- Click Here: Important eCat News Straight To Your Mail Box
Dr Ed Storms On LENR: It Will Change Life As We Know It
January 10, 2012Long time cold fusion advocate (and now retired Los Alamos scientist) Dr Ed Storms recently gave an interview to Dr David Livingston of The Space Show.
For those of you following this story for some time, there is little new in the interview but I would still recommend listening. Cool headed and pragmatic, Dr Storms covers a good chunk of the subject in an accessible way. On Rossi, he appears to be cautiously optimistic, giving him credit for the series of demos and due regard for the qualified individuals who observed and spoke well of them. He talks in positive terms without endorsing the eCat as a done deal. For my money, he nails it.
The interview gives way to a phone-in Q&A and the jousting with a determined sceptic is worth going out your way for. In that caller, the attitude of many otherwise intelligent individuals who refuse to even look, is laid bare.
On the possible process behind the effect, Dr Storms doubts AR’s assertion of transmutation (Ni to Cu) and favours a mechanism where the Ni or Pd form the environment for the joining of H+H to D or D+D to H4 with an appropriate release of energy.
Like me, he worries that the industrialised nations may try to micro-manage the roll-out of the tech but that in the long run, given the production advantages likely to favour competing economies (eg China) we will be forced to reduce energy prices to compete.
Well worth an hour of your time. Have a listen.
[With thanks to Jed Rothwell on Vortex]
<< Previous Post -- -- Next post >>
Posted by admin
on January 10, 2012. Filed under Hands-On,Media & Blogs,Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
arian
January 11, 2012 at 3:08 am
#
Andrea Rossi
January 10th, 2012 at 4:05 PM
Dear Keith W:
We are making the certification .
Attention: I did not say that we will begin to deliver in August, I said we can be ready to make order confirmations in Autumn; we are right now making the engineerization of the factory ( the production will be completely robotized to squeeze down the price as much as possible) and, even if we will be very good, the first deliveries will start perhaps within the year, but I cannot promise it; I can say that the price will be lower than expected and that it will be a revolution. We are making a tremendous work with top level Partners.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dale G. Basgall
January 11, 2012 at 3:49 am
Really good audio, I am still listenting for the fourth time.
Mahron
January 11, 2012 at 4:06 am
Nice summary of the situation.
Robotized factory, there you have it. Thats how he will get to 1M a year.
I so badly hope they find a way to use it as rocket fuel. Not only could nasa put massive crafts into orbit, land and takeoff easily, it would also accelerate privatization of space. Nuclear wastes could be sent into the sun.
Pekka Janhunen
January 11, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Such a launcher system dream might be possible, but it requires further breakthroughs because of the high power density and high temperature required. Otherwise the resulting stage is not necessarily cost competitive against chemical rockets.
But the launch costs could be decreased even if one continues to use chemical rockets. For example, a recent Paul Allen funded stratolaunch.com plan looks promising in its flexibility, range safety and low cost. If the space market would expand (because of by improvement of economic condition on earth by cold fusion or other reason), it would become economical to develop more reusability into the stages that stratolaunch.com or other system carries and to reduce unit cost in that way.
However, if E-cats do what they promise to do, one could probably rather easily apply them to power outer solar system probes, as a plug-in replacement for present-day plutonium RTGs. This would drastically reduce the cost of outer solar system spacecraft which, when combined with E-sail propulsion technology, would make the outer system much more accessible than nowadays, also for low-cost university projects, perhaps even amateur projects.
Tomas Douting
January 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm
The interaction with the skeptic was iconic and exemplary of the challenge LENR faces at many levels – especially where the argument that the observations are possibly in disagreement with theory falls on ears and into a mind that has already decided. That simple and essential point is useless to those who have a difficult time understanding the difference between observation and knowledge. For the skeptic, if an observation does not agree with theory then it didn’t happen.
The audio was disappointing only in that there was often excessive background noise from the host’s side with audible breath sounds, rustling of papers, keyboarding sounds and other very distracting sounds that could easily have been eliminated.
@Mahron
While I’ve seen some arguments that LENR could be used in rocket propulsion, there isn’t enough danger from nuclear waste on the ground to justify the potential increase of hazard involved in accelerating the waste to escape velocity. Even if the energy is free and plentiful the product of probabilities that nothing would go wrong with a complex propulsion system is diminishingly small. That, combined with the impact of what could happen if too many safety controls failed means that nuclear waste is so much safer just kept on the ground where it is. There isn’t all that much of it despite the claims of those who fear it, but lifting every ton into the atmosphere and accelerating it is only adding to the hazard rather than reducing it.
The advantages of inexpensive and *lightweight* fuel for propulsion are perhaps better used to move people from this planet to others. Yes, hazardous again, but then measurably less so, since a catastrophic failure would result in loss of only a small number rather than the distribution of tons of nuclear waste through the atmosphere.
Mahron
January 11, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Yeah, shooting wastes into space right now might be a bit risky, but with future nano materials it could be very safe even in the case of rocket failure. I agree that the risk of keeping it underground seem minimal (if those who put there did a good job at finding the right spot), but when I think of how long it is supposed to stay there before becoming harmless, it almost make me laugh. More than two times 10,000 years of civilization. It is mind fucking. I would not be against taking a small risk to clean that up.
andreiko
January 11, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Wel geloven in GOD maar niet in de e-cat??
quax
January 12, 2012 at 7:00 pm
I sure there a plenty of people who believe in the e-cat but not necessarily in god