International Conference on LENRs Will Take Place in Poland in August

Jul 012023
 

July 2, 2023
By Steven B. Krivit

The 25th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ICCF-25) will take place Aug. 27-31, 2023, in Szczecin, Poland. Poland shares a small border with Russia and a border with Ukraine. It is an interesting time for me to travel there.

ICCF-25 is a continuation of the series of conferences that began in 1989, then named the 1st Annual Conference on Cold Fusion. Opinions vary on whether the underlying reactions are a form of room-temperature fusion or a previously unrecognized nuclear reaction. In 2008, after examining a large body of experimental data, I concluded that the experimental results were inconsistent with fusion. Concurrently, I developed an appreciation for the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs, which postulates that the experimentally observed anomalies in the field are better explained as neutron-based electroweak interactions. I will be giving an oral presentation on the fundamental concepts of this theory at the conference.

Low-energy nuclear reaction research — LENRs — is an exciting new area of scientific exploration that is at the heart of the biggest controversy in modern science. Amazing effects are taking place microscopically on the metallic surfaces used in these experiments. The experiments release levels of heat far beyond those known by any chemical reaction and do so without emitting greenhouse gases or harmful levels of radiation or leaving behind nuclear waste. Arising from decades of controversy, the research shows potential as a new source of energy.

If you’d like to learn more about LENRs, I invite you to read my white papers and journal papers.

The ICCF-25 Web site has not yet published a book of abstracts; only individual abstracts can be downloaded. A New Energy Times reader has graciously volunteered to download all the abstracts that were available as of July 1 and we have compiled them into a single PDF.

French Journalist Noé Girard-Blanc Continues ITER Power Exposé

May 262023
 

May 26, 2023
By Steven B. Krivit

For at least twelve years, promoters of ITER misled editors of the French Wikipedia site to unknowingly spread a false claim about the fundamental purpose of the ITER project. The Wikipedia page, in turn, misled every person who read it for those twelve years. Today, French journalist Noé Girard-Blanc has set the record straight in a 12-minute video on YouTube.

The false claim appeared on the page on Sept. 18, 2006, with this addition: “Le premier [objectif] est de générer une puissance de 500 mégawatts en n’en consommant que 50 [mégawatts], durant 400 secondes (6 minutes 40 secondes). Le record mondial est de 16 mégawatts générés pour une puissance fournie de 25 MWatt, durant 1 seconde, réalisé par le Tokamak anglais [[JET]].”

EN: “The first [objective] is to generate power of 500 megawatts by consuming only 50 [megawatts], for 400 seconds (6 minutes 40 seconds). The world record is 16 megawatts generated for a supplied power of 25 megawatts, for 1 second, made by the English Tokamak [[JET]].”

Twelve years later, after learning the power facts, I made corrections to the French ITER Wikipedia page.

To watch the video below with English subtitles on YouTube:
1.Click settings, click subtitles/cc
2.Click FRENCH AUTO-GENERATED
3.Go back to settings, subtitles, click AUTO-TRANSLATE, English

Response From Pietro Barabaschi, Director-General of ITER

May 022023
 

May 2, 2023

Dear Mr. Krivit,

Thank you for your message. As I have noted already previously since I became ITER-DG in October 2022, I fully agree with you when you say that accuracy is important in scientific communication. This can be particularly challenging when communicating complex science and engineering in a simplified way to public audiences, including to journalists. At ITER, we are making it a priority to improve this accuracy.

Regarding the article you cite by the Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC),  the original interview was conducted in May 2022, in the form of a podcast; and the print article that came out in March 2023 excerpted some elements from that podcast, adding to the inaccuracies on several points:

  1. It is frequently said that ITER and other fusion devices will recreate the fusion power that exists at the centre of the sun and stars. That is not strictly accurate: while ITER will seek to operate at very high temperatures (~150 million decrees, i.e. even hotter than in the sun’s core) , it will not be able to recreate the extreme density conditions (present in the sun due to its gravitational force) that enable proton-proton fusion at the sun’s core. Rather, fusion scientists and engineers seek to mimic the sun by using other atoms which are “easier” to fuse: in the case of ITER, the goal is to fuse deuterium (D) and tritium (T), two isotopes of hydrogen, using magnetic confinement of plasma at high temperatures but at densities which are achievable. Additionally, DT reactions will yield to a power density which is more amenable for power generation.
  2. The ten-fold return on energy that is part of the ITER design – often referred to as Q>=10 – refers explicitly to the ratio of thermal energy output from the fusion reaction, contrasted to the thermal energy used to heat the plasma. This “ten-fold return”, which hence applies to the plasma part of ITER, is frequently misinterpreted, and since I joined we are working on additional measures to ensure clarity in our public communication. We also need to emphasize repeatedly that ITER, as an experimental device, will not produce electricity.
  3. When we assert that fusion will not produce long-lived radioactive waste, we should be careful to characterize that as a goal, not a certainty; because we are still working to develop the materials that can sustain the extraordinary neutron flux that will impact the first wall (plasma-facing wall) of a tokamak.
  4. When we speak about fusion power plants producing continuous energy, that is also a goal, especially for tokamaks. ITER’s design envisions 400-second pulses, and a steady-state Q of 5, but this goal has yet to be realized. Stellarator designs are better at achieving steady-state output, but are more difficult to build than tokamaks.
  5. Lastly, I confirm that you are correct that ITER will install tritium-breeding blankets on only a small fraction of the tokamak walls. The goal for future tokamaks will be a closed fuel cycle (one tritium atom produced for one tritium atom consumed in the plasma), but this is not the goal of ITER. ITER is designed to breed tritium only on a small demonstration scale.

We will communicate these points to our ABC contacts for their consideration. We will also continue to work with our ITER team, especially with those who communicate with public audiences and journalists, to achieve greater accuracy.

The technical challenges that remain for magnetic confinement fusion to be feasible are well-known within the fusion community. Many experts are working to solve those challenges, both at ITER and in fusion projects around the world. If we can overcome those challenges, fusion energy will contribute for the future of our society.

There is no need to oversell that promise, nor to minimize the challenges that we are all committed to solve.

With kind regards,

Pietro

May 2, 2023

Dear Dr. Barabaschi,

Thank you for your letter. Your five bullet points go a long way toward communicating the objectives of the ITER project accurately. As one of your organization’s most prolific critics, I applaud your effort.

I have only one minor quibble. The goal for future tokamaks is not to produce one tritium atom for each tritium atom consumed in the plasma. That would be a tritium breeding ratio (TBR) of 1.0. Full-scale tritium breeding is not part of the ITER, but communicating this technical aspect more precisely to the public would be useful.

A fusion reactor must produce tritium at a higher rate than it consumes tritium in order to compensate for inefficiencies and downtime – that is, to be self-sufficient. Fischer et al. determined that a TBR of at least 1.05 is needed for the EU DEMO reactor to attain self-sufficiency.

However, Abdou et al. explained that an “analysis of current worldwide first wall/blanket concepts shows that achievable TBR for the most detailed blanket system designs available is no more than 1.15.” This is an extremely thin margin – so thin that these authors (one is an ITER Organization scientist) wrote that “a primary conclusion is that the physics and technology state-of-the-art will not enable [the EU] DEMO and future power plants to satisfy these principal requirements.”

I wish you success with your project.

Steven

Open Letter to Pietro Barabaschi, Director-General of ITER

Apr 152023
 

By Steven B. Krivit
April 15, 2023

Dear Dr. Barabaschi,

One of my readers brought to my attention a recent news article published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation about ITER.

The news article contains several significant inaccuracies. I bring these to your attention because I know that you are committed to the integrity of the public scientific communications about ITER.

The article features a single source: Tom Wauters, a plasma physicist who works at ITER. However, I would not want to blame Wauters for the inaccuracies because I have repeatedly seen other high-level staff members of the ITER organization communicating significant inaccuracies to the news media.

For example, two years ago, Joëlle Elbez-Uzan, the former head of safety and the environment at ITER, told reporter Celia Izoard that the ITER reactor will be “the first net energy production in the entire history of fusion by creating an amplification of a factor of 10: i.e., 50 megawatts at the input and 500 megawatts at the output.”

Elbez-Uzan learned from the reporter that she had completely misunderstood the primary objective of the project.

Then there were the many incorrect power statements ITER Chief Scientist Tim Luce provided, like this one: “We plan to produce 500 megawatts with 50 megawatts of consumption.” Luce, too, didn’t know even a close value of the expected 500 MW electric power consumption that will be required of ITER to start the fusion reaction and the 440 MW of electricity required to sustain it.

Then there was the matter of the recurring incorrect power statements by Mark Henderson, a former ITER physicist. Henderson had worked on the ITER project for about a decade, leaving the organization a few weeks after speaking with investigative radio journalist Grant Hill, who was the first to point out Henderson’s inconsistencies.

Based on Wauter’s statements, I see there is still a residual problem of information quality in your organization: incorrect information that has been repeated for many years, even decades, information that is false or misleading about the goals and design of the ITER project.

Limitless Energy

ABC quoted Wauters directly: “The advantages of this technique — even though it’s very complicated to achieve — is that you can have almost limitless energy.”

As you know from our previous discussions, half of the required deuterium-tritium fuel combination does not exist as a natural resource on Earth, so we can no longer legitimately make the claim of “limitless energy.”

10-Fold Energy Gain

ABC wrote that “ITER’s goal is a 10-fold return on the energy that goes in.”

This requires a correction, unambiguously explaining that the performance of ITER will be assessed by comparing the thermal power output of the plasma with the thermal power input into the plasma.

Tritium Breeding

Here is the ABC section on tritium breeding:

But the team at ITER hopes to use the fusion reactor itself to create more tritium as a kind of by-product of the reaction. This is known as “tritium-breeding” and involves bombarding lithium on the inner wall of the tokamak with neutrons in the plasma to create more tritium.

“The idea is to have at least one tritium produced for one tritium consumed in the plasma to have a closed fuel cycle,” Dr. Wauters says. “It should be possible, but there is a difference between doing these things on paper and actually doing it.”

There’s a bit riding on this. If they can’t find out how to replace the tritium they use, then it’s likely game over for the dream of fusion power anytime soon.

“There is indeed a risk,” Dr. Wauters says. “I’m quite confident that at some point we will manage it and that it’ll be ITER that does it.”

But ITER is not designed to breed at least one tritium atom for each tritium atom it consumes. The ITER reactor will have 440 modules that cover its inner wall. Based on the ITER design, a maximum of four of these modules at any given time will contain replaceable tritium breeding test blanket modules. A reactor with a full tritium breeding blanket will require tritium breeding modules covering the entire inner wall. Thus, in ITER, only one percent of the surface area will be capable of breeding tritium.

Accordingly, ITER will not breed and consume tritium at a 1:1 ratio. At best, it will be a 1:100 ratio.

Will Laban Coblentz be informing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation of these facts?

Will you be informing your staff of these facts?

Thank you,
Steven

Josh Mitteldorf Sheds Light on the Mindboggling Complexity of Many-Body Interactions

Apr 082023
 

April 8, 2023

This article was written by Josh Mitteldorf and originally published on April 1, 2023. It is reprinted here with his permission. Mitteldorf earned his BS in physics at Harvard University and his Ph.D. in theoretical astrophysics at the University of Pennsylvania.

When Isaac Newton discovered the equations that govern motion of the planets through the heavens, he was able to solve them with pencil and paper much faster than the planets themselves were moving. Thus he was able to make useful predictions. Solving the equation — even when it involves oodles of numerical computations by hand and pad after pad of yellow paper, it’s still a whole lot easier and faster than actually doing the experiment and making the measurement.

From the Twentieth Century, we have better theories than Newton had. The two most fundamental theories of physics are Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. We are tantalized to think they must be better than Newton. because for some simple cases, we can solve the equations and we get better agreement with experiment than we get using Newton’s equations. We think they are fantastically accurate. Maybe they are the Ultimate Reality.

But here’s the cosmic joke. Both Schrodinger’s Equation of Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s Field Equation can only be solved for the very simplest cases.

We can solve Schrodinger’s Equation for two particles by hand, for three particles with a supercomputer. But anything more than three particles is so fantastically complicated that the equation can only be solved approximately — all that wonderful accuracy gone to waste. We have an exact solution for the hydrogen molecule (2 electrons), but for anything as complicated as a single molecule of water (10 electrons) we have only approximations and quantum heuristics.

We can solve Einstein’s Equations for situations that are perfectly symmetric. A sphere is easy. A spinning sphere is really, really difficult.

But any realistic situation in astronomy becomes so complicated that we don’t even have an algorithm that would let a computer go to work on the problem. Big Bang cosmology is based on the Cosmological Principle, which says that the universe is the same everywhere. We make that assumption not because the evidence for it is solid, but because we can’t solve Einsten’s Equations for realistic distributions of matter.

Since Newton, we physicists have taken it for granted that mathematical theory provides a quick and elegant way to understand something — much easier than doing each particular experiment and measuring the outcome.

The best theories that we have aren’t like that. A computer the size of the universe couldn’t solve the equations faster than the universe is generating the answers.

To Einstein and Schrodinger, God said, “You want a theory of everything? You want to understand how the Universe unfolds — OK, here’s the trick that I use. Here’s the soul of my magic. Here in these equations is the way I generate the future from the present. Have at it!”

Technical note: To solve an equation can mean two different things.

  • An analytic solution is an equation that you can derive using symbols. For example, the solution for an object moving in a uniform gravitational field without friction is a parabola, and you can get the equation for the parabola from the equations of motion.
  • A numerical solution is often possible when no analytic solution exists. For example, computers can accurately trace the course of a space probe by advancing in tiny increments, one millisecond at a time. By making the time increment progressively shorter, it’s possible to get more and more accuracy by using more and more computing power.

The equations of QM and of GR both have analytic solutions in the simplest cases. For slightly more complicated cases, they both have numerical solutions suitable for today’s computers. For situations that are yet a little more complicated, the numerical algorithms become intractable. This is to say that to solve (for example) the Schrodinger equation for the ground state of a water molecule would require a computer larger than the entire universe.

When we have a general-purpose quantum computer, this statement will become obsolete.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries
© 2025 newenergytimes.net