Interview > Listen
On April 2 5, Sterling Allan conducted an interview with Mark
LeClair, Serge Lebid, and Edmond Pope of NanoSpire, Inc. as part of the Free
Energy Now series.
This is a transcript of the first 3/4th of the interview.
E: ... I'm back in state college Pennsylvania myself. But grew up in Oregon. I spent twenty five years in the Navy and didn't know exactly where to call home after the end of that. Anyway, I ended up here and I've known both Serge and Mark, I'd guess for about eight or nine years maybe. Maybe even ten. And I have been on and off with them. Coming back together with them after a year or two hiatus after not having a great deal to do with them while they are doing their research.
E: My background is not terribly important. I mentioned most of it that I think is relevant for today, that is simply I have known Serge and Mark for about ten years now. Most interested, I have seen a demonstration. I actually set one up here... remind me guys... about three years or so ago. And in state university campus which is located right here. We saw something very interesting that none of us can still fully explain. But I will tell you right now I was not able to get connected with the right people to understand what they are doing or the concept of LENR or cold fusion. The people that were here were duly impressed, but I would much rather have gotten more of the materials, physics, and the nuclear research people to come into it.
S: ... I understand Mark, you are the one I am primarily talking to with Ed and Serge chiming in as they see fit.
M: The background is that I made the original discoveries that led to fusion, and then Serge participated to the discovery of fusion with zero point energy. So Serge participated in all the major experiments. It is something we have observed a few years back in some other grant work that was related.
[...] I will be talking theoretical, Serge will give his experience and what happened during the experiments. He has witnessed everything you know and has participated in the design of some of the experiments. He is a rightful co
discoverer, just so that we are understandably clear.
[On-record portion begins]
S: Welcome to the show I am your host Sterling Allan you can join us online at freeenergynow.net where you can find a list of past guest, download those interviews, and read the stories associated with those appearances. We are joined today April 27 2012 by inventor Mark
LeClair and several of his associates at NanoSpire including Serge Lebid who is a co founder and co-discoverer of the phenomena talking about advanced cavitation for alternative energy and nanotechnology. How is that for a mouthful? We also have their adviser Mr. Edward Pope. They are based in , most of them anyway, and they have published a press release in February titled,
"NanoSpire Inc. Successfully Harvests Cavitation Zero Point Energy to Produce Dramatic Levels of Fusion and Transmutation in Water."
M: Let me interrupt for one point. I just want to clarify that we are not based in Miami, we are based in
Buxton Maine outside of Portland.
S: I must not have articulated that well enough I did say Maine. Now finally we are getting around to doing some must deserved coverage of this technology. Let me read this opening of the press release.
"NanoSpire Inc. Is announcing successful completion of it's investigation of fusion produced by the phenomena of cavitation in water providing profound implications for utilities and energy industries. Under the right conditions, cavitation, a form of boiling, can produce high speed jets as the bubbles collapse.
NanoSpire has pioneered the control formation and aiming of these jets resulting in four recently issued patents. The technology reaches across many markets, including many applications in nanotechnology and energy. Examples of core applications include nano microsized fabrication, target ted drug deliver, microsurgery, photovoltaic solar, cost effective algae oil extraction for producing biodiesel, and fusion.
What a diverse list of applications. Looking forward to this interview. Welcome gentleman to the show.
M: Thank you.
E: Thank you.
S; Mark, lets start off with you. Give us an over view. A lay of the land about what this technology is about.
M: This technology is about harnessing cavitation in a way that is fundamentally distinct from all the other LENR technologies including the ones that are based on cavitation.
We are harnessing a high speed jet that is produced inside of a cavitation bubble that is going three thousand miles an hour upon exit of the bubble. This is what is known as a cavitation
reentrant jet. The word we re-entrant derives from the fact the bubble inverts like a donut, like a torus and the core of the torus is the re entrant jet. And the nature of cavitation bubbles when they collapse near objects, specifically within six bubble diameters of a surface will launch one of these jets towards the surface. And that is the basis of cavitation erosion in pumps and other devices. In the past twenty five years I have specialized in cavitation and
Serge has for about the same time as well, also Ed. What we have noticed is that in the course of
doing [machining the jets]... in 2004 is that many of the impacts we were seeing were not circular that you would expect from a liquid jet. The jet is no longer liquid that has been transferred to a solid phase. And we deduced it is a crystalline form of water that is predominantly a macro
cation in that it has a positive charge across most of the crystal including both the head the sides, and the tail is negatively tipped. This crystal can form closed loops and produces a tremendous electrostatic charge, mostly positive due to the protons from the water molecules. The result is an electrostatically attracted with tremendous force to whatever is nearby. We observed that the electrostatic behavior was dominating the machine control factors. The result was you would aim for the center of a square of plastic and instead of heading towards the center you would find a trench burnt all around the perimeter. There are all sorts of examples of this. There are charged molecules involved. The result is that it would carve these long trenches. Some of the trenches are as long as two meters in length. So because of the long length of the trenches we observed we realized the conservation of energy is being violated.
Based on calculations from the cavitation erosion equation I derived it is obvious that the longest of the trenches were violating conservation of energy in the tune to 11,000 or more. What happened is in the process of several scale ups we produced a hot water heater that was funded by a grant
by a group of investors in 2009. In June of 2009. We ended up doing an experiment in August both the 24th and 25th that was really landmark and it ended up producing tremendous levels of transmutation and radiation. Also ended up giving us a dose of radiation sickness in the process as well. So it was a
serendipitous discovery. We were doing the machining, we saw the formation of the crystal, we realized we had to understand it's behavior to control machining correctly. So that is what led to the fusion discovery. It is not that we came at it from being fusion researchers to begin with. We are
nanotechnologists by trade. We use cavitation to process materials. This is the space that we came out of and we have followed fusion all the way back into the days of Pons and Fleishman and we realized that there is probably a cavitation element present in the Pons and
Fleishman experiment. We all kept an eye on it ever since then. I think we have proven there is more to meets the eye when it comes to cavitation.
Once again the point is the difference between us and other cavitation methods is that we are not producing fusion inside the bubble, but producing it outside the bubble where the jet goes. The fusion is
occurring right on the head of the bow shock surrounding the crystal that carves these trenches or passes through the water. The result is because the shock wave nucelosynthesis that produces elements in the same abundances and distributions and isotopes that compares to supernova nucleosynthesis. The mechanics are exactly the same, the results are exactly the same. Only minor differences because water is present.
We saw the occurrence of extra chlorine that is the result we had the fact that we had extra oxygen in the water. There are a few differences that are quite interesting in terms of the signature on the transmutation data. But the result is pretty clear that it produced abundant radiation. It actually ended up activating the PVC enclosure in one of the experiments and two and a half hours after the experiment it was so radioactive that it would have been lethal if you had been exposed to it for 40 hours. I actually captured a decay curve following the half-life of radioactive chlorine that was inside the PVC so it was obvious
there had been heavy neutron, deuteron, and alpha particle absorption into the 35 and 37 CL in the plastic. And that was transmuted into 39 CL and you could see the 56 minute half-life. It produced a very strong neutron flux based on that result. Gamma ray production was not that significant. It was only 20 to 50 percent above background during the experiment. So we have seen a lot of other interesting results due to the particles that were produced inside of the experiments. Transmuted materials placed in clear polystyrene dishes.
Polystyrene acts just like Cr-39. It allows you to see nuclear tracts. I think it is a better material than CL 39. You could see
spiraling electron tracts, spiraling alpha particles, stars where nucleuses were disintegrating, you could see gamma branching of electron-positron pairs.
This was all in the dish that the particles were placed in. And it formed an opaque ring along the bottom of the dish. In the first two to three days after the experiment, and then I took the dish after that and it was exposed a week later but barely produced any
tracks at all. The evidence was short lived isotopes. All of this was confirmed because we did independent analysis of the transmuted material. We sent it to a variety of different sources for redundant analysis. Beginning with the University of Maine. They had a surface science lab that specializes in looking at elemental concentrations on surfaces. And so it was obvious we were seeing a spread that covered, you know the bulk of the periodic table. So we ended up doing further analysis also with
Media Sciences Corporation through a friend. And also with Dr. Edmund Storms formally Los Alamos, famous LENR researcher did some work for us, gratis. He did some analysis of the same material.
We also went back to the University of Maine we did SPX analysis which allows you to distinguish between the binding energy in the nucleus and to distinguish between ordinary carbon and diamond. In one of the experiments we did we saw
postage stamp sized pieces of diamond coating the experiment. It appeared in a matter of seconds in one of the very powerful experiments.
We could tell that was diamond because there was a large spike right at the binding energy of diamond and a smaller spike to show there was some elemental carbon present. It produced more of the lower atomic weight agents, and then less as you went up the periodic table. In fact, you could see that the even number elements
were favored. It followed the odd even rule of astronomy as even are favored due to alpha fusion. Even though the results of P to P fusion were present too, you would see the
presence of elements from P and P fusion, both rapid and slow neutron absorption. The result is that we synthesized, we saw at least 78 elements just in the mass spectrometer alone.
We also looked at isotopes too. It produced all types of isotopes. We were able to calculate isotope ratios for about 40 different isotopes. You could see plainly it followed the solar nucleosynthesis behavior.
This is present as a signature on the data in a variety of different forms. Another thing to point out is that the bulk of the composition of these particles was carbon and oxygen. Carbon and oxygen comprise around 75 or 80% of the total transmuted material. So that is exactly the same as you would see when you go to forming a white dwarf. They are mostly carbon and oxygen. So everything followed the behavior of first solar nucleosynthesis and then it progressed up to see behavior that was the same as type one supernovas and then even higher energies you could see type 2 supernova behavior and also solar quark collapse that is similar to... that is a type of type 2 supernova...
So you could also see another interesting example is that, you know as the carbon concentration would drop the concentration of the other elements that were heavier than carbon would increase accordingly. It was a one to one correspondence. The result is that every atom of carbon that was transmuted into a heavier element you would see the carbon drop and then the heavier element increase. I created a chart in which I had carbon as an X axis and you could plainly see the nucleosynthesis behavior showed up in that chart very cleanly. I included data from twelve different experiments, in fact I was able to lump together not only... but also a version on the mass spec data as well. You guys did calculations on the materials and......
So let me kind of stop there to pause....
S: Let me interject... we are getting some background noise from one of your phones. If you have something going on in the background it would be appreciated if you could mute your phone. I appreciate that introduction. I might have... You almost need a PHD to understand what you just said. I have enough schooling that I can follow pretty well. I was having to have my brain on 100 percent capacity. That is pretty amazing stuff. I am just curious what is your academic background.
M: My academic background is that I am a fluid dynamicist by training. I went to
Worcester Polytechnic Institute and I graduated with honors. I did mechanical engineering. I worked at
Alden Research Lab, which is one of the top five hydrodynamic facilities in the country. I
did my masters work there.
My background is Masters and Bachelors degrees in Mechanical Engineering, specialized in cavitation, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics and heat transfer.
My work experience is predominantly in cavitation for the past 25 years. And in fact, there was
Lockheed Missile & Space Co., and I worked in the fluid mechanics group 81-11
there. I worked on the underwater launch of the Trident 1 and Trident 2 nuclear missiles from submarines. So I would analyze the launch portion of the physics and a lot of that
dealt with cavitation.
S: Usually when you say cavitation, cavitation is an enemy of materials and it sounds like you were talking about or researching how to use cavitation in a productive manner.
M: That would be true of both Serge and I. We have learned to harness cavitation. In fact, really the history of harnessing cavitation dates back into Russia. That is where a lot of the earlier work was done. I think this is a good point for Serge to interject and talk about some of the work that went on there.
Serge: My background is in chemical engineering and international management, lets say global companies primarily in Japan and also the United States, but also I did quite a bit of work in the former
Soviet Union -- roughly after the dissolution of the former Soviet Union into Russia, Ukraine and other republics. Specifically working with high technology scientists and material synthesis as well as cavitation. And I did meet quite a number of people associated with ultrasonic
cavitation, as well as hydrodynamic cavitation. That was the basis of my, lets say learning initially about cavitation. Prior to that was one of the organizations I worked with, they were doing some preliminary cavitation work, but basically my foundation for understanding cavitation as well as forming a cavitation device processing company
called Five Star Technologies back in the mid 90s.
M: One thing I wanted to point out is that I consulted both Serge's company, Five Star Technologies,
and several other cavitation companies that would process materials. In fact, perhaps the only person in the US who has consulted
to all of them.
Serge: To go back a little, back in the 1994 through 1997 period I had quite a number of conversations with Dr. Eugene Mallove and you are familiar with Dr. Eugene Mallove. His background in cold fusion, and the subject of our conversation was deeply into cavitation and he was very, not only interested, but he became quite a proponent of addressing that fact that cavitation does fusion.
M: I have been noticing for years that there are a lot of different companies that were claiming results that were quite interesting from cavitation, like Hydrodynamics in Rome, GA. They have been heating water with cavitating pumps for twenty years. So a lot of people initially dismissed some of the early calorimetry data, but it is pretty obvious that something is going on. We don't claim to be the first to discover fusion in cavitation by no means, but what we have done is discover the actual mechanism by how cavitation accomplishes that. And it is not the way that everyone seems to think it terms of sono fusion or whatever. In fact I'm proposing that cavitation
reentrant jet fusion is actually responsible for many of the cavitation based fusion technologies, except those that are producing it directly inside of the bubble.
S: Lets talk for a minute about practical. You talked a lot about theoretical, how it works kind of concepts. Could you address for a minute, from a practical point of view, in terms of producing... you talked about how some of the applications include energy applications. What kind of prototyping have you done, and how far along is that towards practical devices that we could use for heating water, heating fluids for energy generation?
M: Well, the first reactor design and testing back in March of 2007, that was the very first test. Ok. That was really a scale up of seeing the trench formation. What it is, I took... I looked at the behavior of this thing as being attracted towards the
bow shock wave and then it would carve the trenches and presumably that would release some heat. At the time what I was looking at was not so much fusion, but zero point energy. Alright, because it is pretty obvious that the crystal was not just carving the trench, it was being pulled by it's own shock wave via the
Casimir force. This is what we call the LeClair Effect. What was happening is the implication is that it was accelerating up to relativistic speeds.
You have to be going half the speed of light to synthesis californium this is fundamentally different from what everyone else is saying. It has nothing to do with lattice based theories. There is nothing going on inside the material.
We achieved the same results when the substrate was copper, glass, aluminum. It makes no difference. Some of the materials will perform better than others, but what I did was
choose aluminum because I wanted to be able to use it like a sacrificial lamb and see pronounced behavior. I wanted to see the erosion. I wanted to be able to visually see the effect of what was going on. Because aluminum is soft I reasoned it would not resist the acceleration of crystal so much. Alright, so I picked a perforated aluminum plate that I bought out of a hardware store. Ok, what it did was roll this thing up into a spiral coil, placed it inside of a pipe, fed cavitation bubbles into it using a centrifugal pump as a cavitation bubble generator, OK? So what it is..I throttled the inlet of the pump so that it would create a negative suction head at the eye of the impeller and the result is the thing would crank out bubbles but at a much lower flow rate that the pump would typically operate at. So this is a half horse power 25 GPM pump but in cavitating mode it was putting out between .3 and .6 gallons per minute.
While we are in cavitation mode. Now cavitation bubbles went into the chamber where the aluminum plate was the bubbles would collapse in close enough proximity to the plate they would form
reentrant jets and they would cruise along both the rows and columns of drilled holes. This is the basis of a hot water heater.
I did this first experiment in March of 2007, I did two more between March and April of 2007. We picked up again in 2008 with another quick experiment. In 2009 is when we really went to town. We did eight experiments between July and August. Alright, and that is
when we really saw spectacular results, in fact it did not seem to be too sensitive to anything we did. We tried all the types of configurations.
We tried a full sheet that was 2 by 3 feet, rolled up into a 3 inch pipe that was three feet long. Thank God we did not run that for very long because we would probably be dead right now. We tried a scaled down version of that, also we did another experiment in July that is actually an
old pool filter. I took the filter out. The cartridge I put back in place was made out of drilled perforated plate. And in fact, that one only ran for thirty seconds. When we took it apart the core fell apart in three pieces because cavitation sliced right through the whole thing in thirty seconds. It was not just cavitation it was, you know the
LeClair Effect carving trench went right through the sheet. There was a postage stamp sized chunk of diamond. There was diamond glaze all over it. And the glaze looked like a photographed image of the plate itself. It has the same hole pattern. You could see that it was the reflection of what must have been the neutrons of the core. It went right through the aluminum sheet itself and then cast an image of the plate onto other adjacent parts of the plate. In the form of diamond.
S: Right... What I am looking for and I appreciate those descriptions. Rather than get into the minutia of how it works, give the lay person an overview of what is going on. How much energy is going in and how much is coming out, and when are we going to see one in the market place.
M: Yes, sure. The experiment in August showed that we were getting 3000 watts of thermal out using 800 watts of electrical in to run the plumbing. So the result was 3.4 COP. Alright, and we were seeing a 32.2 degree F average temperature rise going through the reactor. We had three thermocouples inside the reactor and then one on the outside and then there was the ambient temperature. You could see 52F temperature spikes inside the reactor that were occurring over a time span of less than a second. So there were very intense short lived events. Lots of them. That were heating the fluids. The result was an instant temperature rise going through this thing. Plus it substantially different than the Pons Fleishman cells where you have to wait two weeks to condition the electrodes. I think what is happening in their case is that cavitation is making the surface a bit rougher and the
LeClair Effect kicks in and that is where you see the results. In our device the temperature rise is instant.
In economics this is comparable right now to a heat pump. Alright, cause a heat pump run at about 300% efficiency. Take 100 watts electrical and it will produce 300 watts of thermal. So in our case it is basically the same idea. You can take 1000 watts of electrical and get 3400 watts of thermal. It is favorable in economics to a heat pump. It is probably lower cost because it is actually simpler to build. Of course the only downside is that it produces radiation. Currently, that may be addressable, because one of the things I would like to try is actually tune this thing down so it is not producing fusion in some instances and strictly producing zero point energy drive hot water. In another instance I may want to run it in radioactive mode just to be able to crank out huge amounts of transmuted elements. Depending on the application. I think ultimately I will be able to run this thing so it produces no radiation whatsoever. Zero point energy accelerated the crystal and fusion and fission was a byproduct.
S: If I understand right the LeClair Effect is destructive of the sub strait.
M: Yes, but it can also effect in the free stream. It can be accelerated by it's own shockwave. It also occurs in the liquid. It does not have to just happen in the sub strait. It amplifies it when it is on the
substrate. it gives you more electrons on the surface in a conductive surface. It is the electrostatic attraction that is the key. Just while it is on my mind I want to point one other thing out. When you look at the range of
reentrant jet sizes they are all in the sub micron region. When you calculate the
electrostatic attraction of the crystal of that size and find out that it actually has between 30 to 70
percent of the kinetic energy of the jet. That translates out to a COP of 1.3 and 1.7 for crystallized jets to go
straight into the surface. That happens to be the same COP as quite a few of the Pons and
Fleishman cells. I am proposing that when they are running with normal impacts going
ninety degrees into the surface like you see in a very chaotic situation like inside of a pump or just in electrolysis on the surface of an anode or an electrode. The result is that just the electrostatic attraction explains the COP of those devices. In order to go above two the
LeClair Effect has to kick in and generate trenches or accelerating through the liquid.
S: As far as the heat generated by the LeClair Effect due to the destruction of the
substrate. I would think that is energy being transferred from one form to the other creates heat.
M: Yeah and you get a combination of heating through the sheer from the high velocity paths. That was what I was originally looking for but in the process of accelerating up to the higher speeds the pressure at the front of the shock wave hits thousand of gigapascals and the result is that you are able to nuclear synthesize incredibly heavy elements that people don't think can be done on earth. But the result is that cavitation is capable of doing it, and in fact one of the things I want to point out is that I derived an equation for predicting cavitation erosion depth. When it strikes the surface how deep
will the hole be? That fits a pressure curve that is dramatically higher than anything anyone has proposed before, and I validated this equation against American Society of Tests and Materials
ASTM. They have a standard for cavitation erosion called the G32 erosion standard. It measures erosion on 22 different materials and my equation matched the erosion rates on all those materials to a 98%. Basically, almost 100% accurate at what is going on when cavitation hits surfaces. The interesting thing is that
Van der Walls repulsion kicks in and I took that into account and I predicted incredibly high pressures have to be happening. But at the point of impact the result is no new physics is required. It is only the correct application of
Van der Walls repulsion tells you the pressures are sufficient to ignite D and D fusion on the surface when you impact
reentrant jet going the speed of sound in water, which is 1500 meters per second. If it hits medium strength materials or higher it will ignite
D-D fusion on the surface. That is the validated erosion prediction.
S: How much of this is science picking up?
M: Well I have seen cavitation is in the golden age right now. We used to watch how many patents were issued every year. Twenty years ago you would be lucky to see a dozen patents in cavitation being issued. Now on the order of eight hundred
to a thousand every year. For all different purposes you know. Cavitation is in it's renaissance mode right now. But really as far as cold fusion I would have to say at least half of the results out there in cold fusion can be attributed to cavitation in one form or another. If you are talking ultrasonic, inertial confinement, electric spark discharge, all of these different forms form cavitation bubbles.
The end result is if they form a reentrant jet the LeClair Effect will kick in. It explains the bulk of LENR results. People have tried to explain it through new methodologies through lattice based fusion. I do not believe any of them.
S: Did you happen to listen to the interview I did with Brillion last week talking about their LENR model of how that process works?
M: Well, I was aware that interview took place, but I have not heard the interview.
S: They have an interesting model that seemed quite different than what you described. It did not use any cavitation. I would be interested to have you guys compare notes, because you are very strong in the theoretical end of things. And claim to understand how the process works. And be curious to know what you would come up with in comparing your models.
M: Well I can make a very good comparison for you. Take the transmutation data on the Pons and Fleishman cells. If you take the cell that is running at one watt for several months, say it runs for a thousand hours. You will see several hundred part per minute transmutation on the surface of the anode. That is the same concentration that I saw running for one hour with a thousand times the power. In other words, the amount of transmutation in Pons and Fleishman cells is exactly the same in the kilowatt hours that are involved. You get from one kilowatt hour of cavitation you get the same level of transmutation and the same elements in both of them.
S: And you are doing this?
M: How do these lattice based theories explain heavy element fusion when they are trying to use D to D fusion as a starting
point? It takes thousands of gigapascals to synthesize anything past iron.
S: In your model you are describing zero point energy as the probable source of the excess energy? You also see nuclear as being a possible source for some of that excess
M: It is probably the number one source. Basically, what is happening is that the zero point energy is accelerating the crystal. And that kinetic energy is being transferred to the energy that I see drives the fusion itself, just like it does in shock wave nucleosynthesis. Any time you synthesize elements heavier than iron you have to actually
absorb energy from the surrounding medium in the form of energetic shock wave because there is no more energy being liberated after iron when you try to fuse elements together. It takes energy
other than fusion to fuse elements past iron. The fact we saw elements being fused all the way up to californium. I saw 40 elements past iron there is no way in hell that fusion energy could have produced that. It had to be something else and that is zero point energy.
S: So zero point energy is one of the drivers?
M: It is the driver. Basically, there is an electrostatic attraction between the shockwave that is around the crystal as it is moving supersonic speeds
through the fluid. The crystal and the shock are attracted to each other. The crystal is positive and the shockwave is incandescent so it is negative and in fact incandescent shock waves also thermionically emit electrons. There is a very high electron concentration on the shockwave. The result is that initially causes the crystal to accelerate towards the shockwave, and as it gets closer and closer the
Casimir Effect kicks in because you get two conductive surfaces in close proximity, only nanometers apart. The result is that the
Casimir Force is now causing the acceleration along with electrostatic attraction. But here is the real kicker, what is happening is that the shock wave is not responding to an equal and opposite reaction force. The result is that this thing accelerates without
bounds, and that is why I am seeing this thing hitting apparently relativistic speeds.
I mean we are talking about really substantial phenomenon that goes way past anything anyone has seen in cold fusion. We specialize in cavitation because really we thought when the whole thing began to appear in 89 that eventually we would be the ones that discover the answer.
S: Lets talk about again practical in terms of when... is your company still focused on research and development or are you moving into production, prototyping for a device that could go into the market place.
M: Well, I have a device right now that I could easily build that would heat your house but obviously with the radioactivity you would not like that. So we need to do more research in terms of getting this thing into the equivalent of a nuclear power plant situation where you are producing mass quantities and you have appropriate radiation shielding. Or we need to get it so we do not produce radiation and we just extract the zero point energy from it. It is a duel goal we are doing and we are going to do both. We are in the commercialization stage now. There is nothing stopping me from building a water heater. The core of the water heater would cost about 25 dollars to build and then there is the cost of the pump which is a couple hundred bucks. I built the entire reactor for 250 bucks. No one can claim to build a 3000 watt reactor for that price. In terms of simplicity it does not get any simpler than this. In fact, maybe that is why it has escaped detection for so long because it was so simple.
The upfront capital cost is a fraction of everyone else's equipment. I don't care how they do it.
S: You have four patents. If someone were to digest those patents or there were some simple language wrapped around them is it conceivable that a do it yourself-er could go build a 3000 watt reactor with similar materials?
M: Absolutely, but I would not recommend that. They would end up with radiation sickness. I have had radiation sickness for more than a year from two separate experiments, and believe me it was nasty. I strongly discourage any home inventors from doing it. I also want to point out that it is covered by the patent and it would constitute infringement, including R and D.
S: My understanding is that you can build one yourself but you cannot sell with a patent.
M: You cannot use or sell or make it for yourself. That is the mistake in the notion. Patents are patents. You cannot build a device without a license, period. That is the way it works.
M: What happened after the experiment. 24 hours after the experiment we both had vomiting and sneezing non stop. We had no saliva production for about two weeks. Lost thermal regulation of our body temperatures for about 7 to 8 months afterwards. Passing the linings of our intestines. We thought we were going to die. It was a near fatal dose for both of us. This is why I strongly recommend that people do not attempt to do this unless they are going to try it under incredibly safe conditions. Really there is nothing stopping universities outside of the United States from attempting this if they want to try and replicate it. The patents describe it pretty fully. They could, but my recommendation again is that they are better off working with us than independently just for their own safety.
S: How much time do you think it would take to come up with a commercial version that would have the adequate shielding involved to be producing electricity commercially?
M: It is a function of how much money you get in your hand. The answer is that if I was well capitalized I would say within a year I would have something out there that could be used for heating. That is where I would like to see it start off first.
S: How much capital would you need for that?
M: The same as a typical start up. It takes a few million to get into business. So you know if I had at least a half a million I could do a feasibility study that would work the economics out in a lot of detail. If I had five million I could get to the point I could
S: And for someone doing due diligence.... for an investment group doing due diligence what do you have to demonstrate or to show them?
M: I have a working reactor and I have thermal data, I have transmutation data I have all the things that Rossi and the rest of them don't have. I have everything. I would invite them to sit next to the thing for two hours like I did if they think that it does not work. See how strong their conviction is.
S: Yeah, I doubt that they would take you up on that one.
M: I doubt they would. The answer is that this thing... we are not talking a lot of work to get this to a workable commercial form. It is not nearly as complex as everyone
else's stuff. There is almost nothing to it. Really it is just a matter of going through standard procedure like you would with a nuclear reactor and having appropriate shielding.
S: When you say nuclear reactor you are talking about a billion dollar project and a lot of capital so I do not know if that is a good comparison.
M: I am just saying if you wanted to build a gigawatt thermal reactor that put out a billion watts of hot water you could build that plant at a fraction of the cost of a standard nuclear reactor. Plus you do not have to deal with all the nasty elements that you do in a typical reactor such as enriched Uranium or Plutonium.
S: There would be no residual radiation?
M: There is no bad residual. Well, the residual is the transmuted elements but that is really your gravy. To be honest with you as exciting as the fusion and all the thermal part of this is, the value of the transmuted material is so valuable that it overwhelms the value of the energy being produced. You know like for instance, rare earth's right now are in scarce demand. We produce rare earth concentrations that were far higher than you would find in typical ores. And with this process tuned in I could produce families of elements in higher concentrations than I am now. I have already done some experiments in those lines that were highly successful. Just to put some numbers on it.. If you produce tritium.. It is worth 120
million dollars a pound because it is very difficult to produce. It is being produced in reactors. It only has a 12 year half life. I am sure we could produce significant levels of that in the experiment based on the heavier elements we produced.
You can extrapolate backwards to the lower elements. Some of the transuranic elements we only produce a few grams of those a year in high neutron flux reactors in the US and Russia. I could produce those in high quantities. All of a sudden things that were too scarce to be of any commercial use could be
commercializable. You know so precious metals.... I mean if you look at the distribution.. It produced ore quality material in every single element that we see.
S: What is the reagent in this transmutation? What are you converting from to get to those elements?
M: I am starting to water and converting water into everything else. It is alchemy. We are talking full blown nuclear fusion creating transmuted material.
S: What about, how do you isolate the things that are coming out so that you have individual elements?
M: Well, I was saying earlier theoretically if I was able to control the speed of the pull that is a constant velocity I should be able to synthesize individual elements in high qualities. I have already seen that happen in experiments occurring naturally so it is just a matter of harnessing it.
S: In terms of the building of a power plant.... With all the certainties of scaling... What would be the next step in building, moving towards a low megawatt or high megawatt power plant?
M: A very modest amount of cash I could produce a million watt reactor tomorrow that would cost me about 2000 dollars to build the reactor core. It would cost more to buy the pump. Here is the kicker I will be bringing the COP in this thing to such a higher level. The 3.4 was just the initial shot. We did another experiment where it appeared the COP was much higher than that but we did not have the thermal turned on. But the radiation produced was about 200 times higher than any other experiments. I think the COP of around 20 or 30 is probably practical with this design. I am going to move towards a laser based design. That will actually cause the
reentrant jets to all be in the correct directions so you end up in a much higher efficiency then having a whole
poupourri of jets going in different directions. Using this tech using that version of the patent everything would be at the same energy and the result is that I'm predicting perhaps a 25 megawatt sized reactor that would be no bigger than a desk.
S: And the cost?
M: I have already done some laser based experiments where I produced long trenches that were two meters long. The trick to being able to scale it up. I might be able to hit a million COP. So I think the upper end of this thing is so high that to be quite honest it will go orders of magnitude faster than everyone else in terms of performance. There is almost no upper limit.
S: What about the safety level? One of the primary considerations is the radioactive waste that comes off of it. It has to be disposed of somewhere. Of course a lot of the elements are what you want wouldn't there be some elements you would not want that you would have to get rid of, and how would you deal with that?
M: All the material cools off the background levels of radiation within two days, so the bulk of it are short lived isotopes that decays almost immediately. There are trace quantities of the heaviest elements but they only appeared
in experiments with heavier materials. The elements you are really interested in on the periodic table they are produced in large quantities. I would say that really when you look at the bulk of material that were made I would say 90 of it is valuable and ten percent you do not care about. You probably make more money just producing copper due to the high levels of transmutation to copper. By the way, we see transmutation in every single
substrate that we tested on this thing. You see varying degrees. Some perform better than others but really it is independent of whatever material is there. The only thing that is required is that you have to have water to form the crystal. It has to be cavitation in water. And by the way it also formed heavy water version of the crystal just from the own neutron bombardment while it was undergoing fusion. The crystal itself transmuted into a heavy water version.
S: Lets talk for a minute about the consumption of water, since water is the reagent here and water even though 70 or 75 percent of the earth's surface is water, we have a lot of it, if this were to become a predominant fuel source for the planet what would be the rate of consumption of water on a daily basis?
M: Negligible. There is some confusion here. Fusion converts... if you have fusion you can convert about 1% of the total rest mass into energy. In other words, if you took water and one percent of it were anti-matter that is how much energy it would yield. Total conversion equals MC squared. A huge amount of energy is present in water that goes so far beyond anything. You know, the only thing you see is transmutation of the water into the heavy elements. Maybe that will help offset rising ocean levels.
E: I am a lay person if you will, would offer a couple comments for you to consider. For people like me. There are currently at least two serious efforts underway here in the US using electrolysis to convert simple water to hydrogen fuel and the oxidizer so it is splitting water. One down in Florida and the other in Pennsylvania. They are currently running these devices in automobiles as our next transportation solution. Hydrogen and oxygen once it goes through the cylinders then reverts to H20 again. Literally, you are not depleting any water. The exhaust of these vehicles...
S: That is a chemical reaction not a transmutation. In transmutation you are irreversibly converting water to another element so the water is
E: I think what Mark is saying, if I am understanding correctly and Mark is so far ahead of me it is not funny.... part of his effort here is to make my new refinements to the process. He has talked to me and others that he knows what he is talking about is real. What he needs to do now is refine the process.
E: I got involved in this by the way from a career in the navy and looking at it with a big hammer approach it always puzzled me how a propeller... could be corroded essentially if you ran it long enough if you ran it in cavitation to a nub. So you got bubbles destroying metal. That just did not make sense. We know now a great deal more about that destructive process, what has been happening in the last thirty to forty years perhaps even longer is instead of looking at cavitation as strictly a negative process there are a great deal of useful tools... air lubrication is another very gross use of air bubbles and higher control of marine vehicles but also atmospheric aircraft.
M: It is important to point out that Ed specializes in supercavitation. We have been looking at a variety of things in the past including the underwater express where you actually have a sub traveling at high speed inside of a giant cavitation bubble. It is something the military wants.
We are tuned into all things cavitation.
S: It acts as a lubricant.
M: Skin friction is down so you do not have water on the side of the object. I want
Serge and Ed to say a couple things too. So both of these guys have a chance to talk before we run out of time.
S: I would like to ask a question along the lines of the destructive aspect of the
LeClair Effect where, what would your substrate... lets say you build a reactor. How long would it take for the reactor to be destroyed due to the
M: The reactor we ran you would see scratches on it but it hadn't noticed being
worn after ten hours of operation. Say one of those cores is good for a month or two. But the reality is that we have better ways of doing this which I do not want to get into for proprietary reasons, but we have other core designs where erosion is not going to be an issue.
S: OK. Why don't we go to Serge...
Serge: I just would like to emphasize one thing due to the nature of having studied cavitation so deeply in various applications not only here in the United States but in also parts of the world and having Mr. Edmund Pope as our adviser. With his expertise and knowledge we have quite an edge in really diving into cavitation from another aspect. In fact at one point that really gave us another lets say prompt to concentrate on developing cavitation to a higher form of energy if you will. What we have recently discovered Mark and I in the ability not only to get Zero Point Energy.
M: Serge brings up an interesting point in which we used to work using cavitation where we had fields of bubbles, everything was uncontrolled, we are processing materials, but we were getting
finicky results. Things would not always repeat the way we wanted them to. The logical conclusion for us is that we had to control cavitation on it's most fundamental level. This is what the patents represent. You are forming and collapsing these bubbles in which you have control over the entire process. What this means is that we can do cause and effect for one bubble, one jet, and you would see one result as opposed to just seeing just a mess. For us it was a next step controlling every cavitation bubbles in the field.
Not allow any of them to be uncontrolled so you know the progress that was made here led to a situation we are now cavitation is so tightly controlled that there is not any deviation. So because of that important step this is why we are able to see fusion, zero point energy, and all the other effects pop up so clearly because we had control of everything else. This is what makes us different than the others. We have fundamental control over cavitation and understand it in a way that the rest cannot appreciate.
S: Ok. Go ahead Serge.
Serge: Basically, I get into the summation of using all those different expertise and also practical application of cavitation and so many different... you know really challenging application that conventional methods not only disrupt the ability to formulate very unique lets say tendencies and applying the right amount of energy to produce lets say particle reduction in some cases depending upon dispersion and suspension or if you are trying to create an emulsion. Based on our knowledge again using the physics and applying other factors relating to how to address what is the ultimate maximum energy applied in the most
non-invasive method. That is what we have achieved. Certainly you can say that the extraction of fusion and deriving radiation as a result is not typical of non invasive. In due time we will know how to control the effect. Mark has some ideas that will be coming up along that line.
M: It is important to point out that since we have such fundamental control over cavitation that all of our other applications are non fusion ones have been outstanding. We have achieved 2 nanometer particle sizes that are very hard to do. Another is processing of algae to extract oil out of cells. We can rupture algae cells so efficiently that we are close to 40 or 50 times more efficient than other technologies for extracting algae using cavitation. They don't take advantage of the reaction jet. These are just a couple of examples. It has led to breakthrough discoveries in just about every application.
S: Would you license out those kinds of types of discoveries process and multiple applications?
M: Absolutely. In fact we would like to see broad non exclusive licensing of the algae biodiesel so it really gets out there. The same is true of fusion too. If you want to be in the energy field you have to be big. The key is that you have to get it out there. We would invite everyone from the small companies all the way to the large oil companies to license this we would love to see it get out in every way shape and form.
E: I have somebody that is associated here locally with Penn State University Sterling that was
in fact looking at Mark's approach to enhancing the algae fuel process. There is an ongoing project focused on algae harvesting right here, but we are able to get them to understand what Mark can do. It would be an order of magnitude over what they have been thinking.
S: To use the analogy and say that the discovery of how to control cavitation will be to energy and industry what the discovery of the screw driver was to tinkerers?
M: Yeah, I would be honest with you I would compare it to the discovery of electricity in terms of the number of potential applications. There are probably just as many applications for cavitation as there are things to plug into the wall.
E: I would agree.
S: So it would be the millennium of cavitation whereas the last century where the last century was the century of electricity.
M: Think of it as the discovery of a new prime mover. I am taking an unorganized energy source and turning it into directed mechanical motion. Every time you discover a new prime mover it always results in
societal transformation. How much difference did the internal combustion engine make?
S: So the number of applications will basically match our imagination to come up with stuff.
M: I can think of tens of thousands off the top of my head.
S: everything from cleaning to propulsion to
M: One of the versions of our patents we use two cavitation bubbles next to each other you can actually direct the jet coming out of one bubble to collapse the second bubble in close proximity so it will launch a jet through both bubbles to fuse a large bubble that is being controlled by a small bubble you could do microsurgery. you could reattach a detached retina. You could go after things like unfolded of folded retina and then welding it back into place. You could cure macular degeneration. This has got earth shaking....
S: Keep going lets go for five minutes on just all the applications you can think of off the top of your head.
M: Another example is mixing alone there are thousand of applications. Right now 80 percent of the high
shear applications are in pharmaceuticals producing human injectables where everything has to be smaller than any capillary that it enters into. That is the space I worked out of. So that whole class by itself is huge I mean just mixing alone I would guess there are at least ten or twenty thousand applications. You know there are that many different substances you could mix together. Then if you get into the other areas well I mean on a broader scope obviously bio end of it you could do micro surgery like catheters. They already have laser powered catheters they just produce shock waves. I envision a
Catheter that has jets coming out of it. You could do really precise microsurgery. Repairing a heart valve. In fact, in the far end of that I can envision even nanobots that armed with a small canister of positrons that spits one out every once and a while to collapse next to something it would launch a jet towards and the result is you could have a nanobot that would go through your body
lysing invading cells, bacteria, whatever you have...... you would have an artificial immune system. More mundane aspects cavitation is used in product processes, food paint, coatings on materials you can actually remove materials but add them. Nano technology applications.
Bottom up, you are adding material to the surface. Top down, you are removing it. Alright so all those different processes are possible. Like for instance a really key one is producing photovoltaic.
NOTE: NOTE: We have replaced the previous Echo comment service with
Disqus. The old Echo database of comments has now been imported into Disqus. The old comments are loaded in date received order. This will mean that if say, someone posted a reply a week after a comment was posted, then it will appear before the original post does (in other words jumbling up will occur in the normal Parent/Child pattern of replies) and comments will not follow a logical order. However, comments you have made/make in Disqus since the changeover date will appear in the normal order of appearance.
ADVISORY: With any
technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money
unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the
technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the
technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of
truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
"When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."