Lattice Confinement Fusion (LCF) Overview

Lattice Confinement Fusion (LCF) Overview

Advanced Energy Conversion (AEC) Project, NASA Glenn Research Center.

L. Forsley (Global Energy Corporation), T. Benyo (NASA GRC), B. Steinetz (NASA GRC), V. Pines (PineSci Consulting), M. Pines (PineSci Consulting), A. Chait (NASA GRC), L. Dudzinski (NASA HQ). Contributing panelists M. Forsbacka (NASA HQ) and R. Litchford (NASA HQ). August 19, 2020.

Contents

• AEC Project — Project Charter; Project Objectives Met; Bremsstrahlung Initiated Nuclear Reactions in Deuterated Metals, Animation
• LCF Virtual Workshop Executive Summary — Workshop Objectives Met; Process and Theory; Bremsstrahlung Irradiation Team On-Site, Animation; Physical Review C Papers; Past and Present Partners; Publications and Patents
• Workshop Feedback — Panelists; Attendees
• Path Forward — Mechanisms and Modeling; Development Approaches
• Conclusion

Advanced Energy Conversion (AEC) Project

AEC project charter

• Overall goal: power/energy sources for long-duration deep space missions.
• Initial research objectives: no solar energy; non-radioactive starting materials; no actinide fission/decay-based solution; benign operations; over 10 year lifetime; power below the kilowatt-electric level; space rated systems (weight per watt).
• No conventional energy source exists today to match these requirements.
• SMD requirement: understand, demonstrate and publish bremsstrahlung-initiated sub-barrier nuclear reactions to validate the approach.

AEC project: objectives met

• Demonstrated sub-barrier fusion — lattice electron-screened, bremsstrahlung-photoneutron initiated nuclear reactions; lattice confinement fusion, boosted fusion, stripping reactions.
• Results published in Physical Review C — theoretical: electron screening enhancement, neutron heating; experimental: bremsstrahlung photo-neutron initiated, repeatable LCF.
• Demonstrated non-actinide fission — transmutation of Pd and Ag; ICP-AES, TOF-SIMS, SEM/EDX observed non-actinide fission products.
• Demonstrated excess power in metal deuterides — US Navy Dahlgren/NASA AEC partner using the JWK co-deposition patent. Comparison of thermal power per gram: ²³⁸Pu thermal decay 0.54 W(t)/gm (continuous); Pd/Rh/Li deuteride 15.0 – 90.0 W(t)/gm (continuous but unoptimized); ²³⁵U thermal fission 1.0 MW(t)/gm (if all fissioned). ICP-AES, XPS, TOF-SIMS, SEM/EDX observed non-actinide fission products.
• Also demonstrated depleted uranium (²³⁸U) activation and fission — bremsstrahlung-initiated, hybrid fusion-fast-fission; modeled fission and activation with MCNP-6.

LCF Virtual Workshop Executive Summary

Dr. Bruce Steinetz, Senior Technologist (Principal Investigator); Dr. Arnon Chait, Dr. Vlad Pines and Dr. Marianna Pines, Senior Scientists, NASA GRC (theory).

LCF workshop: objectives met

• Objective 1: disseminate AEC project findings. NASA Glenn Research Center disseminated key findings in the Physical Review C journal papers through a virtual workshop, with 70+ attendees including four NASA panelists, emphasizing electron screening enhanced nuclear fusion in a confined deuterated lattice initiated by photo-neutron heating.
• Objective 2: challenge the findings. Panelists concluded theory and experiment were sound, and suggested paths forward from science to technology to engineering. Feedback was also taken from other attendees.

Executive summary

• Successfully induced nuclear reactions by novel methods.
  • High energy drivers, primary DD fusion: bremsstrahlung x-ray and gamma (70 keV – 15 MeV) neutrons; electron beam — SEM, eGun, accelerator (5 kV – 6 MV).
  • Low energy drivers, secondary neutrons: electrolytic loading (under 30 V); glow/plasma discharge (500 eV – 7 keV); Johnson-Matthey deuterium cycling (under 2 eV).
  • Nuclear emissions observed: neutrons, protons, tritons, alphas, ³He.
  • Transmutations including tritium.
  • Actinide and non-actinide particle capture and fission demonstrated.
  • Excess power observed (with US Navy, 15 – 90 W(t)/gm).
• AEC project: developed critical expertise in experiment and theory. Experiment — co-deposition and photon stimulation highly reproducible. Theory — driven by astrophysics and accelerator electron screening experiments.
• Related work: US Navy partners and US Army participating with the Navy; DoE LBNL reproduced related work with glow/plasma discharge.
• Compact, low power, space-rated accelerators make bremsstrahlung-boosted sub-critical reactors possible, combined with other methods.

Demonstrated “hot” d-D fusion in “cold” fuel (deuterated metal) under bremsstrahlung radiation, compared against the neutron spectrum in ohmic discharges of the Italian ENEA-Fusion FTU tokamak.

Lattice confinement process description

• Lattice/plasma Coulomb screening.
• Reactions are highly localized: the majority of the fuel is cold.
• D-D interactions are highly screened: most favorable large/small angle scattering probability, hence highest nuclear tunneling probability.
• Most efficient means to heat fuel is neutrons, for high tunneling probability.
• Only use energy to heat the projectile D via n*, not the entire fuel D.
• Process control is possible through the rate and energy of the neutron source — the fusion process is controllable by removing the n* source — and through customizing fuel and lattice elements.

Theory at a glance: lattice neutron heating and electron screening

• Essential role of electron screening in nuclear fusion: seemingly negligible, but critical.
• Unified formulation of all screening types: shell, conduction, plasma channels created by gamma.
• Large/small angle scattering; nuclear tunneling.
• Oppenheimer-Phillips reactions with hot D and Compton electrons.
• Lattice poisoning; multiplication events.
• Increase in the astrophysical factor S(E) due to screening, independently of its effect on tunneling.
• Large/small angle scattering with screening for light and heavy charged particles and for neutrons.
• Kinematic equations for calculations of all reaction product energies, including subsequent events.
• Future directions: choice, source and energy of neutral particles for mediating fusion; choice of lattice and fuel elements; scaling and multiplication processes.

Physical Review C papers

Bremsstrahlung-induced nuclear reactions in electron screened, deuterated metal lattices.

• Theoretical: metal cold plasma versus gas plasma; screening enhances nuclear reaction rates by more than 20 orders of magnitude; electron screened enhanced cross sections.
• Experimental: D(d,n)³He primary hot fusion neutrons; boosted fusion/stripping secondary neutrons, Ti(d,n)⁴⁷V and Ti(d,n)⁴⁸V; lattice confinement fusion fast neutrons observed.

The two Physical Review C papers were also issued as NASA technical papers, NASA-TP-20205001616 and NASA-TP-20205001617.

Past and present partners

• NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC), pre-AEC 1989-2014; Advanced Energy Conversion (AEC) Project from 2014 — develop a non-actinide space power system; understand condensed matter nuclear reactions.
• US Navy (SPAWAR), 1989-2012 — NASA GRC and SPAWAR used different processes with similar nuclear results. Additional funding provided by DTRA, ONR, DoE and NNSA. US Navy SPAWAR Pd/D co-deposition and patents.
• JWK/Navy NCRADA (SPAWAR), 2008-2012 — “Study of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions I and II”.
• JWK/Navy NCRADA (China Lake), 2010-2012 — “Metal Interactions with Low Z Gasses”.
• JWK/Navy NCRADA (NSWC Dahlgren), 2015 onward — “LENR Materials Design and Characterization”; DFT model of LENR active materials; correlate co-deposition and B field effects.
• University of Maryland (Tim Koeth, PhD), 2015-2016 — x-ray microfocus triggering; a LINAC below 3 MeV was unstable for our needs.
• DoE Jefferson National Lab, 2016-2017 — AEC project schedule and JLAB schedule did not match up.
• DoE Argonne National Lab, 2017 — Van de Graaff generator unstable and did not meet our needs.
• IBA Industrial, 2017-2018 — hosted the most recent AEC experimental activity with a 3 MeV Dynamitron.
• JWK/Navy NCRADA (NSWC Indian Head), 2020 onward — “Advanced Energy and Propulsion Research and Development”; lattice strain modeling.

Conference papers, NASA TM and TP presentations, patents and patent applications

• US Patent 8,419,919, “System and Method for Generating Particles” (2013).
• Benyo, T.L. et al., “Investigation of Deuterium Loaded Materials Subject to X-ray Exposure”, NASA TM-2015-218491/REV1 (2015).
• Pines, V., et al., “Methods and Apparatus for Enhanced Nuclear Reactions”, USPTO Application 20170263337 (2016).
• Steinetz, B., et al., “Experimental Observations of Nuclear Activity in Deuterated Materials Subjected to a Low-Energy Photon Beam”, NASA TM-2017-218963 (2017).
• Forsley, L., “Space Power: The Genie Fast-Fission Sub-Critical Core”, ANS, Nuclear and Emerging Tech. for Space, Las Vegas, NV (2018).
• Benyo, T.L., et al., “Evidence of Electron-screened Oppenheimer-Phillips Reactions 162Er(d,n)163Tm or 162Er(p,γ)163Tm in Deuterated Materials Subjected to a Low-energy Photon Beam”, 9th Int. Particle Accelerator Conference, Vancouver, Canada (2018).
• Benyo, T.L. et al., “Gamma Energy Evaluation for Creation of 111mCd, 113mIn, and 115mIn Isotopes”, European Nuclear Physics Conference, Bologna, Italy (2018) — refereed publication.
• Smith, P., “Permeation Rate Equations for Hydrogen and Deuterium in a Palladium-Silver Alloy”, NASA TM-2019-220189 (2019).
• Forsley, L., et al., “Cryogenically Stable Propellant”, NASA Patent Disclosure 1568407350 (2019).
• Steinetz, B., et al., “Novel Nuclear Reactions Observed in Bremsstrahlung Irradiated Deuterated Metals”, Phys. Rev. C 101, 044610 (2020); NASA-TP-20205001616.
• Pines, V., et al., “Nuclear Fusion Reactions in Deuterated Metals”, Phys. Rev. C 101, 044609 (2020); NASA-TP-20205001617.

Papers and patents in process

• Fralick, G., et al., “Transmutations Observed from Pressure Cycling Palladium Silver Metals with Deuterium Gas”, journal submission.
• Baramsai, B., et al., “Fast Neutron Spectroscopy with Organic Scintillation Detectors in High Radiation Environments”, in revision.
• Ugorowski, P., et al., “Fast Neutron Spectroscopy with a Volumetrically-Sensitive, Moderating-Type Neutron Spectrometer in a High Radiation Environment”, in revision.
• Smith, P., et al., “Bubble Detector Neutron Dosimeter Measurements During Electrolytic Co-Deposition”, in review.
• DeChiaro, L.F. and Forsley, L.P., “A Summary of Density Functional Theory Calculations in Selected Binary and Ternary Metal Alloys and Hydrides”, joint Navy/NASA technical report in review.
• DeChiaro, L.F., et al., “A Multi-Laboratory Study of Anomalous Elements and Magnetic Field Orientation Effects in LENR Codeposition Experiments”, joint Navy/NASA technical report in review.
• DeChiaro, L.F., et al., “Method for Improving Nuclear Reactions by Modified Magnetic Fields”, disclosed and patent to be filed.

Panel and Attendee Feedback

Theresa Benyo, PhD, panel moderator; analytical physicist, Materials and Structures Division, NASA GRC. NASA Glenn Research Center, May 21, 2020.

Panel members: Matt Forsbacka, NASA HQ; Michael Houts, NASA MSFC; Ron Litchford, NASA HQ; John Scott, NASA JSC.

Panelist on experiment — Phys. Rev. C 101, 044610 (2020)

• Meticulous execution and attention to details — configuration and set-up; material characterization; measurements (methods, accuracy, calibration, statistics); signal discrimination and potential spoofing effects.
• Interpretation — well characterized neutron production rates and energy spectrum; demonstrated reproducibility (multiple ErD₃ and bare Er experiments); theoretically framed analysis and interpretation of results.
• Neutron production: screening enhanced fusion and other enhanced nuclear reactions.
• Comparison of theory and experiment: reasonable agreement, with a rationale for the discrepancy.
• Compelling evidence for the electron screening enhanced LCF hypothesis.

Ron Litchford, PhD, aerospace engineering, University of Tennessee Space Institute; Principal Technologist, NASA STMD, HQ.

Panelist on theory — Phys. Rev. C 101, 044609 (2020)

• Novel physical mechanisms and methodically crafted theory — rooted in well established foundational physics. No magic required. Solid physical rationale for simplified parameterization: electron screening parameters Ue and λsc; Coulomb barrier tunneling probability enhancement factor f(E).
• Exhaustive evaluation of contributing mechanisms and non-ideal effects — enhanced Coulomb barrier screening mechanisms; enhanced probability of large-angle Coulomb scattering; enhanced secondary nuclear reactions.
• Rigorous deductive formulation, a technical physics tour de force — no unexplained leaps in logic; careful examination of assumptions and implications.
• Enables a priori predictions based on known or estimable parameters. Testable and verifiable.

Panelist on tidying up and future work

• Tidying up — resolve masking effects from competing LCF processes, with fine grain quantification of primary and secondary contributing mechanisms; resolve lattice structure effects.
• Potential tuning knobs — fuel loading optimization and super packed fuel density; screening dependencies on lattice scales, void fraction, defects, dislocations and grains; engineered lattice assemblies via atomic layer deposition and epitaxial growth methods; resolve fusion reaction energetics and overall fusion power yield across multiple fusion reaction branches.
• Future work — gain and power scaling; assembly configurations and process optimization; evaluation of technical application scenarios; reduce to engineering practice.

Panelist on fusion-fission-fusion: a symbiotic relationship?

Fission with prompt and delayed gammas, and/or fusion.

Matt Forsbacka, PhD, nuclear engineering, University of Virginia; NASA Director, Safety and Assurance Requirements Division (SARD), HQ.

Attendees’ comments

• “I wish to thank you and all of the panelists yesterday for the superb and compelling presentations. As a former advisor to the director of NASA Glenn (Larry Ross) and the NASA Administrator (Dan Goldin), I feel some of the pride that must permeate the Glenn experimental / theory teams. The work is outstanding.” — Arden Bement, PhD (former NSF, NIST Directors; DoD Deputy Undersecretary for Research and Advanced Technology).
• “The powerful impact comes from having both experiment and theory in 2 separate papers that should always be read together: the sum of both (together) of the two is greater than the individual sum of the parts since they compliment each other.” — Michael R. Staker, PhD, P.E. (Professor, Dept. of Engineering, College of Arts and Science, Loyola University, MD).
• “Thank you for inviting me to attend yesterday’s briefing. The team has made remarkable progress during these last few years in the conduct and findings of the experimental work along with its theoretical underpinnings. Congratulations to you all for your impressive advances!” — Michael Salamon, PhD (former Program Scientist, NASA HQ).
• “Fun event, very nice presentations and discussions. Will be great to see follow ups to this work (e.g. ideas for next experiments, cross checks, etc). Also an interesting example of a targeted workshop in the ‘new normal’ of no or hardly any travel, which we might be stuck in for a while.” — Thomas Schenkel, PhD (Senior Scientist, Physicist, Accelerator Technology and Applied Physics, DoE LBNL), who observed electron screened LCF, published in Nature and the Journal of Applied Physics.
• “Really terrific session, thank you! I congratulate you and your team, and look forward to your further successes!!” — Curt Brown, CEO, PointSource Energy.
• “Thanks for including me in the virtual workshop today. I was glad to hear that other labs are working in the area of LCF. Verification by independent sources was mentioned by a nuclear scientist friend as an important step in gaining acceptance of LCF.” — Frank Lynch, CEO, Hydrogen Components, Inc.

The Path Forward

Lawrence Forsley, Senior Lead Experimental Physicist, Global Energy Corporation. NASA Glenn Research Center Advanced Energy Conversion Team, May 21, 2020.

Comparing fusion methods

• ICF: inertial confinement fusion (for example laser fusion) — laser ablation compression is the “match”; alpha heating d(d,n)³He(d,p)α(d,α′)d*(d,n)³He; inefficient small-angle scatter alpha heating.
• MCF: magnetic confinement fusion (for example tokamaks) — RF, ohmic heating and neutral beam are the “match”; alpha heating d(d,n)³He(d,p)α(d,α′)d*(d,n)³He; inefficient small-angle scatter alpha heating.
• LCF: lattice confinement fusion (for example γ:TiD₂ and γ:ErD₃) — bremsstrahlung γ photoneutron is the “match”; the LCF cascade is d(γ,p)n(d,n′)d*(d,n*)³He → d(n*,n′)d**(d,n**)³He* and so on; efficient large angle scatter with momentum transfer from fast neutrons and screened quasi-neutral charged particles.

| Type | Density (ions/cm³) | Ion T (keV) | Neutron mean free path | Radius of active region | Confinement time | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | ICF | 10²⁶ | 3 – 10 | under 40 μm | under 100 μm (core) | nanoseconds | | MCF | 10¹⁴ | 1 – 10 | 10 km | meters | seconds | | LCF | 10²³ | 64 | 1 cm | greater than 1 cm | indefinite |

No fusion without electrons.

Nuclear reaction modeling

• Model charged, neutral and lattice element interactions.
• Neither LANL MCNP-6.x nor CERN GEANT-4 Monte Carlo nuclear codes handle heavy charged particles below 1 MeV, nor electron screening effects.
• Acquired MCNP subroutines designed for ITER gas plasma to handle DD, DT and D³He fusion from 10 keV to 50 keV with charged particle scattering using SRIM/TRIM tables.
• Then modify for lattice scattering.
• Add the PRC theory paper enhancement factor f(E), electron screening, to an equivalent 1 keV deuteron kinetic energy.
• With DFT and DMFT modeling to calculate electron screening below 1 keV.
• Test against LBNL plasma/glow discharge 1.2 keV centre-of-mass ion temperature fusion results.

Neutron cross-sections: deuteron heating and fusion

• The neutron mean-free path at various energies defines the size of the prospective reactor.
• The lattice materials influence the neutron: it heats the cold d fuel to hot d*. Mean-free path via density and scattering cross-sections; energy by the same; capture cross-sections.
• (n,d) elastic scattering: 3 barns.
• d*d fusion: from much less than a femtobarn to under 1 barn. But electron screening increases the probability, shifting the Gamow factor.
• Both MCNP and GEANT-4 codes handle neutron energies from thermal (0.025 eV) to above 1 GeV.
• Modeling predicts the neutron economy — losses versus production — not unlike conventional reactors.

Electron screening: metals, Jovian-like planets and stars

• Fermi degeneracy occurs at roughly 10²³ electrons per cubic centimetre: white dwarf stars, gas giant planets, metals, and LCF deuterated lattices.
• Fermi degeneracy is relatively temperature insensitive.
• LBNL results published in Nature and the Journal of Applied Physics attribute a 100-fold increase in fusion rates to electron screening at only 1.2 keV centre of mass.
• Screening is most effective below 10 keV.
• LCF straddles the hot fusion and electron screened regimes.
• LCF is laboratory astrophysics.

Electron screening: LCF deuteron slowing in a deuterated lattice

SRIM/TRIM ion transport in matter model of 64 keV d* ions slowing in an ErD₃ lattice, 10³ particles tracked. Runs of 10³ and 10⁴ particles have similar spatial trajectories and energy distributions. Induced metal vacancies provide additional deuteron interaction sites.

1. 2.9 MeV bremsstrahlung deuteron photo-neutrons on average transfer 64 keV to cold deuterons.
2. The d* ion loses energy by ionizing lattice atoms, producing free electrons and plasma screening.
3. When the d* energy drops below 10 keV, electron screening predominates.
4. Eventually all 64 keV d* slow down by linear energy transfer to below 10 keV.
5. Except when nuclear interactions occur, resulting in MeV reaction products.

Alternative electron screened LCF driver: lattice effects via density functional theory

• Pd/D charge density with spin polarization and significant magnetization, on a strained Pd lattice with ZrO₂. Iwamura observed nuclear reactions. Strained lattices also exhibit electron screening.
• Pd/D with MgO, PdD electron charge density but no spin polarization and no magnetization. Iwamura observed no reactions.
• Strain-induced ferromagnetic LCF driver. DFT modeling conducted by L.F. DeChiaro, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, using Quantum Espresso.

Bremsstrahlung/electron source for a sub-critical reactor

• Space-rated, 1.25 m relativistic electron accelerator.
• Stanford built and LANL characterized a 10 stage, 190 keV accelerator, 25 cm long, operating from a 50 V DC bus.
• An AEC sub-critical neutron driven hybrid reactor becomes realistic at 2.5 MeV, or approximately 3 meters of HEMT accelerator cavity stages.
• HEMT/cavity improvements may double the acceleration per stage, cutting length in half to approximately 1.5 m.
• Accelerator enhanced electron screening without a neutron driver may be effective at 190 keV: only 10 stages, 25 cm long.
• Joint NASA BeamPIE and CONNEX missions with Stanford University and Michigan University, tested by NASA Goddard and Los Alamos National Laboratory. BeamPIE sounding rocket Wallops launch scheduled for April 2021.

Possible development approaches

• Use existing NASA infrastructure — thermoelectric and dynamic power conversion; heat dissipation systems; fit within mass, volume, power and radiation budgets; test with the existing 6 MV GRC Plum Brook LINAC, degrading the beam energy endpoint from 6 MV to below 1 MV with a water table; use a Be photo-neutron source or AmBe/²⁵²Cf for efficiency testing.
• Compare LCF initiation — photo-neutrons, for example ⁹Be(γ,n)⁸Be → 2α; isotopic neutrons, ²⁵²Cf and AmBe; electron screening below 1 MV via glow/plasma discharge, Johnson-Matthey cycling or electrolytic loading.
• Replace 93% ²³⁵U with LEU (below 20% ²³⁵U), depleted uranium (below 0.2% ²³⁵U) or ²³²Th — following US Navy nuclear fleet recommendations, and providing an alternative sub-critical reactor technology: a bremsstrahlung-boosted, sub-critical reactor. The AEC project demonstrated bremsstrahlung fission of depleted uranium, building on the success described in the Physical Review C papers.

Conclusion

• Demonstrated: bremsstrahlung photoneutron initiated fusion in a “globally cold, locally hot” environment. The process is repeatable and works with different lattice materials holding the deuteron fuel. Observed boosted fusion or nuclear stripping reactions indicate a path to scaling.
• Calculated: electron screening increases localized fusion rates in dense fuel. Neutrons and screened charged particles most efficiently heat the dense fuel. Electron screening increases large angle scattering between charged particles, enhancing quantum tunneling and increasing fusion rates.
• Predicted: fusion rates consistent with the observed neutron flux.
• Published: two papers in Physical Review C, indicating acceptance of the theory and results by the physics community.

Acknowledgement of Senior Management and Review Panel

• NASA HQ management — Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen, Dr. Lori Glaze, Mr. Eric Ianson, Mr. Len Dudzinski; Mr. Tom Cremins, Dr. John Grunsfeld, Mr. David Schurr, Mr. Paul Westmeyer.
• NASA Glenn center management — Dr. Marla Perez-Davis, Dr. Rickey Shyne, Mr. Bryan Smith, Mr. David Stringer, Mr. John Hamley, Dr. Tibor Kremic; Mr. Jim Free, Dr. Janet Kavandi; Mr. Ray Lugo, Dr. Jih Fen Lei.
• NASA review panel — Dr. Michael Houts, Dr. Ron Litchford, Mr. John Scott, Dr. Matthew Forsbacka.

AEC Project Team — Bremsstrahlung Irradiation Campaign

• AEC leads — Bruce Steinetz, Principal Investigator, and Rich Martin, Deputy Principal Investigator; Arnon Chait, Senior Science Lead; Carl Sandifer II, Project Manager.
• AEC physicists — Vladimir Pines, Senior Theoretical Physicist; Marianna Pines, Scientist and Mathematica programming; Robert Hendricks, Senior Scientist; Gus Fralick, Senior Physicist; Theresa Benyo, Analytical/Theoretical Physicist (transitioning to PI); Larry Forsley, Senior Lead Experimental Physicist; Bayar Baramsai and Phil Ugorowski, Senior Experimental Physicists, data acquisition; Fred VanKeuls, Wayne Jennings and Frank Lynch, materials loading.
• AEC engineers and testing support — Mike Becks, MCNP simulations and test coordination; Nicholas Penney and Tracy Kamm, test equipment engineer and test sample coordination; Chris Blasio, Radiation Safety Officer.
• IBA team — Rick Galloway, IBA test engineer and Dynamitron lead; Jim Scheid, IBA Dynamitron technician.
• AEC support staff — Laura Becker and Lorie Passe, editor and manuscript lead; Megan Sigetic, LCF animation; Vadim Lvovich, workshop preparation and feedback.

For more information

• https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/science/lattice-confinement-fusion
• https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusion-tokamak-not-included
• https://www.ans.org/news/article-447/nasa-work-on-lattice-confinement-fusion-grabs-attention/