‘Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft’ Presentation at NASA — Feb 25, 2014


Another great find by Mr Moho:

The NASA Aeronautics Research Institute (NARI) is putting on what they refer to as a ‘Seedling Seminar’ during the last week of February this year in which NASA researchers present about ‘potentionally revolutionary’ innovative ideas in aviation topics that tie in with NASA’s mission. The research projects presented have been funded by ‘seedling’ grants from NASA.

One of the presentations this year is by Doug Wells, who works at the Aeronautics Systems Analysis Branch, NASA Langley Research Center, and the title of his presentation on Thursday, February 25th is ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft’.

An abstract of his presentation explains the purpose of his presentation:

The purpose of this research is to investigate the potential vehicle performance impact of applying the emergent Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) technology to aircraft propulsion systems. LENR potentially has over 4,000 times the density of chemical energy with zero greenhouse gas or hydrocarbon emissions. This technology could enable the use of an abundance of inexpensive energy to remove active design constraints, leading to new aircraft designs with very low fuel consumption, low noise, and no emissions. The objectives of this project are to: (1) gather as many perspectives as possible on how and where to use LENR for aircraft including the benefits arising from its application, (2) explore the performance, safety, and operational impacts to individual aircraft and the fleet, (3) evaluate potential propulsion system concepts, and (4) foster multi- disciplinary interaction within NASA.

Mr. Wells seems to be quite young — having graduated with a BS in Aeronautical Engineering in 2007, and he is still working on his MS degree — and it’s good to see younger researchers in this are. I imagine his presentation will be getting quite a lot of attention from people following LENR, and having it presented at a NASA event might build LENR awareness among an influential audience.

The NASA web site states that the presentations (each 40 minutes long) will be recorded and be made available for future playback.




  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    Lewis Larsen publish an slideshare on that news

    http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-nasa-project-documenta re-investigating-lenrs-for-powering-future-aircraftjan-20-2014

    I could not read it here, probably interesting…

  • US_Citizen71

    If I had to wager a guess on why NASA scientists believe in LENR and the rest of the US government for the most part disavows any knowledge of the phenomenon it would be due to a secret government program to develop LENR for military use. The US Navy has been studying LENR almost since the rebuttal of Pons and Fleischman’s experiment by the DOE. The Navy has also been working on a ship building program for advanced ships weaponized with lasers and railguns. These ships will require a power system at least as powerful as a modern nuclear aircraft carrier if not more powerful. No new funding for nuclear powered ships has officially been approved, so one can assume they are planning to use another form of power. A black program to develop a LENR power system would move at the speed of government, so it is easy to believe that private research is catching up to them and thus the paradox we see today.

  • GreenWin

    Regulars know that comments here reflect only the opinion of the poster along with whatever facts and evidence they may cite. I find it very disturbing to follow the recent reportage (not behind Krivit’s paywall) re the witch hunt against Oakridge scientist and Purdue University Professor Rusi Taleyarkhan and his sonofusion research.

    I am an American citizen and a patriot of all that is and has been good in the United States. But I find it reprehensible that men and women of good will and purpose have been attacked physically, emotionally and financially due to their intellectual curiosity. Such is the case with Prof Taleyyarkhan, Pons & Fleischmann, and many other sincere scientists.

    “The Navy’s decision to punish Taleyarkhan by blocking his federal
    research funding until September 2011 has caused Taleyarkhan and his
    group to forfeit a hard-won multiyear National Science Foundation/
    Department of Homeland Security collaborative grant that would have
    benefited research professors and students at Purdue, Texas A&M,
    Prairie View A&M and Jefferson High School. Also, if he cannot
    secure other sources of funding, the Purdue Metastable Fluids Research
    Lab, which he manages in leased space off-campus, will have to be
    abandoned. “
    Krivit, NET, #35 July, 2010

    There is always a need for nations to control certain kinds of special knowledge. This applies especially to technology that can be weaponized and used for mass destruction. These are IMO legitimate and necessary concerns. But such concerns must not destroy the ideals and principles under whose flag they are expressed. We cannot have a free and open society that encourages intellectual curiosity in world that condones witch hunts. Or mob-like corrupt rule of academic research and government funding.

    There has never been a greater need for a clean, abundant, form of non-fossil/fission energy. We must encourage, not punish those who search for such alternatives. Such encouragement cannot tolerate egotistical academics and industrialists, or power-mongering government agencies. We need to take a very hard look at ways to communicate legitimate national security concerns, to those involved in open humanitarian research. As we see from the Taleyarkhan and P&F LENR affairs, trumped up charges of fraud and “pseudoscience” destroy not only the lives and careers of good researchers, but many in their communities. This is dishonorable. And for those who take an oath as all US federal employees do, to “Protect and defend the Constitution…” – it compromises their personal and service branch integrity. Hopefully, with LENR commercialization, we begin to put an end to backward knowledge monopolies, and encourage instead, knowledge evolution.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      The line between national security and the bad guys is very thin. I would not like to be the guy making that call!

      • GreenWin

        Right Bernie. It would take a whole village. :)

    • SteveW

      I’m beginning to believe physics standard model has been purposely adulterated to protect secret black-project technology. Perhaps, lenr is only impossible according to this adulterated standard model. It makes developing a theory to the phenomenon based on this adulterated standard model and experimental evidence impossible. Without a theory, it’s hard to take it beyond an experimental curiosity that can be written off as a probable measurement error. It also explains why an edisonian effort, like Rossi’s might succeed and Mills seemingly crazy theory might actually be right.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Inventions are made by inventors such as Rossi. That’s how it has always been and that’s how it is today. Inventions as big as LENR are rare and we are a privileged generation to see it.

        When there is strong and dominant religion, rare and important events are understood as acts of God. If not, myths are created because randomness is not good enough explanation to most people.

  • bachcole

    Please stop me before I say something stupid. From my reading of the Bohr atom vs. the Mills atom, the Mills atom explains more and gives more accurate predictions than does the Bohr atom. Is that not correct? I don’t want to go repeating that unless it is true, and I am trusting you dudes who have superior left brains than I do to confirm that.

    • Curbina

      You can read that the topic is of high controversy, and that Mills is not the only one challenging Bohr’s model.

      http://www.scientificethics.org/Cloonan.pdf

      • Curbina

        On that paper, the introduction is what I think you would find interesting.

    • bitplayer

      Let me see if I’ve got this right. Scientists find some stuff they can’t explain, like black body radiation, wave-particle mis-behavior and Brownian motion, and so they borrow some math that was recently developed called statistical mechanics, whipped it all together and called it quantum mechanics (QM).

      They then noticed that QM explained a lot of stuff. Then, SOMEHOW, they decided that since QM explained so much stuff, that it must explain ALL STUFF (which is to say, all stuff they could measure with the instrumentation and experimental apparatus that they happened to have at the time). Which is to say, if QM (which is just a bunch of math) didn’t allow for it, it must not exist. Or even worse, if QM allowed for it, but they didn’t like the way it looked (or more to the point, they couldn’t figure out a way to measure it), they decided it could not exist.

      At that point, with all phenomena once again safely in the bag, the music stopped, and they could then grab the nearest chair in the latest version of the hierarchy that collects around the downspout of LARGE SCIENCE FUNDING SOURCES.

      And so when someone suggests that there are phenomena that are not explained by the accepted versions of the math, or that there are extensions of the math that might represent un-measured phenomena, the scientists closest to the funding spouts say that that is not scientific, and shut of these interlopers’ funding, ostracize them, impugn their reputations, and so on, but more importantly, deny them the ability to make measurements that might show the existence of phenomena outside the scope of the accepted math.

      Is that about it?

      • bachcole

        Dang, I thought that a “yes” or “no” would suffice. I see that it is much more complicated than that. (:->)

      • Eyedoc

        YEP !

  • Christopher Calder

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3033691/posts

    “NARI announced the 2013 (Round 3) Seedling Fund Phase I Awards on January 28, 2013 and twenty NASA civil servants received awards of $150,000 for research efforts lasting 12 months.” – “NASA Langley Research Center’s Doug Wells of the Aeronautics Systems Analysis Branch was awarded a grant as Principal Investigator for a concept project titled Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Aircraft. The discipline area is Propulsion/Airframe integration.”

    150k is peanuts. We have promised 2.5 billion to Syria for nothing. The US Government is hopeless.

  • bachcole

    I just hope that he doesn’t lose his job.

    • Bit player

      “Expendable”

  • Oceans2014

    here is Doug Wells http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/Wells = “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft”

  • SteveW

    Mainstream science, media, and the government completely ignore,ridicule and often claim lenr a fraud. The government makes energy production projections long into the future which fail to mention lenr. Nasa, in their press releases makes statements claiming that despite their optimistic future outlook of lenr, no one has yet demonstrated a lenr device which produces any significant energy. Yet NASA (part of government) is working on plans for a lenr powered plane. It seems when big news in the field of lenr might break, Nasa makes some press release about their dumb lenr plane.

    • GreenWin

      SteveW, you may be very right. Since Krivit’s New Energy Times investigation today of the “Bubblegate” scandal at Purdue and Oak Ridge Labs, reveals rather sordid collusion between Journal Nature writer Eugenie Reich, the head of Purdue’s School of Nuclear Engineering, University Illinois, UCLA scientists, and the Inspector General of Office of Naval Research.

      The well-known counter to really bad news is to put out some “shiny object” news. The NASA airplane is kinda shiny.

      • Curbina

        Glad you mentioned the “Bubblegate” research. I foudn it today in my e-mail feed and had to recognize once again that no matter how much you dislike Krivit’s attitude, the guy does his job.

        • Oceans2014

          QUOTE: “” Krivit gives me the impression that he excels at digging up dirt on others. If dirt really
          exists, such as in the Taleyarkhan account, Krivit is likely to exhume the remains and expose everything in full Technicolor.””

      • Oceans2014
  • mcloki

    This is actually kind of crazy. NASA does add a bit of credibility. The best part of LENR aircraft is that it would be possible, with it’s unlimited loiter ability, to create “Atmospheric Satellites. No need for orbit just put up one of these LENR Drones and you could set up a cellular network, anywhere, anytime. Would be great for disaster zones or even larger fires. Personal networks. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Lubrication of moving parts tends to limit endurance, howeer. Perhaps X-rays from partly unshielded E-cat could be used to ionise air and then apply MHD drive which has no moving parts.

      • Curbina

        I’m glad you mention MHD propulsion. Are you aware of the work on this field of Dr. Jean Pierre Petit?. He published a divulgative comic book about it called “The Barrier of Silence”, in which he says using Cesium is the way to ionize the air surrounding the vehicle. The only part of his “MHD Flying saucer” that is not available of the shelf is the power source, right where LENR could become the solution.

        • Curbina
          • Pekka Janhunen

            I knew about Petit, but hadn’t seen this cartoon which is absolutely cool. One could also use MHD in a more modest way, if one wants, as propulsion of slow subsonic plane.

            • GreenWin

              Agreed. 20 Tesla?? Wow!

            • Curbina

              Of course Pekka! There was a patent application from a Dr. in 2006 or 7 (his name was Subrata Roy) that was a plagiarism of the work of Petit published in 1976. This was for a MHD drone. This was obviously subsonic, and battery operated. Petit has been claiming for years that many top secret aircraft are indeed MHD capable albeit they have conventional take off and landing jets. Petit also claims that he was working in the USA and when he figured out that his MHD research was for military purposes, he left the country and never got back.

      • mcloki

        Since the Drone can land. Creating a system where the drone is replaced with another drone. Seamless handoff could be achieved for maintenance purposes. Don’t knwo enough abou the MHD drive concept to comment.

  • Gerard McEk

    I am sure that NASA’s constant effort will improve the LENR publicity in the main media. I guess this young guy may have a hard time in replying to critical questions. I hope he will bring some interesting LENR novelties to the audience also.