Joseph Zawodny Slide Show on LENR

I know this is a bit old — but I just came across this. It is a video of a slide presentation that accompanied a talk by Dr. Joseph Zawodny, of NASA’s Langley Research Center that was given at a LENR workshop held at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, OH on October 22, 2011. was able to obtain the slide show only (no audio) through a Freedom of Information Act request.

There has been quite a bit of discussion on this site about NASA’s involvement in LENR research, and here’s a little more that shows how interested some of the people at NASA are in the topic.

  • T Lee Buyea – Fla. News Service Miam

    Did you know that acasanova’s name was Andria Rossi?

    • Andrew Macleod


      • GreenWin

        Joe recommends LENR as a power source for several kinds of NASA missions. For example a Single Stage to Orbit vehicle SSTO, a hypersonic or sub-orbital vehicle, vehicles with unlimited loiter ability, etc. NASA apparently was impressed by Dr. Zawodny’s presentation enough to include LENR design analysis in its Sub-sonic Ultra Green Aircraft contract awarded to Boeing Research. Boeing concluded that LENR was high risk but had by far the greatest payoff.

        “A cheap, abundant, clean, scalable, portable source of energy will impact EVERYONE.” J. Zawodny NASA Senior Scientist

        Mr. Ponzi should review this document and the results of the Boeing Research SUGAR study –when next trying to convince people NASA is not interested in LENR.

    • Did you mean to type that, or did it happen when you accidentally dropped something on your keyboard?

      • Andrew Macleod

        I don’t think he/she really works for any kind of news agency. Improper grammar and misspelled Andrea.

  • Shane D.

    I must be following this too closely because nothing on those slides seemed new to me.

    • artefact

      They are from 2011

  • JC

    OT: Some may be interested in a new reactor design that may be used as a test bed for LENR.

    • Omega Z

      The Video shows 9/22/11, September 22,2011

      2 Weeks before Rossi’s Oct. 6th & a tad over 5 weeks before Rossi’s Oct. 28 Demo

      Accompanying audio or video is not available. Presentation given by NASA senior scientist Dr. Joseph Zawodny.

      From the Comments on U-TUBE.

      Such a shame as I talked for two hours using these slides. The slides do not speak for themselves.
      JMZawodny 6 months ago

      • Ged

        Interesting comment he left. And cool he pays attention to Youtube. Makes you wonder if he watches here, along with others.

  • Sanjeev

    New Scientist article on CF (only for subscribers)

    With thanks to Jed on Vortex for posting the link. It will be nice if anyone who is subscribed can post a summary here.

    • cx
      • Sanjeev

        Thanks. It’s a bit towards negative side (no surprise) but a good read.

    • GreenWin

      Cartwright writes in a very old-school magazine (despite its name.) But his earlier piece on Fleischmann seemed balanced and mostly fair. In this piece from the short abstract, he suggests with Fleischmann’s death a new chapter can begin. This is utter hogwash. Fleischmann has had nothing to do with science for the last 18 years. The idea that a pioneer must die for his work to be recognized smacks of voodoo ritual and hocus pocus.

      The science of LENR has made slow but steady progress from F&P’s first introduction. It was vastly accelerated in public by the work of Pam Boss and the SPAWAR team at Navy. They published peer review and presented at the 2009 ACS conference evidence of CR-39 high energy particle tracks.

      With old school gags and blinders falling away we have discovered papers like “Report 41” (commissioned by Nobel laureate Rubbia) confirming nuclear fusion via production of He4 in cold fusion experiments. Now with Celani’s demo and paper supplying more evidence of the F&P Effect – and imminent commercialization – only those ignorant of the data refuse to accept LENR.

      We have also been promised a PopSci article. PopSci is even older and more decrepit than “New” Scientist – so little is expected beyond denial and claptrap. But here is an article written for the utility industry by Mark Goldes (2009) that is interesting:

      • Sanjeev

        I agree. These “science magazines” should be the last to write something worthwhile about lenr. This is the state of science reporting in general – watered down, sensationalized and not much substance.

        They try to go with the current, not diverting too much from the dogma. Perhaps this helps to sell the magazine. NyTeknic was an exception. The reporter actually went on site to report about it. I wonder why no one from New Scientist went to iccf to witness the demo and write about it. Too much work ?

        • GreenWin

          Yeah. Too much work. Lazy. Afraid. They act like buck pvts tiptoeing past Sarg’s bunk. Orders are no LENR stories – definitely no positive stories. The only genuine science journalists are those on blogs who dare write about real, cutting edge stuff like LENR. The rest are borg.

      • daniel maris

        I think he misunderstood what Planck was saying did he not? I thought Planck point is that people had to die as they won’t give up on their ingrained ideas. So in this case it’s the wrong person has died! 🙂

        I might be wrong, but that’s what I have always understood the quotation to mean.

        • GreenWin

          You are absolutely correct. Deniers like Jonnie Huizenga are the ones Plank refers to.

        • Sanjeev

          Yes, its a case of quote being applied to wrong side and so to the wrong person.
          Lol. What a blunder.

    • Robert Mockan

      Another cold fusion pioneer has died. His name was Harold Fox. RIP.


    In 1965 a friend told me he ran this engine at 94% conventional combustion efficiency but 102% output efficiency. ie 8% overunity and 80 derees F over normal temperature.This particular engine had a catalyst and was fueled with ammonia.He reckoned “It must have something to do with nascent hydrogen”. He refused to to press the issue on the grounds that”If I go down that track they will crucify me”.

    Accession Number : AD0671667


    Descriptive Note : Final technical rept. 30 Sep 1964-31 Jul 1966


    Personal Author(s) : Bull, M. G.

    PDF Url : AD0671667

    Report Date : 03 APR 1968

    Pagination or Media Count : 56 (check P48 it admits overunity)

    Abstract : Combustion rig testing with ammonia fuel was conducted using a single can burner configuration. Ammonia was injected into the burner in the liquid state, a combination of vapor and liquid, and in the vapor state. Vaporized ammonia injection gave the most encouraging preliminary results; consequently systems using liquid ammonia injection were abandoned early in the program. Ammonia vapor combustor tests showed it was possible to burn ammonia in a manner similar to that used in conventional hydrocarbon burning combustors, but with a significant reduction in range of flammability. Improvements in combustion performance were obtained by the use of catalytic aids, and techniques using catalytic oxidation of ammonia showed the greatest potential. Two different ammonia combustion systems were developed for use with a gas turbine engine in the 250 hp size range. One system was essentially similar to a conventional hydrocarbon, single can combustor, but of increased size. The second system incorporated an oxidizing catalyst bed integral with the combustor as a means of increasing fuel reaction rate and reducing combustor volume. A standard hydrocarbon burning engine was modified to enable operation using both types of ammonia combustion systems in addition to its normal hydrocarbon system. A development test program was conducted to obtain satisfactory engine operation with each type of combustion system. Performance measurements were made with the engine operating with each type of combustion system. Performance measurements were made with the engine operating with each type of combustion system. The results are plotted and allow comparison between ammonia fuel and hydrocarbon fuel engine performance.


    Subject Categories : FUELS

    Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
    Lousy PDF . I got the microfich ,much clearer but reveals nothing.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.