In 1989, with the announcement of nuclear dense energy found in a jar, a U.S. nuclear ‘LENR Manhattan Project’ was initiated in the field of cold fusion/low energy nuclear reaction research and applied technology. Advanced LENR technology and engineering, now emerging from U.S. agencies, rivals all other energy sources.
In a large part, the mission of the DoE, DoD, and NASA is to ensure U.S. technological advantage. It is a matter of U.S. security, economy, health, and comfort. A small portion of this obligation resulted in the World War II U238 nuclear Manhattan Project, which led to a U.S. nuclear advantage.
Less than fifty years later, in 1989 the race to U.S. LENR energy began. The U.S. ‘LENR Manhattan Project’ will be of even greater interest to future historians. Recent evidence of both its’ existence, importance, and success is presented here. The advantage of clean abundant nuclear power was not lost on the U.S. government, as can be seen by these works which were initiated long before 2007.
For years U.S. cold fusion LENR research has been discredited. From the beginning the DoE has been putting up smoke screens and roadblocks, while at the same time the DoD and NASA have been quietly implementing deep LENR/cold fusion research, advanced LENR technology license agreements, and LENR energy applied engineering contracts.
Essential history… Cold Fusion 17 years ago 1999
ISSUE 25, 1999 • Infinite Energy Magazine
by Eugene Mallove and Jed Rothwell
An excerpt from the article...
Not all attendees at the American Physical Society’s Centennial Meeting, held March 20-26, 1999 in Atlanta, Georgia, were scientists in the true sense of that word.
Many of them were pseudoscientists, as their behavior proved. Some 1,000 physicists, including, we are informed, President Clinton’s Science advisor, were present as three pseudoscientists took turns mocking cold fusion at a session dubbed, “Science, Junk Science, and Pseudo- science,” Monday afternoon, March 22.
Jed Rothwell, who audio-recorded the entire sorry session, filed this report:
On Monday there were three good papers on cold fusion, but I had to miss them to attend the anti-cold fusion lynch mob session instead.
- Bob Park (Prof. Robert Park of the University of Maryland, the APS “spokesman”)
- John Huizenga (DOE anti-cold fusion henchman, retired)
- Douglas Morrison (CERN)
- Magician James the “Amazing Randi” and a top
- Federal science honcho, named Dr. Peter Zimmerman, from the State Department Arms Control Agency
It was a trip! - end quotes
United States Defense Intelligence Agency Report
Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance Presented by the DIA in November, 2009.
“LENR could serve as a power source for batteries that could last for decades, providing power for electricity, sensors, military operations, and other applications in remote areas, including space. LENR could also have medical applications for disease treatment, pacemakers, or other equipment.
“Because nuclear fusion releases 10 million times more energy per unit mass than does liquid transportation fuel, the military potential of such high-energy-density power sources is enormous.
And since the U.S. military is the largest user of liquid fuel for transportation, LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces
since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power.” end quote
Global Energy Corporation
Frank Carlucci was head of the DoD in 1989, the year cold fusion was headlined and derailed.
Now he is on the board of directors of Global Energy Corporation, along with two Congressmen. They have a license to market advanced Navy LENR technology, coming out of SPAWAR labs, that transmutes nuclear waste to benign elements while creating high process steam. This has not been presented to the scientific communities involved in LENR research or nuclear waste remediation research.
Global Energy Corporation - Guam and “Clean Nuclear Power Eyed”
Monday, 13 Feb 2012, Jon Anderson, Variety News, Marianas Guam Edition
The Variety has learned Dr. Jay W. Khim, CEO of Global Energy Corp. (GEC) based in Annandale, Va., made a presentation to the utilities commission, GPA officials and Navy engineers last month and will make another tomorrow afternoon.
“We’re generation five,” Dr. Khim told the Variety during an exclusive interview, “and first of all this is a brand new concept.” He said safety is the first consideration, and that cannot be ensured by building higher walls around reactors, as Japan saw last year with Fukushima.
“You have to change the basic science of nuclear power,” Khim explained. “We’ve been working with the U.S. Navy for about 22 years and the basic science phase is now over. Now we’re going into commercial development, which the Navy is not going to do.” But Khim says the science has been repeatedly duplicated by the Navy, and has been proven, recognized and published.
Officials of the Navy on Guam, including Capt. John V. Heckmann Jr., CO of Naval Facilities and a professional engineer, attended the GEC briefing.
The GEC board of directors, Khim says, includes some well-known Washington D.C. Players, including former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, former Congressman and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, and former U.S. Congressman Tom Davis, among others.
According to Dr. Khim, the GeNiE reactor burns natural uranium which doesn’t require enrichment. It creates no nuclear waste, he says, thus eliminating the need for nuclear waste storage – a major problem wherever nuclear generation using old technology is used. In fact, the reactor can use spent fuel from current plants as a fuel source, although there is no plan to use such fuel for the Guam reactor, he points out. Since there is no nuclear chain reaction involved, no nuclear meltdown is possible and there is also no weapons proliferation risk. It is clean nuclear technology, Dr. Khim contends.
“The key to this technology,” Khim explains, “is that the GeNiE reactor actually burns uranium 238 in a hybrid fusion-fission process that is clean, utterly safe, and secure. The reactor is cooled by helium gas – rather than water – which cannot become radioactive. There is no need for a separate heat exchanger or secondary loop, which greatly simplifies the reactor, increasing safety and reducing costs.”
Global Energy Corp. is proposing to build a 50-megawatt plant as a pilot project on Guam, on a build, operate and transfer basis for which GEC would obtain its own financing. Guam ratepayers would pay only for the electric power generated. Khim says he will finance the estimated $250 million plant himself. “No initial money for Guam at all,” Khim assured. “I’ll pay all the money; I’ll run it; and give Guam cheap electricity.” He says once his company and the CCU enter into a memorandum of understanding, other issues, such as the location of the reactor, will be explored.
“Our plan is to fuel the generator only once, and the fuel would last for 50 years,” Khim said. The fuel will be natural, unenriched uranium ore, which is mined in various countries including the U.S. and Australia.
SPAWAR and Global Energy Corporation Patents
Filed in 2007 and 2008 - One was sequestered till 2013 and the other sister patent, for some unknown compelling reason, was filed in Europe.
- System and Method for Generating Particles Publication Apr 16, 2013 - Filing Sep 21, 2007- Priority Mar 14, 2007
- Hybrid Fusion Fast Fission Reactor Publication Dec 30, 2009 - Filing Feb 25, 2009 - Priority Feb 25,2008
For the rest of the Global Energy Corporation story… The Navy LENR Series
Rear Admiral Craig E. Steidle became the first Associate Administrator of the Office of Exploration Systems at NASA in 2003, serving under President Bush.
Admiral Steidle also served as the Director of the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Advanced Strike Technology Office and was the Director of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, DoD’s largest program.
He is now on the board of directors of Seldon Technologies with two advanced LENR patents utilizing carbon nanotube technology.
“Disclosed herein are methods of generating energetic particles, by contacting nanotubes with hydrogen isotopes in the presence of activation energy, such as thermal, electromagnetic, or the kinetic energy of particles. Also disclosed are methods of transmuting matter by exposing such matter to the energetic particles produced according to the disclosed method.
A need exists for alternative energy sources to alleviate our society’s current dependence on hydrocarbon fuels without further impact to the environment.
The inventors have developed multiple uses for nanotubes and devices that use such nanotubes. The present disclosure combines the unique properties of nanotubes and in one embodiment carbon nanotubes, in a novel manifestation designed to meet current and future energy needs in an environmentally friendly way.
Devices powered with nanotube based nuclear power systems may substantially change the current state of power distribution. For example, nanotube based nuclear power systems may reduce, if not eliminate, the need for power distribution networks; chemical batteries; energy scavenger devices such as solar cells, windmills, hydroelectric power stations; internal combustion, chemical rocket, or turbine engines; as well as all other forms of chemical combustion for the production of power.” end quote
Seldon Technologies Patents
- Methods of Generating Non-Ionizing Energy or Non-Ionizing 4He Using Graphene Based Materials Publication Oct 20, 2011 Filing Apr 19, 2011 - Priority Dec 5, 2005
- Methods of Generating Energetic Particles Using Nanotubes and Articles Thereof Publication Oct 10, 2013 - Filing Aug 21, 2012 Priority Dec 5, 2005
Asleep at the Foot of the Bristlecone Pine (contemplative interlude)
As the saga of cold fusion energy unfolds...
The Bristlecone Pine bears witness.
As do we… A tribute the works of Sergio Focordi – et. al. from the poets corner.
Once in awhile we should pause and listen.
NASA LENR Energy and Applied Engineering
- Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft Investigator(s): Doug Wells
- Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft Seedling Technical Seminar February, 2014
- SpaceWorks Engineering Advanced Concepts Group NASA 2009 – 2010 LENR Spaceplanes Advanced Propulsion System Concept Studies (see page 31)
- Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center at “LaRC Technology What We’re Thinking The Nuclear Energy Option”
- SUGAR Phase II: N+4 Advanced Concept Development
NASA Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research – SUGAR
The SUGAR working group report from May 2012 states:
“Even though we do not know the specific cost of the LENR itself, we assumed a cost of jet fuel at $4/gallon and weight based aircraft cost. We were able to calculate cost per mile for the LENR equipped aircraft compared to a conventional aircraft (Figure 3.2). Looking at the plots, one could select a point where the projected cost per mile is 33% less than a conventionally powered aircraft.”… pg 24.
- LENR Requirements Analysis …pg 24 View Figure 3.1
- Potential Heat Engines for LENR Systems …pg 25 View Figure 3.2
- Parametric LENR and Heat Engine Performance Parameters …pg 25 View Figure 6.2
- Low Energy Nuclear Reactor Technologies …pg 82
- LENR Technologies Success Criteria …pg 86
- Also LENR …pgs 15, 18, 19, 20, and 21
The SUGAR working group report also makes public the following list of organizations and individuals working on applied LENR engineering: Bradley (Boeing) * Daggett (Boeing) * Droney (Boeing) * Hoisington (Boeing) * Kirby (GT) * Murrow (GE) * Ran (GT) * Nam (GT) * Tai, (GT) * Hammel (GE) * Perullo (GT) * Guynn (NASA) * Olson (NASA) * Leavitt (NASA) * Allen (Boeing) * Cotes (Boeing) * Guo (Boeing) * Foist (Boeing) * Rawdon (Boeing) * Wakayama (Boeing) * Dallara (Boeing) * Kowalski (Boeing) * Wat (Boeing) * Robbana (Boeing) * Barmichev (Boeing) * Fink (Boeing) * Sankrithi (Boeing) * White (Boeing) * Gowda (GE) * Brown (NASA) * Wahls (NASA) * Wells (NASA) * Jeffries (FAA) * Felder (NASA) * Schetz (VT) * Burley (NASA) * Sequiera (FAA) * Martin (NASA) * Kapania (VT)
“An Overview of Advanced Concepts for Launch” February 9, 2012
Presentation at the USC Rusch Undergraduate Honors Colloquium, LA, CA.
Authors: Marcus Young and Jason Mossman - U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFMC) AFRL/RZSA 10 E. Saturn Blvd. Edwards AFB CA 93524-7680
Page 33 places LENR under the ‘device tested’ and ‘unknown physics’ categories for advanced launch concepts.
Boeing LENR Utility Patent
CA 2824290 A1 - Assignee - The Boeing Company, Matthew D. Moore, Kelly L. Boren
Publication date: May 12, 2014 - Priority date: Nov 12, 2012
A propulsion system and methods are presented. A substantially tubular structure comprises a central axis through a longitudinal geometric center, and a first fan rotates around the central axis, and comprises a first fan hub and first fan blades.
The fan hub is rotationally coupled to the substantially tubular structure, and the first fan blades are coupled to the first fan hub and increase in chord length with increasing distance from the first fan hub. A second fan is rotationally coupled to the substantially tubular structure and rotates around the central axis and contra-rotates relative to the first fan. Second fan blades are coupled to the second fan hub, and a nacelle circumscribing the first fan and the second fan is coupled to and rotates with the first fan.
 The contra-rotating forward coaxial electric motor 126 and the contra-rotating aft coaxial electric motor 128 are coupled to at least one energy source. The contra-rotating forward coaxial electric motor 126 and the contra-rotating aft coaxial electric motor 128 may be directly coupled to the at least one energy source, or through various control and/or power distribution circuits. The energy source may comprise, for example, a system to convert chemical, solar or nuclear energy into electricity within or coupled to a volume bearing structure. The energy source may comprise, for example but without limitation, a battery, a fuel cell, a solar cell, an energy harvesting device, low energy nuclear reactor (LENR), a hybrid propulsion system, or other energy source.
U.S. Analysis of National Security and the Global Future - LENR
- Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025] – (pdf) NASA
- Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025] – (article) CFN
The pdf lays out what we are preparing to prevent; by foreseeing what the capabilities of advanced technologies will bring to the theater of war.
From the article:
Dennis Bushnell is bringing everything out into the open for us to think about, these advanced warfare technologies are not something we can just live with.
They are difficult to defend against, and often untraceable; being cheap and easy to manufacture. They will be developed commercially, and very simply; without requiring any long-term governmental development like mega-trillion dollar stealth bombers, naval carriers, and observational platform programs.
They are soon becoming commercially available, legally.
The solution to this is complex, yet at hand if the world chooses to work together.
How can we create a human culture where people simply refuse to create war?
What can the emergent LENR energy and advanced technology communities contribute to the creation of a world that does not feel the need to ever go to war again?
This is the challenge, out to 2025 and beyond.
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD)
As a United States Department of Defense (DoD) Energetics Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division is a critical component of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Warfare Center (WFC) Enterprise. One of the WFC’s nine Divisions, Indian Head’s mission is to research, develop, test, evaluate, and produce energetics and energetic systems for US fighting forces.
Energetics are explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, reactive materials, related chemicals and fuels and their application in propulsion systems and ordnance.
As the largest DoD full spectrum energetics facility and leader in the Navy’s energetics enterprise, NSWC Indian Head employs a workforce of more than 1,400, of which more than 850 are scientists, engineers, and technicians dedicated to developing and sustaining explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, high-energy chemicals and their application to warfighting systems. In addition, NSWC Indian Head has the largest concentration of PhDs working in Energetics in the WFC, including the highest number of synthesis chemists, detonation physicists, and formulation scientists dedicated to the energetics National competency.
The Division’s unique synergy and balanced capabilities address all aspects of the Energetics technical discipline, including basic research, applied technology, technology demonstration, prototyping, engineering development, acquisition, low-rate production, in-service engineering/mishaps and failure investigations, surveillance, and demilitarization.
If the military experience problems with current weapon systems, or encounter new threats on the battlefield, Indian Head Division collaborates and provides the appropriate solution. As the Navy’s lead technical authority in the U.S., NSWC Indian Head performs over 60% of all Navy energetics workload, and has an unmatched record of 13 Navy-qualified explosives transitioned into 47 Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps weapons. Seventy-five percent of all explosives deployed in US weapons were developed by NSWC Indian Head.
One of ten divisions of the NAVSEA Warfare Center Enterprise, the main site for NSWC IHD is located at Naval Support Facility Indian Head, a 3,500-acre peninsula along the Potomac River in Southern Maryland. It also maintain operations in McAlester, OK; Colts Neck, NJ; Ogden, UT; Louisville, KY; and Picatinny, NJ. NSWC IHD has the largest US workforce in the DoD dedicated to energetics.
Fusion Energy ‘Deuterium Reactor’ Patent U.S. (NSWC IHD)
The “Deuterium Reactor” was developed after a contract with the U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD). This patent contains descriptions of different size reactors developed.
“Phonon-enhanced crystal growth and lattice healing” US 8450704 B2 - Assignee - MIT and United States Department of Energy (Grant) Issued: May 28, 2013. This patent relates to controlled crystalline growth and may possibly be utilized to create solid state LENR energy devices.
This LENR patent “Low temperature fusion” is cited in both the other patents listed.
“Low temperature fusion” US 20090122940 A1
Publication date: May 14, 2009 - Priority date: Mar 18, 2005
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
 The heavy-electron material can be, but is not limited to palladium, platinum, nickel, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, vanadium, titanium, tungsten, yttrium, and zirconium atoms. These materials offer methods for the primary embodiment. In each embodiment, the crystal lattice includes embedded nuclei of hydrogen atoms, protons, deuterons, or tritons. In the description that follows, all of these hydrogen nuclei will be referred to as deuterons.
 In an alternate embodiment, the heavy-electron material can be CeCu.sub.2Si.sub.2, UBe.sub.13, UPt.sub.3, URu.sub.2Si.sub.2, UPd.sub.2Al.sub.3, UNi.sub.2Al.sub.3, CeCu.sub.2Ge.sub.2, CeRh.sub.2Si.sub.2, CePd.sub.2Si.sub.2, CeIn.sub.3, and other similar materials, rather than one of the primary metals, palladium, platinum, nickel, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, vanadium, titanium, tungsten, yttrium, and zirconium. These types of materials have never been considered as nuclear fusion materials or been embedded with deuterons, prior to this disclosure. Alternatively, in another embodiment, high temperature superconducting materials are substituted for one of the primary metals. These include the doped lanthanide copper oxides, the yttrium-barium-copper oxides, those with the generic composition RBa.sub.2Cu.sub.3O.sub.7-x, where R stands for yttrium or one of the lanthanide rare earth elements or many other elements in the copper oxide family. This embodiment discusses that fusion of deuterons may be expected in any of these heavy electron systems if they contain absorbed deuterons.
 Factors expected to influence the establishment of proper conditions are crystal shape and orientation, the application of external forces, doping of the materials, magnetic fields, and electrical and thermal fluxes. Finally, there exist heavy-electron (heavy-fermion) materials having themselves the correct symmetry. As additional sources of fusion processes, deuterons may be embedded in one of these crystals for which the symmetry is proper already. This extends the possible materials.
1. In one embodiment, the materials must be made in one of the proper shapes. It has been noted that thin films have been successful, and this may be explained as restricting lattice interactions to the conforming planes in the film. The three-fold symmetry of the material is broken by the lack of the other perpendicular planes. Thus, the embodiment involving deuterons interacting in parallel planes explains this phenomenon. It is noted here that a thin-film, by its nature is two-dimensional, i.e., the thickness of the film is substantially negligible.
2. The same applies to sample surfaces, since any point on a surface is tangent to a single plane. The more surface area in the sample the better. The fact that powdered materials have been used successfully may be explained by the fact that the total combined surface area in a powder is very large, constituting many planes available for the interaction. Use of powders made of the selected materials is also indicated by the fact that the absorption of deuterons is much easier using them Each small particle in a powder is more likely to contain a dominant, properly oriented, single crystal, or have a favorable shape, for the disclosed interaction to be established.
3. The same reasoning may be applied to materials that have been shaped into long filaments, and there is ample evidence that this has been successful. This evidence is apparent in relevant literature in this field of technology.
4. Electric stress may be applied in many ways, but an effective way is to shape the material such that it has sharp points, e.g., as in cone shapes. There is a well known concentration of electric charges near points, such as the points of cones, when these objects are immersed in an electric field. The planes perpendicular to the gradients in electric field and electric charge are then distinguished from their two perpendicular cohorts, breaking the three-fold symmetry.
5. Electronic properties of the materials of interest vary with temperature and deuteron concentration, and are not well known. Superconductivity at low temperatures and existence of ferromagnetic and anti-ferromagnetic phases are indicators of effective responses to both electric and magnetic fields, primarily magnetic fields. A uniform magnetic field breaks the three-fold symmetry properly as described in item 4, and acts strongly on any of the magnetic phases.
6. In other embodiments, magnetic fields may be used to induce the de Hass-van Alphen effect. This is an effect in which the magnetic susceptibility of the material varies periodically as an applied magnetic field is increased. The effect may be caused by the discrete energy levels of closed orbits of electrons in a partially filled conduction band. As the field changes, the Fermi energy level alternately falls within or without these levels (Peierls, 1955 and Ziman, 1965). As may be seen in FIG. 143 of Ziman (1965), the closed electron orbits may be on or near the Brillouin zone boundaries, on the wave length scale just where an interaction effect is required to excite the very short wavelength deuteron vibration. The de Hass-van Alphen effect couples with the electron charge distribution at these length scales, and this in turn couples to the interaction of the electrons and the lattice. This effect offers a good opportunity to initiate the low temperature fusion effect.
7. A time varying magnetic field may be added to the magnetic field inducing the de Hass-van Alphen effect in No. 6 above to aid in the excitation of the desired vibration modes. One method of doing this is to place the metal hydride in a resonant electromagnetic cavity at the region of the cavity’s strongest field excitation. In this example, the cavity may be placed in a uniform magnetic field to achieve the conditions for the de Haas-van Alphen effect in the presence of these strong field excitations in the cavity.
8. A uniformly applied mechanical stress may break the crystal symmetry properly, while a non-uniform stress applied to a polycrystalline sample may break the symmetry differently in different portions of the sample. It is known that uniform stress may alter symmetry. Allied with this kind of symmetry breaking is that associated with dislocations and thermal annealing.
9. Another embodiment to apply an alternating stress is by means of acoustics. As an example, recent developments have allowed the use of lasers to generate very short powerful and controlled acoustic waves in materials (Feuer, 2003). Generating excitations acoustically is one way to enhance the desired lattice excitations. Excitations may also be generated using infrared interactions via Raman scattering.
10. There are many examples in materials research in which super-lattice materials have been constructed. A super-lattice is a crystal structure which has a lattice regularity larger than that of a normally structured crystal. The super-lattice periodicity is on a larger scale. Where a normal material has a basic set of atoms in its unit-cell with this cell repeated evenly throughout, a super-lattice has a unit-cell that repeats at intervals larger by an integer multiple. The large cell has regular substitutions made in the basic atomic set by other atoms. By substituting other atoms, a crystalline material may be constructed with the proper layered symmetry with a single parallel set of planes. Silver atoms, for example, may be placed in layers parallel to one of the planes of deuterons in titanium. The dynamic localization effect may cause a screening effect for the deuterons, may be found to occur stronger in super lattices (Dunlap and Kenkre (1986)). A method of exciting the dynamic localization effect has been described in Ghosh, Kuznetsov, and Wilkins (1997).
11. Electronegative or electropositive atoms may be selected for substitution (also known as doping) depending on whether more or fewer electrons are wanted in order to vary the Fermi energy level within a conduction band in the material. The doped material may easily transform from an electrical conductor to a (Mott) insulator depending on whether the d-band is less than or greater than half full, e.g., whether the Fermi level is toward the bottom or the top of the band. The state of the band is important relative to application of the de Hass-van Alphen effect in No. 6 above, and No. 12 below, as an example.
12. The atoms for substitution (in Nos. 10 and 11 above) may be selected so that the d-band is not filled. For example, it may be selected to place the Fermi level at the proper place in the d-band such at the wavelengths that correspond to the boundaries on the smaller Brillouin zones produce an effect comparable to a periodic Peirels instability. The Brillouin zones are smaller in a super lattice because the spatial periodicity is larger. Even if a periodic instability is not induced the static instability may be used to aid in the three-fold to single plane (3-D to 2-D) symmetry breaking.
US 20130235963 A1- Assignee - Pharis Edward Williams
Publication date: Sep 12, 2013 - Priority date: Mar 1, 2012
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT
$25,000 was received in 2008 from NSWC, Indian Head Division, to design experiments, review reports, and analyze data. The experiments verified heating using powered/granulated fuel.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
This invention pertains to the field of fusion reactors as an energy source. This invention addresses the problems that occur with fission reactors such as the associated radiation and necessary heavy shielding required because of the radiation. It also addresses the high temperatures needed in the design of current fusion research reactors. Further, this invention addresses the problem of the national dependence on fossil fuel by providing an alternative source of energy for power plants and engines that currently depend upon fossil fuels.
Current approaches to obtain energy through nuclear fusion involve methods of heating combinations of 1H1, 1H2and/or 1H3 to very high temperatures in order to overcome the high coulomb repulsive forces between the protons involved. These high temperatures require the use of electromagnetic field containment in order to prevent the melting of the containment vessel. These reactors have shown nuclear fusion, but not in a manner that would allow the design of a practical energy source.
The designs of the research fusion reactors were based upon the current standard model understanding of neutrons and nuclei. That is, in nuclei there are neutrons that interact with the protons using short range, attractive nuclear forces, but only the long range, repulsive coulomb forces between the protons provide the barrier to fusion. This interpretation is the only one currently being used by the scientific community for attempting to obtain fusion energy. In recent years, there has been a great deal of activity and debate concerning attempts to obtain energy at much lower temperatures under the general title of “Cold Fusion.” For the most part, Cold Fusion devices are designed and tested without the aid of an assisting fundamental theory predicting the desired phenomena. Neither the high, nor the low, temperature fusion research has resulted in a clear road to a practical energy source, despite the claims of both sides.
Weyl’s Quantum Principle, of 19291,2,3, has been shown to produce the equations of quantum mechanics and the gauge field equations. In particular, the gauge field equations of interest are the electromagnetic field equations of Maxwell. The Maxwell equations have been used to obtain the singular, 1/r, electromagnetic potential currently used for the charged particles and are the potentials used to calculate the coulomb repulsion between two protons. However, a closer study of Weyl’s quantum principle shows that this principle not only requires Maxwell’s field equations, but it also requires that the charge on a particle must be quantized. Experimentally, this is known to hold without fail, yet this is the first theory that requires the quantization of charge from a theoretical necessity. The quantization of electromagnetic fields in Maxwell’s equations produces a more general electrostatic potential than the currently used one. This more general potential is non-singular. That is, the potential has a maximum absolute value and approaches zero as the separations of particles are brought infinitely close together or taken infinitely far apart.
This non-singular potential changes the picture of a neutron and the nucleus, plus it provides a description for how nuclei interact. This new picture of a neutron is simply a proton in orbit around a virtually stationary electron. Therefore, a deuteron, which is a neutron plus a proton, may be described as two protons in orbit around the electron. See FIG. 1. Each deuteron has a magnetic moment whose spin axis is normal to the plane of the three particles and the axis of deuterons may be aligned end to end by the use of a magnetic field. Once this preconditioning has been done, if the deuterons are nudged together, the long range repulsive interaction between protons causes the protons of the approaching deuterons to stay as far from each other as far as possible. See FIG. 2. The protons, therefore, self align to establish the minimum threshold energy for fusion. On the other hand, the electrons repel other electrons though they may be attracted to protons. A very stable configuration may be obtained by the fusion of two deuterons. In this stable configuration the four protons are in orbit in a plane about an orbit spin axis while the two electrons are located on the spin axis equal distances above and below the plane of the protons orbit. See FIG. 3.
The forces of the interactions between all six particles of the two deuterons have been written down and studied. However, since they are transcendental equations, they have not yet been analytically integrated, but have been submitted to a computer spreadsheet solution to determine the numerical value of the fusion threshold for different methods of nudging the deuterons together.
1. Williams, P. E., “Mechanical Entropy and its Implications,” Entropy, Vol 3, 76-115, 30 June 2001.
2. Williams, P. E., 1980, “The Dynamic Theory: A New View of Space, Time, and Matter,” Los Alamos National Lab report LA-8370-MS, December, 1980.
3. Williams, P. E., THE DYNAMIC THEORY—A NEW VIEW OF SPACE-TIME-MATTER, Williams Research, ISBN 978-0-615-44711-7, March 2011.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
This invention takes advantage of the non-singular electrostatic potential and the newly predicted interactions between the electrons and protons that make up a deuteron and provides the conditions that bring about a fusion between two deuterons to form a helium atom. The preferential fusion of two deuterium atoms into a helium atom is brought about by preconditioning the deuterons in space and in their alignment with respect to each other. See FIG. 2 This conditioning is obtained by placing the deuterons into a crystalline lattice to hold them near each other. The crystalline lattice is placed in a strong magnetic controlling field to magnetically align the spins of the deuterium nuclei thereby starting the reaction. The addition of the heat causes the deuterium nuclei to vibrate within the crystalline lattice and this provides their motion with respect to each other which increases the reaction rate.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1: This figure depicts the configuration of a deuteron nucleus consisting of two protons orbiting around an electron.
FIG. 2: Two deuterium nuclei being nudged together while a magnetic field aligns their spins causing the protons of one nucleus to orbit 90 degrees from the protons in the neighboring nucleus.
FIG. 3: Two aligned deuterium nuclei may fuse together into a helium nucleus with the four protons orbiting in a plane 90 degrees from the axis of two electrons.
FIG. 4: This figure shows how permanent magnets may be used to align the spins of the deuterium nuclei in the sample.
FIG. 5: Thermo-electric diodes and metal hydride crystal fuel cells may be stacked together so that heat generated from a single fuel sample may power several diodes.
FIG. 6: Integrated reactor design showing cooling channels and electrical connections.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
A crystalline hydride made with deuterium nuclei (FIG. 1), while in a magnetic field strong enough to align the atoms’ spins in the same direction (FIG. 2), hold the atoms in the desired position for them to preferentially fuse and form a helium atom (FIG. 3). The rate of fusion depends upon quantum tunneling of the deuterons through the non-singular potentials of the nearby protons and the electron of the other deuterium nuclei. The rate of quantum tunneling, and therefore, the rate of fusion is controlled by the alignment of the deuterium nuclei and by either changing the separation of the two deuterons, their relative velocity, or both. The specific separation of the nuclei is set by the crystalline lattice spacing but their relative vibration velocity is determined by the temperature of the crystalline lattice. Therefore, while the magnetic field provides the alignment and the primary means of controlling the fusion rate, the temperature provides an additional means of controlling the rate of reaction and the rate of energy production.
The operating temperature of a particular deuterium reactor will be established by type of heat removal, the spacing of the metallic lattice, and the desired energy production. The design of the reactor must include a means of carrying the energy away from the heat generation site, magnetic field control, and for temperature control. A low temperature method of carrying heat away is provided using thermal diodes which operate at temperatures less than 300 to 400 degrees centigrade (FIG. 4). Temperature control and a method of carrying away waste heat may be through the use of water flowing through channels in, or surrounding, the metallic hydride (FIGS. 5 and 6). The heat energy may be taken from the cooling water as in fission reactors where the operating temperature may be higher than thermal diode operating temperature.
Alternatively, the heat generated may be carried away from the reacting crystalline material directly without the use of the temperature limiting thermoelectric diodes. This may be done with a pressurized fluid so the temperature limit may be different from the 300 to 400 degree centigrade thermoelectric diode limitation. Once the heat is removed from the crystalline lattice containing the reacting deuterium nuclei it may used in any method needed. One such method may be the use of a secondary fluid to form steam. Or the heat carrying fluid may be used in a heat exchanger to heat another fluid such as asphalt.
A simple, desktop reactor design would include a sample of material placed upon a thermoelectric generating diode (TEG) and then placed in a magnetic field created by permanent magnets. A crude depiction of the reactor may be seen in FIG. 4.
The sample material should be sealed in a non-magnetic container that is flat, either round or square. It may be preferable, but not required, that the sample material be sealed in an inert gas such as argon if the fuel material is sensitive to moisture.
The thermoelectric generating diode (TEG) may be one such as supplied by Custom Thermoelectric of Bishopville, Md. which produces 227 mV/° C. The voltmeter should have about 200 mV full scale so as to read roughly 1.8° F. at full scale. The holder should be designed to allow the low temperature side of the TEG to rest upon the lower magnet so the magnet may be used as a heat sink to maintain the temperature of the low side at a constant value.
The magnet stack may be made of 1″ diameter, 1″ high NdFeB, Grade N52 magnets such as supplied by K&J Magnetics, Inc. By using three magnets on the tall stack and one each above and below the sample the magnetic field should be of the order of 56 kilo gauss.
Let the sample rest outside the magnetic field for a period of time to see that the voltmeter reads zero as the two sides of the TEG are at the same temperature.
Place the sample and TEG into the magnetic field and observe the voltmeter for any voltage readings. One might expect between 0.5° F. to 1.0° F. in 10-20 minutes. This should show up as a reading of 60-130 mV on the voltmeter.
Low Temperature Example of a Deuterium Reactor Rough Design of a Mobile Power Supply
The assumptions that form the basis of this design outline are:
1. The experimental data obtained by the Navy on powdered fuel are taken as the starting point and converted into solid fuel heating rates,
2. The fusion energy is released as heat without any accompanying radiation just as the Navy experiments showed,
3. Reactor heat is converted into electrical energy by thermal diodes,
4. A cooling system provides a means of establishing an operating base and carrying away waste heat,
5. A bank of batteries allows for responding to rapid power demand changes while allowing a steady reactor output with slower power output changes,
6. One or more inverters will be used to convert DC energy into AC power,
7. Digital control circuitry will be used to control the magnetic field which is obtained using electrical circuits embedded into the reactor.
Estimate of Solid Fuel Power Output
The power measured in the Navy’s powder experiments was 1.77 milli-watts per gram. The reduction of reaction rates from a solid fuel to the random alignment obtained in powdered fuel is the statistical reduction of 7.72×10−6. This means the solid fuel power may be approximately 230 watts per gram of solid fuel.
Amount of Solid Fuel for a 10 kW Supply
To provide a 10 kW power supply at 230 watts per gram would require 43.5 grams of fuel. If a conversion efficiency of 20-25% is assumed applicable, then some 200 grams of solid fuel would be required.
Thermal Diodes Required
Given a thermal diode with the specifications: Imax (Amps) 3.0, Qmax (Watts) 28.3, Vmax (Volts) 15.2, DTmax (° C.) 67° C., 2.5 cm square, and 0.5 cm thick. This means that we should be able to get 25 watts from each diode with a volume of 3.125 cm3. Then 10 kW would require 400 diodes, or 2,500 square cm of diode surface.
Flat Rector Design
By putting a diode on each side of the fuel this would require a 1,250 square cm fuel slab. For fuel density of 0.8 grams/cc 200 grams of fuel would require 250 cc of fuel. This volume would provide the required surface area if it were in a slab only 0.2 cm thick. This is a volume of fuel that is 35 cm×36 cm×0.2 cm or 14 inches×14 inches×0.08 inches thick.
By putting diodes on each side of the fuel we now have a reactor pack 14 inches×14 inches×0.48 inches thick. Alternatively, multiple layers of diodes may be placed on both sides of the fuel to increase the thermal efficiency of the reactor by using the waste heat of the inner diodes in the outer diodes.
In order to establish an operating temperature for the thermal diodes we need of include a cooling system that maintains the temperature of the outside of the thermal diodes at a thermostatically controlled temperature. The cooling system would consist of a cooling jacket around the reactor pack, a liquid pump, a thermostat, and a radiator with a fan to maintain air flow as needed.
On the outside of the diodes we place a liquid cooling jacket that is 0.5 inches thick with channels for liquid flow. The reactor pack is now 15 inches×15 inches×1.48 inches thick.
To provide a source of power for the magnetic control field and to allow for surges in power demand without requiring rapid reactor output changes, we connect the thermal diodes to a battery bank of perhaps 4 large deep cycle 12 volt batteries. The 12 volt DC energy can then be converted into AC power by using one or more standard inverters.
The magnetic control field will consist of wires embedded into the reactor pack to form coils so that the magnetic field through the reactor fuel may be controlled in order to align the field to start the reactor and alter the field to control reactor output level or to shut the reactor down. The magnetic field control will be a digital computer that monitors power demand and reactor conditions and supplies the correct current to the various coils to obtain proper reactor response.
Physical Size Estimate
The physical sizes of the various parts of the reactor may be expected to be:
1. Reactor pack 15×15×1.5 inches, 337 cubic inches, weight 35 lbs,
2. Coolant pump 4×4×10 inches, 160 cubic inches, weight 5 lbs
3. Radiator 24×24×3 inches, 1,728 cubic inches, weight 10 lbs
4. Battery bank 24×24×10 inches, 5,760 cubic inches, weight 200 lbs
5. Inverters 23×12×9 inches, 2,484 cubic inches, weight 45 lbs
6. Magnetic control module 12×12×9 inches, 1,296 cubic inches, weight 5 lbs.
These estimates total to an overall size of 99.4 ft3 and 300 lbs. This size is approximately 4 ft×5 ft×5 ft, or slightly larger than a home air conditioner compressor.
Multiple Thermoelectric Diode Design
The efficiency of the flat design used above is limited to the efficiency of a single TEG. Multiple TEGs may increase the efficiency by using the waste heat from one TEG in more TEGs before the cooling plates. This type of design also reduces the volume and weight of the various reactor designs. The multiple TEG design used in a double stack configuration is shown in FIG. 5.
The multiple TEG, double stack configuration may be further incorporated into an integrated design using almost any desired number of double stacks as shown in FIG. 6.
Intermediate Scale Reactors
An intermediate scale reactor (0.5 to 5 MW) may be made using this fusion reaction that could power trucks, trains and other mobile users of power. Locomotives have fairly large volumes available for developing the power they need. They also have a well-developed generator, motor final drive system and waste heat removal system. Typically locomotives need high power output levels without the demand for rapid power level changes that is placed on a truck engine. These factors argue that direct steam generation may offer an economic method of carrying the energy away from the reactor for locomotive applications.
The typical manner in which trucks are used places many demands for rapid power level changes upon the engine. Rapid power level changes are not supported easily by steam systems. Over the road trucks might be able to use steam systems to carry the energy from the reactor, but delivery trucks would probably not be a candidate for steam and would rather seem to be best served by the thermoelectric generator system.
Larger Deuterium Reactors
A large scale reactor such as one for use on a ship or at a major power plant (approximately 10 MW and higher) will likely work best by carrying the energy away through conversion of the heat generated by boiling water or by a pressurized water system. This means that a large scale reactor may be designed in such a way that the fusion reactor simply replaces the fission reactor in current power plant designs. Thus there is no major difference between a large scale fusion power plant and current fission power plants in how the heat is carried away. The real difference lies in the generation of the heat. This difference is a large difference.
The fuel material for the fusion reactor is a crystalline Deuteride that involves no radiation. The reaction, being the preferential fusion of two deuterium nuclei to form a helium nucleus, emits no radiation. The waste product, helium, is non-toxic and emits no radiation. Therefore, no special handling of either the fuel or the waste is necessary, though collecting the helium produced may have advantages. This offers a serious reduction of hazards in the use of a fusion large scale reactor. The reduction of special handling and required shielding offers great reductions cost and size of the large scale fusion reactors.
Impact of Deuterium Reactors
The development and use of the above series of fusion reactors would significantly impact several sectors of our lives and the Earth’s ecology. This impact should be considered before and during any development of these reactors.
Reduction of Fossil Fuel Use
The potential development of all sizes of the above discussed fusion reactors would make a significant reduction in the demand and use of fossil fuels. For example as fusion takes over the responsibility of providing electric power the use of coal would drop considerably. The use of coal for home heating would also be unnecessary when home fusion reactors begin supplying energy for the individual home.
Fusion automobile power plants coupled with fusion power plants driving trucks, trains and ships would markedly reduce the use of gas and oil. Even the use of natural gas and oil for home heating would not be needed for the home with its own nuclear reactor.
The reduction and virtual elimination of the use of fossil fuels would have a tremendous impact upon the Earth’s environment. The pollution currently produced would be almost totally eliminated. The production of green house gases almost stopped.
The economic impact of the above series of fusion reactors would be even more striking than the impact upon the reduction of pollution. Perhaps the production, distribution and use of energy involve more political power, money and individual wealth than any other industry or chain of industries. This power and wealth alone may cause the potential of the above series of fusion reactors to become ‘dead on arrival.’
Economic Impact on Energy Production
The global impact of the transfer of wealth due to oil production and sales is constantly in the news. Countries and individuals owe their wealth and well-being to the money that their oil production brings. Individual and country wealth has followed energy production since the beginning of the industrial revolution set in motion by the control of energy. Those countries and individuals whose wealth is based solely upon the production and sale of oil would see their source of wealth dissipate with the development of the fusion reactors. This short paper cannot, nor intends to try to, do justice to a discussion of the economic impact that the above fusion reactors would have on energy production.
Coal production by the five top coal producing countries exceeds some 5,000 Mt per year. This represents a significant portion of the world’s energy production following behind that of the oil industry. This industry would also see a reduction in the demand for its product with the development of fusion reactors.
Economic Impact on Energy Distribution
Energy distribution is big business. Every home owner or business owner or operator has a utility bill that covers the energy used. Many, if not all, of these distribution companies also produce the electric and gas forms of energy that they distribute. Some may have nuclear and water-driven power plants to generate some of the electric energy they distribute while almost all have oil or coal fired power generation plants. Large scale fusion reactors would eliminate the need for these oil and coal fired power plants.
Industries having large plants that use a lot of energy may install their own large scale reactor and not need to draw their power from a distribution grid. Indeed with homes and industries installing individual reactors the existing large power distribution grids may become a relic of the past. While this might wreck havoc with the distribution companies’ income, it would eliminate concern over a power grid failure from either a breakdown or terrorist act.
At first blush it may appear that the utility companies may lose their income should the fusion reactors replace the oil and coal powered plants. However, this may not be mandated by such development. The fusion reactors must be manufactured and maintained. This could be the role of the utility companies. They could manufacture or obtain the reactors and then deliver them to each home through sales or leases and provide for the minimal maintenance they require.
“Phonon-enhanced crystal growth and lattice healing”
US 8450704 B2 - Assignee - MIT and United States Department of Energy
Grant Issued: May 28, 2013
A system for modifying dislocation distributions in semiconductor materials is provided. The system includes one or more vibrational sources for producing at least one excitation of vibrational mode having phonon frequencies so as to enhance dislocation motion through a crystal lattice.
Addendum 29 March 2016
I have watched extremely competent folks preparing this black swan’s flight plan for quite some time. LENR NRNF (non radioactive nuclear flight) is being developed by the US and presented in the EU through government grants in civil aviation programs.
In the United States, in a 2012 NASA contract, the LENR TRL (technology readiness level) was rated as low. Now, well over three years later, according to my analysis, the TRL is high (between levels 4 and 5). The LENR NRNF AEL (applied engineering level) is probably even higher (TRL 6) in military preparedness. For advanced concepts see the 2015 NARI presentation by Doug Wells “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft”.
Also, look forward to the NASA LENR SUGAR Phase III Final Report in 2016/2017 and the works of U.S. FAA PARTNER Project and ASCENT CLEEN Project LENR flight leader Dimitri N. Mavris.
The European Union RECREATE Program receives funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme. Their nuclear feeder cruiser concept is similar to the one presented by Doug Wells of NASA/NARI. The big difference being that it only considered radioactive nuclear flight and “concluded that neither airworthiness nor acceptance of the idea by the general public is within sight”.
Yet at RECREATE they also document/present a paper out of DELFT U that considers LENR non radioactive nuclear flight.
Thermal energy from LENR matches and exceeds the quality (temperature and energy density) and affordability (safety requirements) of thermal energy from radioactive nuclear reactors, therefore it is preferred and interchangeable (see the NARI report). Being non radioactive it will enable these nuclear flight concepts to be realized in the near term. Early adopters of this technology for next-gen aeroplane manufacturing will capture significant aircraft market share.
It should be noted that the U.S. Navy, NASA, Boeing and AirBus have all filed LENR technology patents. The U.S. Navy LENR patent was granted in 2013.