Rossi: Under NDA With Auto Maker, Many Years Before E-Cat Car

In the light of a recent discussion here about the future of the automobile, I thought the following comment from Andrea Rossi was quite interesting.

About cars I am very convinced that we will not see applications to cars before 10 years. A car maker I had a meeting with and with whom I have an NDA alive explained to me why it will take 20 years before seing this tech on the cars, and he has been convincing. We are focused on thermal energy production ( and manufacturing 1 MW plants for this purpose) and on electric power generation, for which we have advanced R&D in course.

  • Anonymous

    1) Rossi has until December 15th by his latest deadline to produce a public independent report. He has already failed his November 30th deadline. Failure to produce means he is either an on going failure (he tries to make a real LENR device but it doesn’t work), or committing willful fraud. Note that he could have started out as a failure, but failure to admit his technological failure in the hopes of getting more funding makes it more like a fraud. Please note that the Petroldragon waste oil to transportation fuel reactor is probably closer to an idea that started out as earnest, but through time proved impossible to make it work economically. I believe in Rossi’s mind he though he was being honest with Petroldragon, right up to the point where the Italian EPA came and shut the sites down for the excess unprocessed (unusable) waste that was being stored on them. I am beginning to think that Rossi thinks Ecat is real, but the science or engineering keeps giving results that are just ambiguous enough for him not to reject Ecat himself (i.e. exothermic chemical hydride reactions mimicking LENR). So he keeps on trying. However we cannot really know if he is intentionally lying to himself after seeing his own evidence. The net difference is one of intention as either way he is failing to produce a working ECAT. So is he a pie in the sky failure, or an intentional fraud. I suspect the former.

    2) Cars: IF the HotCat works and is not dangerous (subject to explosion or ionizing radiation hazard) than we will have cars. This is obvious. The 20 year schedule is consistent with the R&D, and engineering for a production introduction.

    The only question in my mind is does Rossi have anything that actually works (sustained reaction 3 times chemical energy released), as proven by a reliable third party. Last year I was hopeful — maybe a 50% probability. Now I am doubtful — maybe a 10% probability. If he fails to produce the report by December 15th, I go to a 5% probability.

    I am more hopeful about the Fleischmann Memorial Project — maybe a 10% probability of success. Good luck to them and at least they are open.

    • “IF the HotCat works and is not dangerous than we will have cars. This is obvious.”

      Not quite so obvious in my opinion. The power density is fine, but the startup and shutdown time should be made shorter than 1 hour to make a car application really attractive.

      • MikeP

        I agree … the startup delay is the main thing that killed the Stanley Steamer.

        • Peter_Roe

          A modern flash boiler could probably be ready for use from cold in 30 seconds or so. (My wife’s old diesel estate often takes this long to get started!)

          The lack of reserve of this type of boiler could be offset by the use of an intermediate capacitor/buffer chamber that is bypassed for starting.

          • MikeP

            Or just hybrid technology, such as already exists…

      • artefact

        The hyperion is probably the better technology for the use in cars with an instant start.

        There is no need to have a reactor/generator directly coupled with the motor. The reactor is only needed to charge the batteries! The reactor can run 24/7 or until the buffer batteries / capacitors are full.
        The reactor output needs to be able to fully charge the batteries in 24 h -> output necessary 2,5 – 3 kw/h electricity (after substraction of conversion losses etc.)
        Such a car is able to drive 100 – 200 miles per day every day.
        Only if the car needs to be able to manage longer distances the reactor output needs to be higher.

      • Mop

        I read a comment about that by someone on this site yesterday or so. There’s a standard being developed for how electric cars communicate with the grid, when they are charged somewhere, to not overload a local grid for example. That standard also can be used for cars producing power and giving that into the grid. In the future, you could have cars always keeping the nuclear reaction running. Wherever you are, you are parking your car, and powering the local grid. People go somewhere to do something, which increases the power need in that area, but their cars came with them, their personal little power plant.

        • GreenWin

          Frankly, the first LENR cars will use batteries charged by LENR electrical resources. No need for a grid. The current best-selling Tesla Model S EV has a 350 mile range on one charge. Essentially matching gasoline range.

          At .01 or .10 cents/kWh – who cares if the LENR is onboard or charging batteries?? LENR reduces the cost of energy for a Model S, to less than 10 cents per charge.

          If a taxicab company adopted LENR as their primary energy CHP system – they could cut their cost of fleet fuel by 75-90%. Not to mention the savings on overhead heating, cooling, and electrical. That’s a Green Win.

          • GreenWin

            Again, curious as to what has happened to these posts. Or, what has violated the restrictions.

          • GreenWin

            Correction: Model S 85kW range is 250M.

    • Paul Stout

      If the report is being made by an indpendent 3rd party, then Rossi has no control over the timing.

    • Chris

      Do you reckon that none of all these people he deals with demand to see it for themselves?

      The Italian EPA? Over here, we don’t have a carbon copy of your country’s institutions. Anyway that wasn’t what happened at all with Petroldragon. His product was of far lower grade than he thought but he kept on producing it despite the lack of sales. He was storing more and more of it in disused refineries he bought up for the purpose. Leaks sprang, contaminating ground water that was a source for a few towns in the area and a mammoth cleanup job was necessary. That’s what brought on the criminal charges against him.

      I’ve had the impression he learned a few lessons from that and that he has been far more cautious this time around. No doubt, we’ve no guarantee against his claims being exaggerated but I doubt all the folks involved are being so totally taken in.

      • Roger Bird

        You have got to be kidding me. Isn’t this exactly what Rossi would say if he was scamming. He has a non-disclosure agreement with a car manufacturer. I’ll bet the other auto manufacturers are just tossing and turning at night worrying about this.

        I am an LENR believer. I am a Mike McKubre believer. I am a Celani believer.

    • Peter_Roe

      That might be a feasible analysis – if it was based on anything more substantial than your obviously biased opinions. Unfortunately it isn’t.

      Your distorted version of the Petroldragon story amounts to a half truth at best. The truth is more complicated, and in fact Rossi was the victim of official corruption. Even Krivit’s generally anti-Rossi site carries an article that largely vindicates Rossi from any wrongdoing:

      • Chris

        Rossi himself appears to be the source of that story, so it isn’t what one could say vindicates him. AFAIK the contamination of ground water did occur but the criminal charges were (at least somewhat) bloated by arbitrarily labelling his product toxic waste. Toward the end of this video:

        there is a summary account of the old Petroldragon story a comparison between opinions, including the attorney of Lombardy region.

      • GreenWin

        It is clear the anti-CF/Rossi faction puts beans in their ears when you mention the exoneration of Rossi’s purported “crimes.” But then, hot heads tend to steam those beans like soft tissue – making a nice legume take-away.

    • Knighthawk

      “The only question in my mind is does Rossi have anything that actually works (sustained reaction 3 times chemical energy released), as proven by a reliable third party.”

      No he’s as full of crap as he was 6mo ago when I last was driving by this site to laugh at the latest musing from him.

  • 20 years delay does not make sense.
    Trucks probably will be most suited to adapt first.

    • AlainCo

      like for many things,…
      innovators think it is ok in 1 years.
      Incumbent say 10-20 years.
      Prototypes work in 2 years, It works well after 5 years and win all in 10years

      • Peter_Roe

        The timescale might be different when most of the technology is simple and already available. Given half a dozen ‘hot cat’ reactors, designing a flash steam boiler for them would be very easy, as would incorporating a cyclone or similar steam engine into an existing car design, c/w condenser and recycling arrangements.

        For steam cars, the main barriers would be related to safety concerns (real and fabricated) – leaving these aside, I would think that a production prototype could probably be built in under a year from the point at which the reactor design is optimised.

        I doubt that any of the mainstream manufacturers will have the flexibility or imagination for this though, at least not initially. It is probably a job for a small specialist car company, or even an engineering company intending to design ‘retrofit’ packages for existing car models.

        In the UK there is a surprising amount of freedom for messing around with cars, providing the suspension and braking systems are not touched. Replacing an IC engine with a steam one would (AFAIK) require obtaining a boiler certificate (a pressure test), notifying the govt registry (DVLA) of the change of power unit, and getting a brief check by an official to confirm that the mechanical handling characteristics are substantially unaltered.

        • GreenWin

          Way way back in the late 60s, Bill Lear of Lear Jet fame built a high function steam-driven race car. It disappeared after running the Indy 500 racetrack at record speeds.

          Just replace the boiler heat source with 100kW LENR – you have a car. A high end one at that.

          • Peter_Roe

            A fascinating read all round! Now I desperately want to know how the “Basement Toilet” (p224) can ‘flush up’! Is this some forgotton/suppressed technology?

          • julius

            Just as exemple,
            experts in 1996 said about DNA that it would take 3 to 5 centuries to decode, and those experts were the most optimistic.

            DNA has been decoded entirely in 2003.

            It think it helps sometimes to understand what is an expert when it comes to make statements about the futur.

          • GreenWin

            Yes Julius. “Experts” are often the most myopic of pundits.

          • Peter_Roe

            They think in terms of what they (think they) know, rather than stepping back and looking at the possibilities coming from other fields outside their own.

          • Garry

            Actually– the decoding has only just begun. We have the sequence, but are far from the meaning. And not a wit of the current sequence represents any knowledge of the dynamic epigenetic state. The epigenetics can be thought of as a filter that can mask or reveal entire genetic programs.

            Not to get too metaphysical, but there are multiple layers of code hidden under the simple sequence of the 4 bases and their methylated/etc. cousins. We have only currently the vaguest sense of what is going on.

            So, while I am a supposed expert in the area, I say with reasonable confidence we will not understand the code’s true meaning for decades. It will need computational AI of the highest order to appreciate.

            That all said, most experts (yes, I recognize the irony) have not the sense they claim.

          • GreenWin

            Garry, your open-minded approach is refreshing. It is the very thing that will restore confidence in specialization.

          • Babble

            If not the expert then who is qualified to give an informed opinion on something? Joe Blow on a bulletin board? Yes, we are living in an exponential world with linear minds so thing can move fast. On the issue of using LENR in cars, I don’t think it will move fast. It is one thing to create a new infrastructure and quite another to replace a $trillion dollar established one.

            LENR would most likely be used at recharging stations that would make electric cars more viable but at present they are wildly over priced. When electrics are priced the same as normal gas driven cars with a range of 300 miles then it becomes practical. New tech must overcome a lot of inertia to be successful especially if it replaces a large viable technology.

          • GreenWin

            Toyota Prius – hybrid electric vehicle: 4.6 million sold worldwide since year 2000.

            “Informed opinions” from experts who protect their self-made theses & fiefdoms – are of little value today.

  • mcloki

    Regulation, Testing, Safety Certification, Redesign, Prototyping. I’m sure you’ll see a prototype in the next few years but that’s a while away from walking down to the Ford dealership. I’d be happy with Heat and electricity generation.

  • Raul

    So we will have to wait for better batteries for electric cars.

    • Don J

      cheap electricity means cheap hydrogen production. Hydrogen is the best “battery”. It keeps weight down, doesnt’ loose its charge, is not limited in range and provides the wide variation of power demand for cars or trucks.

      • artefact

        safety is a bit of a concern and it is not a switch on and forget about it.
        But it can use the same infrastructure we allready have and would be a fast (/maby the fastest) way to use LENR in transportation.

  • roseland67

    Rossi sure has a lot of NDA’s’
    it sure doesn’t mean Not Delay Anymore.

  • Chris

    I would be really interested to hear the auto maker’s reason’s and see if they convince me too. People are often short sighted and experts are even more so; the more seasoned they are, the less they get out of the usual groove.

    The fairest point raised here so far is the time for starting up, which of course could have a lot to do with Rossi’s design.

  • This seems all BS to me,if you want to run a car then
    retro fit one into a Stanley Steamer someone will be doing
    that sooner than later.
    Also they are quiet and are a smooth ride.

    • Drago Fredda

      Dave, I agree with you, you should also check out Cyclone Power. Cyclone Power built a car to break the Land Speed Record for steam powered car. There is no boiler on the Cyclone Engine. It has small tubes circling the heat source. This design could be easily modified to work with the Hot-Cat. Simply route the tubes through the center of the Hot Cat.
      Check out their Facebook Page.

  • Jeff Clark

    Something I havent heard anyone say. I really doubt that the E-Cat core would function during heavy vibration and shocks seen during normal driving. They can barely keep it running on a stationary benchtop in the lab. I dont see it ever working in a car.

    • LittleKangaroo

      This is 10-20 years in the future. U dont think they’re going to make advances on this machine by then? 🙂

      It’s fun being a critic though isn’t it? Any chance to discredit Rossi and u guys take it…

      • Skeptical

        Dear all, instead of dreaming the moon it would be sufficient to release a coffee maker machine that demonstates that with few watts you can have fresh hot coffee.

        No need to look to cars now. A coffee maker, a home heating system, a boyler. These are the starting solution if it is real otherwise we are all only dreaming.

        • Martin

          Absolutely right, give me a plug in ecat I can use like an oil filled radiator and i’ll be happy

        • Invy

          Where is my nuclear coffee maker from the 50’s… I know I left it around here somewhere.

      • Jeff Clark

        no. you get me wrong. I totally believe in LENR and i believe in Rossi. Just seems a bit of a stretch to make it work in a car. If he is using ultrasound to somehow suspend the Ni particles in some kind of fluidized bed, any bump or change is the cars direction will cause the Ni to shift. Perhaps someone should ask rossi if his reactor will still work if he rapped on it with a hammer or dropped it. eh?

  • Kim G. Patterson


    At least we know that their is something to protect.

    The money people are on the move and posturing.

    Not much longer now…


  • Karl

    I imagine it will be quite an engineering task to take advantage of one or a couple of suitable “cold fusion” nuclear reaction type of energy generating products to replace the conventional car motors.

    The type of products originating based on heat generation from nickel, hydrogen and catalysts may not be the optimal process to drive future cars. Secondly I imagine the major car manufacturers need many years to proof its safety, readjust the product lines and sales procedural.

    No doubt a window will open for new small car manufacturers that may move much quicker as we see in the battery driven cars. Other technical solutions, like direct electric energy from Blacklights power cells or kinetic energy from Papp type of solutions may be more applicable for cars. I think we live in an interesting era.

  • barty

    The Leonardo Corporation shouldn’t care about the usage of their reactors.
    They should only produce (safe) reactors; what the customer (private or industrial) is doing with the energy the ecat reactor produces isn’t interesting for Leonardo Corporation.

    I don’t understand why Rossi is caring about such ideas.
    It’s nice to imagine a LENR car, but that isn’t his job.

    • Josh

      He’s got to keep people dreaming or else they start to think about what he has actually delivered.

      • georgehants

        Ahhh Josh you have deserted ECN and brought your deep wisdom over here, well done.
        Perhaps you could start by telling us your opinion on the whole Cold Fusion scene and not just abusing Rossi.
        If you talk some sense I am sure you will be most welcome here.

        • Josh

          Energy interests me, but my education is in computer science and business, not physics. I am too young to remember the P&F situation, so I was fairly new to cold fusion/LENR when I first heard about the ecat/ect. over a year ago. I’ve done a lot of reading in the mean time, and there seems to be pretty good evidence that some cold fusion-type, excess-heat-generating events occur. That said, I haven’t seen anything that shows that such reactions are likely scalable or stable enough to be viable sources of energy.

          I think LENR is worth investigating and I hope it gets the attention and funding necessary to find out the probable limits of its potential. I’m in a field that would benefit from abundant, inexpensive energy, so I’ve got reason to be hopeful, not fight it.

          All that said, I think Rossi is terrible for the LENR community. A year ago I was skeptical, but hopeful and willing to wait and see. Now, after his ever-escalating claims, with nothing delivered, I think he does nothing but harm the field.

          I’m all for searching for the truth – but I think that part of that search is not celebrating lies along the way. Rossi owes me nothing, so I’m fine if he gives me nothing, but I feel “put up, or shut up” is appropriate in this case.

          • georgehants

            Josh, very fair and now you have made your position clear re Rossi it would be appreciated if you do not cover these pages with childish one line inane comments about how Rossi is not genuine until you can answer positively to this question.
            Can you show indisputable Evidence that Rossi has not achieved a breakthrough in Cold Fusion.
            If your answer is yes then we will be most interested in your Evidence.
            If your answer is no then please do not pollute these pages with childish abuse and condemnation before that final Evidence is forthcoming.
            Thank you.

          • GreenWin

            Well put George. Commentators like Josh would rather not have to find the evidence of scaling potential through research (hint Josh, NASA) – and certainly have never offered indisputable evidence Rossi has not demonstrated CF.

          • Josh

            I’ve seen a handful of NASA scientists carefully word that they think CF could provide meaningful amounts of energy in the future. That is a big part of why I think CF is worth further investment and investigation.

            I’ve also seen NASA research into some technologies (i.e. planes) that could be viable assuming CF becomes useful – this, while interesting, doesn’t increase CF’s likelihood of providing useful power.

            Please provide me further reading material if you think I am missing something significant.

            Even if NASA (or anyone) demonstrates CF, I would still doubt Rossi’s claims based on what he has said and how he has acted.

          • georgehants

            Again you have given your opinion, that is fine and I am sure you are more intelligent than to keep repeating the same meaningless position on these pages, as you have on ECN.
            Now please do not come on these pages trying to show a negative without the clear Evidence exceptable by all.
            Any new Evidence you can find will be appreciated by all.
            Repetitive opinion disguised as Facts would make you a mind numbing bore.

          • Josh

            Unfortunately for all of us, no one will ever be able to provide indisputable evidence that Rossi has not achieved a breakthrough in Cold Fusion. You’re a intelligent person; you know this.

            I notice that you proselytize your views very frequently on this site. Therefore, I assume that you believe there are people out there who might be convinced or educated by your thoughts. (I’ve learned a few things.) My one-liner may not have been sophisticated enough for you, but there are perhaps more simple-minded folk on this site who hadn’t noticed Rossi’s very clear patterns (perhaps because they were too busy dreaming of the potential of his product and its many applications).

            I know my views aren’t welcome on this site, but you are not the gatekeeper – though I welcome your opinion. You can keep waiting for ‘final evidence’ that will likely never materialize. I’ll continue to weigh the evidence that has been provided by Rossi and share my thoughts as I see fit – or until banned.

          • georgehants

            As you cannot show Rossi is not genuine please do not prejudge on these pages.
            Do not try your pathetic tactics to downgrade this site as you and the other four unpleasant people have done to ECN.

          • Josh

            Now a question for you, George – if you were asked to weigh the available evidence (that is all we have to work with until final evidence is provided), how would you rate Rossi’s trustworthiness?

            I feel this is a fair question, keeping in mind that Rossi voluntarily shared his invention with the public and has unilateral control over information distribution related to it. He can freely provide final evidence if he would like.

            If Rossi gave you the chance to help fund an energy revolution that would change the world and put you in the history books – how much would you ‘risk’?


            Would you buy a car from him?

          • georgehants

            I would agree that Rossi has not conclusively shown he has what he says he has.
            That is no excuse for abuse etc. if you do not like that position then move elsewhere.
            What I would or would not invest in is not determined as science should be by known facts alone, therefore has no bearing on Rossi’s validity.

  • kwhilborn

    Portable electric generation should allow for onboard power to electric cars, or the ability to create hydrogen for gas cars. The only problem could be the ecat itself.

    Of course if the engineer was discussing a steam powered car then I agree it would take years of prototypes and safety inspections and testing.

    The first two options would allow for easy conversion to whre we are now, so I do not believe Rossi unless he states what type of fuel the car will run onas electric or hydrogen.

    If they spent less time writing Non Disclosure Agreements and more time doing research maybe we’d be driving an ecat car already.

    Also we know for a fact that at least three car companies are running LENR experiments. Toyota, Honda, and Mitsubishi. How much would they release to Andrea Rossi.

    It seems to me the main things holding up LENR cars are the inventors preference over money to benefits to humanity, and patent legalities.

  • Methusela

    Successful Celani replication by independent lab:

    • georgehants

      The slides reportedly coming from a major multinational corporation:
      By manually editing the file and displacing the cyan boxes (“XYZ” and “Big international Company” it becomes apparent that the company is STMicroelectronics.

    • David

      Wow, STM is a very big company!

      • artefact

        VERY COOL

    • freethinker


      Like it says, bring it into a presentation editor and remove the boxes, there it will be in plain site.

      STM. How authentic is this information in the first place? 22Passi usually is quite good with info… or ?

    • freethinker

      Found a doc about NANOPAD (older) on the net about Palladium and deuterium absorption. STM people and Celani in the same work (noted as external collaborators). He has been involved with them before.

      Bitly to shorten long link:

    • We can confirm that we have been aware of these findings for several weeks but were restricted from wide discussion by the originating parties. It is now in a public forum.

      We are looking forward to the full disclosure which was scheduled for the middle of the month.

      Despite knowing these results, we still publish and analyse our own findings.

      Keep checking the site for more information on this and related information.

  • Piero

    Hey have you read this one: rossi just promised a christmas present for all his readers. Wish it were credible…

  • Daniel Steward

    If you go out and look at commercially available small scale < 1MW steam turbine generators you discover that these things are the size of a refrigerator. There's a lot of just plain old engineering that needs to be done to get to an e-cat/turbine/generator solution that would be efficient and be the size of a car engine. When the car manufacturer says decades they are probably hedging their bets but I wouldn't doubt a minimum ten year time frame.

    • mattias

      Well you dont nead a steam turbine a smal engin that fitt in under the hood will do the trick and there are already smal motors that runns on heat in that sice.

      combine this motor with Rossi and you have a good car.

  • andreiko

    What is the maximum capacity of the 1cellige HOT_CAT in the future??

    • Peter_Roe

      Probably Rossi has already reached the safe limits, but as the reactor is tubular, the length might be extended, and output would then increase in proportion.

  • tappanjack

    What if you were a CEO of a multinational company or a board member. The claims of Mr Rossi’s innovation have been fully confirmed by your internal research dept.
    I think it may be interesting (and fun) to see some of the posters ideas of a possible press release announcing the new technology your company has licensed with Mr Rossi.
    1) What would you announce?
    2) How would you announce the fact that the process is not fully understood?
    3) What will be the initial application of the technology from your company’s R/D.
    4) Would you not announce anything until a marketable product is ready for production?
    This is just for what if, however I think this could possibly be part of the delay being blamed on the severe problems encountered recently with the 3rd party eval.
    Thank you for consideration.

    • HeS

      @:”What would you …. ?”

      I think point no. 4 is the best strategy (from the point of view big and rich corporation).

      • Peter_Roe

        Agreed. Rossi might not want to do it this way, but he has to submit to the wishes of his new partner now, as well as the board of Leonardo Corp.

  • artefact
    • artefact

      Robert Greenyer from MFMP on the Celany replication by STM:

      Since this is outed into a public forum by Celani in a way that has allowed redactions to be removed we are probably not bound by our agreement to keep the knowledge private.

      We have been aware of this successful replication of Celani’s version of the New Fire by a 3rd party for several weeks. Knowledge of the findings was meant to be embargoed until the middle of this month.

      This is an important step in this journey to light the New Fire and has been a great encouragement to our own efforts.

      We look forward to the publication of the research and data being brought forward.

  • LCD

    Again as soon as the first public disclosure of a working LENR+ reactor of any type happens, people like myself and others will retrofit electric cars with LENR+ electric generators.

    Whose going to stop that?

    This 10 year stuff is a complete fantasy unless it takes that long for a LENR+ reactor.

    • artefact

      Maby it will take so long for the big manufacturers but new companys or people doing it themselfs will probably be faster.

  • Sandy

    It would be a relatively simple matter to add an E-cat to an automobile powered by compressed air. Using the E-Cat to heat the compressed air before the air is injected into the engine would greatly extend the driving range of the car.

    “The energy density of a compressed air system can be more than doubled if the air is heated prior to expansion.”

  • fritz

    These Auto-Makers seems to be the most convincing people in the world…
    Of course, they invested billions of dollars to help the arabs burning more oil. They get no single penny for alternate developments – and even worse until the actual investments fades out.
    There is some budget for a sporadic production of EV vehicles – but there´s some agreement to keep that unattractive.
    so what ?

    very convincing.

  • This guy seems not much interested. I would go to another manufacturer
    if I had a simular device.

    It took only 20 years to go from bi-planes to jet planes.

    • racribeiro

      And a war…

      • Rockyspoon

        OPEC currently has a war on fossil-fuel consuming countries. Just recently, Iraq voted to use its oil reserves as a weapon against the US. Just the price differential between fossil fuel (along with CO2 being outlawed by the EPA) will push for rapid transition.

        Here’s the question: say you have 3-year old gas-fueled car that should last for 10 years. Would you buy another in 4-7 years, or demand one that gives you 4 to 6 times the fuel mileage and requires refueling every 6 months to a year?

        I probably would too.

  • GreenWin

    A far greater evolution from horse power to petrol power occurred in a single decade. Interestingly, some blacksmiths threatened with extinction, elected to become the first petrol and repair stations for Model Ts.

    “As early as 1896, J. Frank and Charles Duryea established the Duryea Motor Company in Peoria, Illinois, and sold the first dozen American-made cars. By 1900 American carmakers had sold about 8,000 vehicles, and by 1910, registrations had soared nearly to half million and were rising rapidly. Leading the adoption of automobiles were doctors and professionals, but others quickly followed…”

    Tesla Motors has installed “solar-powered” Superchargers e.g. 400V, 250A (100kW) throughout California for their Model S owners. One half hour charging provides 150M driving range. LENR will make these charge stations FAR more reliable and plentiful without the annoying problem of nightfall. BTW, these chargers are “free” to Tesla owners. Eeek, “free energy” is already here!

    • GreenWin

      Admin – would you kindly remind me what is offending in this particular post? Is it mention of auto brands??

    • Dan Johnson

      Yes, but nowadays the bureaucratic red tape is stifling/crushing, and in most cases adds years/decades to the process. I believe it is abundantly clear that when it comes to “free energy”, the government IS the problem!