I

TERM PAPER PRESENTATION ON

ANALYSIS ON NUCLEAR COLD

FUSION REACTION AND IT’S

FUTURE ASPECTS At

Rajasthan

Submitted by- Anurag Bhattacharjee (B.Tech-Chemical), 3rd Sem

II

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that ANURAG BHATTACHARJEE ,student of B.Tech

Chemical Engineering has carried out the work presented in the project of the term

paper Entitled “NUCLEAR COLD FUSION REACTION AND IT’S FUTURE

ASPECTS” as part of Second- Year programme of Bachelor of Technology in

chemical engineering from Amity School of Engineering and Technology, Amity

University Rajasthan, under my supervision.

DATE:26/09/2014

MRS. SHIKHA SINGH MITTAL

REPORT GUIDE

ASET, AUR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

III

I owe a great many thanks many people who helped and supported me during

the writing of this Term paper.

My deepest thanks to Lecturer, Mrs Shikha Singh Mittal the Guide of the project

for guiding and correcting various documents of mine with attention and care. She

has taken pain to go through the project and make necessary correction as and

when needed.

I would also thank my Institution- “AMITY UNIVERSITY RAJASTHAN”

and my faculty members without whom this project would have been a distant

reality. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and well wishers.

ABSTRACT-

IV

Nuclear Energy is the need of the hour as far as future energy resources are concerned. As

compared to other renewable and eco-friendly energy sources like solar energy, wind energy,

tidal energy , it is not entirely dependent on factors like geographical location, intensity of

light/sunlight, weather conditions etc. In 2012, 13% of world’s electricity is provided by

nuclear power stations.

Nuclear Energy is basically obtained from two process – 1.Fission and 2.Fusion

In the process of fission, a heavy nuclei atom like that of uranium splits up into two or more

smaller nuclei atom

when collided with fast moving neutrons giving out a large quantity of energy. This energy can

be controlled and utilized in a systematic manner and that’swhy there are many successfully

operating fission plants in the world.

But nuclear fission plants has also some major disadvantages like –disposal of nuclear waste,

scarce availability of raw material, radiation leakage, critical maintenance conditions and many

more.

On the contrary, in case of fusion lighter nuclei atoms combine to form heavy nuclei atom. In

this process they require extreme pressure and temperature just like inside the sun but artificially

this is made possible with the help of lasers, thermonuclear fusion or some other technique. The

major advantages of fusion over fission power plants is that it’s wastes are safe, renewable, raw

material are cheap and also operating cost is much less. But this techniques are still under many

speculations and research due it’s peculiar requirements.

For this vary reason, scientists and researchers are trying to make this process possible at room

temperature for many decades as if it is done successfully, then it would be the greatest

achievement of mankind in this century as it would become the biggest renewable and eco-

friendly energy source of our future.

i. ABBREVIATIONS USED-

V

a) LENR- Low energy nuclear reactions

b) CANR- Chemically assisted nuclear reactions

c) LANR- Lattice assisted nuclear reactions

d) CMNS- Condensed matter nuclear science

e) LDX- Levitated dipole experiment

f) SPAWAR- Space and Naval warfare systems centre

g) ENEA- Energy and sustainable economic development

h) NASA- National aeronautics and space administration

i) E-CAT- Energy catalyzer

ii. TABLE FOR FIGURE-

S,NO FIG. NO.- NAME OF FIG. - PAGE NO. –

1 1.1 Schematic diagram of N.plant 3

2 1.2 M.C. fusion reactor 7

3 2.1 Basic fusion reaction process 10

4 3.1 1 Mw fusion plant 16

5 3.2 Inner Ni-H lattice 19

INDEX -

VI

Page No.

I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………....1

II. LITURATURE SURVEY………………………………………………….9

III. CURRENT RESEARCH ………………………………………………..16

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS……………27

V. BIBLOGRAPHY……………………………………………………….....29

VI. REFERENCES…………………………………………………………....30

1

CHAPTER- 1

iii. INTRODUCTION – In the contemporary world where there is huge requirement of energy resources, crude oil obtained from the fossils and coal are the major sources of energy to us. But while using these

resources, even if in a very systematic and judicious manner we have to remember one important thing that all these natural resources are limited and will surely get exhausted

some day. Besides this, the venomous gasses produced by burning these resources also cannot be overlooked as far as environmental consequences are concerned. So we have to think, search and swap to some better eco-friendly, cheap and viable alternatives

in order to meet our future energy requirements. So, one of this kind of unique but efficient alternative in this field is the nuclear cold fusion reaction. But before we proceed, we should have a brief but comprehensive knowledge about nuclear

energy.

NUCLEAR ENERGY:- It basically refers to the energy that is being harnessed from the core of Atomic nucleus. In

other words it is the energy that remains trapped inside an atom i.e the most basic unit of matter.

It’s major advantages are-

1.SAFETY-The major advantage of fusion reactors will not produce high-level nuclear wastes

like their fission counterparts, so disposal will be less of a problem.

2.ECONOMIC VIABILITY- In addition, it will be cheap as Deuterium can be readily extracted

from seawater, and excess tritium can be made in the fusion reactor itself from lithium, which

is readily available in the Earth's crust.

3.CLEAN- No combustion occurs in nuclear power (fission or fusion), so there is no air pollution.

4.LESS NUCLEAR WASTE-Fusion reactors will not produce high-level nuclear wastes like their

fission counterparts, so disposal will be less of a problem. In addition, the wastes will not be of

weapons-grade nuclear materials as is the case in fission reactors.

Now again, one of the laws of the universe is that matter and energy can neither be created nor

destroyed. But they can be changed in form. Matter can be changed into energy. Albert

Einstein’s famous mathematical formula E = mc2 explains this. The equation says: E [energy]

2

equals m [mass] times c2 [c stands for the speed or velocity of light]. This means that it is mass

multiplied by the square of the velocity of light.

Later, scientists used Einstein's equation as the key to unlock atomic energy and to create atomic

bombs. An atom's nucleus can be split apart. This is known as fission. When this is done, a

tremendous amount of energy in the form of both heat and light is released by the initiation of a

chain reaction. This energy, when slowly released, can be harnessed to generate electricity. But,

when it is released all at once, it results in a tremendous explosion as in an atomic bomb.

In case of fission,

Uranium is the main element required to run a nuclear reactor where energy is extracted.

Uranium is mined from many places around the world. It is processed (to get enriched uranium,

i.e. the radioactive isotope) into tiny pellets. These pellets are loaded into long rods that are put

into the power plant's reactor. Inside the reactor of an atomic power plant, uranium atoms are

split apart in controlled chain reaction. Other fissile material includes plutonium and thorium.

In a chain reaction, particles released by the splitting of the atom strike other uranium atoms and

split them. The particles released by this further split other atoms in a chain process. In nuclear

power plants, control rods are used to keep the splitting regulated, so that it does not occur too

fast. These are called Moderators.

The chain reaction gives off heat energy. This heat energy is used to boil heavy water in the core

of the reactor. So, instead of burning a fuel, nuclear power plants use the energy released by the

chain reaction to change the energy of atoms into heat energy. The heavy water from around the

nuclear core is sent to another section of the power plant. Here it heats another set of pipes filled

with water to make steam. The steam in this second set of pipes rotates a turbine to generate

electricity. If the reaction is not controlled, you could have an atomic bomb.

3

FIG: 1.1

But in atomic bombs, almost pure pieces of uranium-235 or plutonium, of a precise mass and

shape, must be brought together and held together with great force. These conditions are not

present in a nuclear reactor.

The reaction also creates radioactive material. This material could hurt people if released, so it is

kept in a solid form. A strong concrete dome is built around the reactor to prevent this material

from escaping in case of an accident.

4

Experiences with nuclear programmes differ and the future of nuclear power remains uncertain

because of public reaction/fear. But in the past few years the capacity of operating nuclear plants

has increased more than twentyfold. There are more than 400 nuclear power plants providing

about 7% of the world's primary energy and about 25% of the electric power in industrialized

nations.

The growth of nuclear power combined with the shift from carbon-heavy fuels such as coal and oil to

carbon-light gas contribute to the gradual ‘de-carbonization’ of the world energy system.

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Japans Hiroshima and Nagasaki Blast and other nuclear accidents have

increased the fear of harnessing nuclear fission energy. Another issue with international and local

implications is the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes: both from nuclear reactors making

electricity and from the production of military weapons. Earlier disposal practices, such as dumping of

nuclear waste at sea, have been completely stopped by formal treaty because of environmental concerns

(and by cessation of furtive scuttling of nuclear submarines). Regimes for transport and temporary

storage of civil and defence nuclear wastes now function, although sites and designs for permanent

disposal have yet to be accepted.

Names of some successfully operating nuclear fission reactors-

Country

In operation Under construction

Number Electr. net output MW

Number Electr. net output MW

Argentina 3 1,627 1 25

Armenia 1 375 - -

Belarus - - 1 1.109

Belgium 7 5,927 - -

Brazil 2 1,884 1 1,245

Bulgaria 2 1,906 - -

Canada 19 13,500 - -

China (6 reactors in Taiwan)

22 18,056 27 26,756

Czech Republic 6 3,884 - -

Finland 4 2,752 1 1,600

France 58 63,130 1 1,630

Germany 9 12,068 - -

Hungary 4 1,889 - -

India 21 5,308 6 3,907

Iran 1 915 - -

Japan 48 42,388 2 1.325

5

Korea, Republic 23 20,721 5 6,370

Mexico 2 1,330 - -

Netherlands 1 482 - -

Pakistan 3 690 2 630

Romania 2 1,300 - -

Russian Federation 33 23,643 10 8,382

Slovakian Republic 4 1,815 2 880

Slovenia 1 688 - -

South Africa 2 1,860 - -

Spain 7 7,121 - -

Sweden 10 9,474 - -

Switzerland 5 3,308 - -

Taiwan, China 6 5,032 2 2,600

Ukraine 15 13,107 2 1,900

United ArabEmirates - - 2 2,690

United Kingdom 16 9,243 - -

United Arab Emirates - - 2 2,690

USA 100 99,081 5 5,633

Total 437 374,504 70 66,682

Nuclear power plants world-wide, in operation and under construction, IAEA as of 28 August 2014

Now, in case of fusion

Fusion happens when two (or more) nuclei come close enough for the strong nuclear force to

exceed the electrostatic force and pull them together. This process takes light nuclei and forms a

heavier one, through a nuclear reaction. For nuclei lighter than iron-56 this is exothermic and

releases energy. For nuclei heavier than iron-56 this is endothermic and requires an external

source of energy. Hence, nuclei smaller than iron-56 are more likely to fuse while those heavier

than iron-56 are more likely to break apart.

To fuse, nuclei must overcome the repulsive Coulomb force. This is a force caused by the nuclei

containing positively charged protons which repel via the electromagnetic force. To overcome

this "Coulomb barrier", the atoms must have a high kinetic energy. There are several ways of

doing this, including heating or acceleration. Once an atom is heated above its ionization energy,

its electrons are stripped away, leaving just the bare nucleus: the ion. Most fusion experiments

use a hot cloud ofions and electrons. This cloud is known as a Plasma. Most fusion reactions

produce neutrons, which can be detected and degrade materials.

6

Theoretically, any atom could be fused, if enough pressure and temperature was

applied. Mankind has studied many high energy fusion reactions, using particles beams. These

are fired at a target. However, for a power plant, we are currently limited to only the light

elements. Hydrogen is ideal: because of its small charge, it is the easiest atom to fuse. This

reaction produces helium.

Fusion reaction takes place at all times in the sun, which provides us with the solar energy.

Fusion power is a primary area of research in Plasma physics. This technology was at the

experimental stage till many decades of nineteenth and twentieth century.

Possible Methods for achieving fusion -

1. Thermonuclear fusion

If the matter is sufficiently heated (hence being plasma), the fusion reaction may occur due to

collisions with extreme thermal kinetic energies of the particles. In the form of thermonuclear

weapons, thermonuclear fusion is the only fusion technique so far to yield undeniably large

amounts of useful fusion energy. Usable amounts of thermonuclear fusion energy released in a

Controlled manner have yet to be achieved.

2. Inertial confinement fusion:

Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) is a type of fusion energy research that attempts to initiate

nuclear fusion reactions by heating and compressing a fuel target, typically in the form of a pellet

that most often contains a mixture of deuterium and tritium.

3. Magnetic confinement fusion-

Tokamak-

The basic principle of magnetic confinement is to hold plasma fuel in place with magnets and

then heat it up using a combination of microwaves, radio waves, and particles beams.

Researchers often do this in a tokamak, a donut-shaped reactor.. As of January 2011 there were

an estimated 177 tokamak experiments either planned, decommissioned or currently operating,

worldwide. This method races hot plasma around in a magnetically confined ring. When

completed, ITER will be the world's largest Tokamak.

7

Stellarator These are twisted rings of hot plasma. Stellarators are distinct from tokamak in that they are not azimuthally symmetric. Instead, they have a discrete rotational symmetry, often

fivefold, like a regular pentagon. Stellarators were developed by Lyman Spitzer in 1950. There are four designs: Torsatron, Heliotron, Heliac and Helias.

(LDX)- These use a solid superconducting torus. This is magnetically levitated inside the reactor chamber. The superconductor forms an axisymmetric magnetic field which contains the

plasma. The LDX was developed between MIT and Columbia University after 2000 by Jay Kesner and Michael E. Mauel.

Magnetic mirror- Developed by Richard F. Post and teams at LLNL in the 1960s. Magnetic mirrors reflected hot plasma back and forth in a line. Variations included the magnetic bottle and

the biconic cusp. A series of well-funded, large, mirror machines were built by the US government in the 1970s and 1980s.

Field-reversed configuration- This device confines a plasma on closed magnetic field lines without a central penetration.

FIG: 1.2

8

Names of some operating Plasma research centers –

1. Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching - at GERMANY

2. Leibniz Institute for Plasma Science and Technology in Greifswald - at GERMANY

3. Drexel University in Pennsylvania - at UNITED STATES

4. University of Orleans – at FRANCE

5.Plasma Research Centre of Gujarat – at INDIA

But the major problem with simple fusion is that we don't have the technology to recreate the

Sun's massive pressures, so researchers have to make up for that by getting hydrogen atoms even

hotter than the sun does — in the range of hundreds of millions of degrees Fahrenheit. They heat

up the atoms using various tools, including particle beams, electromagnetic fields such as

microwaves and radio waves, and lasers.

The temperatures needed are so hot that the hydrogen fuel becomes a plasma, a state of matter

that exists when a gas's atoms split into positively and negatively charged particles. Researchers

have been producing controlled fusion reactions for decades. And that’s the main point from

where the idea of fusion reaction at room temperature originates and that is the Nuclear Cold

Fusion Reaction.

9

CHAPTER- 2

iv. LITERATURE SURVEY –

J. Tandberg,s Experimental work- In 1927, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg stated that he had fused hydrogen into helium in

an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes. On the basis of his work, he applied for a Swedish

patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy".After deuterium was

discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with heavy water. Due to Paneth and

Peters's retraction, Tandberg's patent application was eventually denied. His application for a

patent in 1927 was denied as he could not explain the physical process.

Fleischmann–Pons experiment-

The most famous cold fusion claims were made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in

1989. After a brief period of interest by the wider scientific community, their reports were called

into question by nuclear physicists. Pons and Fleischmann never retracted their claims, but

moved their research program to France after the controversy erupted.

In mid-March 1989, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann

and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on March 24 to send their papers toNature via FedEx.

Fleischmann and Pons, however, pressured by the University of Utah, which wanted to establish

priority on the discovery, broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the Journal

of Electroanalytical Chemistry on March 11, and disclosing their work via a press release[and

press conference on March 23. Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to Nature after the press

conference.

Fleischmann and Pons' announcement drew wide media attention. Cold fusion was proposing the

counterintuitive idea that a nuclear reaction could be caused to occur inside a chemically bound

crystal structure. But the 1986 discovery of high-temperature superconductivity had made the

scientific community more open to revelations of unexpected scientific results that could have

10

huge economic repercussions and that could be replicated reliably even if they had not been

predicted by established conjecture. And many scientists were also reminded of the Mössbauer

effect, a process involving nuclear transitions in a solid. Its discovery 30 years earlier had also

been unexpected, though it was quickly replicated and explained within the existing physics

framework.

FIG: 2.1

Subsequent research

Cold fusion and hot fusion compared

COLD FUSION HOT FUSION

1.Occurs only in special solids. 1. Occurs in plasma or when

energy is applied.

2.Responds to modest energy but not required. 2. Requires high energy.

3.Uses protium (H) or deuterium (D). 3. Uses tritium and deuterium

4.Makes mostly helium (4He) when D is used. 4. Makes tritium and neutrons.

5.Produces insignificant radiation. 5 .Produces significant radiation.

6.Can be initiated in simple devices at high O/I levels. 6. Requires a huge machine to produce

high O/I levels.

7.Has been studied for 23 years using about $0.5 B. 7.Has been studied for over 70 years using

well over $25 B.

8.Energy generators can be located in each home. 8.The energy generator is huge and must

be located well away from populations.

11

Cold fusion research continues today in a few specific venues, but the wider scientific

community has generally marginalized the research being done and researchers have had

difficulty publishing in mainstream journals. The remaining researchers often term their field

LENR or CANR, also LANR,CMNS and Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions; one of the reasons

being to avoid the negative connotations associated with "cold fusion". The new names avoid

making bold implications, like implying that fusion is actually occurring. Proponents see the new

terms as a more accurate description of the theories they put forward.

The researchers who continue acknowledge that the flaws in the original announcement are the

main cause of the subject's marginalization, and they complain of a chronic lack of funding and

no possibilities of getting their work published in the highest impact journals. University

researchers are often unwilling to investigate cold fusion because they would be ridiculed by

their colleagues and their professional careers would be at risk. In 1994, David Goodstein, a

professor of physics at Caltech, advocated for increased attention from mainstream researchers

and described cold fusion as:

a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between cold fusion and respectable

science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published

in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical

scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a

community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be

accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside

the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters

worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here.

A 1991 review by a cold fusion proponent had calculated "about 600 scientists" were still

conducting research. After 1991, cold fusion research only continued in relative obscurity,

conducted by groups that had increasing difficulty securing public funding and keeping programs

open. These small but committed groups of cold fusion researchers have continued to conduct

experiments using Fleischmann and Pons electrolysis set-ups in spite of the rejection by the

mainstream community. The Boston Globe estimated in 2004 that there were only 100 to 200

12

researchers working in the field, most suffering damage to their reputation and career. Since the

main controversy over Pons and Fleischmann had ended, cold fusion research has been funded

by private and small governmental scientific investment funds in the United States, Italy, Japan,

and India.

COUNTRY SPECIFIC RESEARCH -

United States

U.S. Navy researchers at the SPAWAR in San Diego have been studying cold fusion since

1989. In 2002, they released a two-volume report, "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O

system," with a plea for funding. This and other published papers prompted a 2004 Department

of Energy (DOE) review.

In August 2003 the U.S. Secretary of Energy Abraham ordered the DOE to organize a second

review of the field. This was thanks to an April 2003 letter sent by MIT's Peter L.

Hagelstein, and the publication of many new papers, including the Italian ENEA and other

researchers in the 2003 International Cold Fusion Conference, and a two-volume book by

U.S. SPAWAR in 2002. Cold fusion researchers were asked to present a review document of all

the evidence since the 1989 review. The report was released in 2004. The reviewers were "split

approximately evenly" on whether the experiments had produced energy in the form of heat, but

"most reviewers, even those who accepted the evidence for excess power production, 'stated that

the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of

work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.'". In summary,

reviewers found that cold fusion evidence was still not convincing 15 years later, and they didn't

recommend a federal research program. They only recommended that agencies consider funding

individual well-thought studies in specific areas where research "could be helpful in resolving

some of the controversies in the field". They summarized its conclusions thus:

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review

of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found

in the 1989 review.

The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in

resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects

13

of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles

reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The

reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with

proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

— Report of the (Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), US Department of Energy,

December 2004

Cold fusion researchers placed a "rosier spin" on the report, noting that they were finally being

treated like normal scientists, and that the report had increased interest in the field and caused "a

huge upswing in interest in funding cold fusion research." However, in a 2009 BBC article on an

American Chemical Society's meeting on cold fusion, particle physicist Frank Close was quoted

stating that the problems that plagued the original cold fusion announcement were still

happening: results from studies are still not being independently verified and inexplicable

phenomena encountered are being labelled as "cold fusion" even if they are not, in order to

attract the attention of journalists.

In February 2012 millionaire Sidney Kimmel, convinced that cold fusion was worth investing in

by a 19 April 2009 interview with physicist Robert Duncan on the US news-show 60

minutes, made a grant of $5.5 million to the University of Missouri to establish the Sidney

Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR). The grant was intended to support research

into the interactions of hydrogen with palladium, nickel or platinum at extreme conditions. In

March 2013 Graham K. Hubler, a nuclear physicist who worked for the Naval Research

Laboratory for 40 years, was named director. One of the SKINR projects is to replicate a 1991

experiment in which Prelas says bursts of millions of neutrons a second were recorded, which

was stopped because "his research account had been frozen". He claims that the new experiment

has already seen "neutron emissions at similar levels to the 1991 observation".

Italy

Since the Fleischmann and Pons announcement, the Italian National agency for new

technologies, ENEA has funded Franco Scaramuzzi's research into whether excess heat can be

measured from metals loaded with deuterium gas. Such research is distributed across ENEA

departments, CNRLaboratories, INFN, universities and industrial laboratories in Italy, where the

14

group continues to try to achieve reliable reproducibility (i.e. getting the phenomena to happen in

every cell, and inside a certain frame

of time). In 2006–2007, the ENEA founded a research program which claimed to have found

excess power up to 500%, and in 2009 ENEA hosted the 15th cold fusion conference.

Japan

Between 1992 and 1997, Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry sponsored a "New

Hydrogen Energy (NHE)" program of US$20 million to research cold fusion. Announcing the

end of the program in 1997, the director and one-time proponent of cold fusion research Hideo

Ikegami stated "We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion. (...) We can't

find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future." In 1999 the Japan

C-F Research Society was established to promote the independent research into cold fusion that

continued in Japan. The society holds annual meetings. Perhaps the most famous Japanese cold

fusion researcher isYoshiaki Arata, from Osaka University, who claimed in a demonstration to

produce excess heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a cell containing a mixture of

palladium and zirconium oxide, a claim supported by fellow Japanese researcher Akira

Kitamura of Kobe University and McKubre at SRI.

India

In the 1990s, India stopped its research in cold fusion at the Bhabha Atomic Research

Centre because of the lack of consensus among mainstream scientists and the US denunciation of

the research. Yet, in 2008, the National Institute of Advanced Studies recommended the Indian

government to revive this research. Projects were commenced at the Chennai's Indian Institute of

Technology, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic

Research. However, there is still skepticism among scientists and, for all practical purposes,

research is still stopped.

15

PUBLICATIONS-

The ISI identified cold fusion as the scientific topic with the largest number of published papers

in 1989, of all scientific disciplines. The Nobel Laureate Julian Schwingerdeclared himself a

supporter of cold fusion in the fall of 1989, after much of the response to the initial reports had

turned negative. He tried to publish his theoretical paper- ("Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis"

in Physical Review Letters), but the peer reviewers rejected it so harshly that he felt deeply

insulted, and he resigned from the American Physical Society(publisher of PRL) in protest.

The number of papers sharply declined after 1990 because of two simultaneous

phenomena: scientists abandoning the field and journal editors declining to review new papers,

and cold fusion fell off the ISI charts. Researchers who got negative results abandoned the field,

while others kept publishing. A 1993 (paper in Physics Letters A) was the last paper published

by Fleischmann, and "one of the last reports to be formally challenged on technical grounds by a

cold fusion skeptic".

(The Journal of Fusion Technology(FT) ) established a permanent feature in 1990 for cold fusion

papers, publishing over a dozen papers per year and giving a mainstream outlet for cold fusion

researchers. When editor-in-chief George H. Miley retired in 2001, the journal stopped accepting

new cold fusion papers. This has been cited as an example of the importance of sympathetic

influential individuals to the publication of cold fusion papers in certain journals.

Cold fusion reports continued to be published in a small cluster of specialized journals

like (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry) and (Il Nuovo Cimento). Some papers also

appeared in (Journal of Physical Chemistry), (Physics Letters A), (International Journal of

Hydrogen Energy), and a number of Japanese and Russian journals of physics, chemistry, and

engineering. Since 2005, Naturwissenschaften has published cold fusion papers; in 2009, the

journal named a cold fusion researcher to its editorial board.

In the 1990s, the groups that continued to research cold fusion and their supporters established

(non-peer-reviewed) periodicals such as (Fusion Facts), (Cold Fusion Magazine),(Infinite

Energy Magazine) and (New Energy Times) to cover developments in cold fusion and other

fringe claims in energy production that were ignored in other venues. The internet has also

become a major means of communication and self-publication for CF research.

16

CHAPTER-3

v. CURRENT RESEARCH –

1. One Mega Watt cold fusion reation plant is now available for common masses-

The first cold fusion power plant is now available to pre-order. The E-Cat 1MW Plant, which

comes in a standard shipping container, can produce one megawatt of thermal energy, using

LENR — a process, often known as cold fusion, that fuses nickel and hydrogen into copper,

producing energy 100,000 times more efficiently than combustion. It sounds like E-Cat is now

taking orders for delivery in early 2014, priced fairly reasonably at $1.5 million.

E-Cat to give its full name, is a technology (and company of the same name) developed by

Andrea Rossi — an Italian scientist who claims he’s finally harnessed cold fusion. Due to a lack

of published papers, and thus peer review, and a dearth of protective patents — which you would

really expect if Rossi had actually discovered cold fusion — the scientific community in general

remains very wary of Rossi’s claims.

FIG: 3.1

17

According to E-Cat, each of its cold fusion reactors measures 20x20x1 centimeters, and you

stack these individual reactors together in parallel to create a thermal plant. Pictured right is a

computer-generated render of an E-Cat Home Unit, which is essentially a bunch of reactors

stacked in a box. The E-Cat 1MW Plant consists of 106 of these units rammed into a standard

shipping container. For now, this is just a thermal power plant — it produces warm water and

steam. In theory you could strap an electric generator to the 1MW plant to produce cheap, clean

power — but for some reason E-Cat doesn’t seem to be talking about that just yet. The fuel cost

works out to be $1 per megawatt-hour, apparently, which is utterly insane — coal power is

around $100 per megawatt-hour.

2. NASA LENR Aircraft and Spaceplanes-

Doug Wells will also present a paper at the AIAA Aviation 2014 Conference, a Study

Webinar by Marty Bradley available through the American Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics, and a paper was presented in January, at the 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting,

by Robert A. McDonald from Cal Poly.

Thousands upon thousands of savvy people are now grasping that cold fusion is emerging as a

source of clean energy beyond our most promising dreams, with the power to move humanity

through our next evolution. With popular cold fusion/LENR science, we are on the verge of an

epic technological advancement with the concurrent personal, social, economic, environmental,

spiritual, and philosophical advancements.

With that change in energetics, the paradigm changes, and we begin building an ecologically

sustainable society.

Purpose-

The purpose of this research is to investigate the potential vehicle performance impact of

applying the emergent 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.

18

The objectives of this project are to gather as many perspectives as possible on how and where to

use a very high density energy source for aircraft including the benefits arising from its

application, explore the performance impacts to aircraft, and evaluate potential propulsion

system concepts.

Background

LENR is a type of nuclear energy and is expected to be clean, safe, portable, scalable, and

abundant. The expected benefits make it an ideal energy solution. When it is applied to aircraft,

LENR removes the environmental impacts of fuel burn and emission from combustion. Excess

energy could be used to reduce noise so that all three of NASA’s technology goals for future

subsonic vehicles are either eliminated or addressed.

Furthermore, aviation impacts almost every part of our daily lives, civilian and military.

A revolutionary technology like LENR has the potential to completely change how businesses,

military, and the country operate as a whole, giving a tremendous financial, tactical, and resource

advantage to anyone that utilizes it in the most effective way.

High-density energy sources create some unique capabilities as well as challenges for integration

into aircraft.

An LENR concept that has reported some success generates heat in a catalyst process that

combines nickel metal (Ni) with hydrogen gas (H). The initial testing and theory show that

radiation and radioisotopes are extremely short lived and can be easily shielded.

19

FIG: 3.2

Although nuclear fission has been looked at for use in aircraft, LENR is different. LENR has a

higher energy density and no radioactive by products.

Success of this research will provide a firm foundation for future research and investment for

high-density energy source technology integration into aircraft.

3. Brilliouin – New Hydrogen Boiler-

The Brillouin Hew Hydrogen Boiler is the cold fusion powered prototype produced by Brillouin

Energy Corporation of Berkeley, California and employing a variation of the low energy nuclear

reaction called Controlled Electron Capture Reaction to generate clean, cheap and efficient

energy.

The company does not use the low energy nuclear reaction term to describe the reaction taking

place inside their device, as they consider cold fusion to be only one step of the controlled

electron capture reaction process.

Although not the first company to come forward with a cold fusion powered device, Brillouin

claims to be ahead of its competitors due its superior understanding of the underlying physics of

the device.The process fueling the New Hydrogen Boiler is the conversion of hydrogen from

regular water into helium gas, a process that generates a large amount of thermal energy.The

reaction starts with an endothermic reaction, a reaction that absorbs heat, and ends with an

20

exothermic one, generating a huge amount of thermal energy. The temperature and pressure

required by the reaction to take place are relatively low, and are safe for any chemical and

industrial setting. The hydrogen is extracted directly from ordinary tap water and is inserted into

a matrix shaped nickel lattice. The system is then stimulated by the Brillouin proprietary

electronic pulse generator and the electricity is applied in very small spaces that become the

metal stress points. This stimulation allows some protons from the hydrogen atom to capture an

electron and turn into a neutron. This way, a small amount of energy is transferred into mass in

the neutron. Further electric stimulation of the system creates more neutrons and causes the

neutrons to combine with the hydrogen atom in order to create deuterium. This transformation

releases energy. Further stimulation of the system causes some of the neutrons to combine with

deuterium and form tritium, a process that generates even more energy.

The neutrons continue to combine with the tritium and form quadrium, releasing more energy as

heat. Quadrium is not a stable element so it quickly transforms into helium in a process that

generates a large amount of energy, up to 10 times more than the energy used in all previous

steps. The resulting thermal energy is absorbed by the metal lattice and can be harnessed using a

heat exchanger and transferred as heated water or steam.

The thermal energy produced by this boiler is between 100 and 150 C. It is suitable for

most water heating requirements, from household heaters to commercial water heaters. An

improved technology is expected to be able to power electric turbines and generate electricity,

and be used to create dry steam and power industrial activities. Water is the main fuel used in the

reaction, as the hydrogen atoms are extracted from regular tap water. The boiler is very fuel

efficient, Brillouin claims that 1.024 ml of water generates the same amount of energy as 2 48-

gallon drums of gasoline. The potency of the Controlled Electron Capture Reaction is beyond

any known chemical reaction and is several orders of magnitude more powerful than any known

fuel. And besides its huge potency, the reaction is clean and does not create any pollution or

radioactivity. The reaction consumes hydrogen, but in a very small amount. The nickel involved

is used only as a reaction chamber and catalyst and is not consumed during the reaction. A very

important confirmation and a competitive advantage the Brillouin New Hydrogen Boiler has, is

that the device has been independently verified by 2 prominent scientific organizations and has

been validated by their reports. Los Almos National Laboratories is one of the third party

21

organizations that conducted experiments on the NHB and concluded that the device has

consistent and impressive results. They managed to replicate the reaction described by Brillouin

and expressed their support and confidence in the potential of the discovery. The Brillouin New

Energy Boiler is the only cold fusion device to be independently validated by a nationally and

internationally accredited laboratory.

Dr. Michael McKubre of Stanford Research International, an avid supporter of the LENR

reaction and theory, has also tested the New Hydrogen Boiler and encountered positive

results. He subsequently joined their board of advisers, being impressed by the consistency of

the results. He stated that The Brillouin New Hydrogen Boiler was the first device that could

replicate the same results multiple times, every time, with no exception. Between 1 and 3 July

2012, the International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Symposium (ILENRS-12) took place in

the United States. A group of scientists from SRI International, led by Michael McKubre

presented a report entitled “Calorimetric Studies of the Destructive Stimulation of Palladium and

Nickel Fine Wires” where they introduced an overview of the cold fusion reaction and detailed

the results of their experiments. The conclusions of this report clearly supported the work of

Brillouin Energy Corporation and the reliability of their New Hydrogen Boiler. The recent

developments in the field of cold fusion, with more and more scientists coming forward

confirming the reality of the reaction and proposing prototypes of cold fusion powered devices,

have prompted the scientists to reevaluate the Fleischmann – Pons reaction, that was buried

under the unfortunate title of pathological science for more than 2 decades. The experiments

conducted by the SRI International scientists focused on systems consisting in fine palladium or

nickel wires pre-loaded with hydrogen or deuterium.

The wires were pre-loaded with hydrogen or deuterium using an electrolytic procedure

developed by SRI. The loaded wires were sealed using chemical methods inside the palladium

lattice, to avoid the hydrogen atom recombination. The scientists would then use a co-deposition

technique developed by chemist Mossier-Boss of SPAWAR to deposit the palladium and

hydrogen on a cathode surface at the same time and form a stable structure. After applying these

steps, the system was transferred into liquid nitrogen and a cryogenic calorimeter was used to

quantify the excess energy, while a pulse of current was sent through the loaded palladium wire.

22

After the excess thermal energy was measured, the scientists would analyze the nuclear

byproducts.

The SRI International researchers carried out 30 such experiments and confirmed the anomalous

heat effect exhibited in all demonstrations, in an amount larger than any chemical reaction could

produce. The goal of the experiments was not only the development of a working prototype, but

also establishing a solid theoretical framework for the reaction. Their experiments are consistent

with other reported tests and with the theoretical speculations around the cold fusion reaction.

They suggest that nickel and palladium deuteride or hydride systems are capable of producing

substantial amounts of excess energy employing the cold fusion reaction.

The scientists state that the conclusions of their experiments confirm the authenticity of the

Brillouin claims and provide an empirical precedent, as well as a start for a theoretical

explanation. In August 2012, a report concentrating over 150 experimental tests on the Brillouin

boiler was made public at the International Conference on Cold Fusion ICCF-17 in South Korea.

The scientists authoring this reports are : Robert Godes, the inventor of the Controlled Electron

Capture Reaction, Robert George, the Brillouin CEO, Francis Tanzella and Michael McKubre,

researchers at SRI International.

Their conclusions, after 150 tests on 2 different calorimeter designs of the Brillouin boiler, are

that the anomalous heat effect can be observed in a system where palladium and nickel hydrides

are pressurized and stimulated using Q pulses. The scientists started with the assumption that

exciting a metal hydride at a frequency related to the lattice resonance would determine the

deuterons or protons to sustain the controlled electron capture reaction. This would supposedly

cause excess thermal energy using a minimal amount of reactants during a reaction catalyzed by

high temperature and pressure. The Brillouin Boiler consisted in a closed cell containing : a

pressure vessel with a band heater, a nickel cathode .31 mm thick, a nickel wire mesh anode, 0.5

liter of sodium hydroxide NaOH solution, an oil coolant loop with a heat exchanger for thermal

transfer, resistive temperature detectors made of platinum for measuring the input and output

temperature of the coolant, a catalytic recombiner for safety measures and a resistance heater,

used for calorimetric calibration.

23

The device can operate at temperatures up to 200 C and pressure of 130 bar, using electricity as

input and generating heat. The power entered into the reaction chamber, as well as the power

used for the control board have been quantified using very conservative measurements by an

oscilloscope meter and including any inductive and logic circuit losses. The output power is

quantified using an organic fluid that pumps the heat from the inside of the reaction chamber

through a heat exchanger placed in the electrolyte inside the boiler cell. The electrolyte is heated

following the reaction taking place in the boiler, transferring the thermal energy to the organic

fluid, that is extracted using an external heat exchanger. The excess heat is measured considering

the input and output temperature difference, the flow rate, the room temperature. The system

heat loss is also quantified using a software application, finely calibrated to account for all

conductive and radiative heat loss, as well as the heat lost through the top of the test cell, that

allows more heat to escape as it heats and increases its thermal conductivity.

The scientists conducted a series of experiments, testing various details of the device and

reaction. The experiments lasted up to 5 days and the excess heat ranged from 50%, to 75-80%

and even 100%. The researchers concluded that this series of experiments demonstrated the

capacity of the nickel-hydrogen system to produce up to twice the input energy using the cold

fusion reaction. The anomalous heat effect was always present in their tests and it was due to the

Q pulse stimulation and the sealed reaction chamber. They noticed that the thermal output was

significantly higher than the electrical input and that a higher temperature and pressure increased

the reaction probability and output ratio. The reaction output is also directly related to the

frequency of the Q pulses applied to the nickel lattice. The scientists achieved a 100% heat

surplus, but hope to reach a 200% ratio, that would make the technology industrially profitable.

They are planning on focusing their efforts on achieving this threshold and preparing the

Brillouin Boiler for commercialization. They are also testing a third design of the device, that

supposedly operates at a higher temperature and will be able to produce a higher excess heat

ratio. Brillouin and SRI International believe that the first commercially viable application of this

technology will be a heating system employing the Controlled Electron Capture Reaction.

Brillouin has filled 3 applications for a patent on their device to the US Patent Office. However,

the Office has been ignoring any request slightly related to cold fusion due to the negative

reception of the reaction back in 1989. Hopefully, the amplitude cold fusion gained in the

scientific world in the last years will prompt the Office to reconsider their position. The patent

24

application filed by Robert Godes, the inventor of the Controlled Electron Capture Reaction, for

the Brillouin New Hydrogen Boiler has been rejected numerous times by the US Patent Office

on various claims. The apparatus described in his patent claim is comprised of the core, made of

a material with phonon propagation characteristics, a vault for inserting the reactants in the body

of the boiler, an electricity source for stimulating the core with current pulses in order to ignite

the nuclear reaction, a closed loop control system to monitor and manipulate the reaction

parameters.

The reactants inside the device, palladium and hydrogen or deuterium need to be stimulated by

phonon insertion into the core by means of an electric pulse in order for the nuclear reaction to

start. The reaction can also be stimulated by heat and ultrasound. The theoretical base of the

reaction, as presented by Godes in the patent application derives from the electron capture by

protons in order to produce neutrons. The next step is the neutron capture by hydrogen in order

to form higher hydrogen isotopes, that through beta decay produce helium and excess heat. The

patent application is still pending and Robert Godes is amending the claims in order to meet the

requirements of the evaluator that request for the device to be proved functional and feasible.

Hopefully, a device like the Brillouin New Hydrogen Boiler, confirmed by respectable scientists

and independently verified, will receive a patent, in spite of US Patent Office’s propensity to

reject all cold fusion related requests. In 2012, Brillouin was granted a patent for their New

Hydrogen Boiler in China, after multiple patent applications around the world. As soon as the

technology was patented, Brillouin was contacted bycompanies interested in licensing the device

and starting mass production. This is a big step in making the Brillouin Boiler commercially

available and providing the world with green, cheap energy.

3. Defkalion – Hyperion-

Hyperion is the cold fusion powered reactor developed by Defkalion Green Technologies

located in Athens, Greece. The device is based on the E-Cat prototype, developed by Italian

inventor Andrea Rossi and is perfected by Defkalion to be scaled up or down, depending on the

market requirements.

Defkalion is planning to become one of the key players on the energy market, providing cheap,

clean and sustainable thermal energy through their innovative Hyperion device. They will come

25

on the market with a reactor that provides significant cost and efficiency improvements, as well

as a wide range of applications, from household heating to industrial settings.

They plan to use their know-how and resources to improve their technology and adapt it to the

changing energy demands of our world.

Defkalion expressed their support and trust in the reliability of the E-Cat and, although they deny

using cold fusion as the reaction powering Hyperion, they admit that the device is based on an

exothermic reaction between nickel an hydrogen resulting in green, cheap and clean heat.

The company claims that Hyperion is in the final stages of development and will soon become

commercially available and produced on a mass scale. They promise a broad range of products

that generate 6 to 30 times more energy than they receive. Besides their commercial plans, the

company is interested in collaboration with the scientific community in order to establish a

global theoretical framework for this new and innovative science field.

Hyperion is based on Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat and Defkalion claim that the E-Cat is only the

black box of Hyperion, that is built around the kernel using a complex machinery

and electronics system. The reactor produces only thermal energy and no electricity and has no

emissions or radioactive waste.

Hyperion will be available with output energy ranging from 5 – 30 kW to 1.15 – 3.45 MW.

The Hyperion device consists in a body, a hydrogen canister and control equipment.

The E-Cat core is formed of several metal tubes loaded with nickel and the catalyst mix, where

the nickel-hydrogen reaction takes place and generates heat between 5 and 30 kW. The heat

produced is driven out of the main body using a thermal closed circuit, that cools down the tube,

using a cooling liquid circulator-pump that is electronically controlled. All the core elements are

located inside an internal box that is sealed, thermally isolated and shielded with lead.

The device also includes an electric radiator that heats up the tube in order to ignite the reaction.

This radiator consumes only 0.5 kW.

The hydrogen canister is also the main switch of the device, that can be turned off by stopping

the hydrogen input. The canister is under pressure at a specific level required by the reaction.

26

The control board consists of electronics that monitor the system specifications and ensure that

safety limits are met. They also protect against unauthorized use of the device.

During the device production and use, no radioactive materials are used and no toxic emissions

or radioactive waste is produced.

The method powering Hyperion is based on the reaction between hydrogen gas, nickel powder

and proprietary catalyst materials and structures. Resistance heating elements are required to heat

up the hydrogen gas and ignite the reaction. The hydrogen atoms are pressed into the nickel atom

lattice and the reaction generates gamma rays and light that are transformed into thermal energy

inside the reactor.

Although built on the E-Cat prototype, Hyperion claims a coefficient of performance of 20,

compared to only 11.7, asserted by Rossi. On the other hand, Hyperion incurs more costs by

using electricity to excite the start of the reaction, while Rossi uses natural gas for the initial

phase.

Cold fusion is such a new and innovative field and presents many opportunities as well as

challenges. Defkalion is focused on research and development in this field and is trying to extend

the current limitations and further develop the technology through a bottom-up approach.

Defkalion received an Italian patent for Hyperion and the European Union patent is still pending

on its final stage. The company submitted multiple applications worldwide and hopes to receive

intellectual rights for their device in the near future. The EU authorities are running tests on

Hyperion in order to issue its safety certificate. The key points pursued by the observers are

stability, performance, functionality and safety.

27

CHAPTER-4

vi. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS –

For a search to be successful, it must follow a series of perhaps ambiguous clues in

the correct logical order.Two assumptions are made: All LENR occurs in the same

environment and by the same mechanism, and the environment and mechanism

must not conflict with known chemical behavior or each other. Elimination of all

environments that conflict with these assumptions and identification of the only

environment common to all methods for producing LENR results in the following

conclusions:

1. A special environment is required for LENR to occur and this is not a material

such as PdD or NiH, regardless of its purity, dimension, or hydrogen content.

2. A closed crack, void or gap of critical size and shape is the only condition

potentially common to all methods for causing LENR. This gap may have the

form of a nanotube made from various materials including carbon.

3. The mechanism for lowering the Coulomb barrier involves a single electron that

is absorbed by the fusion process and remains for a short time in the resulting

product, after which it is emitted as a weak beta.

4. The fusion process results from resonance, which releases the resulting energy

as X-rays over a short period of time.

5. All isotopes of hydrogen can produce LENR, which results in fusion and

transmutation.

6. Heat is mostly generated by D+D+e fusion to give He4+e when deuterium is

used and H+H+e fusion to give stable deuterium when normal hydrogen is used.

When both isotopes are present, tritium is formed by the D+H+e fusion reaction.

7. LENR occasionally involves addition of hydrogen isotopes to heavy nuclei,

28

resulting in transmutation at an active site. This reaction does not absorb an

electron.

8. Detectable radiation and radioactive isotopes are occasionally produced, but are

not common.

9. Several nuclear mechanisms besides LENR can operate within solid materials.

These are sensitive to the chemical conditions, including hot fusion-type reactions

when applied energy is low.

10. Successful theory requires a strong relation between physics and chemistry,

and a compatible relationship between the NAE and the mechanism operating

within the NAE.

11. Unreasonable skepticism and rejection of competent observation has severely

handicapped the field and delayed understanding and application.

Some of these conclusions are significantly different from conventional beliefs in

the field and are well outside of what conventional physics can presently explain or

justify.

As a student, our job is to decide which assumptions and conclusions are correct

based on past and future studies. The conclusions are offered as a guide to future

studies.

29

vii. BIBLIOGRAPHY -

BOOKS-

A Student’s Guide to Cold Fusion

Edmund Storms KivaLabs, Santa Fe, NM (updated, April 2012)

Nagel, D.J., Scientific Overview of ICCF15. 2009

Rothwell, J., Cold Fusion And The Future. 2004

U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report on cold fusion: Technology Forecast:

Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining

Acceptance DIA-08-0911-003, 13 November 2009

McKubre, M.C.H., Cold Fusion (LENR) One Perspective on the State of the Science

Hagelstein, P.L., et al. New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides. in Eleventh International

Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2004

Mallove, E. “Fire From Ice”

Krivit, S. and Winocur, N, “The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real

Energy”

Storms, E. “The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction”

Mizuno, T., “Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion”

30

viii. REFERENCE-

WEBSITES-

1. Cold fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

- accessed on 10.09.2014

2. www.extremetech.com › Electronics accessed on 03.09.2014

3. www.nasa.gov/ (Rocket technology) accessed on 03.09.2014

4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear _fission accessed on 10.09.2014

5. http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power1.htm accessed on 14.09.2014

6. Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia accessed on 14.09.2014

7.science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor1.htm accessed on 09.09.2014

8. www.iter.org/sci/whatisfusion accessed on 12.09.2014

9. http://www.share-international.org/archives/Science-tech/sci_chunveil.html

accessed on 12.09.2014

10. http://lenr-canr.org// accessed on 12.09.2014

11. http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die//

accessed on 16.09.2014

12. http://www.coldfusiontheory.com accessed on 09.09.2014

13. http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6425

accessed on 04.09.2014

14. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/reatodou.html accessed on 03.09.2014

15. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generation/nuclear- fusion-power/

accessed on 04.09.2014

16. http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187 (Photo’s) accessed on 14.09.2014