eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

NASA’s Bushnell: BTW LENR Solves Global Climate and Energy

December 2, 2011

The long-awaited details from Dennis Bushnell’s Sep 22, 2011 presentation have surfaced. They are still not on the official site (bottom of page) and I can’t find the original through Google, so I put a slight cautionary note here that the contents have yet to be verified [ETA - Now verified]. Believe it or not, these are just some of the points he makes. None of them will surprise many of you reading this but even so and coming from someone famed for sticking his neck out like Dennis Bushnell, I still have to say, Wow!

  • Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than Chemical, Transmutations, Minimal radiation
  • The many Rossi demonstrations in 2011 suggest LENR may produce”useful” quantities of heat [up to 15KWs ?]. Watts-to-Kilowatts also produced in Piantelli and Patterson Experiments
  • Between Chemical and strong force Nuc Energy Densities with minimal radiation safety/ protection requirements/ issues, probably “inexpensive”
  • Direct and potentially massively/ truly “game-changing”
  • The Rossi device, possibly producing useful energy but wholly “Edisonian”, not “scalable” and not “Optimized”
  • Huge number of “knobs”/ approaches appear to”work”, issue is how good can it be? Requires experiments guided by theory and major “creative” efforts/ inputs along with CAREFUL Experiments, YEARS of effort required. Rossi is just the merest beginnings of the research/ engineering optimization required.
  • Superb light weight power/ energy sources for space probes/ instruments and hoppers/ rovers, far less expensive than solar and better than radiologics for beyond Mars where solar does not “work”
  • Reduced LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and in space propulsion weights/ costs
  • Solves EDL (Entry, Descent, and Landing) for large payloads to Mars via ingestion, heating and retro injection of atmospheric CO2
  • Potentially obviates order of 80% of the 1000 metric ton LEO (Low Earth Orbit) up-mass for Humans Mars which is in-space fuel, Propulsive mass from far outer region atmosphere or regolith
  • Source for energy beaming, energy to terraform Mars, Enables Active Space Radiation Protection
  • Overall, enables what we have never had – “Energy Rich” design space[s]
  • Fuel fraction becomes negligible, huge impacts upon vehicle gross weights, especially for SST’s which are some 55% fuel fraction
  • For the military– EMP on steroids, VTOL obviates air bases/ runways/ carrier decks, enables loitering combined sensor/ weapon devices [ instead of getting there in time ARE THERE, always]

In Short, LENR , depending upon the TBD performance, appears to be capable of Revolutionizing Aerospace across the board. No other single technology even comes close to the potential impacts of LENR upon Agency Missions.

  • Test/ determine the performance of the Rossi and Piantelli devices
  • Experimentally validate the weak interaction theories
  • The 2 decades of experiments and the weak interaction theories have removed the existential risk, what is remaining is to ENGINEER for improved performance. Also obviously all the safety issues, labs have blown up studying this arena
  • SO – Invent/ create optimized/ improved LENR “Devices”, testing “Rossi” is merely a small first step, do the systems and propulsive/other application R&D
  • BTW LENR [ also] solves Global Climate and Energy

We went directly from Chemical to strong force Nuc and in the process bought huge energetics improvements and radiation protection/ safety issues that precluded fission nuc application[s], We leapt over the weak interaction energetics landscape except for radiologics. It is time to back-track.

 

More at eCatPlanet

[With thanks to ecat builder on Vortex]

Posted by on December 2, 2011. Filed under Media & Blogs,Piantelli,Politics,Rossi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

77 Responses to NASA’s Bushnell: BTW LENR Solves Global Climate and Energy

  1. Tony Reply

    December 2, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    Send Bushnell an email, or send via Jed on vortex??

    • jjjioman Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 3:51 pm

      Lets not get ahead of ourselves. Unlike other honest LENR researchers who have proven LENR/cold fusion to notable academic scientists, rossi & Defkalion have not, period. Let them sign an NDA so they can analyze the reactor and the gamma rays.

      I predict rossi & Defkalion are on the same team as mylow, a fake to continue keeping academic far away from LENR research. What a shame!

      • Stefan Reply

        December 4, 2011 at 12:23 am

        Academia has debunked CF for ~21 years and deserved to be ostracized… It’s no surprise they are so pissed off…

        • Rockyspoon Reply

          December 4, 2011 at 12:48 am

          Which is good… Bunglers like those NEED to be herded out of academia and their cushy high-tech positions with pitchforks. (Just think of the giant step backwards this nation… the WORLD has taken because of a bunch of big fat egos!)

  2. daniel maris Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 12:19 am

    Brilliant! That’s the fillip we need after the debacle of Defkalion’s botched announcement.

    This really is very encouraging, suggesting that Bushnell by various routes is convinced that Rossi has something genuine. And it sounds very convincing, his account of where we are – at the beginning of a working technology – something like 1885 with the car and the internal combustion engine…the process is in its infancy but big money engineering will make a huge difference.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 9:35 am

      I particularly like the idea of beamed energy. How about e-cat powered steam engines (proper big reciprocating ones) driving generators to feed huge Tesla ‘metal sphere’ transmitters? Beautifully Victorian gothic technology!

  3. Christopher Calder Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 12:20 am

    Defkalion is the best information rich source for NASA to study. Rossi kept his secrets to himself and did not hire others to run his business and to handle public relations as he should. He did not hire enough good scientists and engineers to improve his work. Defkalion had 27 scientists working on LENR and they now have a product that has made the E-Cat obsolete before it is even off the ground financially. I predict Rossi will stop denying what has happened and make a business deal with a big corporation. Rossi should not run a business. He should be a wealthy engineer doing research with a university. He undoubtedly will win a Nobel Prize and retire 1,000 times richer than Albert Einstein. That should be enough. His talents and temperament make him best suited for research, not for being another Bill Gates.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 1:01 am

      Christopher Calderis: It my opinion you are under estimating Rossi and over rating what Defkalion has. Rossi has publicly demonstrated his reactor 8 times, Defkalion 0. Defkalion stole Andrea Rossi’s intellectual property anyone who enters into a contract with Defkalion to buy or sell reactors made by them is an accessory to the crime.

      • LCD Reply

        December 3, 2011 at 1:13 am

        Well you could be right Bernie but we don’t know rhat, last time I checked the only ex-con in this race was Rossi. Also last time I checked all we had was circumstantial evidence, no theory, and no way to buy anything. I say we are still missing important information. No use dealing out judgements. No?

      • Peter Roe Reply

        December 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm

        LCD – I think you are almost certainly right about Rossi (about the missing information, anyway) – he is definitely much more than just a slightly odd control-freak inventor. He has as much as said that he is in partnership with his first customer (corporate or military) which will almost certainly provide both R&D input and IP protection, and the deal with NI could involve co-operative development on the control/instrumentation side. All this in addition to his own resources, which can throw together tens of e-cats in a relatively short time, mount them in an isocontainer and get them to run, even if this was at 50% power.

        DGT’s picture of a bench prototype shows several significant advances on Rossi’s e-cat prototype, but could date from the period of the business partnership. The spec. drawings I find a little dubious, mainly due to the concentration on non-relevant detail (threads, etc) and the (as I see it) non-feasible vacuum surrounding the multi-reactor block, plus the argon filled outer casing, both of which would bring a host of containment problems due to the number of penetrations and the inevitable temperature variations during operation.

        Rossi I’m sure of, DGT not so certain. This show just runs and runs, but still no giant splash (Rossi’s chosen path I think, but it could still be upset by unexpected developments).

      • Rick Meisinger Reply

        December 3, 2011 at 1:58 pm

        I agree that DGT cannot be given too much credence. DGT started because of Rossi, not the other way around.

      • Brad Arnold Reply

        December 9, 2011 at 9:34 am

        While it is true that Rossi was the first, his building a manufacturing company from the ground up, and also personally supervising R&D, is sub-optomal. Instead, he ought to hire the best people, then act as a front man for his company. Soon the field is going to be crowded, and being the origional isn’t really going to be much of a selling point.

  4. Daniel de França MTd2 Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 1:41 am

    This presentation is indeed from Bushnell. I can confirm that. They were obtained under request to NASA according to the Freedom of Information Act.

  5. Sojourner Soo Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 1:56 am

    This is the Bushnell lecture referred to by Krivit in this article, is it not? http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/28/nasa-advances-evaluation-of-piantelli%E2%80%99s-lenr-research/

    Krivit reposted Rossi’s comments about him in the same piece. I had read on Albert Kong’s FB page some time ago that Piantelli and NASA are also working together. So, I guess overall it means that LENR is “real.” Personally, I find it strange that Piantelli dusted off his Ni-H research only after Rossi had success. As for DGT, I have difficulties with a company that screws their business partner. This could have been just the thing Greece needed, but DGT was too smart by half, I feel. All that said, all this nonsense is tedious and rather boring. Give Rossi his patents, please, and let’s get this thing rolled out to the masses ASAP. People are going to claim the invention is theirs and not Rossi’s, but most of us are aware of what “chronological order” means. So do most jurors I would imagine, if it ever came down to that.

    • Brad Lowe Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 3:56 am

      That was the same conference, but a different presentation. I requested a FOIA for the documents hoping to see all of Michael Nelson’s presentation that Krivit showed a single page from. I got slides back, but not the one from Nelson.

    • Stephen Reply

      December 5, 2011 at 2:10 am

      “…I find it strange that Piantelli dusted off his Ni-H research only after Rossi had success….”

      Not true.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer Reply

      December 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm

      Sojourner Soo: I agree. Why in the world can’t Rossi get patents? That simple act would open the door to research on many fronts. Is it politics or bureaucracy. I smell oil and gas.

  6. Robbie Robertson Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 2:30 am

    Very optimistic but seems this statement assumes there is no trickery. Of course what is said is true if it works as stated. The big question is still not answered. Is this fraud, naivety, or is it factual? This is the real question that requires answering.

    • daniel maris Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 3:30 am

      I think we know that! If it’s naviety, it’s the naviety of several very eminent scientists as well – not just Joe Public!

  7. Nathan Hulse Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 3:00 am

    BTW LENR doesn’t solve global climate problems, reducing GhG emissions in a timely fashion solves climate problems ;-) It remains to be seen whether LENR will proliferate quickly enough to make a major impact upon efforts to avoid runaway AGW.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 9:46 am

      It would be enough to see huge reductions in air pollution, environmental damage and dependency on unstable and tyrrannical oil producing regimes, even if one doesn’t accept ‘AGW’ as anything more than unfounded politically driven alarmism.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 9:58 am

      But if these projections are correct, LENR may be arriving just in time:
      http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/WeakSun.pdf

      • Nathan Hulse Reply

        December 3, 2011 at 1:02 pm

        I have trouble with any material that discusses the Little Ice Age simply in terms of the Maunder Minimum without even brushing upon the role of increased volcanism and the NAO. It is easy to see why 21st Century Science and Technology is not regarded as a credible publication by the mainstream.

        Others are suggesting that solar cycle 24 will have a negligible impact upon the global mean temperature anomaly.

        • georgehants Reply

          December 3, 2011 at 2:51 pm

          Nathan,
          Anybody who looks at the facts must have trouble. it is an unknown, that once again “science” in their pathetic arrogant way tries to make out they have the answers.
          Nobody has the answers it is based on Chaos theory, all completely unknown and unknowable.
          We must plan for any eventuality, be ready for the unexpected.

          • Nathan Hulse

            December 3, 2011 at 11:59 pm

            Good luck convincing the governments of the world to apply to the precautionary principle to any concern other than warfare!

          • Stephen

            December 5, 2011 at 2:11 am

            “…We must plan for any eventuality, …”

            Technically, and financially, not possible.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          December 3, 2011 at 6:33 pm

          I did say ‘if’. Abnormal levels of volcanism are a feasible causative factor, but solar observations (such as they were) do indicate a series of solar minima occurring at the time (Spörer/Maunder). Possibly the coincidence of both factors was responsible. The available data seems to suggest that atmospheric ‘oscillations’ such as the NAO (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319) and also the partial or complete shutdown of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation follow solar output, and are not themselves primary causes of climate change.

          Its very hard to see how a decrease in solar output can fail to have an impact on mean global temperatures.

          • Nathan Hulse

            December 4, 2011 at 12:57 am

            Sure, I know you said ‘if’… :) Now that article from NASA is interesting. Scepticism certainly pushes climatologists to continually seek additional proxies. Point taken regarding THC and the NAO. Having said that, human activity can also be a primary source of change in both cases.

            “Its very hard to see how a decrease in solar output can fail to have an impact on mean global temperatures.”

            Aye, when all is said and done, the Earth, as a system, is powered the Sun. But it seems the jury is still very much out regarding the extent of the Sun’s influence relative to human influence.

          • Peter Roe

            December 4, 2011 at 8:43 am

            Nathan, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on whether AGW is a significant factor in climate change or a politically convenient myth.

            Regarding your reply to George, without LENR or similar, the ‘precautionary principle’ could cost a significant proportion of the world’s GDP and litter the planet with nuclear power stations just waiting for more accidents to bequeath to future generations.

            ‘AGW’ would need to be based on rather more than a few tweaked computer models and some selected and carefully distorted data before it makes any sense to go there. Hopefully LENR will allow us to have our cake *and* eat it.

      • rich harding Reply

        December 3, 2011 at 8:02 pm

        The article referenced here is originally from a website called EIR (executive intelligence review), which is the mouthpiece of Lyndon Larouche, a notorious conspiracy theorist. He has a mysterious and bizarre agenda which you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
        In other words, this article is interesting but has zero credibility.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          December 4, 2011 at 8:53 am

          Sorry Rich, I don’t really have time to wade through your linked WP entry to find out what relevance it may have to the link between solar minima and cool periods on earth. The article I linked to stands or falls on its own merits.

    • Rockyspoon Reply

      December 4, 2011 at 1:00 am

      Runaway AGW? From WHAT?

      Look, get a clue; get up to speed on the biggest scam of the century: Make this your favorite blog:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/

      That happens to be the world’s most viewed climate website with over 96,675,000 views so far. It was also voted the best science blog by the eleventh annual weblog awards (2011).

      Did you hear about Climategate 2? If you say no, then you’re frequenting the wrong web sites!

      • Peter Roe Reply

        December 4, 2011 at 8:59 am

        Thanks Rocky – excellent link. I find it a bit difficult to understand why people still seem to think AGW is real in the light of this kind of information, even if climategate v1.0 was not enough. No look, no see I suppose.

      • Nathan Hulse Reply

        December 5, 2011 at 8:48 pm

        “That happens to be the world’s most viewed climate website with over 96,675,000 views so far. It was also voted the best science blog by the eleventh annual weblog awards (2011).”

        If we’re going to qualify scientific investigation in those terms, then surely mainline climate science is accurate simply by virtue of being popular in political, media and scientific circles. Again, by the same stroke, cold fusion must be impossible because more people believe that to be the case. You’ll have to improve your rhetoric if you’re looking to make a convert out of me, sorry.

        “Did you hear about Climategate 2? If you say no, then you’re frequenting the wrong web sites!”

        Lets just say that I would certainly be remiss if I hadn’t come across it during my study time.

        Promoting a blog by implying that popularity equates to scientific credibility is a rather odd tactic to use here in this comments section, given that the site is dedicated to a field of research considered to be ‘pathological science’. I assume the irony was unintended.

    • G. Karst Reply

      December 7, 2011 at 7:51 pm

      What warming?? Obviously you haven’t checked the temperatures for the last decade. Flat as a pancake. GK

  8. RichyRoo Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 3:20 am

    Wow … this will help, assuming its legit :)

  9. Brad Lowe Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 3:36 am

    I can confirm the presentation is legit. The original powerpoints are available as a download to registered users of ecatplanet.com (free registration,etc.) I have more original content there (the rossi reader lets you see what Rossi is saying) and I have another presentation coming soon.

    • Camilo Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 1:40 pm

      Brad, can you point out where to dowload the file? I registered but can’t find the slides. Thanks in advance.

  10. Casey Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 4:40 am

    NASA could be “the” customer of Rossi.

  11. Pingback: Anonymous

  12. alexvs Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 5:59 am

    About this E-cat story, like many philosophy books, everything is true except the first page.

  13. Burt Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 6:47 am

    “The 2 decades of experiments and the weak interaction theories have removed the existential risk”
    Does that mean “LENR is definitely for real, i e it is existential”?

    “BTW LENR [ also] solves Global Climate and Energy”
    Well, we still have a huge problem with Global Warming, I think. When we can use all the energy we want and for free, all the energy will eventually end up as heat, even if it will be electrical energy for a while, right??
    (and please don’t discuss whether global warming is real here, do that in some other thread)

    • ECATMAN Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 7:20 am

      Heat we are able to make is not a problem as long as there isn’t to much green house gas to contain it.

  14. georgehants Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 10:26 am

    Morning, having decided not to comment over the weekend I wake up to Dennis Bushnell’s report. (hopefully).
    No utilisation of Cold Fusion is important in the first instance beyond producing enough for every person in the World to have access to clean water.
    As many censored climatologist are aware the World could be on the verge of a new ice- age, so in due course we could be using the E-CAT’s to produce carbon-dioxide to warm it up.
    Do not be led by Authorities, they will distort the true position to their own ends, time to be skeptical and be sure the discovery by the usual few brave rebels is used to the benefit of mankind and not the so called rich and famous.
    Is it time to have an independent judicial inquiry into the abuse and treatment of P&F and cold fusion in general by the incompetent establishment of science, academia and journals.

    • GreenWin Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 11:50 pm

      George, you are the most cogent voice on this blog. While others quibble about “climate” the IMPORT of NASA confirmation of LENR at the highest level of agency science makes quibbles pathetic.

      It does usher in the inevitable “house cleaning” due – meaning there will be political, civil and judicial investigations as to why this science was dismissed, by who – and who benefited. And P&F deserve a Nobel and an amends from consensus government/science/academia (Algore’s is revokable.)

      As for call for “big” engineering – a thousand little mom & pop shops, startups, labs, universities, etc. are already at work on a piece of new energy that will replace all forms of combustion. Giants have been toppled today. Combined heat and power units will be on the market long before “big” engineering can slow it all down. Well done Dr. Bushnell.

      • Nathan Hulse Reply

        December 4, 2011 at 1:21 am

        Rhetoric aside, technological advances solve technical problems, nothing more. NASA is keen to promote the wider benefits of developments that promise particular benefits to its own programmes.

        • Stephen Reply

          December 5, 2011 at 2:15 am

          So true, Nathan, new technologies, new social problems. It will give people like Soo an occasion to shine.

  15. Frost* Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 10:34 am

  16. georgehants Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 10:36 am

    WHY is the report not on the official site.
    I have read that a freedom of information request was used to obtain the report, WHY.
    WHY are official sources not screaming that Cold Fusion is genuine and shouting through every journal and academic university that a breakthrough was made 23 years ago, and apologising to the World for the delay.
    Only Rossi’s and Defkalions method of bypassing authorities will ensure that it is released to the World, without them it would still be hidden from everybody like so many other things.

    • CM Edwards Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 1:09 pm

      My guess is that it has not been released to the official NASA site because of influential NASA executives who still don’t believe it and fear damage to their public image to endorse a pseudoscientist. The truth of that opinion, saddly, is not relevant to their decision. Only the potential controversy matters.

      Given this, I am forged to agree with you, Geoerge. It is Rossi’s methods, not those of NASA, UniBo and other official research institutions, which will be most instrumental in bringing first news of this to the world.

      Bushnell might come forward here at the start. NASA simply will not.

      • Rockyspoon Reply

        December 4, 2011 at 1:04 am

        “Damage” doesn’t even come close. Not by a jillion miles. (And I for one will help with the “piling on” when it begins.)

  17. Mike Johnson Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 10:40 am

    The only important question in all of this is- is LENR a real phenomenon? If it is then there should be a reproducible experiment that demonstrates it versus…”its been demonstrated a 100 times”.

    • georgehants Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 10:49 am

      Mike, who do you rely on to give you information, are you waiting for a report in the Sun newspaper to confirm things for you.

      • DvH Reply

        December 3, 2011 at 12:28 pm

        well, a message with big letters in the Sun newspaper wouldnt be too convincing either…

        • georgehants Reply

          December 3, 2011 at 2:55 pm

          DvH, you continually make comments with no content, make your position clear.
          1, Has Cold Fusion been proven.
          2, Do you believe Rossi has the E-CAT.
          3, Do you believe Defkalion have their E-cat.
          Answer these questions and you can stop keep putting up petty little asides.

          • DvH

            December 3, 2011 at 4:56 pm

            1.) for me: no. there might have been some not reproducible experiments – not enough. the CF movement still seems too close to tesla coils, zero energy, anti gravity.
            2.) i believe that AR has build a blue container. i do not believe that it produces more energy than goes in.
            3.) i do not believe that Defkalion has anything substancial today.

            AR, so far, has invested more effort into ‘his show’: some demos with video, a patent, a blue container, a meeting with a senator. the greeks, so far, have some photos, an announcement and a technical spec.
            i take all this as a claim, not as an evidence.

            and: what is ‘content’ in this forum? most is questions of various depth, assumptions, speculations, responses to speculations. i think, my comments fit quite well in this context. so far, only you complained.

            ‘putting up petty little asides’: your comments are just too inviting – sorry – i cant resist!

          • Rockyspoon

            December 4, 2011 at 1:10 am

            Obviously DvH has done no research into this subject–he just likes to be objectionable. There is a wealth of information on the ‘net and in many books, colloquiums at places like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testimonials from the like of The Naval Research Laboratory, and even organizations like 60 Minutes like here:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OabYImeDSc

            and here:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rooNIAyA23g&feature=related

            And that is just a very small taste of what’s available out there. If you ignore all that, you’d have to be the world’s most stident denier.

  18. Wolf Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 11:04 am

    I would really like a proof that those slides are from Dennis Bushnell. The way they look (no corporate layout / logo / whatsoever) this could have been done by anyone.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer Reply

      December 5, 2011 at 3:45 pm

      Have you heard a denial from Dennis Bushnell?

  19. Pekka Janhunen Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 11:51 am

    While positive as such, these are somewhat arrogant slides to my taste, containing hype and we-know-better-than-the-inventor attitude. Also I don’t agree with the implicit message that cold fusion comes from weak interactions. The weak interaction is about beta decay, coupling quarks with leptons, and we know (if Rossi is true) that there is no beta+ radiation involved, because otherwise the 511 keV gammas would come through the shields. Thus I would use the opposite working hypothesis than Bushnell: no weak interactions are involved. In any case, one should avoid jumping to conclusions and instead live with the fact that there is no theory yet.

  20. Mike Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    A link to some NASA LENR documents:
    http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=LENR

  21. Joy Cramer Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Well written piece that references Dennis Bushnell says Rob Duncan, vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri, is in the early stages of pitching a plan to establish a national research program that would help scientists study LENR.

    • Joy Cramer Reply

      December 3, 2011 at 2:47 pm

      • georgehants Reply

        December 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm

        Joy, thank you, one university talks sense, just waiting for the other hundred thousand to get off their a***’* and open their eyes.
        These people are meant to be the elite of society, more like the backward society.
        Who is going to tell me that the opinion of main-line science on all other subjects i.e. the Placebo effect is to be trusted.

  22. Sidney Greenstreet Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    With copper expensive enough to prompt the average thief to want to steal it (at least according to drudgereport.com), is there any chance that the ecat makes enough copper as the ‘ash’ so that the copper shortage can be done away with?

    • Rockyspoon Reply

      December 4, 2011 at 1:20 am

      The entire earth’s electricity demand can be met by running just 15% of the average annual mine production of nickel through an “energy catalyzer”. Nickel production is dependent on the economy (most is used in making steel), and about 1.5 million tonnes is produced annually. Roughly 15 million tonnes of copper is mined annually, so converting even 15% of every year’s nickel into copper won’t impact that supply/demand curve perceptibly.
      http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/minerals/nickel/nickel_table10.html
      http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/minerals/copper/copper_t20.html

    • Mark Goldes Reply

      December 6, 2011 at 1:12 am

      Ultraconductors conduct electricity at least 100,000 times better than copper.

      See http://www.chavaenergy.com

      They are still in development. New funding is on the way and, as a result, wire is on the horizon.

      They were independently reproduced by Fractal Systems which fabricated almost 1,000 samples for the Air Force.

      These are polymers. A half dozen examples are listed in the first Patent and many more are expected to work.

  23. Charles Stewart Jr Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Allegedly, Rossi has sold and delivered one unit.

    The buyer can settle the reality BY RELEASING ANONYMOUSLY THROUGH A TRUSTED THIRD PARTY, an acknowledgement that the unit exists, was accepted, was delivered, and is working as advertised (or at least satisfactorily). Thus, the buyer could remain anonymous while still quieting speculation based on ignorance.

  24. Shane D. Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    http://www.22passi.it/downloads/IPP-Palladium-Fralick-1.pdf

    NASA produced anoumalous heat back in 1989.

  25. James Wensel Reply

    December 3, 2011 at 10:59 pm

    I tried to contact people at Leonardo Tecnologies and Ampenergy here in the US. I talked to one lady and was told to call back . They must have problems because I did not receive any return calls. I live in Miami Florida and was searching how I could Help advertise or help expand any programs they might want help with. I wonder if they have any programs to sell or lease this equipment. It looks strange to me how little they have released in the US. Is this another cover up by DOE in the United States?

    • Dale G. Basgall Reply

      December 4, 2011 at 6:50 pm

      I had that situation also. When Mr. Rossi made the statement he was willing to pay for ideas for the newest e-cat’s for the homeowners “if” he chose the design, I sent him a request on the Leonardo e-mail address asking him to verify if that was true or not.

      Mr. Rossi immediately replied within minutes stating yes he did say that and he was willing to pay for the design if he used it in the manufacturing line of the new homeowners e-cat.

      I made a simple agreement stating that if Mr. Rossi does use any of the design I send him that after one year of production “if” the design proves profitable that we would then sign written agreements regarding a one and one half percent royalty paid back to me “after” the patent I write is issued and allowed in the U.S.

      I received no response back, this made me believe he was just fishing for information and plakating us as interested and serious investors.

      Secondly I had sent his other company in the U.S.(Ampenergy) an e-mail stating I was willing to go through the process of getting a one-meg plant here in Hawaii to test out. Again no response.

      So I have experienced the same thing you had and felt they are not really serious about selling anything.

      • Roger Barker Reply

        December 4, 2011 at 11:17 pm

        You have to have something to sell in the first place.

    • Tom Baccei Reply

      December 5, 2011 at 1:55 am

      Are you kidding me? How can the government not pour as much resource into this as is needed. A modern Manhattan project for god’s sake. If for no other reason than the military implications. Maybe the Langley guys are considered nut cases? But why in the world would they keep them around? And Rossi has been doing demos in New Hampshire? Where? Can someone invoke more Freedom of Information on this?

  26. Thicket Reply

    December 5, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Thanks Aussie Guy

    There goes another believer myth.

    When Krivit reported on only page 12 of one NASA presentation, the slings and arrows were flying. Krivit was lambasted for not showing the rest of the presentation. He was accused of hiding important information that believers suspected would support Rossi.

    So what did the rest of the presentations show about Rossi? Not much. There was a rehash of E-cat history.

    We learn that Nelson has been a free-energy enthusiast for five years in his spare time. Free-energy = perpetual motion = energy from nothing. One of Nelson’s topics of interest is over-unity motors. A well known ‘over-unity’ motor is Steorn’s. He follows the Papp engine hoax as well as Searl’s mythical anti-gravity and free-energy claims.

    Uh-huh. If Nelson believes this kind of rubbish, he sure has a lot of credibility — not.

    Nelson concludes that “In spite of the low quality demonstrations no one has yet to completely dismiss Rossi’s work as a total sham.”

    Now there’s a rousing endorsement! Lol.

  27. Jorge Jimenez Reply

    December 5, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    In good time, we are seeing the wonder of the networks, the Internet and communications in a resounding theme that has the scientific world in suspense. In good time we are encountering individuals with an altruistic sense of criticism of new knowledge.

    Indeed we note that, as humans we are tiny in a world full of unknowns and surprising findings. Already, many scientists such as Mike McKubre, as Dennis Bushnell, as Sven Kulander, as Robert Duncan and many other serious men of science have more clarity to the existing real progress can now be having in the Fusion Energy LENR or cold.

    From many parts of the world today, many follow closely every contribution you can give every leader in this field full of hope for mankind in terms of survival and better future. Notable is every report or newspaper article that is objective and clear, hidden letter or partners.

    Closely followed this story that many hope will be the answer to resolving the crossroads where the world is Quie and the next year 2012 will be a big change in energy for the world, real possibilities of lasting peace and thriving and vibrant democracies in the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>