The Real E-Cat Shreds Lockheed’s Theoretical Fusion Reactor (Hank Mills)

The following was submitted by Hank Mills.

Lockheed Martin recently revealed that their Skunk Works division has completed a theoretical design for a hot fusion reactor. They hope to build a prototype in five years – with the goal of it operating for ten seconds – and commercialize the reactor in ten. Unlike the E-Cat or Energy Catalyzer, of which a report was recently released detailing a 32 day test showing a massive production of heat far beyond any possible chemical reaction, Lockheed’s Compact Fusion Reactor does not currently exist: there is no proof it will ever produce power. Even if it did, the CFR would use radioactive fuel, produce dangerous levels of neutrons, and continuously create small amounts of nuclear waste.

Incredibly, Lockheed has stated their reactor would require a meter thick shield of lead to ensure no radiation would escape. Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, on the other hand, uses no radioactive materials (only ordinary, common elements such as lithium, iron, nickel, and hydrigen), produces zero nuclear waste, and emits no radiation into the environment without any lead shielding whatsoever. The advantages of the E-Cat over the CFR are immense and show that Lockheed needs to abandon the project and focus on LENR.

You can read more from a recent article of mine here at PESWiki: http://pesn.com/2014/10/22/9602554_Andrea-Rossis-E-Cat_Devours_Lockheeds_Hypothetical_Compact-Fusion-Reactor/

Hank Mills

  • Ophelia Rump

    Wow, nice. I read that they want the proof of concept built in one year from now.
    I wonder what constitutes a proof of concept for a ten second test life prototype?

    Nano-second flashes?

    • Billy Jackson

      I must have missed an article on it, I thought they said 10 years for proof of concept. (or i am misremembering.. 😛 )

      Nice article Hank, I agree to a point that the e-cat outdoes Lockheed’s device. Yet i am not ready to say pull the plug on their reactor research till the e-cat has proven itself in a commercial environment. Once the e-cat proves itself in a working environment then i think that it will answer safely a lot of our energy problems.

      • Ophelia Rump

        One year for proof of concept. five for prototype, ten to market.
        That is what I saw anyway.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          This would have been a big hairy deal before March 23, 1989.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            By the way F&P DID achieved deuterium-DEUTERIUM fusion.
            The hot fusion gang gave up on that (they reneged on their 1950s’ promise).
            They’re now trying to do the much easier deuterium-TRITIUM reaction.

            So, they haven’t even caught up with the F&P yet and now they’re talking about
            competing with the E-Cat.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k

          • paul42

            The Lockheed device works at much higher temperatures and that is the right answer for many applications.

      • paul42

        I see a future for both technologies.
        The E-Cat appears to be complex if you attempt to scale it above 1MW. The Lockheed device will probably be difficult to scale below 100 MW. The Lockheed device, assuming it works, is the better answer for the utility companies, large ships, large aircraft, etc… The E-Cat technology is better suited to everything smaller.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Wow, nice. I read that they want the proof of concept built in one year from now.
    I wonder what constitutes a proof of concept for a ten second test life prototype?

    Nano-second flashes?

    • Billy Jackson

      I must have missed an article on it, I thought they said 10 years for proof of concept. (or i am misremembering.. 😛 )

      Nice article Hank, I agree to a point that the e-cat outdoes Lockheed’s device. Yet i am not ready to say pull the plug on their reactor research till the e-cat has proven itself in a commercial environment. Once the e-cat proves itself in a working environment then i think that it will answer safely a lot of our energy problems.

      Once it does prove itself.. i may need your help with the coffin for hot fusion.. i got the nails.. you bring the hammer 😛

      • Ophelia Rump

        One year for proof of concept. five for prototype, ten to market.
        That is what I saw anyway.

        • RKTect

          Isn’t that exactly what they’ve been saying about hot fusion for the last 30 years? – Every two or three years —– lol. Why is this even news?

    • phipsys22

      The best hot fusion can offer now is a few hot flashes.

  • bachcole

    Within that 1 meter shielding could be placed numerous E-Cats.

  • bachcole

    Within that 1 meter shielding could be placed numerous E-Cats.

    • Gerald

      Use lern to get rid of the nuclear waste? 😉 the fusion of hot and cold. Typing this IT sounded funny. A few seconds later thinking of abundant nuclear waste disposel units sounds scary.

  • mytakeis

    Tested for 32 days would be just the ‘Model T’ E-Cat, the ‘Tesla’ version will take a bit longer to come to market, but in a couple of years, one in every home! (in this metaphor, skipping right over higher performance gasoline technology)

    • Warthog

      I don’t think the current E-cat reaches the “Model-T” level. More like Daimler’s first prototype internal combustion engine.

      • mytakeis

        I’m fine with Daimler’s first prototype, or a previous one, I was thinking of the first proof of concept in an ever increasing developmental curve. Thanks for reminding me that vehicular life began before the model T.

  • HS61AF91

    Tested for 32 days would be just the ‘Model T’ E-Cat, the ‘Tesla’ version will take a bit longer to come to market, but in a couple of years, one in every home! (in this metaphor, skipping right over higher performance gasoline technology)

    • Warthog

      I don’t think the current E-cat reaches the “Model-T” level. More like Daimler’s first prototype internal combustion engine.

      • bachcole

        Yes. I think that it is the second prototype, but it is a long way from a Model-T.

      • HS61AF91

        I’m fine with Daimler’s first prototype, or a previous one, I was thinking of the first proof of concept in an ever increasing developmental curve. Thanks for reminding me that vehicular life began before the model T.

  • Ivy Matt

    From Hank Mills’ article:

    “The Compact Fusion Reactor of Lockheed Martin, however, does not exist in the real world. If a government or business had a billion dollars in the bank and a plan to convert over to fusion energy, they could not purchase a CFR. Not a single reactor, even a prototype, has been
    constructed.”

    In the same article there is a photograph of Lockheed Martin’s latest prototype reactor, dubbed “T4”, as it’s the fourth iteration of the design. According to Tom McGuire, it has been run at least 200 times, and results of the data collected will be published next year. Perhaps Hank Mills was confused by McGuire saying that he hoped to have a prototype ready within five years, but by that he meant a full-scale, net-gain prototype. The present device is only being used to test some basic physics assumptions, but it has produced a plasma (which can be seen in several slides in Charles Chase’s Google Solve for X talk back in February, 2013), and according to Lockheed Martin the physics has held up, at least at the scale of the present device.

    Note that, although McGuire’s concept probably couldn’t be scaled down much, a 100-MW CFR is projected be about the same size as the 1-MW E-Cat. Also, number of known customers of fusion reactors for electrical generation is the same as the number of known E-Cat customers.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This would have been a big hairy deal before March 23, 1989.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      By the way F&P DID achieved deuterium-DEUTERIUM fusion.
      The hot fusion gang gave up on that (they reneged on their 1950s’ promise).
      They’re now trying to do the much easier deuterium-TRITIUM reaction.

      So, they haven’t even caught up with the F&P yet and now they’re talking about
      competing with the E-Cat.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k

  • Hi all

    This Lockheed project looks to be one based on the cost plus model.

    This is where the contractor, in this case Lockheed, take 10% on whatever it costs to research and develop, no matter how long, and maybe perhaps, if they don’t do it right, build; though that is not the purpose!

    This cost plus methodology is a recipe for bloat; as it is in the interest of the contractor to achieve the highest cost possible; thus special hammers cost $500.00 each, researchers investigate the engineering of each nut and bolt, ideally developing multiple never before seen nut and bolts, at millions of dollars each, that fail; before returning to the original off the shelf nut and bolt but with shiny titanium coating that means it costs 100 times more than the the uncoated one, as an excuse for all the “research”.

    The whole idea of cost plus is create a contract that is so big, that government cannot afford to be seen to let it fail, that way the gravy just keeps coming. That is what Hot Fusion is.

    Commercial Off the Shelf is the way governments should purchase but hey how would politicians, generals and senior civil servants; get on their 20 Million dollar book deals with thousand dollar a ticket publishing tour dinners, and triple cost book signings, all paid bought by the staff of those companies via the companies tax deductible training and entertainment budgets, yep those same companies that the politicians, generals and senior civil servant gave those lucrative cost plus contracts to.

  • Hi all

    This Lockheed project looks to be one based on the cost plus model.

    This is where the contractor, in this case Lockheed, take 10% on whatever it costs to research and develop, no matter how long, and maybe perhaps, if they don’t do it right, build; though that is not the purpose!

    This cost plus methodology is a recipe for bloat; as it is in the interest of the contractor to achieve the highest cost possible; thus special hammers cost $500.00 each, researchers investigate the engineering of each nut and bolt, ideally developing multiple never before seen nut and bolts, at millions of dollars each, that fail; before returning to the original off the shelf nut and bolt but with shiny titanium coating that means it costs 100 times more than the the uncoated one, as an excuse for all the “research”.

    The whole idea of cost plus is create a contract that is so big, that government cannot afford to be seen to let it fail, that way the gravy just keeps coming. That is what Hot Fusion is.

    Commercial Off the Shelf is the way governments should purchase but hey how would politicians, generals and senior civil servants; get on their 20 Million dollar book deals with thousand dollar a ticket publishing tour dinners, and triple cost book signings, all paid bought by the staff of those companies via the companies tax deductible training and entertainment budgets, yep those same companies that the politicians, generals and senior civil servant gave those lucrative cost plus contracts to.

    • Ivy Matt

      Where do you get the idea that Lockheed Martin is conducting this research on behalf of a client?

      At present all research fusion reactors are highly customized one-off devices, not something you can order the parts for from a catalog. That, probably more than any reason, is why fusion research is so expensive (compared to some things; pretty cheap compared to others).

    • bachcole

      I did a job once where I was screwing in bolts that were so ultra-special that they cost like $100 a piece or even more; I don’t remember the exact cost. They were for nuclear containment barrels, and I was warned to not drop any of them for fear of harming them. They looked exactly like off the shelf big bolts to me, only shinier, but, hey, what did I know? (:->) At the time I was not aware of deliberately bloated budgets.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis
  • paul42

    I see a future for both technologies.
    The E-Cat appears to be complex if you attempt to scale it above 1MW. The Lockheed device will probably be difficult to scale below 100 MW. The Lockheed device, assuming it works, is the better answer for the utility companies, large ships, large aircraft, etc… The E-Cat technology is better suited to everything smaller.

    • bachcole

      “The E-Cat appears to be complex if you attempt to scale it above 1MW.” Perhaps, but I don’t see any reason to believe that LENR++ would be difficult to scale above 1MW.

      • paul42

        The Lockheed device works at much higher temperatures and that is the right answer for many applications.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Hank, why don’t you submit your e-cat related articles to Frank for publishment instead of PESN, assuming Frank has no problems with that. I find PESN confusing to browse and hard to take serious, especially when every article you write starts with Sterling’s own annoying comment. Also, Sterling has taken it to the next level by taking his religious problems to PESN. I personally wouldn’t like to be linked to a site like that when writing serious journalism.

    All IMHO of course.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Hank, why don’t you submit your e-cat related articles to Frank for publishment instead of PESN, assuming Frank has no problems with that. I find PESN confusing to browse and hard to take serious, especially when every article you write starts with Sterling’s own annoying comment. Also, Sterling has taken it to the next level by taking his religious problems to PESN. I personally wouldn’t like to be linked to a site like that when writing serious journalism.

    All IMHO of course.