Rossi: 3rd Party Report 'Not Worse' Than Pordenone

Andrea Rossi is not giving too much away about the third party report on the hot cat that we have been expecting. However, he has made some comments that do give us an idea about what we can expect. He has mentioned that the results that the 3rd parties obtained were better than those of the July 16 hot cat report  of Fabio Penon which showed a unit producing maximum temperatures of over 1000 C with a COP of around 3.

Rossi recently responded to a question about the upcoming 3rd report by saying that it is “not worse” than the report that he presented at Pordenone, Italy in October which reported a unit producing average temperatures of 1050 C for 13 days with a COP of 11.7.

Rossi has said that the 3rd party testing has been completed, and now we have to wait for the report to be published.  Rossi won’t comment any further on the report because he says he is under NDA.

If we take Rossi at his word we can assume that this is going to be very positive in terms of the power and efficiency of his hot cat system. The Pordenone numbers shows a technology which should be extremely attractive to anyone interested in energy production, and I would expect this “not worse” report, which apparently will be coming from qualified professionals, to be very well received.

  • Blanco69

    One test of the quality of any 3rd party testers will be the number of errors in the published report. In my veiw there were too many in first hot cat report. We know from Rossi that the testing has been over for a least 1 week. In my opnion that’s plenty of time to prepare and proof read the report. If I were Rossi(and I wish I was) I’d be particularly keen to ensure that the data at least made sense at first proof stage. Comma and decimal swapping not withstanding ofcourse.
    As a side note – I think the latest poll on ecat optimism has been hijacked. Unless there’s a vast pool of silent skeptics on here the results dont tie up to the posts. It looks too much like a narrow victory for the Half-Empty team.

    • alien70

      The tone of the posts is the result of the censure, nothing more.
      For example most sceptical posts of mine never see the light of the day.

      • Paolo

        yes..the censure is very active on this blog.

        • Ged

          Nope, the moderation pluggin in the blog software is just very picky, and kinda schizophrenic.

        • Peter_Roe

          I’m sure that any constructive comments – even if genuinely skeptical – will appear, even if they get auto-moderated (very common). Perhaps your comments have been other than constructive?

        • captain

          If so, U’re doing a good job. Admin.

      • Chris

        Plus, I think that anybody visiting this site can vote, even if they don’t so much as try to leave a comment.

        Anyway, even though pessimistic and neutral votes seem to have increased, the optimistic ones are still in prevalence.

      • Ged

        You aren’t under censure. There are some ridiculous posts that make it through. And some of mine never do. In fact, I had three posts yesterday that simply vanished without a trace.

        There is an autofilter plugin that is active. What triggers it exactly is still a mystery.

        • Peter_Roe

          Ged – the ‘vanishing’ posts have gone to a ‘spam’ folder, and the subsystem that handles this can be as capricious as the auto-moderator (yet another hurdle!). If you pm Admin he will usually fish them out if they don’t seem to warrant deletion.

          • admin

            Yes, there are two places that disappearing posts can go: the moderation folder, and spam.

            Moderation can be configured (somewhat), spam is automatic. Please email me if you think a comment has gone into spam.

            I think most readers know that I am trying to keep this site a place for constructive discussion of LENR. Constructive criticism is fine, but not super-negativism. It’s a constant balancing act.

          • NJT

            You are doing a spectacular job managing this site, keeping it interesting and purposeful, thanks much…

          • Omega Z


            I think I & many others lose posts from time to time.

            I would just Like To Say, If this helps keep the Site Civil, I Don’t Mind.

            If what I want or have to say is really important, I can always re-post it a little latter. Or I can just bring it to your attention. No Problem.

            Would Like to Thank You for the Great Job You Do. Many of us Really Appreciate it.

            Thank You…

        • georgehants

          Agreed, it is strange how some seemingly innocent comments become caught in the system but we must remember that Admin cannot sit at the computer 24/7 so just an annoying quirk to put up with.

          • Filip48


          • georgehants

            Filip48, I take it you disagree, could you explain your reasons more fully.
            Thank you.

  • Joseph Fine

    Look at the categories of Power Density and Energy Density. They should be listed in units of kW/kg and kW-Hrs/kg respectively. Energy Density increases over time since with more hours, there will be more kW-Hrs or MW-hrs. Energy Density is still listed as Power Density in the original report.

    I hope the new report will show the little red dot to be off the Ragone chart and, as they say in baseball, over the fence!


  • MikeS87

    Any Word from Black Light Power, they seem to have fallen off the map?

    • Hampus

      Black light have 10 years of only promises.

    • Karl

      See a recent review and discussion here – their activity seems promising as far as I judge. The more people working on all these alternative solutions the better.

    • Omega Z


      I’ve Watched BLP for several years. I’m pretty confident they have a product. Their CIHT has even been Validated by 3rd parties. Patents on much of it.

      That Said- Watching them progress is slower then flowing molasses in Antarctica.

      We need a Breakout from someone, anyone to light a New Fire Under all of them.

  • Roger Bird

    This is all incredibly exciting except that we don’t really know if any of it is true. Rossi could very well be making it all up because we don’t have any independent confirmation.

    I am an LENR believer.

    • Ged

      That’s what a third party report is for. Can only cry wolf so many times, after all.

      • GreenWin

        Well, in the case of AGW, the crying kid has never stopped. Without catastrophe, there can be no rescue.

      • Roger Bird

        But, perhaps I am mistaken, isn’t Rossi the one that is tell us about the third party confirmation. He is the one that is telling us that there is going to be one. He is the one that is telling us that there is one. And he is the one who is going to give us the results. Hopefully I am mistaken, but doesn’t that sound unconfirmed to you.

        • Giuliano Bettini

          Suppose, just for a moment, that you have made the famous 3rd party test, suppose it worked well and suppose to be a credible and respectable professor who must make known to the world the news.
          Can you imagine what it feels like to have your hands on a story like this?
          I can not imagine.
          Note: I think a number of consequences.
          For example (but it is only one example among many).
          I say this to someone? Who knows first? There may be espionage and / or impact on the stock market?

          • John-xyz

            The price of palladium changed with F&P’s announcement 20 years ago, so maybe that will happen.

          • captain

            Now as now I remember only what happened with the ‘swedish’ tester and his diabolic report: I go with the memory to Mats Lewan, Nyteknyk and Hydrofusion.
            What a shame! It’s too evident to me that what happened then, smells hard of a preorganised ‘show’.

            The ones that came out stronger than before were Rossi and his cat.
            This is what I think.

          • captain

            I can imagine… and I’d have no doubt on saying that THIS IS THE END OF COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR PLANTS THE WORLD ALL OVER AND THEIR INT€R€$T$

  • Garry

    Depends on the target publication, intent of the report, and who is doing the writing.

    If they are just publishing a white paper for informational purposes then it can be a short time between finishing and writing. However, if it is being written by academics the mindset will be to write for “journal quality”– which means references, nuancing of phrases, etc.

    If the writers understand the impact such a report could make, and if they are academics or engineers, I expect they will be very careful in what they say and how they say it. Meaning it could be a lot of time between the data and a finished report worth publication. If it goes to a formal “journal” (which I hope it does not), it could be months.

    Did Rossi say whether they plan to publish a simple white paper (without formal review) or are they going the reviewed journal route?

    • Ged

      Very good points. Indeed, if writing for a “journal quality” it could be a month or more before it’s considered ready.

    • Gerrit

      the only thing that matters now:

      – who will publish (a scientific nobody vs. top notch researchers)
      – what will be published (blabla, no hard facts vs. irrefutable measurements)
      – where will it be published (self published on rossi’s blog vs. respected scientific peer reviewed journal)
      – when will it be published (never vs. within a few weeks)

      If any of these questions gets the bad answer (the ones on the left) then the 3rd party report will not be the desired “break through”.

      If the answers are all like the ones on the right, then we can enjoy the fireworks.

      • GreenWin

        It is a near guarantee (without a parallel universe change) there will be no publication in a “respected scientific peer reviewed journal.” Since there are none who have even acknowledged LENR at Rossi/Focardi power levels.

        The greater the speculation on this “report” the less value I give it, compared to a functional consumer product. Unfortunately that is how damaged the peer review process has become IMO.

        • Gerrit

          there are plenty of respected peer reviewed journals that have published LENR papers: “Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry”, “Physics Letters A”, “Fusion Technology”, “Il Nuovo Cimento”, “Naturwissenschaften”, “European Physics Journal of Applied Physics”, “Pramana”, and several others.

          I disagree when you say that “none have acknowledged LENR at Rossi power level”. I think that no “Rossi power level” papers have been submitted to peer review yet.

          • I raise the usual concern when people say “we need prof of kW”…
            In fact what is important is power density, energy density, and signal over noise ration (the “sigma”).

            it seems that the greatest signal/noise wher about 50 sigma, with small absolute power but very high precision.
            It can’t convince people not understanding science, like for example the layman or the mainstream lords of science who are not honest (and ask a tea kettle ).

            For energy density see the Celani conference at CERN. there are already much higher densities than the one claimed by Rossi or Defkalion.

            You can also see the nanor as such a proof of high density… see the latest article on cold fusion now, by david french.

            Asking for big kW/MW is not scientific. It is useful anyway to convince the dishonest or non scientific people. it is thus required to convince those who decide and inform.

          • GreenWin

            Gerrit, I suggest that, in spite of the peer-reviewed papers on LENR-type experiments, there have been few (outside Storms’ Naturwissenschaften) that accept the supposition of cold fusion.

            And one need only examine the history of Dr. Rubbia and De Ninno’s ENEA sponsored study of He4 findings in cold fusion titled “Report 41” – refused by 41 “science” journals for publication. ENEA is the Italian government dept of energy. Carlo Rubbia is a Nobel laureate in physics.

            The peer review/publishing process is a farce in any controversial area of science, and thus, IMO severely damaged.

          • story there

            to laugh, cry or vomit…
            not exceptional in fact, classic .

          • georgehants

            Some people get annoyed with people putting up proofs of the bias, distortion and downright incompetence of science journals and the establishment.
            This clear deceit and corruption reflects on every part of science and on every scientist.

      • Dr. Mike

        I disagree with the “who” and “where” in your comment. The “who” could be an unknown scientist that both does really good experimental work and knows how to write a good scientific report. The “where” does not matter at all for my consideration (although publishing in a highly esteemed scientific journal would go a long way toward improving the general acceptance of LENR). Just put the report on the internet and let us scientists following LENR provide the peer review. This would be much better than waiting for months while we are being told the report is being “peer reviewed”. I really would like to see the “when” to be as close to immediate as possible. You are right on about the “what”! The “what” is all I will be looking at in the report.

        One thing that is sure to be missing from the report is a proposed theory for the production of excess heat (other than possibly referencing previous published theories). I would like to see a report with Rossi’s theory, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.

        • Gerrit

          The “who” and “where” will have an direct impact on how many scientists are willing to read the paper.

          A rock solid paper that is published by a “nobody” in a “tiny” journal will get no attention, ie will not bring about a big change in mainstream mindset.

          I agree that the quality of the paper is the only thing that should count, not the tenure of the researcher or the status of the journal, but as most mainstream scientists are busy minding their own business, you’ll need more that just a rock solid paper to gain attention.

          Tenure and status does to large parts of the science community what Justin Bieber does to large parts of the general public.

          • GreenWin

            Which is why greater acceptance will come from industry interested in building and selling energy systems. Once they see a working system in place, producing cheap heat with little fuel – the demand for reports will diminish. This is in fact the smart move… obviating the ivory tower and their pedigrees of prestige.

            “Anything that won’t sell, I don’t want to invent. Its sale is proof of utility, and utility is success.”
            Thomas A. Edison

  • Jackob

    I believe in what Rossi says – He is a honest person.
    He received a special inspiration to uncover the secrets of the Cold Fusion Phenomena.

    • Ged

      The title is also highly weighted. “Not worst” implies the Pordenone one was “bad”, when it wasn’t. Of course, this was Rossi’s reply to such a loaded, biased question, but it’s too bad he fell into that language nuance trap.

      • zvibenyosef

        No I don’t think he “fell in a language trap”. With Rossi you must make allowances for his English. I took his statement to mean the result was better then Pordenone

      • Gerrit

        one less than “absolutely brilliant” is still considered worse. I don’t think the wording was a trap at all, it is just simple comparatives.

        • Giuliano Bettini

          Gerrit you are right (IMO). It is just a simple comparative.

      • I don’t know about Italian, but in some other languages one can say “not worse” without sounding negative. It seems to me that at least when busy, he mentally translates from Italian rather than thinking in English. I can imagine that it might be sometimes challenging especially (paradoxically) to native speakers to avoid reading too much into his comments.
        Edit: Okay two others already said the same thing…

      • Hal

        That answer was a direct rply to a question that had previously been asked in a better way by Clovis, to whom he replied

        Andrea Rossi
        November 21st, 2012 at 10:09 AM

        Dear Clovis Alan Ray:
        You merit this info: yesterday the third party validation of the Hot Cat has been completed.
        Has been good.
        The results have been better that in the July 16th preliminary test.
        We are presently manufacturing 3 1 MW E-Cats:
        1- Low Temperature 1 MW E-Cat
        1- 1 MW Hot Cat
        1- 1 MW Hot Cat gas fueled
        A Report will be published after peer reviewing.
        We are working very hard.
        Warm Regards,

  • zvibenyosef

    This is very encouraging news. The temperatures and COP prove that Rossis device can be a practical energy source for many Industrial or domestic applications. These results should sweep away the last desperate sceptics, and usher in our new energy age. The next step is activism to put this on the political agenda. We are fortunate to have a forward thinking President who is sympathetic to Alternative Energy, he must be informed about this latest development.

    • GreenWin

      He may be informed, but having the political currency to act on the information is the larger question. Fortunately Obama has just won re-election by a large margin and has some of that currency today.

  • Lu

    The key aspect of this report is not actually the results (as long as they are positive) but who performed the test and analysis and was willing to sign off on the report. This report is all about establishing Rossi’s credibility.

    Also if the group/persons behind the report are unwilling to answer any followup questions about the report, perhaps because of an NDA, that would also reflect poorly on the report and thus Rossi’s credibility. The identity of the persons performing the test and analysis must not be anonymous and they must be available for questions after the report is issued. That is the only way this report will be “bomb-proof” IMO.

    Hopefully we will see a good report soon.

    • GreenWin

      Having recently revisited the treatment of scientists willing to peer review and publish outside ivory tower orthodoxy (Dr. Richard Sternberg’s excommunication for questioning Darwin) – I am skeptical such a report will be authored by anyone in mainstream science.

      Far more credible in today’s unorthodox technology is a working consumer product – fully functional and meeting the demands of its buyer. While this does little to advance our understanding of theoretical operation, it confirms the viability of “new fire” and its prospect for commercial success.

      Seeing is believing in these new areas of science. A 1 MW black box producing 600C steam and or electricity – will put any academic analysis in proper perspective.

      • sadly yes.

        Note that Chauvin is an entrepreuneur, xanthoulis too, rossi too, Truchard too.

        Real scientist did and do their job, but nothing can help to break the dam of denial, except greed, ambition and thus courage .

        “Entrepreneur, it is not a job, but a psychiatric profile” (Les experts on BFM business).

      • Lu

        I agree with you that seeing is believing but so far there has been very little seeing (some tantalizing bits, I agree) and a whole lot of believing.

        I look forward to seeing the report.

  • georgehants

    Researchers test novel power system for space travel
    Joint DOE and NASA team demonstrates simple, robust fission reactor prototype
    Public release date: 26-Nov-2012
    LOS ALAMOS, N.M., Nov. 26, 2012 — A team of researchers, including engineers from Los Alamos National Laboratory, has demonstrated a new concept for a reliable nuclear reactor that could be used on space flights.
    The research team recently demonstrated the first use of a heat pipe to cool a small nuclear reactor and power a Stirling engine at the Nevada National Security Site’s Device Assembly Facility near Las Vegas. The Demonstration Using Flattop Fissions (DUFF) experiment produced 24 watts of electricity. A team of engineers from Los Alamos, the NASA Glenn Research Center and National Security Technologies LLC (NSTec) conducted the experiment.
    Heat pipe technology was invented at Los Alamos in 1963. A heat pipe is a sealed tube with an internal fluid that can efficiently transfer heat produced by a reactor with no moving parts. A Stirling engine is a relatively simple closed-loop engine that converts heat energy into electrical power using a pressurized gas to move a piston. Using the two devices in tandem allowed for creation of a simple, reliable electric power supply that can be adapted for space applications.

    • clovis

      Hi, George,
      I guess they haven heard, the nrl, must be keeping lenr a secreate 🙂 they Are still pushing that old hot stuff : (

  • artefact

    on JONP:

    The website is:

  • georgehants

    ScienceInsider – breaking news and analysis from the world of science policy
    Lack of Humility and Fear of Public Misunderstandings Led to Fukushima Accident
    by Dennis Normile on 26 November 2012,
    Lessons learned. U.S. experts are in Japan to find out what the American nuclear industry can learn from the accident at the Fukushima nuclear reactors, shown here after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
    TOKYO—Speaking to a visiting committee of American experts, a Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) official conceded that the root causes of the Fukushima nuclear disaster stemmed from a lack of humility in anticipating the full effects of natural disasters and a reluctance to share internal concerns about nuclear power risks with regulators and the public. Company officials feared such openness would “make people worry about the safety” of nuclear power, he said.

  • captain


    from Rossi’s JONP:

    • Andrea Rossi
    November 26th, 2012 at 10:40 AM

    • GreenWin

      The only thing really interesting about this web site promoting the e-cat central heating “furnace” is it says sales begin at end of 2012. And if interested, send a request for more info and prices. It does not offer to sell anything.

    • Peter_Roe

      It’s actually not too bad a site – if a bit on the green side! I rather like the ‘banknote’ header. Do we have anyone from Poland who could send an enquiry and see what they get back?

      Below is the Whois data on this website for anyone interested:

      Falata 2D/7
      Bogatynia, 59-920

      Domain name: ECAT-POLSKA.COM

      Administrative Contact:, Administracja Sieci
      plac Rodla 9
      Szczecin, 70-419
      Technical Contact:, Administracja Sieci
      Plac Rodla 9
      Szczecin, NA 70-419
      +48.914325555 Fax: +48.914325599

      Registration Service Provider: S.A.,
      +48.914325599 (fax)
      This company may be contacted for domain login/passwords,
      DNS/Nameserver changes, and general domain support questions.

      Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
      Record last updated on 12-Apr-2012.
      Record expires on 20-Jan-2015.
      Record created on 20-Jan-2012.

      Registrar Domain Name Help Center:

      Domain servers in listed order:

      Domain status: clientTransferProhibited


      Created: Jan. 20, 2012
      Updated: April 12, 2012
      Expires: Jan. 20, 2015
      Reverse IP: 32 other sites
      Whois History: 14 records
      Location: PL, Malopolskie, Krakow
      Other websites: and 29 others.

      • GreenWin

        Very impressive what you have found. TUCOWS has been a major distributor of “free” and low cost software in the States. They now appear to broker domains. Could this be a legit site jumping the public release gun?

  • artefact

    New video by MFMP:

    Live Open Science

  • georgehants

    A somewhat rambling and protracted exit from ECNews.
    He seems to be saying that ECWorld has things about right, that he could not manage to do.
    One cannot entertain trouble makers and generally unpleasant people who dominate and abuse fair debate and expect to succeed.
    He fairly has made an opinion of prejudgement against Rossi, will be interesting to see what the final Evidence brings.
    Cannot give link as it rightly goes to spam.

    • AB

      Ecatnews made the mistake of trying to be a site where both the skeptic and the believer could voice their opinions.

      Unfortunately the opinions are so far apart and the topic of cold fusion so polarizing that there was too much bickering. The near lack of moderation and anonymity didn’t help either.

      I also found it strange how certain individuals, who neither believe in cold fusion nor in the possibility of Rossi having what he says, spent so much time on that site.

      • Peter Poulsen

        I liked the site and found it quite constructive with a realistic approach.

        Im not saying we wont see a LENR revolution in the future, but all the “rossi says” comments isnt really convincing me. Until he have something to show, we are really just waiting and hoping. All the speculations and so on, doesnt really bring us closer to the core truth: IS rossi a fraud or isnt he.

      • GreenWin

        Amazing what a paycheck will do.

      • daniel maris

        Er – it’s called debate. I like to hear both sides, preferably pitted against each other. You learn a lot that way.

    • The timing is suspicious with likely third party validation coming soon. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing was an anti Rossi scam. Who knows, who cares. Good riddance.

      • GreenWin

        You are 100% correct in your assumptions Owen.

  • John-xyz

    “If we take Rossi at his word…”

    I sense a bit of doubt by Admin.

    • admin

      I think it is wise to exercise sensible caution — however I am personally more optimistic than ever about the E-Cat’s prospects.

      • Luca Salvarani

        To Admin

        May I ask why?

  • jacob

    It is very simple dear posters ,readers and sceptics the time for LENR to make it big is somewhat a pipedream,just hoping and praying is not going to bring it to market anytime soon.
    Nothing will happen if we wait for someone else to do it,that is why anyone who is capable of building LENR or other exotic free energy devices to start to work and built them one at a time,mass production would be dangerous .

    Marketing technology which violates currently accepted laws is impossible unless kept as secret as possible,or hidden as extremely efficient devices which do not need to be subject to CSA,UL, or other market control agencies on planet earth.

    As Nikola Tesla said around a hundred years ago,several generations will pass or perhaps a hundred years before man will hook up his machinery to the wheel works of nature, which is simply the ether and or the cosmic energy available anywhere in the universe,or currently is now called dark matter by our ” scientists and star watchers ”

    Mr.Rossi has the solutions today to change the world,but has had a lack of support from the Peers,the media,science,uncle sam and other self important people from the establishment,but the time has not yet come for our energy independance,as we await for the approval from above.

    • Kim G. Patterson

      In other words, put the cake back in the oven
      it ain’t done yet.


  • georgehants

    Psychology Tomorrow Magazine
    Enlightenment: Is Science Ready to Take it Seriously?
    Jeff Warren | November 2012
    I’m not given to making grand predictions, but in this case I can’t resist: the very real spiritual transformation at the heart of mysticism is about to explode into the secular mainstream, and the consequences may just revolutionize our scientific understanding of the mind.

  • LittleKangaroo

    Everybody needs to sign this petition for investment into LENR research and development.

    It barely takes 5 minutes!

    Heavily invest in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) for energy independence, clean energy, and to stimulate economy
    Much like the west was a frontier holding riches, resources, and dreams for brave pioneers in the mid 1800′s, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) holds much the same potential for today’s and future generations. LENR is key to the future for our nation.

    We are rapidly falling behind in research and development for this “new” form of clean zero pollution, zero waste, cheap, and abundant energy.

    Foreign oil dependence would vanish. Automobile fuel efficiency standards would be as arcane as mounted cavalry. It would not take weeks or months for people to get power and heat back from damaged infrastructure due to catastrophic natural disasters.

    The depth, breadth, and reach of LENR is boundless.

    Please heavily invest in R&D for LENR. Every future generation will thank you.

    Created: Nov 15, 2012
    Issues: Energy, Innovation, Science and Space Policy
    Learn about Petition Thresholds

  • Jordi Heguilor

    “If we take Rossi at his word…” now, that’s a joke!

  • JimJones

    I think LENR and “Hot Cat” are plausible, viable, very near future obtainable technologies/ideas. However, I am more and more becoming convinced that Rossi doesn’t have this and is not the man for it. These games, and tricks, and history, and delays and broken promises are not exactly doing wonders for his credibility.

    Sadly, this sort of public gimmickry isn’t what would work. Too many established powers would bury this technology and do their best to destroy the knowledge of it. Governments for one, especially the US and Russian governments have too much power and revenue to lose. Power companies for another; same reason, plus they love the subscription model. Oil, coal, and wind companies as well. Princes and the Uber class, for all the same reasons and to keep others from being able to contend with them for power or break free of their economic chains. Basically, any of the establish power base, because it threatens them with such a paradigm shift.

    The only way this could ever work would be for 10,000-100,000 units to be produced without being public or sold, then released to the market all at once, in nearly every country. The slow trickle can be controlled, stemmed, legislated, illegalized, silenced, burned, and bought out of existence. A flood with millions of witnesses and converted skeptics at the “grass roots” level is the only thing that has a hope or the power to take the on the powers that will always assault such shifts and freedom.

    Personalized, distributed, non-monopolized power generation would probably have a more profound impact on the world that the ubiquitous computer and internet. This would open up new pathways in physics, with something finally able to have more power than oil. New inventions and markets with the freedom and free time allowed, and money freed by tax “evasion”. Plausible space travel with sustained high thrust propulsion, refueling potention, and powerful magnetic fields. Deep sea and deep crust exploration with massive amounts of energy coming with you for cooling or electrolisis of water. Protection from a massive EMP event, from either a nuclear power or Coronal mass ejection. The rapid and potential changes from second, third, and multiple order consequences are staggering and unpredictable.