David J. Nagel on the Potential Benefits of LENR

An interesting and comprehensive article entitled “Potential Advantages and Impacts of LENR Generators of Thermal and Electrical Power and Energy” written by Professor David J. Nagel of George Washington University in Washington, D.C. has been published in Infinite Energy magazine. The article deals with many potential benefits of LENR technology and its advantages over other sources on energy. Nagel is also the CEO of NUCAT Energy LLC that provides educational and consulting service in the field of LENR.

Nagel admits in the introduction of the article that the technology he is discussing has not yet been adequately proven, and explains that the benefits and advantages he lists are still hypothetical. The article contains a number of topics we have discussed on this site, but in doing so adds some useful facts and figures that provide a nice reference for people interested in LENR.

We’re still going to have to wait, however, to know for sure if these potential benefits will stop being just ‘potential’. There is certainly plenty of anticipation and hope building.

  • jacob

    after reading the PDF from Mr.Nagel ,even though I agree with almost all his points except for the speed and torque control in the speeding up and deceleration
    of a motor vehicle and control ability as such,as I posted earlier about a new company building engines
    being at www,cyclone power.com ,I proposed a Lenr version of that engine, can run on a constant level of steam generation,with a very simple valve, that directs the steam to the cylinders ,or for instance if a lower or stopped motor is required the steam would be bypassed with this same valve into the condenser ,possible if the cooling fan is powered by an electric fan,similar as some cooling fans on car radiators, once the motor has to start,the valve being controlled with the acceleration pedal then the moment you push on the gas pedal you have instant torque and control of the vehicle,to slow down take your foot of it.

    Can’t see why it would be difficult to design and built.

    • Omega Z

      I don’t mean to burst your bubble,

      But, if you want an Idea of what an E-cat powered car would look like at this TIME— Think of the 6*6*20ft. shipping container the held Rossi’s 1Mw E-cat with wheels & steering attached. Or better yet, A 26 foot motor home capable of 2 passengers.

      As you add all the extras to make it possible, (liquids, heat sinks etc..) you add weight that requires more power which exponentially increase size.

      It’s the same effect that limits the size of rockets. You start adding fuel just to haul fuel. zero gain. Not quite that extreme, but close. It’s possible, Just not reasonable nor cheap.

      Recheck the PDF file & you see it stated 75Kwe to equal 100Hp. Most of your subcompacts are a 130Hp plus.

      Now that I have burst your bubble a little, Let me point out that a battery manufacturer has developed a totally different type of lithium Ion Air battery that has the capacity of 300 miles to the charge. This makes Electric cars much more palatable. It’s also half the size, less then half the weight, & half the cost & should be available within 2 years. There working on scaling up a production plant now. The electric cars should be comparable & possibly cheaper then most Gas powered cars. Also supposed to be safer. No unexpected BBQ while going down the road.

      IBM is also developing a similar type that proposes 500 mile to a charge & another company, JTEC, has 1 in development with 1000 mile to the charge as their target with 100 plus recharges.

      This would make it much more economical to have an E-cat charging system at home. Also, you may be able to have a quick change battery setup if the cars are designed right.

      I’m aware of multiple technologies that are close to being marketable within the next couple years. Black Light power is another type of LENR? that is getting close.

      There’s also some small start-up companies working on efficient lo-temp waste heat generators & thermal electric converters.. By combining all these new technologies, the possibilities are fantastic.

      The most promising thing though, Is the number of people at Universities & such that are starting to take notice & coming forward. The more the better. Harder to stop.

      I remember a cartoon from the 80’s where a guy is sitting in a tractor trailer. On the side it says all electric. A passerby by says really, All electric? How big’s the Battery. In the next frame in full view- You see to big battery terminals on top of what looks like the trailer. he,he,he…

      • “75Kwe to equal 100Hp. Most of your subcompacts are a 130Hp plus.”

        100 bhp (hp at the wheels) is pretty average, at least here in the UK. My wife’s 1900cc diesel estate is rated at 85bhp, my 2000cc petrol convertible is 140bhp, both typical of their types.

        75kW at the wheels, i.e., c.220kW (thermal input at boiler) does not look unattainable. Rossi says (that phrase again!) that his new, improved e-cat core is smaller than before and operates at 600C+, so it must be assumed that output is far greater than the reactor modules in the 1MW unit. If we guessed at 5x (temp. increase factor over ambient) then only 4 reactors co-housed within a flash boiler unit would provide enough power for a smallish vehicle at current performance levels.

        Of course, the problem of finding the electrical power needed to fire them up remains. This limitation must be overcome before CF can be used to power anything portable.

        • jacob

          Yes Peter ,it would have to have a substantial electrical system with a large battery storage,at the end it comes down to cost of production,and government policies ,in case in my Country the is a company that builds
          small electric cars ,but they are not allowed to be driven here in
          Canada,it remains a mystery why not,despite 60% of electrical power produced here is hydro power,
          I guess it is unfair for people to
          drive on Canadian roads with electric cars ,since we on pay a 90$ registration here and the Taxes on gas helps pave for part of the roads here,electric cars could have been implemented a long time ago ,did you ever see how big a battery pack is in an electric hybrid,you have to look through the car to find it,it is not very big, no problem to get a range of at least 500 km (and I agree with Omega)if someone tried a little harder,I consider the chevy volt a big joke as far as all electric range is concerned,I think the real problem is again policy ,in this case Transport Canada ,we are an Oil producing Country ,I have to tread lightly,I am not in the mood to get arrested anytime soon,we have import restrictions in
          place, and don’t have some of those nice cars you have in the UK
          that a getting 60 or 70 miles per gallon on a small car with a clean diesel,we drive the junk they want us to drive,thank god for volkswagen or we would be crying all the time,but when I lived in Germany and the Netherlands I remember the citroen with the hydraulic shocks and sweet gas milage and the nice subcompact cars
          back then in 1981 i remember one of the few domestic cars here at the time with a 4 cylinder was the Chevrolet Chevette, and was that ever a piece of junk,compared what i was used to(sorry Detroit GM}
          and FORD why not just bring in the subcompact Fords from your European division back then,they would have been a hit,and then you would just melt down those big Crown Victorias.
          WE wanted to have 5 or 6 cylinder diesels in our half ton pickup trucks,like they did in Australia

          I guess it looks like I am venting,
          but I am just saying we want to drive and get to work with out paying for fuel only a road usage fee

          • The UK gallon is larger than the US one by about 20% I think. Don’t know about Canadian gallons. 50 mpg(uk) is common for a small modern petrol car, 60-65 for a recent model diesel, in normal mixed use. Plenty of people still drive older cars that only do 40mpg (petrol) or 50mpg (diesel), or ‘Chelsea tractors’ (Land Rover type vehicles) that do half that.

          • jacob

            Peter, the Canadian gallon is 4.54 liters,the best fuel consumption would be the VW Golf and Jetta with clean diesel,about 50 miles per gallon and about the same as the toyota prius hybrid,that is the best we have here,and they are more expensive to buy

          • As Canada uses the same ‘gallon’ as the UK, the difference in typical m’s per g is very strange. I recently scrapped a 15 year old Renault Espace MPV I used as a van for my ‘self build’ project, and even that regularly did marginally under 50mpg. My wife’s 1.9 diesel estate regularly returns 58mpg, and she has ‘lead boots’!

            Fuel consumption of the 2.0 VW Jetta diesel sold in the UK is given as 58.9mpg mixed cycle, 68.9mpg ‘extra urban’.

            There are some very odd games being played by the motor industry I think.

    • jacob

      omega,i realize this is not all going to happen over night and to try to put together a power train for it takes years and years to materialize, I am in the 99% category of believers ,and leave the 1% just in case I have been cleverly fooled,and that wouldn’t be the first time.
      On the other hand I believe it main purpose what it was designed for is to heat water and homes

    • Robert Mockan

      ICE shaft hp compared to electric is apples to oranges. A modern aerodynamic shelled road vehicle might be using 15 hp, at the wheel, to maintain freeway speeds, because it is not overcoming acceleration inertia at speed, just air resistance and rolling friction of the wheels. But the ICE might be rated 100 hp, compared to the electric 15 hp, because the speed and torque curves are different. Acceleration rates from 0 to 60 can be comparable because you can intermittently overload the electric motor if you have the juice. (This analysis falls apart when talking about commercial trucking, because when towing a trailer the ICE really does apply the full hp rating). The point being is that a LENR reactor for direct steam generation at constant rate could not be efficiently applied for various loads. Something along the hybrid idea where a constant output engine generating electric power that is battery stored for load leveling is probably the way to go. But if one were to do that then might as well go with the BLP CIHT battery, and not use a LENR reactor at all for the road vehicle.

      The analysis is completely different for boats and airplanes, that often have constant power output for extended times. There is where the LENR reactor can shine IF the power system weight can be kept low, meaning that most of the output power needs to go into the drive system, and not be used to power the reactor.

      LENR reactors need big operation improvements before they can be used in most vehicles, but the marine applications could easily come first, because they have the least weight restrictions.

    • Robert Mockan

      If thermal power storage were used in addition to the LENR reactor might be feasible to couple to a steam engine. That way the reactor could have constant output, but when extra power is needed for accelerations then extra steam could be generated by drawing heat from the thermal power storage module. Something like a tank of molten salt like used for night time power from solar energy. The problem of load leveling is not an easy design issue.

      • There might well be a problem extracting peak required amounts of energy from the limited surface area offered by the reactor cores, even if they’re embedded in metal blocks with finned heating tubes machined in.

        Perhaps a molten metal/ molten salt heat store could be utilised to greatly increase the available transfer area. One or two reactors could be used for direct water heating while the rest heat the ‘store’ to provide a reserve. That would avoid increasing the start delay too much, and might also be used to provide a short-term heat dump when the vehicle is crawling or stationary.

        As you say, the engineering required is not trivial.

        • jacob

          Peter, what about molten 600 degree molten salt on the hot side of a sterling engine, would that be enough heat to get the efficiency?

      • GreenWin

        Robert, I rather suspect we will see LENR used to fire Stirling-based CHP systems like those the UK DECC and Carbon Trust promote. LENR for motive force has a ways to go before reliable implementation. But we can expect to see EVs and PHEVs charged with electric derived from home and light industrial LENR generators.

        There is now a bit of rumbling to bring the Dense Plasma Focus Fusionists (DPF) into the LENR fold and put them to work on direct LENR plasma conversion. The suggestion is hot fusion scientists have good experience in plasma control systems. These, applied to LENR gas loaded nuclear active sites or fluid-based plasmas – could yield positive results.

        The DPF guys will scoff. They see their technology (hot fusion) as the world saver. But since they’ve had 60 years and $$250 billions to play with and given us nothing – they face serious cutbacks and research closures. With humility, we can all get along.

        • Robert Mockan

          It may surprise that I’m also in the hot fusion save the world boat. The hot fusioners made a wrong turn a long time ago, but understandable because of the politics involved. They should have gone for detonation of thermonuclear (fusion boosted) bombs in underground chambers, using the heat generation for steam. The power plants would have had gigawatt outputs, exploding a bomb every few minutes. There were studies done many years ago about the feasibility and the results were positive for it being the least expensive way to use fusion power. And the scale factor would have reduced electric power cost to a small percentage of what we have now. Then would have come electrifying roadways and trains with overhead slip rails and contact booms from the vehicle, so all long distance electric vehicles would have no power issues, with small capacity rechargeable batteries for local travel to and from main routes.

          Call it another alternative history that never happened.

          • Omega Z


            I’m sure you mean vehicles that are totally computer controlled where you enter your destination & it takes you there.

            If not, I have a girl friend that would quickly turn those slip rails into pretzels. LOL..

        • GreenWin

          Awesome proposal. No concern for subterranean shock waves? I suppose if ignition took place far enough down and away from communities there would not be a “noise” issue either. I’m in awe of the achieved temperatures confined in hot fusion. It is massive hardware.

          Confining atoms to the right geometry and causing them to resonate at specific frequency – is just so much more elegant. The DPF method of converting ions to electric current looks promising for eliminating the steam cycle.

          • Robert Mockan

            No shock waves outside the containment. The initial fireball is an expanding ball of plasma in the center of, for example,8 thousand cubic yards of water. The water vaporizes completely into steam at 3200 PSI and 600 C after pressure and temperature equilibrium was reached shortly after the explosion. The math indicated acoustic effects outside the container would have been a very powerful “thump”, every few minutes, that would dissipate within a few miles of the containment vessel. Most designs used 2 containers. While one was providing steam the other would be filling its water core and preparing for the next detonation. Instead of hundreds of conventional nuclear power plants to supply the USA with just part of the electricity it uses, the fusion bomb power plants would have numbered very few to supply electric power to the entire North American continent. They dreamed big back then!

          • Robert Mockan

            The tenses in my description might be a bit misleading. The power plant was never actually built, but simulated using data from underwater nuclear bomb tests. If they had been built, we would probably also have built the nuclear pulse propulsion nuclear space craft called ORION. That would have been in the late 60s and early 70s of last century. Even today it is the only design we have the technology for that could be used as a starship. Still would have taken about 200 years to reach the nearest star system.

  • Brad Arnold

    I see Nagel’s article didn’t include BlackLight Power’s recent claim of third part validiation of their being able to turn the reaction into electricity directly. Furthermore, it seems a little cautious in declaring LENR to be a valid physical reaction:

    This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

    In November of 2009 the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) published Defense Analysis Report DIA 8-0911-003 titled “Technological Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance” ( http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf ).

    Here is a detailed description of a LENR generator and formula that was producing energy over unity. In the March of 1994 US government contract F33615-93-C-2326 titled “NASCENT HYDROGEN: AN ENERGY SOURCE” ( http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf ), “Anomalous heat was measured from a reaction of atomic hydrogen in contact with potassium carbonate on a nickel surface.”

    Such lack of confidence in the objective existence of such a physical reaction (given just the evidence I’ve cited above) is overly cautious.

  • georgehants

    Nearly a week now, Mr Rossi I think likes to play with the fish, who are ready to bite.
    We keep swimming around the hook, hoping that one day, he will put the rod away and just throw in the worms.
    My personal belief (that means nothing) stays, as from the beginning at 99.99% that he has something substantial.

    • Omega Z

      Seems to me, Rossi likes to publish info on weekends lately.

      Or maybe I’m delusional. 95% here George.

      I know, I just left myself open for the pathos with the delusional remark. Right?

      • georgehants

        Omega Z, It is o.k. for any of us to state a personal opinion, just like who will win the 3.30, we all have our vote.
        The problem and stupidity comes when people believe that theirs or others opinions have any bearing on reality.
        In science only Facts and Evidence count, opinion is for the fairy’s.

        • Andrew Macleod

          All tho in todays science money, friends and thinking inside the box has a larger bearing on what is “fact” than evidence.

    • This ‘fish’ is seriously considering checking in here weekly for any news, so this whole thing seems less agonisingly drawn out. But then I’ve also been seriously considering cutting back to just 3 or 4 drinks per week, as the guvmint advises … for the last decade or two.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      I am a 99%er too.

  • georgehants

    The Guardian home
    Does the UK have a nuclear power plan B?
    The government won’t say, despite ploughing on with a subsidy policy that grows more absurd with every new revelation.

    • Looking from the outside, the UK situation looks fortunate: many old nuclear and coal plants waiting for replacement, plans to replace them with new nuclear, but those plans are on hold. The political rhetorics notwithstanding, it’s not a bad situation for a country to be in while waiting for LENR. Compared to a country with brand new nuclear plants for example.

      • Objectively that probably looks to be the case, but unfortunately the present and last governments have become fixated on new nuclear for reasons that are not clear.

        The present government moved to destroy alternatives such as tidal power almost as soon as they entered office, and has even been prepared to lie to parliament and to manouever behind the scenes to bring about conditions that are artificially favourable to nuclear fission: http://www.noneedfornuclear.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=73 (executive summary of report).

        • In any case when and if LENR is proven, it’s politically not difficult for them to say: look, now we have invented a cleaner and better version of nuclear so let’s go and build those plants.

          • Yes that how I would see it going eventually (probably after the present bunch of EDF toadies have been kicked out, or EDF goes bust).

            LENR = nuclear, so the state must control it. Now, who wants to buy a license?

          • GreenWin

            Pekka, I know what you mean but suggest together we all might want to amend our language to “when and if – LENR goes commercial.” Since we know by now the mountain of confirmations prove the effect.

        • jacob

          I think Governments have economists to figure out what brings in the most money in the government coffers
          are maybe decisions are based on that?
          most Governments are just about broke
          and carry a large dept load .

          nuclear must be the best bang for their buck

          • jacob

            I mean debt load

          • but also dept. load is correct:-)

    • GreenWin

      In a word George, I say Yes. It is being quietly put in place so as to not disturb too many big players. But the UK DECC (Dept Energy) has recently greatly increased their alternatives program – especially for micro-CHP. The following link shows DECC’s program to certify residential CHP systems – be they fuel cell or Stirling mechanical.


      The U.S. DOE has a similar program in place for large scale “District CHP.” The significance is the DECC certification programs support distributed energy at the residential level. If we put e-cat and Blacklight CIHT cells in the micro-CHP category (where they fit) UK is already in the game.

      The Carbon Trust Micro-CHP Accelerator reports 8 million UK homes eligible for off grid CHP. UK government has increased it’s subsidies for micro-CHP in the last year. While UK gov fudges around its nuclear program – it is quietly preparing for the LENR revolution.

      • “CHP schemes under 50kW are eligible for Government support”

        You don’t get much more ‘micro’ than that! I’m not convinced, Greenwin. Our illustrious rulers are just not bright enough or knowledgeable enough to get that far ahead of the game. Nor do they have any concept whatsoever of the ‘common good’. Tories only have one purpose and agenda – to make the rich richer, at the expense of everyone else.

      • GreenWin

        I cannot argue with “rulers not bright enough…” I think they do not know much about LENR and its potential – but they are promoting carbon alternatives – micro-CHP is one. Fortunately for LENR, it fits nicely into the micro-CHP category under 50kW.

        I recall there are certain subsidies for purchase of CHP systems and there is a small Feed-in Tariffs program: “you will earn 11.0p for each kWh of electricity generated by your system. You will also receive 3.2p for each kWh of electricity you export.”

        Micro-CHP is a friend to home e-cat/Hyperion (even if it doesn’t know it.) I like to encourage expansion of these programs internationally as they help decentralize energy and of course stop global warming;)

  • joe

    Ahh, more hopium for the people.

    I wish there was more focus on the “what is” instead of “what if”.

    • dragon

      What do you mean more focus on “what is”, as if at the moment we have anything that can be considered “that is”?
      I wish at least ONE of the cold fusion devices to stick its head out, at least ONE. The rest (development,improvements and theory) is history after that.

  • We do not need a supplementary article on the advantages of LENR Energy. We need: 1) proofs by independant and reliable testers 2) understand why some reactions works and others not.
    No more, no less !

    • daniel maris

      Couldn’t agree more. I am hopeful we might get some interesting stuff soon…

  • Pingback: David J. Nagel on the Potential Benefits of LENR | E-Cat News Live Feed()

  • daniel maris

    IN terms of vehicles it would make most sense to have LENR generation on the grid to feed electric roads (which research in Utah has shown are perfectly feasible). Cars would then be electric vehicles with smallish batteries that would be charged from the roads as the car moves and/or back home (for runabout journeys on minor roads. The big motorways (freeways) and A roads would have the electric road system.

    The whole system would be very non-polluting and dependable.

    • Sounds interesting, but I’m suspicious until someone explains the details, so..link?

    • jacob

      daniel,i agree with your all electric solution,because its used in other worlds,where
      every 25 km there is a charging station and a 3 minute Quick charge is needed to top up the batteries,and where the electric energy is transmitted wireless to the antenna of the charging
      system as a free provision from the Ruler of a Utopia, we are born on planet earth ,why should we have to pay for anything,that should have been our birth right.
      don’t know what EDF toadies are ,but are they the reason ,that just about all are money is taxed away ,if everyone is broke including the feds,where did all the money go?

      • EDF: major French nuclear power station builder/operator with contracts to build 2 giant new stations in the UK.

        Toadie: sycophantic servant.

    • Power wastage as heat in a nationwide induction power system for vehicles would be huge I think, and the system would probably eat more copper than we could lay our hands on in a century! (Maybe aluminium could be used instead). Intelligent auto-switching would only be feasible if relatively short sections could be energised/de-engergised according to demand, which would require even more supply cabling.

      I’ll settle for a steam car I think!

      • Omega Z


        Kind of like slot cars,trolleys or subways. Don’t step on the middle rail. Could be shocking experience…

  • Lu

    It’s a good overview article about the benefits of LENR and has been recommended before in early posts. Well worth the read.

    I thought his definition of COP was interesting:

    “It must be noted that some experimenters
    report the Coefficient of Performance (COP) for
    LENR generators. COP = [(Energy Out) minus (Energy In)] divided by (Energy In). For high values, the COP is approximately equal to the energy gain ratio.”

    I don’t know if Nagel’s definition is the standard and more accurate one but I don’t think this is the one Rossi uses (he seems to be using the energy gain ratio). If this definition of COP is used, then Rossi’s COP would be 5 I think.

    • jacob

      Lu ,cop of 6 means ,in an LENR power plant,infinite
      COP , to get infinite cop we just need the nickel powder and some compressed hydrogen and the universal ether flow in the form of magnetic vortexes to help with the process,that causes electron and proton spin in the first place,LENR
      harnesses those ether flow forces.

  • Barry

    “If the production and delivery of commercial
    LENR units happen as hoped,
    in late 2012 and the immediately
    following years, funding
    for the study of the science of
    LENR will follow.”
    Like it or not, I guess a commercial break through is going to be what it takes to get the funding going, then all the dams will break open.

  • Peter Hunr

    Two new elements seem to on the rise.

    First, the Big Boys, Exxon, GE et al are now into the game and likely spending a lot of money in research and patent preparation. Just to shut the ” kids ” out if and when. An Exxon employee was unmasked at a recent tItalian meeting just trolling for hints on the technology I suspect.

    Second, A counter game of misinformation, lies and so forth seems to be gaining strength as the LENR technology threatens the status quo and immediate profits. This is similar to the counter pressure fraud of the “climate change” issue. Any thing to slow the train down so the biggies can gain control.

    ( note both Amaco and Shell proved out F&P’s work in 1995 and just recently put out some info. They burried it for over 10 tyears to protect their status I suspect)

    What the counter campaign boys do now fully understand is that China, Korea, Japan and India will scoop the field if we are slowed down. Patent violations? they will justifiably tell us to stuff it for like Brazil and India with the AIDS drugs the issue is too important to be bottled up.

    This is likely going to be a mess with big business protected by their well paid regulators.

    • Rossi’s public engagement has given the corporates plenty of time to get up to speed and begin the process of acquiring protected control of the tech.

      Disinformation is obviously inevitable, but I can’t say I’ve come across much so far, other than the maryyugo trolls hard at work wrecking ECN and trying the same on one or two other blogs. I’m sure it’ll soon get much worse, when the mainstream media finally engages with the issue in order to hype supposed ‘dangers’ of LENR to pave the way for control legislation across the West.

    • Interesting item on the news: BP is selling its interest in Russian oil, despite this apparently being a very profitable association. Probably unconnected with LENR, but I’ve heard a couple of similar items recently.

      • georgehants

        Peter have you read the new paper on JoNP.
        Need Pekka to interpret but looks interesting.
        Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity

        • My first suspicion is that the extra energy comes from the function generator because its power input was not analysed in detail and it’s the only other active component. I tried to check the FG’s max power, but I cannot find the claimed model “Isotech GFG 324” on the manufacturer’s page, such model doesn’t seem to exist. There is a discussion about it at overunity.com where someone asked this question from the author, but didn’t get a proper answer.

          • georgehants

            Pekka the credits seem to be quite a team, worth watching.
            Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin,
            Evan Robinson, Mario Human,
            Alan Macey, Riaan Theron

        • George, I don’t seem to be able to open the link or download the file at the moment (403 Forbidden). I’ll try again in a few minutes.

          • georgehants

            Peter just go to –
            and click on first article.
            Works for me.

          • Thanks George, I did ‘get through’ next try. It’s nice to see the Ainslie circuit anomaly getting an airing – that’s long overdue. The fact that the only place this stuff can get published is JONP is telling though.

    • GreenWin

      Peter H – can you give us any links confirming Big Boys investment in LENR?? I suspect you’re right but have not seen any evidence.

      • Omega Z


        Over time it appears a lot of name connections can be made regarding Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, Spawar, CERN, NASA & other research venues behind the scenes, Along with connections of the people directly to each other.

        Makes you wonder what’s really going on. Doesn’t it!!!

  • edog

    Did Roosi say what his very important news was? I thought he was going to publicise sometime it last week?

    • Stephen Taylor

      Andrea Rossi
      May 27th, 2012 at 6:54 AM
      Dear Francesco:
      Within a week we will have important news regarding the high temperature reactors.
      Warm Regards,

  • georgehants

    From Cold Fusion Now. Well worth a read.
    The alternate path to a cleaner brighter future
    by: Kelley Trezise a.k.a Zedshort

    Too many scientists today are hardly different from the Cardinals to whom Galileo sent an invitation to peer through his telescope at the Moons of Jupiter. If closed and blinkered minds can strangle a very promising scheme such as Dense Plasma Focus Fusion that cleaves to the path of hot fusion, then what chance would we who support alternate forms of energy production have of ever convincing such people to dare to touch the third-rail of scientific research we know as Cold Fusion?

    • GreenWin

      Kelley’s article is fascinating. While I remain sceptical of the costs and technical issues in DPF – there is expertise that could be applied to LENR. And, as you point out, many in the fusion community doubt – like Cardinals who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.

      At times , George I imagine we are simply a spinoff remake of the original Galileo / Copernicus show. Innovative science vs old school Church priests. Has so little changed in 400 years??

  • Filip

    Mitsubishi has a heatpump generating COP 6. So did Rossi re-invent the heatpump?!?
    The Epump. E-pumpworld.com, I am sorry, it’s too funny to keep for myself.
    Really, he has to come with facts and figures!

    • Methusela


    • Methusela

      I think industry would LOVE to see a heat pump capable of producing 600 degrees with a COP of 6!

      • Filip

        That’s why in case of a cold fusion device you can’t use COP. The question is what does AR mean by COP 6, clearly there are different interpretations. Hopefully he uses the one we like to hear.

        • Ged

          He uses the Energy Out divided by Energy In, definition.

          A heat pump does NOT produce energy, it uses energy to move thermal energy around, therefore it has no real COP by this definition.

          • Filip

            I am not the one who used the term COP in the first place.
            I don’t like it either. But there is no term. A device generating more energy out than in is unseen and unexcepted by scientists. If it generates more out than in, it must be able to run in self sustaining mode, otherwise it’s worthless.
            Than it’s an other heatpump.
            So one has to be able to compare in and out, this means not comparing energy in and heat out but ‘hamburgers’ in and ‘hamburgers’ out. So one ‘hamburger’ in and five ‘hamburgers’ out is a HAM of 5.
            So one can feed four other Ecats with the outcome of one Ecat, so it means infinite HAM, thus an efficiant engine other than an Ecat can never generate more than 1 HAM, unless it’s a LENR device or something unknown. Even the most efficiant generator(up to now) can never have a higher HAM than 1, 1=infinite.

    • Ged

      Heatpumps generating energy? By what fuel and mechanism? Why aren’t we using them to power our houses, our cities? Why don’t you stick one in your car and run it off of that?

      Heatpumps do not GENERATE energy. They move energy around while consuming energy to do so. You cannot power anything with a heatpump, and it takes a lot of power to run one.

      • Frank

        “Why aren’t we using them to power our houses?”

        I do use a heat pump to keep my house warm in wintertimes, same as many of my neighbours – works perfect ( but a COP of ‘only’ ~ 4 )

        Of course, a heat pump doesn’t ‘generate’ energy (neither does a furnace, el. heater, solar collector …)

      • Omega Z

        Actually Ged & others & Filip

        Filip is right. Even comparing it to an E-cat to a point. But there are some serious differences to consider. And they are used for heating & cooling homes & they do generate electricity in Iceland among other places.

        Just as an E-cat uses 1 unit of electric to create 6 units of heat(COP 6) Heat pumps May use 1 unit of electric to move/condense 6 units of heat. (COP 6)???

        Theoretically they can eventually reach Cop 12 according to Carnot limits with some technical breakthroughs. Eventually you may be able to generate some electricity even beyond break-even when Thermoelectric devices become efficient enough in the future. Technically infinite COP.

        But there’s a lot of If’s & seldom operate at more then 2/3rds of Cop rating. They will never be mobile. And They don’t create heat, they condense & transfer heat in a forever fixed location.

        There definitely not cheap. It requires drilling multiple wells. (3 to 8, several hundred feet down.) Have you priced a well lately. 10’s of thousands for an install with variable COP depending on many factors.

        NOTE: Rough Pricing estimates are usually based on a shallow flat field install/Not wells, which is deceptive. I don’t have half a football field to play with. Most people don’t. Ergo-Wells.

        Cop rating of heat pumps is maximum rating. Not real world. COP 6 usually works out to COP 3-4 Average. AND Electricity Generation nearly always costs more then Fossil fuel/electric regardless of location.

        E-cats on the other hand have a guarantee of COP 6, Always, & thou Rossi says this is the limit, Because of safety, Most of us believe someone somewhere will surpass this in time or devise a different approach to reach higher COP or different LENR elements NI/H/D/?. Limits are just roadblocks to be circumvented by ingenuity which some skeptics apparently don’t Grasp.

        Heat pumps are a technology that’s in it’s maturity phase. E-cats are in their infancy & if there real, have great future potential & already beat heat pumps hands down in up front costs according to all involved in LENR research whether a total new install or retrofitting & most likely in lifespan costs. LENR can be highly mobile & can work pretty much anywhere.

        In some skeptic arguments of COP possibilities, the Heat Pump actually contradicts them as it is real & in use today all over the world.

        When discussing heat pump COP, you also have to consider SEER ratings.

        Just as with E-cats COP 6 you have to include the heat differential gains. This is what makes E-cats(LENR) unique. Let’s face it. If it only increased the water temp by 1 degree, it wouldn’t serve much purpose even at COP 20.

        Answer to Filip. Yes Rossi’s COP# is based on the Same COP# used for Heat Pumps. It’s only part of the Equation as stated above. Energy in verses energy out. Cost/benefit wise the E-cat will beat the Heat Pump hands down once optimized & many times more.

        I stated that heat pumps are not mobile. Not quite true. A small version of it is or will be mobile. They’ll be used to heat electric cars. They are after all just an Air conditioner run in reverse & more efficient most of the time then the direct electric to heat which is always COP 1. I’m actually a little skeptical of this as when your cruising down the hi-way & the temp is -30`, this becomes highly unlikely. You could end up with negative COP.

        • Filip

          I must say this is the first time I get a clear reply on the COP isue, thanks.
          But the question to me is, hooked up to a generator, can it work in self sustaining mode? ‘That’ would be the breakthrought. That would be the only thing that can satisfy me.
          Otherwise it’s just an other heatpump.

          • Omega Z


            Glad to help you understand. Your First post seemed to come across a little antagonistic. After reading it over I thought maybe you were just asking for clarification.

            Understand that most of us hoping that the E-cat works out are used to some skeptics popping of rudely or with snide remarks. I believe that’s why you received some of the comments you did.

            To answer your follow up, No, It’s not a heat pump. The (First) E-cat for consumers at this time is no more then a high end water heater at a low end cost that can also help heat your home with proper installation.

            Whether it suits ones purposes will depend on different factors, primarily what your present heating system uses for fuel, home size etc… I’ve calculated my situation & it’s not cost/benefit appropriate for me.

            A friend a few blocks away would save about 30% on his current heating costs.

            A friend that lives 2 miles outside out town uses propane & would save a minimum of 50% on heating costs.

            So Location alone doesn’t determine whether it’s cost/benefit efficient.

            I only hope when it comes to market that those who install them are reasonably honest when figuring the numbers.

            Finally- It’s hoped that the future E-cats can be enhanced as in high enough temps to generate electricity. Therefore becoming self-sustaining & providing electricity for home use.

            A PROPERLY designed & installed system could make the first E-cat cheaper to operate then a heat pump. It has the potential to save people a lot of heating costs. Would also be cheaper to purchase & install.

            But an E-cat that produces electricity would be awesome regardless of how it comes to market.

            As for now, were just waiting for the first one to come off the assembly line. Probably about 12 months if all goes well. Hope this helps.

          • Filip

            absolutely, thanks!

  • dfnj

    Personally, I hope E-cat turns out to be true. I think Rossi would be better served getting independent scientific verification now rather than later. He should have faith in the people of the World to reward him beyond his imagination. How much money does he want? By the time he can enjoy it he will be dead at the rate he is going. Every month is nothing but delay after delay. If his claims are true then everyday he delays independent verification could be concluded as a “crime” against humanity.

    If it is too good to be true then it probably isn’t. I heard a very good theory as to why Rossi exists. Rossi is financed by big-oil so governments think a solution to peak oil is just around the corner preventing big money projects in existing alternative energy technology.

    • Omega Z

      Not an attack, Just some thoughts.

      Rossi is an engineer & if I were in his shoes I’d probably do it very much the way he is. Except I probably wouldn’t be providing nearly as much information to the public.

      Scientists! They Research. They Seldom try to bring a product to market. If Rossi handed over his work to them & waited for them to do the research, it might be years or decades before we’d see any benefit if ever. That’s just the way it works. They may publish updates/snippets every year or 2 as to it’s status to maintain their funding, but that’s about it.

      Also, if the powers that be don’t provide funding for the research as is at present for LENR, there wouldn’t even be any research.

      As for research results, There’s no doubt that there’s presently billions even trillions of terabytes of data accumulated just sitting unused today. Much of it very useful & possibly very beneficial to the masses. Just sitting, untouched, Wasted…

      Off topic here for explanation & rant.

      I Read an article from a medical researcher. Here’s what she said. She had stumbled across what could be a cure for multiple/most types of cancer. She documented it. End of story. She was not allowed to follow up on this because her research grant didn’t cover that aspect.

      That information will now sit there until/when & IF someone else picks up on it. This is usually left to the private sector who are seldom even aware.

      Not everything is greed. Nearly everyone is motivated by profit/wages.(Motivation) This is why Capitalism works. Just a fact. I’m a strong believer in Capitalism & I’m well aware that it has warts. We just need to get rid of or minimize the warts.

      Trust the People. If only we could. Rossi trusted Defkalion. That didn’t work out so well. With all the profit potential, Who would you label Greedy.

      I’ve always believed the best way to make a living in this world when possible is by helping others save money. Many times Greed is a matter of perception.

      If I provided you a product that saved you thousands a year for 20 years plus & All I got out of it was a single dollar. Would you call me generous/caring or Greedy.

      Now I reinvest that money & sell this product to 7 Billion people. I now have $7 Billion. Is the answer the same.

      The Vast majority of rich in the world make hugh donations every year to their pet project/charity.

      We all have our own Opinions on how that money should/could be spent. Some good. Some bad. That makes none of us right or wrong. There just individual preferences.

      GREED: We all have at least a little. It’s just human nature. “Charity begins at home then comes others.” Question is does it rule your life.

      Many people are impatient & want Rossi & others to speed Things up. I understand that. Many are more then willing to pay for LENR technology.

      But, Then there are those who have the mentality of “He should just give it to us”. I have a problem with that. In Rossi’s case, & others, They have spent years of their lives working on this & spent small fortunes of their own money developing it. To me this is akin to theft. What right do they have to steal Others lives & money & that’s exactly what it amounts to. Doubt very much they would feel this way if it were them. They would probably be quite Indignant about it.

      Part of the reason so many on here are hopeful of this technology is to take back part of our lives that’s been taken away from us. We don’t want to be others slaves & we Appreciate what Rossi & others are trying to do. Enough said…

      • GreenWin

        Well said Omega. And there is little wrong with Rossi or any other inventor/scientist/entrepreneur making money on their labor and intellectual property. That honors the work ethic. LENR will NOT be “free energy.” It cannot be. There is a cost to make and maintain equipment that safely activates the LENR effect.

        First, e-cat requires energy in. And there is the capital cost. Installation and some level of maintenance. Probably some insurance cost and let’s not forget government compulsive need to tax anything useful.

        LENR will be low cost. And that will deliver all kinds of benefits to the very poor 1B who have little or no access to energy.

        Rossi could license some version of e-cat to a major manufacturer and collect a royalty on units sold. Royalties on that order often fund 95% of a Charitable Trust. The remaining goes to the IP owner representing double digit millions.

  • GreenWin

    As mentioned yesterday, Nagel’s article is coming from a man who has inside information. Remember his name appears on the recent Defkalion slides showing some kind of thermal testing in Xanthi, Greece. And he is associated with Navy’s Michael Melich (Rossi Adviser) who was one of four Navy instructors at the NUCat LENR Short Course last Fall:


    David’s bright vision of the LENR future is important in maintaining the big picture reasons to break through resistance. There are myriad humanitarian benefits to low cost energy. The promise of clean water, reduced disease, abundant food production and lower birth rates are all tied to low cost energy.

    The poster below typically scoffs about Rossi and details, etc. LENR is not dependent on Andrea Rossi. He is ONE driven entrepreneur who is trying to commercialize the effect. But the goals are far too big to rely on any single entity. There are now hundreds if not thousands of LENR experimenters and commercial ventures. The more the better.

    This is no longer a Rossi-exclusive story. It is about turning a proven – if little understood – science into humanitarian products – for the benefit of all mankind.

    • Jim

      David Nagle is also associated with SRI and completed an 8 part video on the history of LENR which is available on U-Tube. Very consumable with extremely good question/answer period.

  • Sanjeev

    Hot fusion is losing support, even mainstream agrees.


    (This is not a full article, but the comments below are interesting)

    • GreenWin

      These quotes from Dr. Robert W. Bussard, Princeton Physics PhD and inventor at Los Alamos of nuclear rocket propulsion systems.

      “One of the biggest obstacles is the world-wide tokamak lobby, which perpetuates the fraud that Hirsch, Trivelpiece and I foisted on the country in the 1970’s when we started the big tokamak ball rolling.”

      “No matter, the global Tokamak program provides jobs for hundreds of thousands of people in many countries, and is a safe place to put political pork funding, simply because it IS NO THREAT TO OIL – it won’t ever work, but it sounds good to the untutored public.”

      • Wow – amazingly damning stuff! The ‘new energy’ people seem to be going on the offensive, with fusion money as the target.

    • GreenWin

      Bussard is considered a father of hot fusion. As Assistant Director of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission – he and Director Robert Hirsch sold the tokamak program to the Congress and elite science community. Near the end of his life he came clean:

      “Magnetic confinement fusion is a misnomer, as magnetic fields can NOT confine a plasma, only constrain its motion towards walls. The entire history of the MagConf program has been to reduce transport to neo-classical (not turbulent or instability-driven) losses. And THEN the machines are all inherently and inevitably huge and cost too much and make too much power to ever be economically useful…”

      Looks like skeptics, debunkers and a Congressional investigation need to focus on the real fusion “fraud” – tokamak and ITER. The con is exposed.

      Considering the Bushnell & Zawodny NASA announcements, work at Navy, SRI, U Illinois, Purdue, Missouri, Bologna, Japan, France, Greece, etc. — it would be prudent to immediately move some hot fusion funding to LENR projects. White House/DOE needs to take immediate action.

  • GreenWin

    FYI here is a link to the May 14th issue of Chemical & Engineering News “Reviving Cold Fusion.” This is an article written by a full-on skeptic, Steven K. Ritter – an early debunker of cold fusion and exotic alternatives.


    The article listed as “Cold Fusion Redux” is on pages 42-44. This is a mainstream science journal – unusual considering the sim blackout.

  • So much potential. So little “kinetic”. Before I am willing to get excited about LENR/LANR/CECR, I’m waiting to see a little more kinetic.