Posted on 06/20/2013 12:51:25 PM PDT by Kevmo
. LENR Aircraft gets NASA research grant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NASA Aeronautics Research Institute (NARI) was established to pursue “deliberate investments in innovative, early-stage, and potentially revolutionary aviation concepts and technologies.”
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.
Wells holds a 2007 Bachelor’s Degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Western Michigan University, and is expecting to graduate with a Masters Degree from Georgia Institute of Science this year!
Wells was also named in the Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research – Phase II report [.pdf] as a member of the Virtual East team in the workshop that developed advanced concepts and a future timeline for Boeing, NASA and others to generate green aircraft. The team evaluated LENR as having “important advantages, but extremely high risk – if it works, revolutionary to World energy.”
Period of performance for the NARI project grant is February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014. Efforts that show significant progress after a year could be selected to receive a larger grant for 12 more months of research.
Related
“Responsibly imaginable” LENR solutions from NASA
NASA Technology Gateway Spinoff
LENR NASA Series
Next-generation NASA
By Gregory Goble|Thursday, June 20, 2013|Science and Technology, Transportation|5 Comments About the Author: Gregory Goble
5 Comments
georgehants June 20, 2013 at 2:13 AM - Reply
Would this be good enough for a “premier” science comic to publish and confirm what is known about Cold Fusion from Research, or will science as with many subjects, continue to censor, distort and deny anything outside of the religious excepted dictates of their “opinion” experts, who just show how corrupt and incompetent our scientific establishment is in many areas. It seems amazing how most scientists allow themselves to be led by the nose by these people, there seem to be very few that are able to think for themselves and demand that the establishment start following that almost obscene word in this day and age, TRUTH.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Translate] ◦
DrBob June 20, 2013 at 5:28 AM - Reply
Oh so they have being working on this for a few months. Excellent…
Do we know something more except for this?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Translate]
◦
AlainCo June 20, 2013 at 6:53 AM - Reply
Lasyness and rationality.
when you see what happend to a leading scientist http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1634-John-bockris-Example-of-Bullying-against-leading-electrochemist-who-dissent
imagine what can happen to a small physicists… and given that no powerful physicist dare to oppose the terrorists, the small physicists follow their opinion without daring to doubt. both by lasy trust and by rational fear.
you may also read the detail of the Roland benabou paper (many gem are hidden in obscure discussions in that paper) http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf
page18: “Implications. The types of enterprises most prone to collective delusions are thus: (a) Those involving new and complex technologies or products that combine a generally profitable upside with a lower-probability but potentially disastrous downside – a “blackswan” event. High-powered incentives, such as performance bonuses affected by common market uncertainty, have similar effects, as do highly leveraged investments that put the firm at risk of bankruptcy.
(b) Those in which participants have only limited exit options and, consequently, a lot riding on the soundness or folly of otherís judgements. Such dependence typically arises from irreversible or illiquid prior investments: speciÖc human capital, company pension plan, professional reputation, etc. Alternatively, it could reflect the large-scale public good nature of the problem: state of the economy, quality of the government or other society-wide institutions which a single individual has little power to affect, global warming, etc ”
“ Directions of cognitive influence. Going beyond multiplicity, interesting results emerge for organizations in which members play asymmetric roles. Thus, (18)-(19) embody the intuition that an agent’s way of thinking is most sensitive to how the people whose decisions have the greatest impact on his welfare (in state L) deal with unwelcome news…. Workers thus risk losing their job if management makes overoptimistic nvestment decisions, whereas the latter has little to lose if workers put in more e§ort than realistically warranted. When the asymmetry is sufficiently pronounced it leads to a testable pattern of predominantly top-down cognitive influences,…”
“The proposition’s second result shows how cognitive interdependencies (of both types) are amplified, the more closely tied an individualís welfare is to the actions of others. Groupthink is thus most important for closed, cohesive groups whose members perceive that they largely share a common fate and have few exit options. This is in line with Janis’(1972) findings, but with a more operational notion of ‘cohesiveness’, 1 : Such vesting can be exogenous or arise from a prior choice to join the group, in which case wishful beliefs about its future prospects also correspond to ex-post rationalizations of a sunk decision.”
beware, part of the model should also warn us about our exuberance, or some LENr scientists delusion. the problem is that it happens too, and mainly in the mainstream community, when funding is controlled by centralised system of value. attacking the system of value is s suicide.
for a LENR scientist, abandoning his research have no negative consequences except for his ego&illusions, but it can be very good if he succeed in busting ex-colleagues. So according to Benabou theory, if a LENR scientist find a way to disprove LENR he have strong incentive to do it.
the problem is in organization like mainstream where seeing the truth give you no advantage, on the opposite (you get punished for realism). then delusion is a normal state.
However if you are a businessman in real world (not finance), the more the others are stupid, the best it is to be realist. Finance is different because you cannot fight against the market… you only benefit from leading the crowd, not from being right alone.
this theory is very powerful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Translate]
Locutus of Borg June 20, 2013 at 6:14 AM - Reply
Science is the tool we use to find the truth about reality. People are the problem not science.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Translate]
AlainCo June 20, 2013 at 10:05 AM - Reply
getting a grand for “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft” for ” Propulsion Airframe Integration ”
is a HUGE news. the berlin wall is falling. It was said in a public document !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Translate]
Well, COOL. If LENR is real, it is about darn time they do something with it other than demos - like power a car or an aircraft.
More Globull Warming nonsense it looks like.......
I’m not sure what the future will be for LENR but...
It would seem that powering an aircraft is about the last thing on the list to do with LENR.
How about a house? A car? Even a satellite (in keeping with NASA’s former mission).
A satellite would be the right path. If LENR is scaleable, then houses, cars, water heaters, desalination, space stations, boats, trains, HVAC, electricity generation and aircraft would eventually all experience the economic disruption.
A water heater/boiler for a small building would be a great start for a real world test.
I still say that if they do come up with a LENR power aircraft, some folks will claim it’s plugged in, there are hidden batteries, or it was wound up before the test.
Not at all. This is precisely in the "thought mode" that DARPA, ARPA, and similar research organizations are chartered to pursue....very high risk but very high reward technology. I've seem some things a LOT "farther out" than LENR.
How about the following....a "hot air" LENR powered dirigible?? LENR generates electricity for prop drive, and the waste heat provides lift? WAY safer than H2 lift. Pretty much unlimited cruising time/range. Heavy-lift capability that needs no airports. Gigantically higher cargo capacity than any helicopter.
“How about the following....a “hot air” LENR powered dirigible??”
THIS configuration:
http://www.21stcentech.com/transportation-update-new-hybrid-air-vehicle/
looks like a candidate platform. Delete the solar cells, replace the helium bags with “hot gas” ones, and scale to pretty much any size.
You should both be aware that as of this Autumn a commercial 1MW Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Pilot Plant, that has already been certified for industrial (staff to look after it) use, will be running in Sweden as a Showcase:
http://hydrofusion.com/news/wanted-pilot-customer-for-ecat-1-mw-plant
You should further be aware that an improved version of technology has been tested by an independent group of international Scientists Universities and organisations. Their pre publication report is available from various sources such as Los Alamos Labs here:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
And here at Cornell University Library
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
The report is still going through peer review with corrections and queries from peer reviewers before formal publication.
This picture gives you an idea of the current power output that the scientists from Sweden and Italy verified with the E-Cat HT:
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/130520_ragone_04.png
There are plans for a more detailed 6 Month test of the of the latest version which is even more powerful.
Meanwhile the European Parliament is discussing LENR/Cold Fusion/The Fleischman-Pons effect:
http://www.enea.it/it/Ufficio-Bruxelles/documenti/eventi/new-advancements-on-the-fleischmann-pons-effect/agenda-pdf
And Dr. James Truchard: Chairman of National Instruments, the worlds biggest Scientific Instrument maker will be Key Note speaker at this years Cold Fusion Conference at Missouri University:
http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/index.php
Lots of stuff happening now, get ready for a major US anouncement! :)
Imagine having a drone that only needs to land to change the bearings and get a lube job!
I think more about a "container ship" version about the size of the carrier Enterprise or larger. Direct from China to any major city. Probably with 100-1000 individual LENR reactors and gas cells. Massive redundancy. Much faster and probably much cheaper (and safer) than any cargo ship.
The dockworkers and port cities will hate it.
But your vision is also correct. It doesn't have to be rocketry or jet speeds to be useful aeronautically.
Assuming you can fly a plane with LENR you should be able to dispense with a good number of satellites.
While no one was looking we actually ran out of places to build ports for ocean going ships.
One solution was to run container trains day and night from Mexican ports to Indianapolis, and also convert the East Side airport (a major field) into a place for disgorging passengers on European super size airplanes. That would give Indy the position NYC has had for the last 4 centuries!
If you followed the I35 discussions on FR you probably thought they were going to run the lines to Kansas City ~ but since this system would replace current EAST COAST sites Indy would be needed to do the job. KCMO and KANKAN are simply too far West!
LENR solves a problem ~ we would no longer need as many ships.
NASA wants to demonstrate new ways to waste taxpayer money.
How about powering a night light for starters?
We looked further and found a dealer who sells in units of 100 and he wants $2.30 for each light.
Best price I could find on the net for a traditional incandescent candelabra light with same lumens rating was $1.07 each.
What this means is the price of LEDs is falling like a rock!
The power consumption of an LED is remarkably low ~ many of the experimental set ups should be able to light one up.
We'll hold you to this one ~ an LED on an LENR operating unit.
Actually, this might be a fairly good test for almost any power source ~ to wit: However you can do it convert your excess heat or photons to electricity sufficient to charge up a fast charge microminiature battery sufficiently to power a 1 ma LED for 1 min.
Even a Tokamak can't meet that standard!
I can spend a dollar to get a solar powered LED light which uses power from hot nuclear fusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
