Nazi International

LENR? OR LANR?: NASA’S RECENT WORK ON COLD FUSION & SOME ...

Ever since the story of Pons and Fleischman broke in the late 1980s, I've been fascinated by the cold fusion story for several reasons and most of them having to do with the thought of deliberate suppression. When it first broke, the scientific community was duly - and in my opinion, rightfully - skeptical. Over time, as the evidence for the reality of the phenomenon grew, so did the explanations for the phenomenon, and two models, or rather, terms were invented to explain it: LENR, or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, and LANR, or Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions. This latter term has always been my favorite, being more specific and descriptive.

Now, in this article shared by M.D., NASA has weighed in with a clear signal that it, too, prefers the latter description:

Lattice Confinement Fusion

Here's the essence of it:

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

A metal such as erbium is “deuterated” or loaded with deuterium atoms, “deuterons,” packing the fuel a billion times denser than in magnetic confinement (tokamak) fusion reactors. In the new method, a neutron source “heats” or accelerates deuterons sufficiently such that when colliding with a neighboring deuteron it causes D-D fusion reactions.

That, in essence, is how cold fusion works: a metal, which has a crystalline lattice structure, is "deuterated" or saturated with deuterium gas, embedding deuterium atoms within the metal to a density far higher than hot fusion reactors contained within magnetic fields.

Thus far, such deuteration is rather clumsy, and the saturation of metals (in NASA'S case, erbium) with deuterium is hit and miss, that is to say, the deuteration occurs more or less randomly. Therefore, imagine what might happen if regular deuteration could occur, effectively setting up a lattice of deuterium inside the lattice of a metal. As the article notes, the phenomenon is real, but as it currently stands, lacks practical application because the energies achieved are far below those needed by NASA.

So one wonders what would happen if, say, a deuterated metal could be set into rotation, and if that metal itself was capable of being made into a plasma, what would happen? Imagine a metal like mercury (a good candidate for a plasma), being heavily deuterated, rotated, and made into a plasma...

In other words, current LANR research focuses on two elements: lattice structure, and saturating that structure with deuterium (or to put the same point differently, embedding deuterium atoms within that metallic lattice structure). But I'm suggesting at least a third, and possibly a fourth, ingredient might render these LANRs more efficient: mechanical rotation, and high electro-magnetic stress.

... that might ring a bell for some people...

See you on the flip side...

9 thoughts on “ LENR? OR LANR?: NASA’S RECENT WORK ON COLD FUSION & SOME ...”

  1. How far along is NASA’s research on this technology this might provide Elon Musk with the propulsion for his spaceship allowing him to drop chemical rocket refueling in orbit. And could this provide safe nuclear propulsion for a surface to orbit space shuttle?

  2. I’ve been interested in Muon catalysed Fusion for quite a few years now.
    An Australian Company: https://starscientific.com.au/ ( Hungarian Physicist Andrew Horvarth)

    “As explained in fusion energy the technology of Star Scientific with muon catalyzed fusion allows for nuclear fusion to be achieved at low temperatures. These temperatures can be from several hundred degrees Kelvin to cold temperatures that produce solid hydrogen.

    All nuclear fusion reactions attempt to bring atomic nuclei close enough together so that the electrostatic repulsive forces of like positively charged protons are overcome by the much stronger, but shorter range strong (nuclear binding) force.

    Muons, one of the basic particles of matter, have a mass around 207 times that of an electron, but with the same negative electric charge. On exposure to atoms like hydrogen a muon can replace an electron.

    With its much greater mass it orbits the atomic nucleus much closer than does the electron. In doing so, it allows closer approximation of hydrogen in forming a molecule. As the muon orbits its charge can mask that of the proton’s. This allows the strong force to operate. The nuclei can fuse.”
    “A muon decays at around 2.2 x 10 microseconds into an electron, an electron antineutrino and a muon neutrino. During the time one exists it could ideally interact with around 10,000 nuclei.

    In reality, though, the muon tends to become bound to a resulting helium nucleus every so often, experimentally reducing its effective interactions to around 200 in its lifetime. This has been the point that has caused other researchers to abandon muon catalyzed fusion.

    Generally muons have been produced by particle accelerators. The energy required to generate a muon this way renders an output of 200 nuclear fusions insufficient to produce a useful net gain in output energy.

    In the particle accelerator, muons are preceeded by pi mesons, or pions. These have an extremely short life of around 20 nanoseconds.

    In nature pions then muons are produced by cosmic rays, in large part protons, interacting with atoms in our atmosphere.

    Star Scientific have made the claim that they can produce oodles of pions and hence muons, rendering the stickiness and limited interactions that have been observed irrelevant.

    Assuming the Star Scientific process for muon catalyzed fusion works as expected, the energy generated from high energy neutrons can be harvested. Just as with nuclear fission, fossil fuel and similar processes the heat can convert water to steam to drive turbines. The turbines drive generators producing electricity.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kbUl3XHw_Q

    Anyone eels looked into this?

    1. anakephalaiosis

      I have already built myself an abstract accelerator, by the 32-point compass Rune-system, to produce abstract spin. Paradox is ontological crossfire.

      English language has several words, like stream, run, flow, race, that can be used, to create a roundabout. It is sort of linguistic quantum physics.

      Catching cosmic rays into loops, becomes the idea of transcending lifespan, moving particle from life to life. By the 8-point compass, one catches the cycle of day and night, in Genesis.

      The paradox is, that center and circle are the same thing. Scythian martial art is a practical application of that, as nuclear sport, defeating empire of gravity.

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/7zqjhdvk7d21yl0/scythian-for-dummies.jpg

  3. Robert Barricklow

    I was reading a science book two days ago that said many scientist were running into the problem that when they did the proven peer reviewed experiments that were unable to achieve the same results. This was perplexing? Actually it’s simple: fake science pays. Oligarch wants ‘Y’ proven for x amount of dollars, and presto! Y=x. Until, some real scientist follows the ‘proven’ test and finds out what reality really is.
    Why that same scientist may even start questioning the covid1984 ‘reality’.

    I remember that time in the 1980s when “they” jumped on those two ‘real’ scientists like there was no tomorrow. The Big Media went all out on some agree-upon-narrative to smear the scientists and their experiment. SNAFU[situation normal all f****d up].

    Running late[SNAFU]
    White Rabbit.

    1. Basically this is “defend first domino” strategy,because when first one for any reason falls, it is the end.

    2. Marco Fredriks

      For me the first real example of demonstrating Science By Vote (to be followed with Trial by Media)

  4. Pons and Fleishman weren’t all that keen on the term “cold fusion” if I recall correctly. I may be wrong, but wasn’t that fella’ from the “9-11 Truth Movement” the one who coined that term and also ruined those two gentlemen? Also, were you to release a new means of generating power to the masses, then you would also have to maintain power and status quo for the Elite Parasite. This might involve imprisoning the populace on Reservations, and giving them Wampum–Fed-Coin and Ideological baubles to play with, while terrorizing/motivating them to Obey all orders without question. With a new financial power system/economy facsimile, comes the death warrants for the liquidation of defunct assets and useless chattel and the wide scale apparent collateral damage that we are only just beginning to see….

  5. Indeed it does Dr Farrell. If I’m not mistaken , missing components are fusor coupled with principles behind Faraday Disc ( which were brilliantly explained by Miles Mathis if I remember correctly) . Whole thing with tokamak is pure nonsens made for a sole purpouse to waste time and money.

Comments are closed.