LENR Aircraft Examined in AIAA Paper

Thanks to GreenWin for finding the following paper that has just been published on the Aerospace Research Center web site by Robert A. McDonald, Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering at California Polytechnic State University which deals with designing aircraft to incorporate LENR technology. The paper was presented at the 52nd AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) Aerospace Sciences Meeting held in National Harbor, Maryland in January 2014.

The full paper is unfortunately only available to paid subscribers, but an abstract is provided:

“The impact of low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology on the design of aircraft is examined. Energy conversion possibilities considered and a Brayton cycle engine with an LENR heat exchanger is selected. Potential aerospace applications of LENR devices are discussed and a high altitude long endurance (HALE) unmanned aerial vehicle with multi-year endurance is conceptualized with primary focus on energy management.”

This paper reminds of the https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal by NASA analyst Doug Wells in February of this year which similarly looked at the possible use of LENR in aerospace applications — so it seems that there is beginning to be serious consideration of this new technology in various venues.

I would expect that this interest will only increase over time as people begin to realize the significance of LENR — again, a strong E-Cat report could play an pivotal role in getting people about the possibilities this technology can provide.

  • Obvious

    Perhaps he learned his French in Brittany, home of the Brits.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Thank you, I cancelled the stroke.

    • Freethinker

      :D

    • GreenWin

      Well done!

  • Curbina

    The article cites Widom Larsen Theory, in accordance with NASAs previous favoritism of this theory. At least they have been coherent in maintaning that position, which IMHO helps to cement LENR as formal science and not fringe, in spite of the “skeptics”.

    • Omega Z

      Many don’t agree with the Widom Larsen Theory, but if that’s the horse they want to ride, i don’t care as long as it keeps their interest in LENR/CF. The Correct Theory can come later.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        I’m one of the many. I find it disconcerting that so many people follow this theory when Widom Larsen miscalculated the energy it takes to convert a deuteron into two neutrons. It’s NOT half that of the energy it takes to make a proton into a neutron (0.78 MeV) as they seem to think it is.

        It’s the following:

        Energy equivalences of rest masses of:

        Deuteron: 1875.612793 MeV

        Electron: 0.5109906 MeV

        Neutron: 939.56563 MeV

        D + e > 2 n would require 3.01 MeV !! (so 1.50 MeV per neutron created)

        IT’S NOT 0.39 MeV

        We talk about this before.

        http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/10/27/toyota-transumtation-paper-published/

        (Pardon my presbyopia. They said 0.39 MeV not 0.38)

        And they said “0.26 for T”! (that must be way off too)

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Triton: 2808.66699 MeV
          Electron: 0.5109906 MeV
          Neutron: 939.56563 MeV

          T + e > 3n would require 9.52 MeV!!!
          (so 3.17 MeV per neutron created)

          IT’S NOT 0.26 MeV

          • Freethinker

            Wasn’t there something about heavy electrons in there …

            • Alan DeAngelis

              Yeah, but when they do their calculation for a proton plus an electron to a neutron they get 0.78 MeV. So, they do the calculation using an ordinary electron.

              Proton: 938.272 MeV

              Electron: 0.5109906 MeV

              Neutron: 939.56563 MeV

              p + e > n 0.78 MeV

              So, it looks as if they think a deuteron has the same mass as a proton plus a neutron. Their off by 2.2 MeV, the binding energy of the proton and a neutron in a deuteron.

              • Alan DeAngelis

                PS

                So, the point is that you would need a much heavier electron to do the job in a deuterium system than you would in a proton one.

            • kdk

              The heavy electron concept is important to allowing the reaction to take place and also, presumably at least, for “slowing” the radiation.

        • kdk

          IMHO, it’s a conceptual tool. Rossi has stated before that the theory is good at predicting the transmutations that occur, but does not describe the energy. Perhaps the basis for those calculations is wrong, or at least, this is a scenario in which the numbers are different, through different … circumstances… the various constituents which cause said properties as we normally see them in tests?

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah kdk, I’ve been stuck on my pet theory since April of 1989 [a one sentence letter to C&E New (May 15, 1989) where I misspelled Fleischmann] where I thought they’d eventually find transmutations in deuterium palladium systems. So, maybe that’s why I’m not too fond of WLT (especially when it comes to deuterium systems).

  • georgehants

    Who are these crackpot scientists that GreenWin has found, how dare they bring down the name of science by Researching and thinking about a subject that has been deemed impossible by our holy scientific priests.
    If this where to continue, we will have our students being taught to have open-minds, to except the possibilities in all areas that the religious Dogmatic laws and teachings of the holy fathers of science could be wrong.
    I suggest that we all invite back the inquisition, to seek out these heretics and light the cleansing fires before this Evil sin of Truth is set free.

    • GreenWin

      Dear George,
      were this not such an auspicious, promising moment in human history, you might tremble at at the sound of jackboots on your doorstep. If only our “scientific priests” had a touch of the holy in them, where once they were blind, now they might see. :)

      • georgehants

        GreenWin, if it were not so serious it would be very funny.
        This scientific religious Elite has been working since the time of Descartes to keep the scientific community brainwashed to follow only the subjects vetted and approved by their holy selves.
        One today needs only to put on page one of the serious scientific subjects censored by them, such as the clear Evidence that the Mind and body are holistic, to have all the “troops” ready to pounce, with comments at base exactly as I have written above.
        Will Cold Fusion be the catalyst for change.
        Do piggies fly.
        One can only live in hope.l

        • Obvious

          George, I found some evidence that the world of science, and the world in general, is improving. For your perusal:

          http://www.scientificcomputing.com/blogs/2014/06/new-lego-set-celebrates-women-science

          • georgehants

            Ha, seems like about the best that the average scientist could comprehend.

            • Obvious

              But as we have discussed, facts are not Facts, and evidence is circumstantial in the macro world, and needs context in the Quantum world. So how can a scientist, in good conscience, possibly reply with an answer that is any good?
              Cheers,
              O

              • georgehants

                Obvious, is it not strange that the average scientist always try’s to find a way of avoiding talking about Facts etc.

                Try a little self analysis and we may be able to move on to the things that are important in life to people other than just ourselves.

                • Ophelia Rump

                  I always thought it was because scientists learn from experience that no one will have a frigging clue what they are saying, because they are so specialized.

                • georgehants

                  Ophelia, round and round the mulberry bush, how about you chose a subject that we can discuss proving that the average scientist is incompetent.
                  Let me suggest something easy for you. ——

                  The existence of fairies.
                  Let’s see how you can handle that subject.

                • Bernie777

                  Please Ophelia, any subject other than incompetent “scientists”.

                • Ophelia Rump

                  Sorry, even though he said I get to choose, I only get to choose any argument about the competence of scientists. Read the small print.

                • Ophelia Rump

                  What can be said of the average scientist is that they are average.

                  Half the population has an IQ below average, it has always been this way.

                  If half the scientists are average and the other half above average then scientists are well ahead of the rest of humanity in their competence.

                  And yes, the process for generating scientists is one of exclusivity.
                  The truly stupid do not make the grade, so do not argue that half must be below average like the rest of humanity.

                  Prove to me that man is intelligent in the first place, and therefore capable of competence. What is this competence, who is the judge of competence?

                  Is there some objective measure of competence. If you would argue against the competence of science, you must measure it, quantify it, hold it to the light and examine the nature of competence itself.

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

                  half of people are below the median … not always the average, anyway I get the idea.

                  Some people have said that mass production of PhD in modern societies, have helped industry benefit from good talents, but have also ruined top science with mass of mediocrity.

                  Anyway I don’t think, and even I think the opposite, that IQ is the problem. The problem first is the “profile” of scientist who are too “normal” today, they are not anymore crazy guys, alien, hysterical fringe believers, or nasty money seekers… they are well formated, rational, seeking for a salary, a tenure, peer review, citation index…

                  Beside that Thomas Kuhn

                  http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

                  explain that structurally science when it passed a revolution period (that feyerabend would say it is the most productive period) enter a “normal science” period, where students are trained to think inside the paradigm, inside the box, to defend the paradigm with claws and teeth.
                  Myu feeling is that the tragedy of current western globalized science is not mediocrity, not even unavoidable kuhian “normal science”, or mass edication…
                  it is evolution of science towar a centralized soviet system, a hierarchical organization, unified dogmatic “normal science”.

                  all we need is island of heresy, numerous school that have their own Nobel, their own Nature/Science/Cell, their own budget, their own DoE/APS/AAAS/IPCC.

                  i have a big hope that Asia will do the job soon..

                • georgehants

                  You again are seemingly missing my point, I am only concerned with the failure of science to do the job it is there for.
                  To Research the unknown for the betterment of mankind.
                  I am simply pointing out, no matter how you interpret and go round with what I say —–
                  Science has proved with Cold Fusion and many other subjects that it is incompetent and corrupt in it’s work.
                  I have no wish to waste time discussing academic merry go rounds about this, just hearing what scientists like yourself and all the others, average or otherwise, are planning to do about it, to be sure that such crimes cannot occur again.
                  Best

                • kdk

                  Who’s to say there aren’t fairies on other planets?:D Disproving faeries sounds like a fool’s errand, to me.

                • bachcole

                  “They” say that you can’t prove a negative. It seems to me that the only two of three positions that one can hold with certainty is “I don’t know” or “I am certain”. One cannot be certain about there being no XYZ. It would be, to my mind, intellectually dishonest. This means that atheism or disbelieving in LENR or anything for that matter is intellectually dishonest.

                • Obvious

                  I suspect the problem is that scientists, because their knowledge base is based on prior knowledge, don’t like to consider how shaky and subjective the base of their beliefs are, and therefore their own position relative to the upside down pyramid of knowledge and alleged Facts. Doubting the base of knowledge is like pulling out the tablecloth from under the dishes and vase of flowers on a table, and there is perhaps some fear that the collection of items on the table might not still be where they belong if the tablecloth isn’t pulled right. So rather than pull the cloth sharply and see what happens, they prefer to leave it the way it is. Of course this is foolish, since someone, for better or worse, will inevitably pull the tablecloth out anyway.

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

                  what you describe is a paradigm as thomas kuhn describe it..

                  with scientist refusing to consider anomalies out of their “normal science”

                  http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

                  however normally ther should be various kind of scientists, and various schools…
                  for example the paradigm of chemist make them sure cold fusion was a real anomaly, because they cannot challenge their paradigm where calorimetry, thermodynamics, chemistry energy scale, mixing, heat transfer, are well defined and constrained…

                  the horror of cold fusion denial is simply because the chemist were censored, terrorized by the physicist which where much higher in the hierarchy of aristocratic science, despite being clearly proven to be incompetent in the experimental side.

                • Obvious

                  LENR is like pulling the table cloth, and the place settings rearrange so that there is now a new setting ready for another seat at the table, although some seats may end up short a salad fork or dessert spoon…

        • Ophelia Rump
          • georgehants

            You start the discussion.

            • Ophelia Rump

              I accept your challenge, I think Nikola Tesla a far more influential scientist, than Einstein.

              Tesla, not Einstein is the poster scientist for what is happening today with LENR.

              Einstein never broke through a wall of censorship, he was locked behind walls of censorship when he declined to work on the bomb.

              If LENR power is distributed to the personal level, then Tesla’s struggle to empower mankind will have finally been won. If this power source is metered out to the individual, all of mankind will be enslaved to the few who own the rights to distribution.

              • georgehants

                Ophelia, thank you, unfortunately I have no interest in such discussions, that academically may be interesting but practically are just opinions that serve very little purpose in putting right the horrors of the Cold Fusion sage.
                You make bland statements of opinion such as “Einstein never broke through a wall of censorship,” as if the point is not debatable, which of course it is.
                I only debate Facts and Evidence on subjects that are censored by much of science such as Cold Fusion.
                Best

      • Ophelia Rump

        No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE

        • georgehants

          Ophelia, as usual you miss the point, dumb scientists are the equal of the inquisition, Ha.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Yes, I must say I still miss that point.
            No argument from me on that.

        • GreenWin

          Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, and yet there they are… on TV! Comedy writers quiver at the thought.

    • Alain Samoun

      Now that I know that Shakespeare could have been French:
      “to except the possibilities…”
      You mean “to accept the possibilities…”.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Wait, what, Shakespeare, French, Blasphemor!

      • psi2u2

        de Vere is a Norman name, but the de Veres “came over with the Conqueror” as William Sly says of himself in the induction to *Taming of a Shrew.*