Mass Use of Cold Fusion in One Year – or Less

48 Replies to “Mass Use of Cold Fusion in One Year – or Less”

1. AN UNRECOGNIZED POTENTIAL NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE FROM A SOLAR SUPERSTORM MIGHT BE PREVENTED. MOBILIZING TO MEET THAT MORTAL THREAT CAN ACCELERATE COLD FUSION AND SEVERAL OTHER INHERENTLY DECENTRALIZED REVOLUTIONARY POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES.

   See CHEAP GREEN and MOVING BEYOND OIL at http://www.aesopinstitute.org for an overview of a few of these Black Swans: highly improbable innovations with huge impact potential.

   That website explains the urgency and ways to begin to meet the challenge.

   1. Mark, you have a great website. The urgency of the solar storm is real!
      but boy I think that’s at the bottom of the list for alot of people.
      If people can’t mobilize to save their lives for tomorrow, they arent’ lined up to mobilize for a solar superstorm!
      That’s a tough sell.
      Ruby

      1. Ruby, I just edited the front page at http://www.aesopinstitute.org to suggest the Occupy Wall Street movement might want to use the solar threat to millions of lives worldwide as a focal point.

         That could change the outlook more rapidly than might be imagined.

2. Pingback: Mass Use of Cold Fusion in one year – or less. | eCat Now! – Rossi eCat News

3. I would have been more optimistic in my time table were it not for the following counter-acting influences:
   – Terrible economy will work against implementation, even as implementation helps salvage the economy.
   – Powers the be don’t want this technology to emerge, even as its emergence will help unseat the corrupt powers that be.
   – Paranoia about “nuclear” will create hesitancy, even as this new paradigm helps create a new understanding about this safe nuclear modality.
   – Academic resistance will stymie rapid acceptance, even as academic haughtiness is humbled by cold fusion’s emergence as a genuine science.
   – Black Swan events also likely to occur, will slow their spread, after they occur, even while spurring their spread prior, due to their need in surviving the events.

   The reason I even gave three years as an optimistic point of reaching 25% market penetration, is because I don’t think cold fusion will be the only modality to emerge. There are other breakthrough free energy technologies that will also be emerging as well, and among them will also be technologies that will help cushion the economy, unseat the powers that be, and show the folly of putting so much confidence in the arrogance of academic peer review.

   It truly is time for “power to the people.”

   Sterling

   1. Thanks Sterling for documenting all the emerging new energy technologies. It brings fresh hope when I am feeling low.

      Power is losing control, and there is a couple billion young people around the world without the prejudices that have plagued previous generations, and huge desire for a decent life. Academia does not hold the power over young people the way it used to.

      Once the reproducibility of this technology is 100% and freely distributed, many young people will attempt reproducing it, and many will succeed. I believe it can happen, it must happen, if we are to achieve 1.75 billion in a year or less, the most optimistic timetable. How fast can a virus spread?

      Fear of nuclear is a problem. It may be why the US gets this technology LAST – unless we can sneak in some E-Cats, or start an underground Phusor network.

      Power OF the People!

      Ruby

4. Actually, I think it will take 5-10 years for the E-cat to be globally rolled out, but due to a failing in Rossi’s deployment and development strategy.

   Usually, when a discovery of this type is made, it is followed by several years of engineering R&D to maximise the efficiency and performance of the core discovery. In this case however, we have had nothing more than a proto-type demo to prove the cold-fusion effect. The reality is that people will not rush out to buy the first demo-model when they know they can wait a while and get a vastly superior product at a cheaper price. Defkalion recently made a critique of Rossi’s FAT- Cat test saying that he was using an inferior copy of it’s first generation product. This is proof that Rossi knows that his original product has much R&D work ahead.

   And of course, the average urban user needs electricity, not steam. Rossi still needs to finalise R&D to achieve the higher temperatures to run a Stirling Engine (or similar) and then have that incorporated into his E-Cat design.

   But, what Rossi desperately needs most is a large industrial partner to refine and most likely completely re-design the E-Cat to allow more efficient transfer of heat from the CORE, and the ability to achieve higher steam temperatures needed without causing a melt-down of the Nickel. The final product will probably look nothing like the current
   E-Cat

   In summary, yes the E-Cat will deliver all, and probably much more than is already claimed, but much work lies ahead and Rossi now needs to hand over the keys to his discovery to a suitable partner and manage the outcome in a consultancy role. The sooner this happens the sooner we will be living the E-Cat dream !

   1. HI Penguin, The 5-10 year range is the general timeframe that gets put forth the most.
      I just can’t accept that, though of course it may happen that way.
      Thousands of species on this planet don’t have 10 more years, including us!

      There are others following E-Cat steps. Rossi is the first.
      When a commercial device emerges, the stampede will occur.
      Support will knock at these researchers doors, and they will be able to step it up on the R&D.

      Steam heat is the first step. Steam into electricity is the big, second step.
      I’ll be livin that dream with ya…sigh.
      Ruby

5. Mark;

   How goes the efforts with Chava?

   Seems the next generation is “getting it” based on Myron Evans’ stats on his blog.

   1. Chuck, Chava continues to progress.

      More slowly than we would like due to the continuing challenge to finance potential Black Swans – which is difficult in the best of times and more so in this economic morass.

      However, in my opinion, breakthrough energy technology is “The Next Big Thing” – and that fact is increasingly obvious.

6. The reason Rossi keeps loosing his big deals is , he does not own the,
   technology. You can’t sell what you don’t own. Every deal Rossi make ,
   goes sour, when the buyer looks a little deaper. There are a few other
   groups working on the Ni-H reation. After Rossi cashes in on his scam, we will see the other groups pick up the pieces after Rossi falls down. There is no deal that rossi can make, that will hold, when the competition kicks in. As for a reasonable timeline. that can only happen when Rossi is done.

   1. From: “Andrea Rossi – Leonardo Corp.”
      To: “Sterling Allan”
      Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:11 AM
      Subject: Re: E-Cat intellectual property question

      This is simply ridiculous.
      By all the laws I own the IP related to my patents.
      By the way: I am also the sole who has been able to make working
      plants ( I mean REALLY working plants, which is the evidence of the
      difference between my IP and the former ones.
      I have nothing to add to this ludicrous comment.
      Andrea Rossi

      1. http://coldfusion3.com/blog/patent-attorney-says-nobody-will-control-cold-fusion

         I love Rossi and wish him every success, but my impression is that the field is wide open because nobody will control cold fusion. Frankly, I empathize with this sensitivity on this issue. He is Prometheus-like, and will certainly get a Nobel Prize for his Italian Sauce.

7. I wish I were as optimistic as the rest of you as far as how fast LENR will be adopted (25% in one year? 5 years? -although it depends upon how you define “distributed” – in the form of electricity transmitted over the grid, in the form of heating?).

   I hear Rossi is getting 350C out of his e-cat now (enough for efficient electricity generation w/o a Sterling turbine). His contact for sale of the one megawatt power generator demands at least a COP of 6, but that isn’t enough for electricity generation (I hear).

   Generally it takes at least 5 years from conception to market, and LENR has to become consensus reality before it will be taken seriously by corporation and engineered into products like cars, portable generators, or desalination plants.

   This might be the first truly revolutionary technological advancement to be spread via the internet, so we will see how rapidly it is adopted considering the opposition the forces of inertia that will oppose it. Frankly, I’m afraid of a counter campaign like that questioning global warming or the detrimental health effects of tobacco. There is certainly enough power and money that are threatened by LENR.

   1. Dear Brad, Sterling is not turbine, Sterling engine is piston engine. Rossi wrote 10 times, that Sterling engine need 700°C output.

      1. Thank you Guru, I stand corrected. It is just there are a lot of people out there that say the Sterling engine works on a temperature differential, and thus out be OK. I am simply regurgitating their comments. For instance:

         http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/

         “The reaction uses a secret catalyst to transform nickel into copper with heat being produced which can be used to make steam, drive a Stirling engine, or be used for whatever you please.”

         Perhaps this might work Guru?

         http://www.greenturbine.eu/en/home.php

8. The Power of the internet means that today people know things that in the past where successfully hidden, it will only get stronger as the wall st. protests show.
   Authority, that is the rich and powerful will find it harder and harder to control people.
   Everyone of us now has a say, use it well.

9. The very deep pockets of the established energy sector filling the ever open pockets of our congress and White house will use the EPA and many other agencies to slow the advancement in the name of safety.
   Consider how hard it would be to bring electricity into homes if it were invented today, after all a child could get electrocuted. Just to be safe we need a study and another and another.

10. Whole idea about Cold Fusion devices at 1,8 billion people within one year is crazy.

    What manufacturing company is capable manufacture 300 milion 80 kg lead devices per year ?

    All manufacturing companies combined are NOT capable manufacture billion devices per year.

    1. Mubachi and Johnson are two companies that make small to medium size electric motors. Both companies make over 1 million electric motors PER DAY! That is about 700 million electric motors a year from two companies. There are hundreds of such companies at work in the world right now. Given the right financial incentives they can start pumping out devices approaching a billion devices per year. Think before you blab.

       1. It is possible, given the right scenario.

11. All I can say is GO ROSSI !!!

12. If Mr. Rossi’s rate of speed in validating, producing and marketing his device is considered, I think we may be looking at a 100 years for introduction (if there is anything to introduce). Why hasn’t some investment angel swooped in to market his game-changer technology if it is real rather than vapor hardware?

    1. Rossi’s detractors continually point to the potential for defrauding investors. That is a big reason ROSSIE HAS REFUSED INVESTORS.

       So now the pseudo-skeptics point to the fact that Rossi has no investors (but himself) as evidence of fraud, ignoring, of course, that there is no up side for Rossi to engage in such fraud.

       The pseudo-skeptics are not skeptics. They’re True Believers in the True Church of Theoretical Physics whose 5-week Conclave subsequent to the March 1989 announcement, put forth announcements of Excommunication of all who would dare do the equivalent of simply bend down to look through the modern era’s equivalent of Galileo’s Telescope.

       1. Wow, I’m diggin your analogy J. Within weeks of the announcement, the American Physical Society meeting had an Emotional Meeting where the loudest and most rabid dominated. I was recently at the U. of Utah archives reading the files containing news clippings and such. It was one after the other denouncing the two scientists in most unkind words. I tell you, I was getting upset just sitting there.

          It was a travesty. But you hit it. What has changed? The novel idea threatens the paradigm and thus the perpetrator must be stamped out. From Socrates to Galileo to Fleischmann and Pons. I suppose it’s nice to be in such good company, if the realities of it are ignored.

          The reality is, after that, the DOE bailed. The science wasn’t ready for a technology, and needed more research to reproduce the effect on demand, and determine the conditions of excess heat to up the output and control it. Private investors don’t want to do basic scientific research, and neither did the Department of Energy. Thus, this crew was on their own.

          Now, after two decades, the E-Cat is the first to come forward as a commercial device. Time will tell how quickly we are able to access this technology. He has had no investors but his own capital. He put everything he had into it, as others have, and they all deserve the best this culture can come up with in kind.

       2. Cold fusion is not Galileo’s telescope. It’s Blondlott’s N-rays. It’s Fedyakin’s polywater. It’s the alchemists’ gold from lead. It’s Lorentz’s ether. It’s Le Verrier’s planet vulcan. It’s Popoff’s faith healing. It’s L Ron Hubbard’s Xenu. It’s Uri Geller’s bent spoon. It’s Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. It’s Wakefield’s autism from vaccines…

          Belief in cold fusion is not based on evidence (certainly not on Rossi’s evidence), but on a sincere desire for it to be true.

          1. Hi Joshua, Rational scientists have replicated it around the world, over two decades. You know where to find their papers.
             Ignore them if you wish.

             I’ll take their science over your flippant and condescending retort, for which you have no evidence to support.

             As Marshall McLuhan said, “The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.”

             I do appreciate the poetry though.
             Ruby

             1. What those papers have replicated is failure to demonstrate heat from nuclear reactions. That’s why in 22 years, not a single credible demonstration of cold fusion has been shown, and the claim of nuclear energy density should be trivial to demonstrate. And it’s why even advocates describe Rossi as the “long-awaited” vindication (except that it’s not). If cold fusion claims were replicated there would be no need to wait for vindication.

                N-rays, polywater, vulcan, vaccines and autism, all had claimed replications too. They were just wrong. Sometimes scientists are wrong. Just because the establishment doesn’t believe something, doesn’t make it true.

                As for evidence to support my retort, I was mirroring the ridiculous comparisons every new unbelievable claim makes to Galileo. There are no similarities, you know. Galileo’s data was rock solid and reproducible. Galileo’s claim was consistent with established principles of physics. Galileo’s claim was rejected by religious people for religious reasons. It was largely accepted by scientific minds (even if they had to hide it from the church). There is no better justification to compare cold fusion to Galileo than to compare it to any of those failed claims… was the point.

                1. “What those papers have replicated is failure to demonstrate heat from nuclear reactions. That’s why in 22 years, not a single credible demonstration of cold fusion has been shown, and the claim of nuclear energy density should be trivial to demonstrate.”

                   I don’t understand how you cannot see what is right in front of your eyes! Why did Robert Duncan bring Energetic Technologies to the University of Missouri business park? For one reason only, Dr. Duncan witnessed the excess heat. Why has SPAWAR been conducting experiments for twenty years? How is that tritium has been produced? How is it that helium is produced? Why has SRI been researching this for twenty years?

                   The level of mass hallucination, though possible, is unlikely. In fact, the evidence is in: cold fusion is real.

                   I could bring up numerous graphs and charts, which I know you have seen, but I won’t because I believe there is nothing short of a commercial product that will satisfy you. That’s OK. But if you want to wait for a product, then wait for a product. All the bluster in the face of scientific evidence is a time-waster.

                   Enjoy all these moments, Joshua. They are all you get for this life.
                   Best wishes for a productive and enjoyable day to you!
                   Ruby

13. The speed of development depends entirely on who does it. If Rossi can get an attractive deal with some huge corporation with plenty of capital and engineering expertise then the E-cat could achieve 25% saturation very quickly. But if everyone wants to have 99% ownership, leaving Rossi 1%, and he has to do it essentially himself it will take very much longer. We don’t know the answer to that yet.

    As for the comparison with autos and personal computers that is too simplistic an analysis. Automobiles have always cost a lot of money. This will cost a lot less, especially when average incomes are much higher now than they were 100 years ago. In addition, this invention is not just another new product competing with lots of others for consumers’ budgets. This invention SAVES money that people must spend, big time. So that will mean much faster adoption than would be the case for just another totally new fascinating widget.

    Of course retail price (500E per kw?) will be a major factor also in how fast 25% saturation is achieved.

    So I am just saying that speed of adoption depends on a great many factors.

14. I am as excited as the next person about the e-cat device…but the fact that there is transmutation of metals makes me think that more is happening, perhaps some gamma radiation is being given of or other particle that would make it not safe to have this device in the home or elsewhere without extensive shielding. In all the excitement no one is talking about the safety standards

15. Thank you for this thoughtful article Ruby. I have written a similar piece on my site with a more cautious view, but your optimism is appreciated. My caution is related to the subjects already mentioned above by the other comments, namely safety and the inevitable opposition of entrenched powers. Rossi’s mercurial nature and his perchant for showmanship over substance also gives me pause. I do believe that he is onto something but I do not believe the e-Cat is as market-ready as he is presenting it to be. If all the eggs were in Rossi’s basket, I would in fact be less than cautious. But with Piantelli and Defkalion also working to bring cold fusion to market, and with other players like BLP and Brillouin Energy still it the picture (although more peripherally), it gives me hope that someone will soon have a significant breakthrough.

    Long-time cold fusion researcher George Miley has recently released a power point presentation that attempts to explain the work of both Rossi and James Patterson and has developed a theory to explain the cold fusion reaction. In addition, Frank Znidarsic has just published a paper that attempts to give theoretical underpinnings not only to cold fusion but anti-gravity technology, which he postulates are related. Furthermore, he asserts his theory will allow man to now control each of the natural forces. This is all related to an understanding of the transitional quantum state, which he explains in his paper. It is quite heady stuff and I would encourage all to read his work or, at the very least, watch the You Tube interview with Alien Scientist.

    There are indications that we on the brink of a new understanding of our world and the advent of remarkable technology. But we are in a race against time and I would agree with Ruby’s assessment that to waits 10 years to see its implementation is unacceptable and even 3 years is reason for concern. How such a significant change is going to take place in such a such short period of time defies my understanding of how the world works but I have no choice but to hope we will find a way.

16. Thanks for the discussion.

    @Ben, Rodney you both express the complexity of the situation, as well as the desperate fears that plague the current path. It’s tipping point dynamics all around.

    @Paul, That’s the beauty of cold fusion/LENR/LANR/NI-H reactions, there is not the radiation of conventional nuclear reactions. There are on occasion products of tritium, helium, and gammas, but not always! It is not yet understood why. As protection, the E-Cat has a thin lead shield that protects against any gammas that may be created.

    Cold fusion researchers have been studying this effect for the last two decades, and they are healthier than most! They have no effects whatsoever from radiation poisoning. You can meet them and talk to them and they are walking around totally normal, with no health effects.

    Edmund Storms, a decades long veteran of LANL and cold fusion researcher, wrote a book called The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and discussed the apparent lack of radiation and nuclear particles. I wrote up some of the pertinent paragraphs from his book addressing that issue in No fear of radiation from cold fusion.

    @Richard, Investors have so far wanted a return on their investment, a return with a timetable, and so far, the research has not been developed enough to guarantee a return by DATE Q1. Andrea Rossi is the first to engineer a device that has the high energy return, on-demand, that is commercial-ready. Others aren’t far behind, but they need to find either 100% reproducibility, or, increase the energy return, depending on the lab, depending on the device.

    Traditionally, federal dollars fund basic research of a new science until such time as a technology emerges from that science, and then, private investment takes over.

    Unfortunately, the Department of Energy willfully disparaged this science, and for the past two decades, new-energy scientists have been on their own, having regular jobs and researching on the side, or, spouses pay the rent, while they experiment with the energy of our future. It would be ridiculous if it wasn’t actually true.

    @Guru, E-Cats were to be manufactured in one factory, powered by the 1 MW unit, delivering 300,000 units annually, so yeah, we’d need over 5800 factories around the world at that rate. Yeah, pretty daunting.

    @Jerry – Cold Fusion Now feels it important to educate the public on this topic so that there will be enough knowledgeable citizens to demand this technology, and not let bureaucrats derail it. Keep talking, keep typing; then we all become agents of change.

    Right on Bill and George!

    This situation is complex, and yet simple.
    We don’t have the capability, and yet we do.
    Nothing can be known with surety, but the effect is real.
    We can slow our best option for energy, or we can move to implement quickly.
    It’s so confusing, all I can do is choose.

    We choose to support this technology and do everything possible to bring about a cold fusion clean-energy future for all the life on this planet.

17. Pingback: Considering A The Focalfusion

18. tubular pi dome reblogged this on Tubular pi dome.

19. Carat: “I don’t understand how you cannot see what is right in front of your eyes.”

    What is in front of my eyes? The claim is a fantastic thermal energy density. But this has never been put in front of anyone’s eyes. I can tell that burning wood produces heat, that gasoline powers my car, and that striking a match produces chemical heat. But for cold fusion, all we have is vague and controversial papers of poor quality that fail to convince anyone but a few devoted believers. Experts enlisted by the DOE found that the evidence for nuclear reactions is not there. It should be a million times easier to demonstrate heat from cold fusion than from a match, but no one can do it. As Rothwell might say: Show me an isolated device that produces heat to stay warmer than its surroundings long enough to exceed its weight in chemical fuel.

    Carat: “Why did Robert Duncan bring Energetic Technologies to the University of Missouri business park? For one reason only, Dr. Duncan witnessed the excess heat.”

    The question you should ask is why did 60 minutes need Duncan. If Energetics were claiming a source of heat 10^6 times more dense than chemical heat, it should be obvious to anyone, and yet all 60 minutes showed was an impossibly complicated labyrinth of tubes and wires, and Duncan doing calculations in a notebook. Energetics claimed their foil electrode produced several watts for days on end; why couldn’t they put the foil in a beaker of water, and show it getting warmer?

    Duncan thought he witnessed excess heat, but he has not had any success convincing the world that he did. And again, it should not be hard to do for a nuclear energy density.

    Carat: “Why has SPAWAR been conducting experiments for twenty years?”

    I agree that they think they see something. But they have not been able to provide enough evidence to convince most scientists. And if the claims were true, in 20 years they should be able to convince anyone, without reference to obscure graphs and charts, that they are producing gigajoules of energy per gram of material. But they can’t even convince most scientists who take the time to study the results in detail.

    The 20 years, to my mind, counts against them. In 20 years, they have not made any progress. In fact, the claimed heat is getting smaller. That happens with pathological science, but never with real phenomena. Especially with 100s of people working on it. The results always get better, more pronounced, easier to see. Evidence for cold fusion is no better than it was in the 90s, which is why Rothwell uses data from the 90s on his front page.

    Carat: “How is that tritium has been produced?”

    The claimed levels of tritium vary by about 10 orders of magnitude, enough to lose all confidence in its detection. In any case, the levels are never enough to account for the claimed heat.

    Carat: “How is it that helium is produced?”

    Helium is the only claimed “ash” that is commensurate with the claimed heat. Funny coincidence, it is the only one that is present in the background at similar or higher concentrations.

    Carat: “Why has SRI been researching this for twenty years?”

    Again, they think there is something there. But they don’t have the evidence to convince other experts, let alone non-experts, who are capable of observing high energy densities. Polywater was investigated for 10 years, homeopathy has been investigated for a century, and perpetual motion has been investigated since civilization began.

    You can’t convince me something is true because a fringe group of people think it’s true. Show me the evidence. And yes, I am qualified to appreciate evidence of an energy density a million times higher than that of fire wood.

    Carat: “The level of mass hallucination, though possible, is unlikely.”

    Why is it unlikely? Cold fusion advocates love to point to all the examples in history where large groups of scientists were wrong. They were wrong about the ether. They were wrong about absolute time. And for new claims, they were wrong about n-rays and polywater. It is entirely believable — no almost certain — that the cold fusion cohort is wrong about cold fusion. Otherwise, a much larger group of scientists would have to be wrong, or victims of an even more massive hallucination.

    So, if I want to make a decision about cold fusion based on who believes it, there are far more who don’t believe it (including experts who have examined it in detail). If I want to make a decision based on the evidence, which I do, I have not seen any that even comes close to being convincing.

    Carat: “In fact, the evidence is in: cold fusion is real.”

    Proof by assertion? I can do that too: Cold fusion is not real. There is no evidence for it.

    Carat: “I could bring up numerous graphs and charts, which I know you have seen, ”

    That’s the problem, isn’t it? You are claiming a billion joules per gram of fuel, and you need graphs to prove it’s real.

    Carat: “but I won’t because I believe there is nothing short of a commercial product that will satisfy you.”

    Not true. 22 years ago, when it was first claimed, scientists took the charts and graphs seriously, and went to the lab to test the claims. They didn’t stand up.

    Now, 22 years later, no one has the patience to look at more charts and graphs that show the same ambiguous, vague, and controversial results that P&F showed 22 years ago. Those who are enlisted to examine the graphs (the DOE panel) come away with the same conclusion: no conclusive evidence for nuclear effects.

    But a commercial product isn’t needed. Rothwell has expressed very well the sort of thing no scientist would dispute. Just an isolated device, with no energy input, that remains palpably warmer than its surroundings long enough to exclude any possible chemical source of energy. If the claims were real, that should be a piece of cake. That it is nowhere in sight after 22 years, makes the likelihood of cold fusion being real even lower than before P&F made their first claim.

    Carat: “All the bluster in the face of scientific evidence is a time-waster.”

    There is certainly time being wasted on cold fusion. By the deluded believers. Next year, when there is still no ecat to heat your house, or any other believable demonstration of cold fusion, and the scientific establishment still ignores the field, you will replace all these optimistic predictions with excuses (likely of the conspiracy theory nature), and make new optimistic predictions for the next year. People have been doing this for 22 years, or we would all be driving cold fusion cars since the year 2000. There really is no observable progress. Your campaign is admirable, but it is almost certainly a waste of time.

    1. We are talking about physicist Dr. Robert Duncan, Vice Provost of Research at University of Missouri http://research.missouri.edu/division/duncan.htm who spoke in 2009 at this Energy Summit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgRiTphJRkg?

       Are you saying there is deceit in the graphs of Dr. Mitchel Swartz experiments? http://world.std.com/~mica/cftsci.html
       Dr. Swartz with two degrees from MIT, a member of the International Society of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science http://www.iscmns.org/index.htm and has been researching for two decades?

       Are you saying that Navy SPAWAR are tripping? http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/Publications.aspx

       Please, Joshua I beseech you, enjoy your life, find your passion *for* something.
       You want to be part of something, you want to be admired, you want to be noticed.
       Find your own solutions.
       If you like to rant, perhaps you could snag coldfusionnever.com and create a forum for those like you.
       If it is a waste of time, then think upon it no more.

       We are an advocacy site that supports cold fusion energy and the hundreds of independent researchers who are on the brink of a new technology that could give this planet a second chance. We are committed to educating the public on a source of energy derived from a reaction of hydrogen and metal, a science that is just now emerging as a technology.

       The engineers will tell us when that will occur. It is our aim to bolster their efforts, and thus hasten that day.

       Best wishes to you,
       Ruby

       1. carat: “We are talking about physicist Dr. Robert Duncan, Vice Provost of Research at University of Missouri”

          Yes. Linus Pauling got it wrong about vitamin C, and he won 2 nobel prizes. Even smart people make mistakes. I don’t know how 60-minutes got him, but it does seem from his interview on your site that they vetted candidates. First they got him to read papers, and he told them he thought it looked promising. Then they picked him. Maybe he couldn’t resist the publicity, and now he’s got his pride to protect.

          Duncan has an impressive CV, no question. So why has he not convinced anyone of note of the reality of cold fusion? Why has he not published anything on it in 2.5 years? Why is it so hard for someone with his resources and reputation to make any progress in the field, or to help others to make progress in the field? He’s claiming 100% reproducibility in some contexts. That could not be hidden from the scientific community.

          It’s interesting that in his series of talks on the U Missouri web site, he recently had the DOE director of science (Brinkman) speaking on energy alternatives and effects on climate. He has a pretty impressive CV himself. Brinkman first emphasizes the need for alternatives because he is convinced of the dangers of fossil fuels and CO2, then he talks about the various energy alternatives. He’s passionate about the subject. He wants to get rid of fossil fuels. He’s smart and well-informed. He knows he’s at Missouri, where cold fusion is a big topic, he must know about the Energetics relocation, but does he mention CF once in his talk? No. Couldn’t Duncan convince this scientist that there’s something to cold fusion, if there’s 100% reproducibility? There was one question from the audience on cold fusion (not from Duncan), and Brinkman simply said he had nothing to say about the topic. He wouldn’t even waste a few minutes of his time on it… at the university that’s pushing it hard. Presumably he preferred to keep quiet rather than insult his host.

          carat: “Are you saying there is deceit in the graphs of Dr. Mitchel Swartz experiments?”

          I didn’t say anything about deceit. It doesn’t matter what it is, they do not constitute convincing evidence of nuclear reactions. More importantly, if the data did constitute evidence for cold fusion, by now, it would have been possible to make an incontrovertible demonstration of it. It’s not some subtle thing, you know. It’s heat. It’s bench top. It’s low temperatures. It’s low pressures. The experiments are easy. Generate something that is consistent with billions of joules of energy per gram of material.

          
carat: “Dr. Swartz with two degrees from MIT, a member of the International Society of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and has been researching for two decades?”

          And what? Do you think the CV’s of the famous skeptics like Bob Park, Nathan Lewis, and Steven Koonin are chickenfeed? If Swartz is so smart, and CF were real, it wouldn’t take him 20 years to convince the world it’s real.

          carat: “Are you saying that Navy SPAWAR are tripping?”

          Actually, yes. That’s not an impressive group, and their results on CR-39 have not been reproduced in refereed literature by other groups. They have however been challenged in the refereed literature.

          carat: “We are an advocacy site that supports cold fusion energy and the hundreds of independent researchers who are on the brink of a new technology that could give this planet a second chance.”

          …what you _think_ is the brink of a new technology….

          carat: “We are committed to educating the public on a source of energy derived from a reaction of hydrogen and metal, a science that is just now emerging as a technology.”

          This notion that you and other CF advocates have, that getting the word out is important, is really misguided. CF is not like capital punishment or abortion. It’s either real or it’s not, and getting lay people to believe it would not hasten the day, even if it were real. There’s already been $100 million spent on it (not counting the 60 M on Mills’ black light power). If that’s not enough for a simple electrolysis or gas loading experiment, more money will not help. What you need are better experiments, not better arguments.

    2. Joshua,

       Frankly, given the follow (sorry it is boiler plate, so I didn’t take the time you did to write an original reply) overwhelming evidence, I just don’t understand why you are so skeptical (critical) about LENR. Oh well, soon Rossi’s one mega watt reactor will be commercialized and you will be forced to admit something that is obvious to the rest of us now!

       There is a new clean energy technology that is 1/5th the cost of coal. Don’t believe me? Watch this video by a Nobel prize winner in physics: http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_Nobel_laureate_touts_E-Cat_cold_fusion/

       Still don’t believe me? It convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

       LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

       According to Forbes, electricity will be “too cheap to meter” if the Oct 28 demonstration succeeds: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/

       By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html

       1. So far, Rossi’s MW reactor just has Rossi’s word that it worked, and that some unknown company bought it. We already had Rossi’s word, so today hasn’t changed anything. I wonder how many times Rossi can promise evidence and fail to deliver before the true believers will become less certain. Judging by Mills’ Black Light Power, it should take about 20 years or more.

          As for that Nobel Laureate, I don’t believe his endorsement of homeopathy either.

          And no, the Swedish Skeptics Society is not convinced. One member of it made some cautiously optimistic statements. That’s all.

          You refer to a detailed description of a device and formula to produce heat from nickel and hydrogen that was written in 1994. Obviously it didn’t have quite enough detail for them to actually demonstrate heat to anyone.

          Sure, *if* it works, we’ll get electricity too cheap to meter. If perpetual motion works, we’ll get electricity for nothing. If. If. If only… So far, Rossi hasn’t provided any evidence that it works.

          I’m sure we’ll all hear about it when one of those companies claiming to be “bringing LENR to commercialization” actually succeeds. In the mean time, they are succeeding in taking money from gullible investors. Mills has gotten $60M investment over 20 years, without a single commercial product, or even a convincing demonstration.

          1. You appear to be rather obtuse Joshua. In other words, your judgement is faulty, which probably gives you problems in other parts of your life too. I realize this can be interpreted as a ad hominem attack, but I’ll let reality show you how wrong you are.

             What I want from you Joshua is a commitment to pay a pertinence if you turn out to be wrong. Anyone can write toxic nonsense like you have, but it take a real man to admit they are wrong and take steps to correct an obvious psychological deficiency.

             I will be willing to do the same – whatever this agreed penitence is. I am sick and tired of sick people who wouldn’t know reality if it bit them in the butt writing cynical and obtuse opinions without consequence. Here is your chance Joshua – step up or admit what you are voicing is really just a bunch of nonsense you really don’t back, but is just a way of showing hate.

             Shame on you if you don’t step up Joshua. Shame on you sir.

             1. By the way Joshua, here is a link (with supporting evidence) to prove the 28 Oct test was a success and the “customer” is happy and plans to make the gigantic payment.

                Of course, I expect people like you are unable to recognize reality even if it is shoved into your face.

                Please prove me wrong Joshua – be a man and step up to the place and admit you are wrong. Again, I expect you to be less than a man and make some obscure excuse or not answer at all. Shame on you Joshua. Shame on you.

          2. You have no argument for cold fusion so, like a school child, you thrust your hand out and shout: “Make a bet?!”

             Come on. The problem with making a bet is that nothing will ever convince true believers that they are wrong. It’s been 22 years with no evidence from a simple bench top experiment, let alone successful demonstrations or products, yet believers keep on believing, pointing to more and more graphs and charts that are no better than previous graphs and charts, or to sloppy demonstrations that don’t even convince LENR advocates like Krivit and others. It would be like making a bet with a catholic on the existence of God.

20. Pingback: Mass Use of Cold Fusion in one year – or less. | eCat economics & governance | Scoop.it

21. Comparison of the rate of eCat penetration with other invention is totally out of place. While telephone, computers, radio, etc. called for development of an entirely new technology, the only really new element in eCat is the catalyst itself. Any metal-working plant could be retooled to production of eCats virtually overnight, and no new infrastructure (power grid, information net etc.) is needed. The world that produces 50+ million of cars on yearly basis, could produce first billion of eCats in several years never missing a bit.
    As for production of electricity, the problem of control for device working at 300-500 centigrades could be solved in several years, leading, as a first step, to simple conversion of coal-firing and nuclear plants. The whole world could be easily eCatized to the end of decade. We really have a chance of living in a rosy Rossi world!

22. Pingback: Another free energy milestone |

23. Thorium. the safe nuclear fuel that has been tested and really works.

24. Pingback: Amazing video of massive solar flare erupting from surface of Sun | Uses of Solar Power

Comments are closed.