre vie
L'entreprise EMC2 FUSION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION chargee par La Navy americaine de valider le travail du Dr. Bussard avant sa mort (voir les articles plus haut) dans la construction d'un proptotype de fusion selon le type polywell, semble avoir reussi.
EMC2 has proven:
Fusion and Control of Electron Losses WB-6 2005
Validation of WB-6 Results With Improved Diagnostics WB-7 2008
Confinement Behavior With Detailed Diagnostics WB-8 2010
Afin de prouver la theorie du Dr. Bussard sur la relation Rayon de l'appareil et augmentation de l'energie generee qui serait de = Rayon^7 ce qui signifie qu'un appareil avec un Rayon= 1.5 m genererait 100 MegaWatt d'energie, EMC est entrain de construire un appareil du meme modele produit jusqu'ici mais avec un rayon plus grand.
EMC2 work in Process -> Fusion R&D Phase 2 - Design, build and test larger scale WB-8 Polywell Device, 2 years / $7M
Et enfin pour les 4 prochaines annees au plus, EMC2 est entrain de faire le design et construira un reacteur prototype de 1.5 m, capable de generer 100 Megawatt d'energie
EMC2 work in Design Phase: Fusion R&D Phase 3 - Design, build and test full scale 100 MW Fusion System: 4 years / $200M
_________________ La vie est un privilege, elle ne vous doit rien!
Vous lui devez tout, en l'occurence votre vie
Posté le: Lun 22 Mar 2010 01:25 Sujet du message: IEC
La methode de fusion nucleaire selon le procede Polywell (IEC) du professeur Bussard, semble s'imposer de plus en plus de par le monde universitaire du globe et supplante la methode tokamak a la base d'ITER.
The University of Wisconsin hosted the 11th US-Japan Workshop on Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion on October 12th and 13th in Madison Wisconsin. Over the two days some 28 presenters covered the activities, progress and plans spread over the eight U.S., Japanese and Australian leading Inertial Electrostatic Fusion (IEC) research universities. Plus Los Alamos National Lab was there, presenting as well and shared participation from Lawrenceville Plasmas Physics, Kurita Manufacturing, and a presentation by Phoenix Nuclear Labs. IEC is being researched much more thoroughly than one might suspect.
The participant name most familiar to us in the energy field is Richard Nebel of EMC2, the firm of the late Dr. Robert Bussard. Mr. Nebel chaired a session on day one as well as prepared a summary. As the leader of the leading power production research firm, Mr. Nebel would be needed there as well to learn what’s going on outside of power research and see what be applicable.
The interesting points found across the 28 presentations are the depth of understanding unfolding across the research field. The issues for this point in time seem to focus on the materials used in the various IEC designs, the effects of the temperature both in the physics, the engineering choices and materials, and the progress to goals spread across the IEC’s potential.
It’s the applications outside of power generation that amaze, space thrusters, neutron sources with transmutation doping, forming beams, plus low energy nuclear reactions, isotope separation, transmutation, and helium implantation. All that plus power production are on the table now. The field is getting richer every year.
There is also the learning path exposing new resources, problems and solution ideas. There are such concepts as finding ways for using the negative ion production, the extended validation of the early Hirsch work, new fast ions, new takes on atomic physics, issues of special fusion distribution and the matter of microchannel formation. All these plus experimentation for electricity gathering are out in view now. Of note is University of Wisconsin research is already looking into the impacts of 3He on materials that will get to solving the matter of intensely energetic 3He unloading power into the proposed mechanisms for extracting the electrical power.
The eight universities include the University of Wisconsin with 10 presentation credits, the University of Sydney with 4 credits, the University of Kyoto with 3, the University of Illinois with 2, Kasai University with 2, Tokyo Institute of Technology with 2, and one each from the University of Maryland and the University of Missouri. It seems the field is attracting more programs. Of greater significance is that the breadth and depth of IEC is going to both put at ease concerns about the significance of IEC as well as more strongly motivate research funding.
One might think the physics matters are worked out. In the main that’s so, but detractors, amazingly remain. Fusion in IEC is widespread now, with the University of Wisconsin operating no less that 4 different kinds of fusors. Across the U.S, Japan and Australia IEC fusion might have more fusion events per year than any other form of fusion, probably far more. That might be enough to unsettle other method’s research participants.
The tokamak field is operating to a much less successful extent and falling behind in making progress very fast indeed. It must be unnerving, when it comes to competition for funding; IEC has a successful story with gaining progress across several fields to measure against ever more funds and more time extensions for progress by tokamak supporters. Previous funders who missed early opportunities must be chagrined as well. The arena in which IEC is seen is changing for the better, and very deservingly so.
For those interested primarily in energy release and production from fusion the pickings in the workshop presentation list seem thin. It may be simply that the leader is funded and restrained by the terms about the release of information. But the presence of Mr. Nebel is comforting. Nebel is likely seen as the leading authority about the Bussard theories and being there for the small discussions, making some part of the allowed knowledge and insight available privately one hopes, should help move others along.
The reverse is true as well. The wealth of experimental results, the insights and questions of the hundreds of people now involved needs a forum for getting that know how spread about. Hundreds of minds and perspectives are better than a few or one, and the relationships such workshops seed are immeasurably valuable. What Nebel took and shared is unknown, as it should be, and Nebel may well have new insights to take home as well.
For those of us outside, a review of the Nebel Summary and a look through the presentations is worthwhile. This writer read them all and came away with a much better sense of what’s going on along side the power production effort. What stands as obvious is the field is growing in sophistication, the certainty that commercial results is growing, there is a wealth of different targets, and that much of the work is going to impact across the whole field. This point in time for IEC is the very most exciting, the physics work concluding, the research into the potential is beginning, the problems as they surface are being addressed and seem to be other opportunities as well.
All this points to IEC as being a sharp and pointed edge of the blade into the future. What comes of it is getting more certain. Hundred of minds are concentrated now, and hundreds more if not thousands will be over the coming years. It’s invention stage passing proving, launching into exploration and soon innovations and more developments. This is without doubt, the most exciting field in science today. I just wish Dr. Bussard were here to see it for himself.
des chercheurs des laboratoirs LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory), responsable de la premiere bombe atomique et des principaux developpement nucleaire americain, proposent une nouvelle configuration de reacteur de type IEC (du meme type que le reacteur polywell plus haut)
qui serait capable de produire entre 100 - 1000 MegaWatt de fusion notemment la POPS (Periodically Oscillating Plasma Sphere)
La theorie physique de ce modele POPS vient d'etre confirme en laboratoir.
Inertial-electrostatic-confinement (IEC) systems provide an economical and technologically straightforward means to produce fusion reactions in a table-top device.1,2 IEC devices confine a plasma in a potential well created by electrostatic fields or a combination of electrostatic and magnetic fields. The fields can be produced either by grids or by virtual cathodes, typically in spherical or cylindrical geometry. The fields accelerate ions towards the center of the device, where fusion reactions can occur (Figure 1). The technological simplicity of the IEC system was the basis for its early success—it produced a steady-state neutron yield of 2 × 1010 neutrons/s in the late 1960s.3
One of the most promising applications for an IEC-based neutron source is the active nuclear assay of highly enriched uranium and high explosives (HE), such as landmines. High-energy neutrons (e.g., 14.1 MeV neutrons from deuterium-tritium [DT] fusion reactions) have the ability to penetrate shielded materials very effectively. For example, Monte Carlo neutron and photon (MCNP) transport-code calculations indicate that 14.1 MeV neutrons can penetrate soil as deep as 1 m and detect HE, such as landmines. We are currently working with a private company to develop a compact and economical intense neutron source based on the IEC system. The enhanced-detection capability of the IEC-based neutron source, compared to natural radiation sources, could provide cutting-edge technology for homeland defense and humanitarian causes.
Periodically Oscillating Plasma Sphere
Though useful for practical neutron sources, the existing IEC fusion devices suffer low fusion yields, ~ 0.01% of input power. This is because the Coulomb-collision cross section is much greater than the fusion-collision cross section by several orders of magnitude. The ion beams in the IEC device rapidly lose the energy by Coulomb collisions before producing fusion reactions, leading to a net loss in energy.
A new electrostatic plasma equilibrium that should mitigate this problem has been proposed by LANL theorists4 and recently confirmed experimentally.5 This concept requires uniform electron injection into the central region of a spherical device to produce harmonic oscillator potential. An ion cloud (referred to as the Periodically Oscillating Plasma Sphere, or POPS) in such an environment will undergo harmonic oscillation with an oscillation frequency independent of amplitude. Tuning the external radio-frequency (rf) electric fields to this naturally occurring mode allows the ion motions to be phase-locked. This simultaneously produces very high densities and temperatures during the collapse phase of the oscillation when all the ions converge into the center. Solutions to POPS oscillation have the remarkable property that they maintain equilibrium distribution of the ions at all times. This would eliminate any power loss due to Coulomb collisions and would greatly increase the neutron yield up to more than 100%, resulting in a net energy gain for fusion-power generation.
In a practical embodiment, the POPS system would use a massively modular system to achieve high-mass-power density as shown in the conceptual drawing in Figure 2. Such a device would contain thousands of tiny spherical IEC reactors within a single reactor vessel to produce a large amount of fusion power (i.e., ~ 100–1000 MW). A modular IEC device would have very high-mass-power density, comparable to a light-water reactor, while maintaining conventional wall loads (~ 1 MW/m2) and being economically competitive with other sources of power.
First Experimental Confirmation POPS Oscillation
The POPS oscillation has been experimentally measured for the first time, confirming the scientific basis for a POPS-based fusion device. The harmonic potential well is created by electron injection.6 Ions in the potential well undergo harmonic oscillation. By applying rf fluctuation to the grid voltage, we were able to phase-lock the POPS oscillation and to measure the resonance behavior of the ions. Mathematically, ion dynamics during the driven POPS oscillation are equivalent to the driven harmonic
oscillatior as described by the Mathieu equations. The ions can gain a large amount of energy from a small external perturbation when the driving frequency is equal to the resonance frequency. The ion orbits become unstable, and ion loss from the potential well is enhanced. In the experimental setting, the enhanced ion loss compensates the background ionization and extends the lifetime of the potential well. On the other hand, rf fluctuation outside the POPS resonance frequency makes little impact to the ion loss. This resonance behavior of ion dynamics is shown in Figure 3, where the temporal variation of the plasma response is measured for various rf frequencies. Without rf fluctuation, the lifetime of the potential well is very short, ~ 0.5 ms, due to significant background ionization. By applying small rf fluctuation (~ 4 V amplitude compared to a direct-current [dc] bias voltage of 250 V) at POPS frequency, the lifetime increases greatly to ~ 2.5 ms. In comparison, rf fluctuation outside the resonance frequency changes the lifetime only slightly.
The frequency at which the POPS oscillation is found scales as fPOPS = (√2/π) *(Vwell/r2wellMion)0.5. In using a harmonic-oscillator analogy, the ion mass provides the inertia, whereas the curvature of potential well is equal to the coefficient of the restoring force. Because this was the first time that the POPS oscillation has ever been experimentally observed, extensive efforts were made to verify the POPS frequency scaling as a function of the well depth and the ion mass. As shown in Figure 4, excellent agreement was obtained between the experiments and the theory, confirming that the observed resonance is the ion mode associated with the POPS oscillation. The potential well depth was controlled by varying the dc component of the inner-grid bias, whereas the well radius is fixed by the inner-grid dimension. Note that the well radius was estimated as rwell = rgrid + λDeff, where λDeff is the effective Debye length to account for the Debye shielding. We also varied the fill gas, using three different ion species, H2+, He+, and Ne+ to investigate the POPS frequency scaling.
Particle Simulation of POPS Plasma Compression
One of the most significant issues facing a fusion device based on POPS is the plasma compression, which determines the achievable fusion rates. In the case of deuterium-deuterium (DD) fuel, a radial plasma compression of 25 is sufficient for active nuclear assay, whereas the neutron tomography would require a compression of 100. In comparison, a practical fusion-power plant would require a compression of 2000 for DD fuel but less than 100 for DT fuel. One factor that greatly affects the compression ratio is the extent of space-charge neutralization. Inadequate space-charge neutralization can cause self-repulsion of the ion cloud during the collapse phase, limiting the compression.
A gridless particle code of one dimension in space and two dimensions in velocity space has been developed to investigate the space-charge neutralization during POPS compression.7 Figure 5 shows the radial profiles of ion density and plasma potential during POPS compression. The results in the left are from the expansion phase of POPS oscillation. The ion density profile is Gaussian in space, and the plasma potential profile matches the required harmonic oscillator potential for ions, produced by constant electron injection. In the middle, the ion density and the plasma potential during the collapsed phase of POPS oscillation are shown. A large distortion of plasma potential is due to the insufficient space-charge neutralization and ion self-repulsion during the POPS compression. This has limited the radial plasma compression to only 6.3. In comparison, the results on the right come from the case where we modulate the initial velocity distribution of injected electrons as a function of time to improve the space-charge neutralization. This simple remedy helped to improve the space-charge neutralization in the core during the collapse phase. A radial plasma compression of 19 has been obtained, resulting in the ion-density enhancement of ~ 10,000 in the core as compared to the expansion phase. Currently, we are investigating a method, proposed by Louis Chacon (Plasma Theory Group, T-15), to correctly modify the injected electron distribution to eliminate the space-charge neutralization problem and to improve the plasma compression.
The IEC Team in our Plasma Physics Group (P-24) and T-15 is working on developing practical fusion devices based on an IEC scheme. The recent experimental confirmation of the POPS oscillation and successful plasma compression in a particle simulation has provided solid scientific foundation for further exploration of this promising fusion device concept. This exploration will include direct experimental measurement of plasma compression and fully two-dimensional particle simulations of POPS dynamics. Successful plasma compression of at least 50 will be followed by a demonstration of nuclear fusion reactions using POPS.
1.W.C. Elmore, J.L. Tuck, and K.M. Watson, “On the inertial-electrostatic confinement of a plasma,” Physics of Fluids 2, 239 (1959).
2.P.T. Farnsworth, “Electric Discharge Device for Producing Interactions Between Nucleii,” U.S. Patent No. 3,358,402, issued June 28, 1966, initially filed May 5, 1956, reviewed Oct. 18, 1960, filed Jan. 11, 1962.
3.R.L. Hirsch, “Experimental studies of a deep, negative, electrostatic potential well in spherical geometry,” Physics of Fluids 11, 2486 (1968).
4.R.A. Nebel and D.C. Barnes, “The periodically oscillating plasma sphere,” Fusion Technology 38, 28 (1998).
5.J. Park et al., “First experimental confirmation of periodically oscillating plasma sphere (POPS) oscillation,” submitted to Physical Review Letters.
6.J. Park et al., “Experimental studies of electrostatic confinement on the INS-e device,” Physics of Plasmas 10, 3841–3849 (2003).
7.R.A. Nebel et al., “Theoretical and experimental studies of kinetic equilibrium and stability in the virtual cathode of the intense neutron source (INS-e) device,” submitted to Physics of Plasmas.
This work is supported by the DOE Office of Science/Fusion Energy Sciences Innovative Confinement Concepts Program. The authors gratefully acknowledge Carter Munson (P-24), Martin Taccetti (Hydrodynamics and X-ray Physics Group, P-22), Dan Barnes (Coronado Consulting), Martin Schauer (Neutron Science and Technology Group, P-23), and John Santarius (University of Wisconsin) for many invaluable discussions on this project; Dave Beddingfield (Safeguards Science and Technology, N-1) for conducting MCNP calculations; Tom Intrator (P-24) for providing us with thoriated tungsten wire; and N-1 and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Division management for providing the facility for this experiment.
For further information, contact Jaeyoung Park, 505-667-8013, firstname.lastname@example.org. _________________ La vie est un privilege, elle ne vous doit rien!
Vous lui devez tout, en l'occurence votre vie
Posté le: Ven 21 Jan 2011 05:02 Sujet du message: 2 Italiens developpent un reacteur fusion froide ?
2 Italiens on fait une presentation publique la semaine derniere, d'un procede qu'ils auraient developpe et qui permettrait de rendre la fusion froide commercialisable dans quelque mois, avec un reacteur produisant quelque megawatt d'energie thermique.
Cependant n'ayant pas developpe une theorie physique plausible de leur procede, les scientifiques peinent a accepter leurs affirmations.
On sera fixe dans quelques mois.
Dernieres information sur le developpement de la fusion froide selon le procede de l'italien rossi, une interview d'un scientifique americain, qui pense que le procede est reel, et qu'il revolutionnera le monde en ce qui concerne la "production" d'energie.
James Martinez surprised Cash-Flow listeners on March 1 when he played a pre-taped interview with Dr. Edmund Storms just back from Chennai, India where the ICCF-16 took place. ICCF is a conference where researchers in low-energy nuclear reactions share their most recent results.
Dr. Edmund Storms is a long-time researcher in this field and author of “The Science of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions“.
James taped the interview in conjunction with 137 Films crew filming their documentary on cold fusion. To be released in late summer, it is expected to make the independent film festival rounds.
Here are some excerpts of the interview.
James: “What are the new issues that are happening in cold fusion? What happened with that Italian discovery because that’s been written about quite a bit.”
Dr. Storms: “They [Rossi and Focardi] found a way of amplifying the effect to a level that makes it attractive as an industrial source of energy and people in the cold fusion field have been working towards that, but they had not achieved that level of heat production, and so this was both a bit of a surprise and a bit shock, but a bit of a kick to get people moving a little more rapidly now. And it looks like the phenomenon will actually have an application.”
James: “This is a major step then, would you not agree?”
Dr. Storms: “Oh yes, It’s a major step. It doesn’t change the reality, the reality had already been established, but it has moved the debate from the laboratory into an industrial environment, and it’s put the phenomenon on the map now. People, skeptics can no longer ignore what’s going on, it’s such a high level, and apparently quite reproducible, that there’s no doubt that it has the potential to really be a serious competitor for a primary energy.”
James: “So we’ve arrived, so to speak.”
Dr. Storms: “We’ve arrived. It’s interesting we’ve arrived in a different car than we thought we were. Cold fusion started out using deuterium and palladium, and then Rossi found that it worked quite well in nickel and light hydrogen.”
James: Regarding that, since I saw the 60 mins interview, and saw what the Israeli’s did over there in their lab, what did … the Italians do that’s different? Were they financed well? What made them be ahead of everybody else regarding this issue?”
Dr. Storms: “That question is a little difficult to answer. The contrast between the Israelis, Energetics, … they were using – just to give you a little bit of understanding – they were using heavy water, palladium in an electrolytic cell, and applying what they call Superwave that allows the palladium to get to a very high composition. They had worked with the Italians to create palladium that could achieve these high compositions. So they were getting success in a more conventional framework.
Rossi hit upon this somewhat by accident. He was using a nickel catalyst to explore ways of making a fuel by combining hydrogen and carbon monoxide and apparently, observed quite by accident, that his [?????] was making extra energy. So then he explored it from that point of view and, apparently, over a year or two, amplified the effect.
He’s exploring the gas loading area of the field. This is also a region, a method used in the heavy water, or the heavy hydrogen, system. But in this case, it was light hydrogen, ordinary hydrogen and nickel and what happens is quite amazing.
You create the right conditions in the nickel, and he has a secret method for doing that, and all you do is add hydrogen to it and it makes huge amounts of energy based upon a nuclear reaction.”
James: “Wow. Alright. I have a number of questions since you said secret. Are they going to be transparent with what they discovered? If I were them, I would tell everybody how they did it, or are they not doing that?”
Dr. Storms: “Well, you really need a patent, you need to protect your intellectual property. You want to be able to gain some economic benefit from the discovery. So far, they have not gotten a patent, and that’s always been difficult in the cold fusion field because the patent examiners simply don’t believe that it’s real.
So, until they get a patent, they’re not revealing how they do it. Now, they’ve been upfront about what they can do and what they promise to do, and so far, they’ve fulfilled these promises. Once they get their patent, then they promise to reveal how they go about doing this.”
James asked Dr. Storms a question from an unnamed listener who apparently knew this interview would be happening. The question?
“Some said this is LENR, not cold fusion. What’s the difference?”
Dr. Storms: “Well there is no difference. It’s purely a matter of semantics. There is a phenomenon, and that phenomenon allows a nuclear reaction to be initiated in a chemical environment, and it’s a very special chemical environment, it’s one that we don’t understand yet, we don’t have total control over it, so that it’s difficult to reproduce, although not impossible, it’s been replicated hundreds of times, so it’s real.
But it’s a process whereby the Coulomb barrier is reduced in magnitude, in a solid, by some kind of … oh what would I call it … chemical mechanism. It’s not chemistry, but it involves atoms and electrons, which of course apply to chemistry.
And so, what do you call it? Well it was called cold fusion by Steve Jones, and that stuck. And then later people said, you know, that’s not very accurate because you get transmutations, and it may not be fusion directly, so let’s make it describe a bigger area, so we’ll call it low-energy nuclear reactions [LENR]. I like the chemically-assisted nuclear reactions [CANR] description myself, but nevertheless, it’s all the same thing. It’s hard to believe that nature has only one technique for doing something so extraordinary.”
James: “As far as patents go for this subject matter, are you briefed on that all the time, are other scientists made aware of what’s happening with that, or do you hear about it later?”
Dr. Storms: “Well it generally percolates into the cold fusion chat rooms fairly quickly. There was a patent that was made known by Windom-Larson most recently, but that was granted, oh I guess it was actually filed back in 2005.
Very few are granted, and most of the ones that have been granted, I might add, are absolutely useless as patents because not only don’t they describe very well what is going on, but in the absence of any understanding, their descriptions are not implementable, you cannot take the patent and then do what the patent claims, which is what a patent absolutely requires. It has to describe how a person that skilled in the arts can go about replicating what the claims may be.
None of the patents do that, so technically, their not valid, and that ‘s a big problem, until somebody makes something that works, and then describes how they made it work and that’s where Rossi comes in, because he in fact does have something that works and once he shows how it works, he will have a valid patent.”
James then asked Dr. Storms what type of press did the Italians get on their demonstration.
Dr. Storms: “The Swedish newspapers, the Italian newspapers, the Greek newspapers, they showed an interest. The American newspapers showed none at all. It’s been on a number of blogs and talked about in a number of chat rooms, but no, it hasn’t reached a level of any serious importance to the American press.”
James: “Why do you think that is now?”
Dr. Storms: “Mainly because, it is institutionally the belief that cold fusion is not real, or if it is real, it’s so trivial, it’d make no difference to anybody. That’s institutional. It’s the myth that’s in, we’ll call it, the intellectual structure of the United States, and a number of other countries.
There a few countries where that’s not true, and Italy is one of them. The government there believes that it’s real, and they’re doing everything they can to develop it. The government in China believes it’s real an they’re doing everything they can to develop it.”
James: “So what is the problem? Regardless whether it was an American issue or an Italian issue, that should be all over the press here, and it’s not. It absolutely amazes me that this needs to be happening right now, what I’m doing. The press should’ve had this totally covered.
Well, what’s next for you? Are you going to be following what the Italians are doing, are you going to go to Italy and be working on it, and try to do what they’ve done and replicate it where you are?”
Dr. Storms: “Well, first of all, I haven’t been invited. Rossi is determining who’s going to watch this – he’s promised a demonstration in Florida that’s coming up in October. And there will be some people from the US government there watching, and hopefully they will be convinced that it’s real and that will change the attitudes.”
James: “So they still – after this entire time – can’t wrap their head around it!”
Dr. Storms: This obviously is not a rational world, and we, on many levels, do not have a rational government. It is very simple once you realize that this irrationality is present.
Yes, people are trying to replicate what he did. But in the absence of this secret addition, it’s all guesswork [refering to the secret ingredient Rossi is using as a catalyst]. And that’s been pretty much true of all the work in the field. We do not have a good theory, we don’t have a path to follow, and so people do a lot of random searches, and when somebody – I’ll use the analogy prospecting for gold – when somebody finds a nugget, everybody runs to the spot where that guy found the nugget and everybody starts to dig there. Maybe some other nuggets will be found, maybe not.
That’s what has made it easy for the skeptics to blow it off, and it’s made it easy for the government to pretend that it doesn’t exist.”
James then asked why was the upcoming demo is being done in Florida.
Dr. Storms: That’s where the factory is that Rossi owns. Rossi has business interests in the United States, he has a number of companies. He has a company in Florida and that’s where the cells are being manufactured.
James: “So they’ve [Rossi and co.] already started the process then?”
Dr. Storms: “Oh, yeah. The [recent demonstration] in Bologna was a single cell unit and it put out 10Kilowatts and it’s put out even more energy in other circumstances. He’s going to build a hundred cell unit in Florida, he claims, to try to run a Megawatt. That’s pretty difficult to ignore.”
James: “What do you think they’re going to be able to do of a practical use? What are they going to use it for initially?”
Dr. Storms: “Well, they’re planning to use this as a source of energy in a factory in Greece, and they’re making arrangements in Greece for this to be incorporated into an industrial application, an industrial factory.
It has to be done in industry at this level because we don’t know if it’s safe, we don’t know it’s characteristics, we just don’t know enough about it to put it into individual homes. This is what he says, and it’s quite rational. It has to be explored, its characteristics have to be understood in an industrial environment, so they’re going to do that in Greece.
Of course, he’s taking orders, and I’m sure there’ll be people from all over the world, where regulations are not so quite severe, and minds are more open than they are here, and they’ll buy units, and put them in their factories, and suddenly the cost of energy to those companies will go down significantly, and all of a sudden people will panic, and then there’ll be a stampede to buy these things.”
James: “The irony of the timing of all this now, seeing what’s going on in the Middle East right now, everything’s going up at the gas tank, people looking at other energy things, do you find this unusual, the timing of this? This could have happened five years ago, and right now, with the complete and total collapse of many economies around the world, suddenly these guys in Italy come up with something. Did that surprise you?”
Dr. Storms: “Well, life always surprises me. It always has these synergistic relationships happening all the time. No, it didn’t surprise me. It’s quite, what would I call it, simple justice. The system absolutely needs this, and suddenly it’s available. I guess it took both happening at the same time to change minds.
You have to be desperate enough to want to believe that this is real, and then you have to have a device that puts so much energy out that you cannot ignore it, and you marry those two things together, and the skeptics are just blown away.”
James: “If this is going to happen in Florida, obviously the press is going to catch wind of it, and if it is a private meeting for this demonstration, are you .. thinking that now all the big money people behind the scenes are going to get in on this deal and close it off, and compartmentalize it, and not give it to the public?”
Dr. Storms: “I don’t think that’s possible.”
James: “… because I don’t think you should have been cut out of it. I mean, you’re one of the guys that stood tall before anybody!”
Dr. Storms: “Well I appreciate that, but I’m not being cut out of it, and in fact, I don’t feel that I’ve been cut out of it.
I’m funded. We’re working to try to understand the mechanism and so we’re hoping to have a seat at the table when the final decisions are made. But Rossi is clearly in charge of his own discovery, and I wouldn’t find that unusual.”
James: “OK, well, listen, I’m glad that you’re back, I’m glad that you’ve told us this, I’m glad that we’ve covered it here. I want to thank you very much Dr. Storms for always being there for for me and helping me out, and making this a public issue, so thank you very much, much appreciated. We’ll be talking to you very soon. You may be surprised – we may hit Florida anyway!”
Dr. Storms: “Well James, I appreciate your efforts too, it’s efforts like yours that make it possible for people to find out what’s going on.”
For the FULL audio interview, go to the Cold Fusion Now Audio page to download the March 1 Edmund Storms interview.. _________________ La vie est un privilege, elle ne vous doit rien!
Vous lui devez tout, en l'occurence votre vie
In Greece there's a company ready to bet on it 200 Millions euros, in the United States the industrial production is allegedly already started and there's a plan to put the device on the market later this year. The Energy Catalyzer, created by the Italian inventor Andrea Rossi, is still a mysterious prototype but it promises to become soon an international case and even a revolution in our way of life and in our approach to energy generation.
E-Cat is a small device apparently able to convert few grams of nickel powder and a small amount of high pressure hydrogen in electric power for many months. The application for a patent is still pending: therefore Mr. Rossi has not revealed the secrets of the process still. Many tests confirmed that the measured power output cannot be the result of any chemical process.
Two authoritative Swedish physicists, who took part in one of the tests, said: "the explanation is that there is necessarily a nuclear reaction" and: "If it's true, their inventors would deserve the Nobel Prize".
But there is not any scientifically viable theory on what really happens in E-cat's reaction chamber.
Is this a hoax? A collective hallucination? Or a radical innovation instead?
Rainews reporter Angelo Saso has interviewed the main players and experts in order to reveal the backstage of such an invention "which promises to change the world".
The fresh agreement outlines commercial plans in North- and South America for the energy catalyzer – the device that seems to produce large amounts of energy via a hitherto unknown and not fully understood nuclear reaction.
Under the agreement, a newly formed company, Ampenergo, will receive part of the royalties on all sales of licenses and products built on the energy catalyzer in the Americas.
Links to U.S. authorities are evident.
The founders of Ampenergo are Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino.
Two of them also founded the consulting firm LTI – Leonardo Technologies Inc. – which for 10 years has been working on contracts amounting to several millions of dollars for the U.S. Defense and Energy departments, and with a recent contract with DOE amounting to 95 million dollars.
Robert Gentile was also Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy during the early 1990’s.
Three of the founders have known Andrea Rossi since 1996 and have been working with him previously. Rossi also co-founded LTI, but sold his stake in the late 1990’s.
Formally, the agreement has been made between Ampenergo and Rossi’s American company, Leonardo Corporation (not to be confused with LTI).
Craig Cassarino, vice president of Ampenergo, when did you sign the agreement?
Cassarino: We signed it two months ago.
Why did you form a new company?
Cassarino: We formed that, because there are different people involved than the LTI partnership. We also wanted to separate our consulting business from the development business. We have currently close to a hundred 100 employees in LTI and just from a business point we wanted to put a fire wall up between the consulting side and the development side of the company.
How much do you pay for the agreement?
Cassarino: Unfortunately that’s confidential.
Have you paid anything to Rossi yet?
Cassarino: Yes we have.
Cassarino: Let’s put it like this, it was an important piece of the equation.
Have you searched new funding?
Cassarino: Absolutely, we are in current conversations with some very large companies here in the US and South America, some investment companies, because it’s not just a technology we’re creating in the industry here. There are a lot of pieces that really need to come together to build this matrix, lots of pieces of the puzzle that need to have some strategic thinking done, as how we transition into a new energy source. That’s what makes this very exciting. So you now there’s never enough money to make everything happen.
Could you develop that?
Cassarino: As you start to look at various applications that this could be used in, whether it’s space, or for making heating or power plants, each application has its own particular engineering challenges. That’s what we see as the strategic planning and how this industry gets started. Let’s put it this way, if this is done correctly, it has the potential to change the world. You know, everything from carbon in the atmosphere to giving cheap energy to people worldwide that cannot afford to put food on their table.
When would the first products reach the American market?
Cassarino: We’re hoping to get something here hopefully by late fall or beginning of next year (2012) as our first product to demonstrate. We’re not going down the same path as the Greeks (Defkalion Green Technologies) to develop home heating; we’re not really looking at that as a low hanging fruit.
What would be your first kind of product?
Cassarino: I think this one megawatt (like the one planned in Greece – editor’s note) for heating and for power generation is probably the first, whether it’s off grid or mobile.
And Rossi’s Leonardo Corporation would manufacture the products initially?
Cassarino: Yes, I think that that probably makes sense. We are already looking in discussions with how we can start to advance that part of it to commercialize it. But he certainly would be the first producer.
Could you see other applications than heating or power in the future?
Cassarino: Oh yeah, one of the companies we’re talking with sees this actually as a high density fuel. You can use your imagination on the extremes of all that – space travel, or to having the trucks deliver fuel to the front lines in battle fields. I think the applications are unlimited, and even not thought about yet.
What kind of problems do you expect, like for example amateur replication?
Cassarino: We’ve thought about that but we haven’t in depth come to a conclusion on how you manage all this. And I think you’re right, I think once the magic is out of the bag there will be lots of people trying variations on the theme and those are things that really are not controllable from anybody’s point of view.
I think one of the issues that we’ve thought about is “nuclear reaction”, how that gets permitted, but it’s non radioactive so it’s different – nobody has really had the opportunity to start to look at this.
When did anyone of you first see the E-cat?
Cassarino: That was two and a half years ago, that would have been late 2008 or early 2009. Rossi invited Bob and one of our scientists that works for us at the National Labs to go to Bologna where he had his factory. Of course as you can imagine, when we started talking about this, there was lots of skepticism.
You know, just because we’ve known Andrea for almost 15 years, we know what his capabilities are, and I knew he had been working on this, and one of the scientists that we had engaged had been working in this area, LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), for 20 years. So they were real believers, and viewing all of this and just describing the science of it, they believed he did have something.
Do you have any doubt that this doesn’t work in the end?
Cassarino: We did three demonstrations here in the US, and these were non public. We did have a group of scientists here that understood exactly what was going on, and we helped actually set up the demonstrations.
Obviously we still don’t understand what’s going on inside, but he has something, and we believe that.
How do people you talk to react?
Cassarino: Obviously there are some really important people that we’ve had conversations with, who cannot be associated with this, and this is not just on government but we're finding this true also with large corporations that we’re talking with. And there are two sides of the story.
One, they want to make sure that this thing without question works. On the other side, if they pooh pooh it and say, ‘Oh, I don’t believe in it’, and then all of a sudden it comes through the fore front and people understand that they had an opportunity to help launch this and they didn’t, they lose on that side. So they’re trying to walk on this thin line.
Why have you kept silent?
Cassarino: We wanted to make sure that everything was in place, that we weren’t just putting spins on things. Because this is huge and we don’t want to just go out there right now and tell the world. We want to be prepared for this.
And strategically it’s really partnering with the right companies. You know it’s not just about money, it’s not just about technology, it’s not just about companies and their capacities, it’s try to understand how all those pieces fit together.
Posté le: Mer 01 Juin 2011 04:30 Sujet du message:
Le scientifique en Chef de la Nasa (NASA Chief Scientist) Dennis Bushnell confirme la technologie E-Cat de l'inventeur Rossi et predit une revolution quand a tous les secteurs ou l'energie joue un role central (pratiquement tous les secteurs)
Cold Fusion #1 Claims NASA Chief A Chief NASA scientist, Dennis Bushnell has came out in support of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology, but denies any type of nuclear fusion is taking place, saying it is probably beta decay per the Widom Larson Theory. Repackaging the terminology to avoid embarrassment will not erase over twenty years of suppression and the reality of cold fusion!
Dennis Bushnell is a Chief scientist at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. He is also an inventor, author, and has been a consultant to countless government and military agencies. A few of these include the DOD, Air Force, DARPA, and the NRC. To read a more complete summary of his background, a good review can be found here. Recently, he was interviewed during an EV World podcast.
During the show, he addressed what he called "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" as being the most interesting and promising alternative energy technology being developed. In fact, it was first on his list, ahead of salt water agriculture, cyanobacteria, energy conservation, geothermal power, nano-plastic solar panels, solar thermal concentrators, and high altitude wind power.
"The most interesting and promising [technology sector] at this point ... [is] low energy nuclear reactions."
Bushnell went on to say that LENR technology could potentially solve all of our energy and climate problems. He stated the technology could be used for any application, including to power rockets for space travel. It is quite refreshing to hear such positive statements, in support of cold fusion, from a mainstream, credible, and respected scientist!
Actually, I cannot think of any other scientist off the top of my head, that I would have rather made a statement in support of LENR (cold fusion). His extensive scientific background, career history, and status as a Chief NASA scientist make his supportive statements very significant. Hopefully, they will inspire other scientists to take LENR research seriously! I would like to hear a naysayer like Bob Park (who has attacked cold fusion researchers for 20 years) try to criticize him for his comments.
During the interview, Bushnell specifically mentioned Andrea Rossi's E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) technology, and seemed very supportive of it. He reviewed the tests that have been performed and the large amount of excess heat produced. At one point he made a remark scientists across the world should notice...
"I think we are almost over the "we do not understand it" problem. I think we are almost over the "this does not produce anything useful" problem. I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now. If it does, this is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geo-politics, and solving climate issues."
Despite his positive statements about LENR, he also made a few statements that indicate his lack of ability to admit that nuclear fusion at low temperatures could be a reality. He stated that all of the so called, "cold fusion" experiments performed over the last twenty years did not produce fusion reactions. His position is that they produced energy via a process called "Widom Larsen" theory, that does not involve fusion at all, but only "beta decay."
They Dare Not Call It Fusion
Fusion is the process in which two atoms collide, merge or "fuse" together, and form another element. During the process, a large amount of energy is released. The problem is that achieving fusion can be difficult, due to electrostatic repulsion. This electrostatic wall that prevents fusion reactions is called the, "Coulomb Barrier." The star in the center of our solar system produces fusion reactions by using millions of degrees of heat. With enough heat, the atoms are smashing into each other with so much force the Coulomb Barrier can be broken. This is what mainstream scientists call "hot fusion."
Cold Fusion, is a phenomenon in which atoms can fuse together and release energy at much lower temperatures. Instead of millions of degrees, the reactions can take place at temperatures as low as a few hundred of degrees. Somehow, in cold fusion setups such as those of Andrea Rossi's, the Coulomb Barrier is apparently somehow being penetrated. There are many ideas and theories about the possible mechanisms that allows this barrier to be broken, allowing fusion reactions happen at such low energy levels.
Many of the theories have similar themes. Quite a few involve a proton from a hydrogen atom being made "invisible", being shielded, or made electrostatically neutral by an electron. In other theories, hydrogen atoms are shrunken and turned into mini-atoms or "virtual neutrons." Basically, in these theories the protons and their electrons (in some kind of altered form) do not experience the full repulsion of the Coulomb barrier, or are able to quantum tunnel through it. After they penetrate the barrier, a transmutation occurs in the metal (the atom gains a proton) and a large amount of energy is released. The end result is nuclear fusion at low temperatures.
The "Widom Larsen" theory is just another variation of the above. In the theory, an exotic type electron called a "heavy surface plasmon polariton" combines with a proton to form an, "ultra low momentum neutron." This neutron can then penetrate the Coulomb barrier of an atom of nickel (or other metal) to produce transmutations and release energy. Its proponents claim that this theory does not violate any "laws" of physics, and is not nuclear fusion.
However, I propose that "Widom Larsen" is a form of nuclear fusion, just like the other theories. The only difference is that it uses a few more fancy names for exotic sub atomic particles. Just like many of the other theories, the following set of events take place according to "Widom Larsen" theory.
- A shrunken or mini-hydrogen atom, virtual neutron, or a proton shielded by an electron sneak past the Coulomb barrier of another atom.
- A transmutation into a heavier element can take place.
- A large release of energy takes place.
This is indeed a fusion reaction, but the "Widom Larsen" proponents still try to argue otherwise. They claim that true "nuclear fusion" can only occur if a proton is pushed through the Coulomb barrier when the full repulsion is felt. Anything else, they claim, is a "neutron capture" event.
The first thing untenable about that is they claim an "ultra low momentum neutron" is composed of a proton and electron. If it is composed of a proton and electron (just pretending to be a neutron) how can it be a neutron capture event? For example, if I catch a dog dressed up like a cat, I really caught a dog. I did not really catch a cat! However, they want you to believe a dog dressed up like a cat, is really a cat!
The second thing untenable about their assertion is they claim that fusion cannot be taking place unless the full repulsion of the Coulomb barrier is felt. They go to the dictionary, and produce the following definitions.
- Neutron Capture involves a single particle, such as a neutron, with no electric charge entering a nucleus.
- Nuclear Fusion involves two nuclei having like-charges that overcome electromagnetic forces (the Coulomb barrier).
Basically, they try to claim that if you find a way to make a nuclei or proton sneak into another atom (without using lots of energy to bypass the Coulomb barrier) you have cheated, and you have not produced nuclear fusion.
For example, did you "climb" a wall if you used a ladder? The "Widom Larsen" supporters say you did not "climb" the wall unless you scaled it by hand! Using a ladder was cheating! According to them you did not climb the wall, but only "went over it."
They want to call your success something less than what it was, because you found a smarter/faster way to do it!
However, regardless how you got over the wall, the end result is the same. You are on the other side! The same is true with Cold Fusion and LENR (which they claim is only neutron capture and not fusion). The fact is, fusion happened regardless of the method by which you got the proton/electron/neutron into the atom's nucleus!
In reality, there may be some sort of Widom-Larsen "like" phenomenon taking place in Andrea Rossi's cold fusion technology, and others. However, I doubt that the entire theory is correct. To be blunt, I doubt any of the current cold fusion theories are 100% correct, but the seeming fact is fusion is occurring!
Any theory that claims that taking an atom, putting all or part of it into the nucleus of another atom, transmuting the second atom into another element, and releasing energy in the process is anything other than *some* kind of fusion, is total nonsense. It defies logic and rationality!
Hiding the Legacy of Suppression
The main reasons I think many mainstream scientists like Bushnell and the "Widom Larsen" supporters want to abolish the term Cold Fusion, deny the obvious truth fusion is taking place, and claim only LENR neutron capture is taking place is as follows.
First, they have to do "something" to make themselves "stand out." By shouting their "Widom Larsen" theory they can avoid the "stigma" of the term cold fusion, they can make it seem they have a special theory better than all the others, and they can claim they are not producing fusion at low temperatures (which is still heresy in their opinion).
Secondly, by naming the emerging technology "LENR" or "neutron capture", they can possibly avoid the history of cold fusion being brought up. If the history of cold fusion is brought up, it makes the mainstream scientific community look like a bunch of evil, greedy monsters and ignorant fools. Cold fusion has been suppressed for over 20 years, and they do not want the history of that suppression being a focus of the media's attention. They would rather give it a new name and a non-fusion explanation. That way, their dirty little secret can be kept hidden. The population of the world is going to be angry when they realize that we could have had practical cold fusion many years ago, if not for those who put their own interests ahead of the good of mankind!
Finally, if something as "impossible" as Cold Fusion becomes a reality, then it raises the question anew about what other technologies the scientific community deemed "impossible" might actually be possible after all. Anti-gravity, free energy, and faster than light space travel are all considered by the mainstream to be science fiction, but in the post cold fusion world that paradigm would be shattered (for political reasons more than scientific). By not using the term "Cold Fusion", it may be easier for the scientific community to down play the significance of this technology actually existing when they previously said it was impossible, claim that they never were involved in suppressing it, and convince the masses it does not represent damning proof of the failure of mainstream science on something so fundamental.
Andrea Rossi's Take On "Widom Larsen" Theory
Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer technology apparently involves a nuclear reaction between nickel powder and hydrogen gas. Due to the fact that he has used both the terms "cold fusion" and LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) to describe the technology, some "Widom Larsen" theory supporters have claimed it explains what is taking place in the E-Cat. However, Rossi has stated he now has an understanding of what exactly is taking place in his device, and that "Widom Larsen" theory does not explain it!
Yesterday, a contributor, Herald Patterson asked a series of questions relating to this issue on Andrea Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics blog; and Rossi answered them. The following is a composite of those two, with Rossi's responses indented in red.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Thank you for refuting those two metropolitan legends. Unfortunately, there are other legends and unfounded rumors circulating around the internet as well. I will list a few of them here in case you would like to comment on them, and put an end to some ridiculous speculation that is taking place on the internet.
Thank you for your questions, here are the answers:
1) Other than the catalysts, hydrogen pressure, the special processing of the nickel powder, and the heat added to the system by the resistors there is some “other” factor that is critical to making the system work. For example, a source of radio frequency radiation to stimulate the processes inside the reactor vessel.
Yes: like Flash Gordon! Seriously: what happens inside the reactor is influenced only by what is inside; outside there is only cooling and thermalization.
2) No gamma radiation is actually produced inside of the reactor vessel. They claim you will not let independent scientists measure the gamma radiation inside the reactor *not* because the signatures detected could reveal the patent pending catalysts, but because no gamma radiation would be found.
Gamma have been regularly measured by us
3) No nickel is actually transmuted into copper. They try to connect this to the lack of gamma radiation, to support their idea that some extraordinary but totally *non-fusion* process is taking place.
Analysis of powders are the evidence of the transmutation
4) That you no longer think any form of fusion is taking place. They claim because you use the term Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, you non longer think a fusion reaction is taking place between the nickel and hydrogen.
5) Others claim there is no radiation being produced, except from beta-decay. Some push this idea to support a pet theory they religiously proclaim all over the net called, “Widom Larsen” theory.
Beta decay has nothing to do with my process, Widom Larsen theory has nothing to do with my process
I wish people would just take you at your word, instead of trying to twist the truth to support their own pet theories and ideas.
If you wish to comment on any of the above, I will do my best to spread your answers on the net to counter act the rumor-mongering taking place.
Thank you for all your work and willingness to interact with us.
I’m looking forward to October!
I am looking for October too, my friend.
His answers make it clear that Widom Larsen theory does not have anything to do with his process, beta decay (a hallmark of Widom Larsen theory) does not have anything to do with his process, and gamma radiation has been measured routinely inside of his reactor. In fact, it is gamma radiation that is converted to heat!
In fairness, it is likely that a mechanism somewhat similar to "Widom Larsen" theory might be working inside of his reactor. One of his early papers hypothesized that a proton might be shielded by an electron, and be able to penetrate the Coulomb Barrier of a nickel atom. However, there are multiple theories that propose about the same thing, and any of them could be the "correct" one (or none of them might be 100% correct). Mini-atoms, virtual neutrons, protons shielded by electrons, and ultra low momentum neutrons (composed of exotic protons and electrons) are all similar concepts. There is absolutely nothing "special" about Widom Larsen theory, and no reason to think it is the "real" theory that explains what is taking place in his reactor. Of course the proponents of the theory will latch onto that idea with all their might, and try to ride on the coat tails of the E-Cat's success.
What the Widom Larsen supporters don't want you to realize, is that the terms LENR and Cold Fusion are the same concepts. They are nuclear fusion reactions that take place at low temperatures. Just because Rossi uses the term LENR, does not mean he does not think fusion reactions are taking place. In fact, he does! The possibility "weak" forces may exist between the hydrogen nucleus and the nickel nucleus (instead of the full force of the Coulomb barrier) does not mean anything. LENR still equals COLD FUSION!
The fact is that cold fusion technology is about to be commercialized. Andrea Rossi is planning on launching the first one megawatt plant in October, powering a E-Cat manufacturing facility. The first plant will be in Xanthi, Greece and soon afterwards a plant will open in the USA. This technology that has been mocked, attacked, slandered, ignored, and suppressed for over 20 years is about to be validated by the marketplace.
In my opinion, the sooner the scientific community confirms and acknowledges that this emerging technology is indeed *fusion* based, the better off we will be. Despite what you want to call the process, regardless your name for the particle that enters the nucleus of the nickel atom, and whatever your pet theory may be - a fusion reaction is taking place!
Proponents of Widom Larsen theory may cling to definitions in dictionaries and technicalities to dismiss the true fusion based nature of Andrea Rossi's technology and cold fusion in general, but the truth will not be hidden! The world is about to wake up, and the powers that be and the scientific community are about to reap what they sowed.
Twenty years of suppression for the protection of ego, greed, wealth, and tyrannical control of humanity will not be forgotten! Too many lives have been lost, too much environmental destruction has occurred, and technological progress has been hindered for too long.
Posté le: Mar 14 Juin 2011 06:13 Sujet du message:
Les resultats obtenus par rossi semblent accelerer la recherche dans le domaine de la fusion froide, un professeur de la MIT,Brian Ahern, a pu repliquer dans une certaine mesure le travail de rossi, toutefois sans atteindre le taux d'energie obtenu par rossi. Rossi obtient dans la dizaine de KWs, Brian Ahern a pu obtenir 8 Watts mais compte ameliorer son experience afin d'atteindre le kw.
Brian Ahern is attempting replications of Rossi and Forcardi and he is getting 8 watts of continuous power output from 10 grams of metal nanopowder. The good news is there is no radiation detectable above background levels . It is also worthy to note that there were no precious metals involved the alloy was Zr66%-Ni21%-Cu13%. The Zirconium becomes Zirconium dioxide when it is baked.
There is an as yet undisclosed spillover catalysts that amplifies the process. The LENR community is directing its attention to this nanoscale opportunity.
So Brian Ahern is getting some success replicating Rossi and Focardi. Brian Ahern plans to make some adjustments to what he is doing to attempt to get the higher power levels that Rossi and Forcardi have claimed to achieved over the last year or so.
I think that the partial replication removes the scenario of complete fraud for the Rossi claims. I suppose there could still be fraud for the kilowatt level of work where the lower power levels replicate. However, Brian Ahern seems to think that he will be able to get to far higher power levels as well based upon his decades of related work and the results that he is getting.
Brian Ahern feels that the abject lack of interest by the U.S. population in Cold Fusion and the Rossi work is related the sociological issues around the financial collapse as described in the Big Short. The sociological issue has similar attributes to the 2008 catastrophy in the financial community. None of the money managers foresaw the collapse of the bond market resulting in a trillion dollar bailout by the american middle class.
Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy is looking at Lattice-assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) Cold Fusion as a part of implementing President Obama’s ambitious agenda to invest in clean energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, address the global climate crisis, and create millions of new jobs.
This weekend at (MIT) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, a global group of scientist and entrepreneurs met to discuss the latest advancements in LANR and CF.
On target with Dr. Chu vision to devote his recent scientific career to the search for new solutions to our energy challenges and stopping global climate change – a mission he continues with even greater urgency as Secretary of Energy. The event held at MIT brings together key players in the Cold Fusion LANR and other types of Nuclear Reactions.
As a distinguished scientist and co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics (1997), Dr. Steven Chu hopes that bringing to the table Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions research and development to level the playing field and start to focus on supporting, funding and creating real solutions to America’s and the world energy problems.
With the re-emergence of Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions and projects like LANR it truly allows for all the partners in America’s Energy Sector to work together to solve the challenge of energy. The MIT event is one of many LANR/CF scientific discussions in a shared collaboration to develop further understanding of the science and engineering of CF and lattice assisted nuclear reactions.
The group covered the Importance of CF/LANR and other Nuclear Fusion as a highly efficient clean source of energy production, the Activation – Anharmonic motion, crystal size, magnetic fields, and optical irradiation. Codeposition – Impact, Response time, Products, Cathode changes, Developments – Nanostructured ZrO2-PdNiD, Pressure Driven LANR systems, Emissions – Neutron and other Emissions, IR Studies, Nuclear tracks, CR-39 detectors Materials – Pd, Ti, Ni, ZrO2PdNi, diatomaceous and nanomaterial’s, Electrochemistry Metamaterials – Improved deep flux distribution. Ways to create “spillover” Nuclear solid-state – optical phonons, nuclear excited states. Finding and sharing information on pathways of Optimal Operating Point Control, nuclear products Power Production. And Excess Heat Calorimetry, Modes of Excess Heat, HAD, Quenching – Possible key to Energy Gain. Spillover – Catalysis and LANR effects, Nanomaterial’s boost Theory – Modeling excess heat in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. . Impact of Heavy Water Gate by the US PTO et alia. Followed with the concerns, issues and the turnaround years of non- support to LANR/CF by the Patent offices, Government and the Academia. The team meets annually to create national bench marks, planning and sharing of goals for further development and the production, to build a viable Industry.
President Obama said, “The future of our economy and national security is inextricably linked to one challenge: energy. Steven has blazed new trails as a scientist, teacher, and administrator, and has recently led the Berkeley National Laboratory in pursuit of new alternative and renewable energies. He is uniquely suited to be our next Secretary of Energy as we make this pursuit a guiding purpose of the Department of Energy, as well as a national mission.”
In Palaio Faliro Municipality Congress Center, around 150 people attended. Among them:
The Minister of Industry and Energy Mr Xinidis.
representatives of political parties. Among them, The Green Party of Germany
The President of Greek Technical Chamber
The president of Union of Greek Chambers
The president of the Greek-American Chamber of commerce
Representative of the Industrial Union of North Greece
and other officials local and foreigners.
Press coverage: 7 cameras from Greek mainstream stations, RAI, newspaper journalists from major Greek newspapers, Italian, Associated Press, and others.
On the stage: Prof Stremenos, A. Xanthoulis from Defkalion GT and Andrea Rossi.
A press release and a press kit was distributed to the media. A special company announcement on the event will follow on Friday 24th with details, full list of participants etc. The event was filmed and it will be uploaded with English subtitles in YouTube after technical preparation (as I heard by Monday or Thusday)
Un autre groupe, plus scientifique dans son approche, annonce la replication et validation de leur modele de fusion froide ou LENR par d'autres scientifiques notemment de la Los Alamos National Laboratories (reponsable par exemple de la recherche nucleaire americaine).
Brillouin has had two significant independent validations of their scientific model and claims. One of those was by Los Alamos National Laboratories. The other was by Dr. Michael McKubre of Standford Research International (SRI), who subsequently joined their board of advisors. McKubre was especially impressed by the consistency of the results. This was the first time (in the LENR experimental arena) that he was able to repeat something every time, without exception.
One of the next development steps is going to involve a relationship with SRI to build and test the Brillouin New Hydrogen Boiler™ (NHB™) or "Hot Tube", entailing BEC's new dry boiler system, which will be capable of heats from 400ºC to 500ºC. This technology will be capable of running power plant turbines. Licensing this boiler technology is going to be the lowest hanging fruit because of the number of power plant systems that have been mothballed by increasingly stringent EPA regulations. By re-energizing these "stranded assets," the capital cost of building a system is dramatically reduced, since the only thing they have to add is the clean boiler.
BEC expects to be able to generate power at 1 cent per kilowatt-hour with no toxic emissions of any kind. The wholesale price for electricity is typically 4-15 cents per kilowatt-hour
L'expression dense plasma focus (DPF) désigne un appareil qui, par accélération et compression électromagnétiques, donne naissance à un cordon de plasma à vie courte qui produit, grâce aux températures et densités très élevées qu'il atteint, une abondance de rayonnements multiples. Sa conception, qui date du début des années 1960, est due à la fois à l'Américain J.W. Mather et au Russe N.V. Filippov, qui l'ont inventé parallèlement et indépendamment l'un de l'autre. Une telle compression électromagnétique du plasma est appelée pinch (striction ou pincement). Cet appareil est similaire au high-intensity plasma gun device (HIPGD) (canon à plasma), qui éjecte du plasma sous forme d'un plasmoïde, mais sans pincement.
Plusieurs groupes ont affirmé que les DPF pouvaient s'avérer viables en matière de production d'énergie de fusion nucléaire, produisant même des températures suffisamment élevées pour la fusion hydrogène-bore, le puissant champ magnétique pouvant en outre réduire le nombre de collisions entre électrons et ions, et ainsi diminuer les pertes par Bremsstrahlung. À l'opposé, la théorie montre qu'un champ magnétique puissant aggrave les pertes par rayonnement cyclotron. Un autre avantage revendiqué est la capacité de conversion directe en électricité de l'énergie des produits de fusion, avec un rendement potentiellement supérieur à 70%. Jusqu'à présent, seules des expériences en nombre limité et des simulations ont permis d'étudier la capacité des DPF à la production d'énergie de fusion. L'approche d'Eric Lerner visant à l'utilisation de DPF pour un tel usage, appelée « Focus Fusion », a été présentée en 2007 dans le cadre des Google's Tech Talks1.
Magnetized target fusion (MTF) is a relatively new approach to producing fusion power that combines features of the more widely studied magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) and inertial confinement fusion (ICF) approaches. Like the magnetic approach, the fusion fuel is confined at lower density by magnetic fields while it is heated into a plasma. Like the inertial approach, fusion is initiated by rapidly squeezing the target to greatly increase fuel density, and thus temperature. Although the resulting density is far lower than in traditional ICF, it is thought that the combination of longer confinement times and better heat retention will let MTF yield the same efficiencies, yet be far easier to build. The term magneto-inertial fusion (MIF) is similar, but encompasses a wider variety of arrangements. The two terms are often applied interchangeably to experiments.
MTF is currently being studied mostly by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), and by Canadian startup company, General Fusion.
In a world beset by fossil fuel energy woes, fusion energy is holiest of Holy Grails. A working fusion reactor would not only release large amounts of energy but, unlike nuclear fission plants, they can’t melt down. They’re also significantly “cleaner,” in that a fusion reaction only uses small amounts of an abundant fuel (hydrogen isotopes tritium and deuterium), which is only weakly radioactive. The problem is, no one has yet created a net gain reactor (more energy out than in), although many well-funded programs are actively pursuing it.
It’s not surprising, considering the daunting challenges involved. Similar to the process that drives the Sun, a fusion reaction—melding two hydrogen atoms to form helium—requires heating the reactor fuel to galactic-scale temperatures and crushed under intense pressures. Of course, you also need a vessel capable of producing and containing these thermonuclear conditions.
Consequently, building fusion reactors will take decades, as well as enormous expenditures, which is why enthusiasm for this type of energy production has dampened. However, these same issues have many in the field keeping a close eye on a Canadian company, General Fusion, and its comparatively low-tech approach to fusion power. The Burnaby, BC-based company’s mechanical design sidesteps the massive costs of other leading approaches.
“Fusion reactions require plasma to be heated to near 150 million˚C, and that requires a lot of energy,” says Michael Delage, General Fusion’s vice president of business development. “Where you get this energy, and how you deliver it to the fuel, has a big effect on system cost.”
Reactor Design 101
To appreciate General Fusion’s concept, it’s important to understand how it differs from the two leading projects. ITER, a multinational collaboration based in France, is the larger and uses an approach called magnetic confinement. Using this method, a stream of super-heated tritium and deuterium gas, or plasma, is contained in a donut-shaped vacuum vessel called a tokamak. Super conducting magnets heat and compress the plasma to create the fusion reaction.
The National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories is pursuing the other approach, inertial confinement. It employs 192 laser beams focused on deuterium-tritium pellets inside a 10-meter-diameter target chamber to convert the fuel to plasma and generate X-rays. The radiation then compresses the plasma until fusion occurs. Both methods, says Delage, require massive amounts of input energy and depend on expensive, complex equipment that drive development costs into the billions and time lines out to 2050 at best.
In comparison, Delage says a commercial General Fusion reactor could be online by 2020 and at a fraction of the price. The company’s approach is a hybrid between the two main methods, called “magnetized target” fusion, and employs a comparatively less power hungry reactor design. Based on a concept called LINUS first developed by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in the 1970s, General Fusion’s reactor starts with a spherical vessel filled with liquid lead-lithium metal. The liquid metal is then pumped in a circle until centrifugal force forms a vortex in its center.
Into this vortex, plasma injectors on the top and bottom of the reactor inject doughnut-shaped “puffs” of plasma wrapped in a magnetic field. Like smoke rings blown into either end of a tube, these “magnetized targets” collide at the reactor’s core. As the targets combine, approximately 200 steam-driven pistons simultaneously hammer the spherical vessel, sending a shockwave through the molten metal. The shockwave collapses the vortex and compresses the plasma, heating it adiabatically (like a diesel engine), to produce a short burst of fusion energy.
During the reaction, the hydrogen isotope atoms fuse into Helium and throw off high-energy neutrons that pass into the swirling liquid metals, transferring heat and converting some of the lithium into tritium. After the reaction ends, the metal is pumped out of the chamber and passed through a separator that removes the helium and tritium, which can be directed back to the plasma injectors as fuel. Meanwhile, the hot lead passes through a heat exchanger that creates steam, half of which will be used to re-power the pistons and the other half to generate electricity.
According to Delage, each fusion pulse will result in approximately 100 MJ of net electrical output. The cycle repetition rate can be varied to control the overall power plant output; if repeated once per second, the net output will be 100 MW. In addition, the reactor would use only small amounts of deuterium and lithium. If fusion reactors began generating enough electricity for the entire world, Delage says, lithium reserves would last for 207 million years and deuterium for more than 67 billion years.
Fusion for Less
General Fusion’s reactor will employ 200 steam-powered pneumatic pistons, like this one, to create the necessary pressures to induce nuclear fusion.
At the center of a liquid metal vortex, tritium and deuterium atoms fuse, releasing a short burst of energy
For all its promise, the quest for net gain fusion has been a time consuming and costly endeavor. The ITER reactor is projected to take 10 years and 13 billion euros to construct. That doesn’t count the 25 years and counting since the project began and the millions poured in by contributors so far. Even when built, ITER’s super conducting magnets and other components would require 50 MW worth of input power to start and maintain the reaction. Similarly, costs for Laurence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility are estimated at upwards of $850 million and its reactor requires 500 trillion watts of laser light to kick-start fusion reactions.
Where General Fusion’s magnetized target method stands apart is in its relatively low-tech, low-cost mechanical means of compressing the plasma. “As an energy storage medium, compressed gas is orders of magnitude less expensive than capacitors,” Delage explains, “but it’s hard to release this energy quickly.”
That’s the problem that ultimately scuttled LINUS, the predecessor of the General Fusion reactor, in the 1970s. The LINUS concept proposed impacting the liquid metal directly, which resulted in a relatively slow vortex collapse of up to 40 milliseconds, while the magnetized target holds its structure for only about 100 microseconds. According to Delage, General Fusion has solved this problem by impacting the containment vessel itself.
“Our sphere is in fact full of holes, like a Wiffle ball,” he explains. “Each hole is plugged with an ‘anvil’ and compressed gas is used to accelerate a 100 kg ‘hammer’ piston. This acceleration takes about 80 milliseconds. When the hammer piston impacts on the anvil piston, it moves a small amount and transfers the energy into the liquid metal in about 80 microseconds. That’s a timescale shorter than the lifetime of the magnetized target and an increase in power of 1000 times.”
The challenge is that as the energy delivery speeds up, the requirements for symmetry of compression increases. “Every piston has to be individually servo-controlled to achieve the necessary synchronization,” Delage says. “Achieving this wasn’t possible in the 1970’s, but we are able to nurse each piston’s trajectory using a fast-response, closed-loop control system and brake, so that the timing of the impact is controlled to within microseconds. It’s the use of modern electronics—the computing power that has only come available in the last ten years—that makes our proposed system possible
Approaching the Finish Line
The largest of its kind every constructed, this plasma injector is designed to inject “smoke rings” of magnetized tritium and deuterium plasma into the fusion reactor’s core.
Presently, General Fusion is creating a prototype and key subsystems at full scale. These include a plasma injector that creates the magnetized target; individual full-scale pistons that meet requirements for impact energy and timing; and a 1-meter-diameter sphere with 14 pistons to demonstrate the symmetric collapse of a liquid metal vortex.
“We’re also performing a series of experiments to demonstrate the behavior of the plasma target at peak compression in accordance with theoretical predictions, and developing simulation tools, matched experimental data, to be used in the design of the prototype system,” says Delage. “To date, the most challenging work has been related to the formation of the magnetized target plasma.”
He says General Fusion’s plasma injector is the largest such device ever constructed. Rather than a straightforward extension of smaller systems, many issues have been overcome to achieve the necessary performance.
“All our efforts have required significant innovation in mechanical design, materials, electrical and pulse power systems, diagnostics and advancements in plasma science,” says Delage. “It all takes time.” The company hopes to have a prototype operating by early 2015, and a working reactor by 2020.
“The path to a success is about understanding the physics and the engineering and managing the outcome to produce energy safely and reliably,” notes Dr. Paul Wilson, associate professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
“The understanding of the physics of the mechanisms they are employing is less mature than with the two standard approaches, but they’re obviously learning more all the time,” Wilson adds. “Magnetized targets have been achieved in many experiments, but it’s a matter of determining how you can have atoms collide with enough symmetry that you get the bang and not a fizzle.”
Wilson believes it’s possible that a company like General Fusion may beat large national and international programs to the finish line. Dr. Kevin Bowcutt, a senior technical fellow and chief scientist of hypersonics at Boeing, agrees. He led an independent technical review of General Fusion’s technology in 2008.
“We found that their engineering challenges can be solved and they’ve been solving them since then,” Bowcutt says. “They have achieved things such as control of impact timing.”
He notes that General Fusion will be holding an important physics test this summer of their plasma compression device. If all goes well, it’s likely to change the global fusion mindset.
“The world has been saying that achieving fusion will cost billions of dollars and take decades,” says Bowcutt, “but General Fusion’s approach, if it’s shown to work, will sidestep all that.”
“I think a horse race metaphor works well,” Wilson observes. “We’re probably going to see one horse pull ahead and then maybe another catch up and maybe lead the group for a while, and so on. This will be an interesting decade.”
www.generalfusion.com _________________ La vie est un privilege, elle ne vous doit rien!
Vous lui devez tout, en l'occurence votre vie
This final report documents the work of the Boeing Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) team on Task 1 of the Phase II effort. The team consisted of Boeing Research and Technology, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, General Electric, and Georgia Tech. Using a quantitative workshop process, the following technologies, appropriate to aircraft operational in the N+4 2040 timeframe, were identified: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Hydrogen, fuel cell hybrids, battery electric hybrids, Low Energy Nuclear (LENR), boundary layer ingestion propulsion (BLI), unducted fans and advanced propellers, and combinations. Technology development plans were developed.
The team generated a series of configurations with different combinations of some of these technologies. The higher heating value of LNG reduces the weight of fuel burned, but because of heavier aircraft systems, more energy is used for a given flight. LNG fueled aircraft have the potential for significant emissions advantages and LNG enhances the integration of fuel cells into the aircraft propulsion and power system.
An unducted fan increases propulsive efficiency and reduces fuel burn. Adding a fuel cell and electric motor into the propulsion system also leads to improvements in emissions and fuel burn. An aft fuselage boundary layer propulsor also resulted in a fuel burn benefit.
Low Energy Nuclear Reactor Technologies
Goals and Objectives:
Develop technologies for Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) propulsion systems.
Performance Area and Impact:
Traditional fuel burn and emissions will be reduced or eliminated by using LENR energy.
Noise may be reduced by using LENR heat instead of combustion in the engines.
LENR energy has the potential to eliminate traditional fuel burn and associated emissions. In the current concept, a LENR reactor generates heat that is distributed to heat engines that use the LENR heat instead of combustion. This concept is dependent on successful development of LENR technology, which has reportedly had some success in generating heat in a catalytic process that combines nickel (Ni) with hydrogen (H) gas(. This process is reported to produce safe byproducts, such as copper, with no radioactive materials used and no long-lasting radioactive byproducts generated. Upon further investigation, it is thought that low level radiation may be generated during active energy cycles, but that it could be easily shielded and would stop quickly after reactor shutdown. Further development of LENR would be required to produce heat at a high enough temperature to support heat engines in a flight-weight installation. LENR physics analysis and evidence of high temperature pitting in LENR metal substrates indicate that temperatures appropriate for heat engines may have been achieved. It is thought that LENR would use very small amounts of fuel.
Initial LENR testing and theory have suggested that any radiation or radio-isotopes produced in the LENR reactions are very short lived and can be easily shielded. In addition, some prototypes(9) that may be harnessing the LENR process can be controlled safely within designed operating parameters and the reaction can be shut down in acceptable time frames. This heat generating process should reduce radiological, shielding and hazardous materials barriers to entry of aviation LENR systems.
Should LENR development prove successful, a few technology components will need to be
developed for LENR-based aircraft propulsion. Heat engines, which run a thermodynamic cycle by adding heat via heat transfer instead of combustion, need to be developed. A system for distributing heat from the LENR core to the heat engines also needs to be developed. Additional systems may need to be developed for supporting the LENR core, including systems to deliver reactants and remove byproducts. The Ni-H LENR system would use pure hydrogen and a proprietary nickel and catalyst substrate. Hydrogen usage would be small compared to systems that combust hydrogen. Initially, hydrogen storage might involve cryogenics. The cold liquid hydrogen (LH2) fluid might be used in a regenerative system whereby cooling is supplied to super-conducting generators, electric feeders, and motors while the gas would be used as a fuel in the LENR reactor. The primary LENR byproducts that would require periodic removal from
the aircraft are the catalyst and nickel that are contained within the reactor core. Through thoughtful design of the reactor core, preliminary information suggests that these can be easily removed and replaced. The reactor core might then be recycled at low cost, due to the absence of toxic products in the core.
Multiple coherent theories that explain LENR exist which use the standard Quantum
Electrodynamics & Quantum Chromodynamics model. The Widom-Larson(10) theory appears to
have the best current understanding, but it is far from being fully validated and applied to current prototype testing. Limited testing is ongoing by NASA and private contractors of nickelhydrogen LENR systems. Two commercial companies (Leonardo Corp. and Defkalion) are reported to be offering commercial LENR systems. Those systems are advertised to run for 6 months with a single fueling cycle. Although data exists on all of these systems, the current data in each case is lacking in either definition or 3rd party verification. Thus, the current TRL assessment is low.
In this study the SUGAR Team has assumed, for the purposes of technology planning and
establishing system requirements that the LENR technology will work. We have not conducted an independent technology feasibility assessment. The technology plan contained in this section merely identifies the steps that would need to take place to develop a propulsion system for aviation that utilizes LENR technology
LENR technology is potentially game-changing to not just aviation, but the worldwide energy mix as well. This technology should be followed to determine feasibility and potential performance.
_________________ La vie est un privilege, elle ne vous doit rien!
Vous lui devez tout, en l'occurence votre vie
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum