Who Could be Against LENR?

As I think about what the emergence of LENR as a major source of energy could mean to the world, I struggle to think of good reasons to oppose it. It seems to me that it is something that people from all walks of life and with different political philosophies would have good reason to get behind the cause of LENR.  Here are some of the major groups that I have considered, and my thoughts on how they might respond to the new technology.

Socialists

Those who advocate social systems where social programs and services are provided for from the taxation of the wealthier in society should be happy to have cheap energy to provide for the needs of society. There are many nations where fuel subsidies make up a large portion of public expenditures, and one would expect a much cheaper fuel source to be embraced. Countries with economic systems planned and funded by government would also likely find cheap energy from LENR attractive as it would cut their huge energy budgets.

Conservatives

One of the great attractions of LENR is that it promises to allow for localized, decentralized energy production. For those who seek to live with as little government interference as possible LENR would be an attractive proposition, as it could allow for self-determination and self-sufficiency on a level that is not possible today. Those who advocate for lower taxation could make a case that costs of running government would be significantly reduced as energy costs are reduced.

Capitalists

Business owners should be some of the first constituents to embrace LENR. Anything that will cut overhead costs is great news for for business. In many industries energy makes up a high percentage of overall costs, and anything that could give businesses the ability to cut costs and thus be more competitive will surely be adopted.

Environmentalists

The environmental argument has been tremendously influential in shaping todays energy policies in many nations. The push to reduce greenhouse emissions has spurred on investment and development of alternative energy technologies, with many governments subsidizing renewable energy projects. Unfortunately alternatives like wind, solar, biofuels and geothermal power are not able to put much of a dent in the overall production of greenhouse gases as economic development increases energy use from fossil fuels. With LENR (E-Cat) able to produce energy at least one order of magnitude higher than any known chemical energy source, and without it producing emissions or radiation, one would expect LENR to be the energy source of environmentalists’ dreams. The claims of almost zero consumption of nickel in Ni-h reactors must be great news to those who are concerned about the depletion of the earth’s natural resources.

Philanthropists

Those who seek to provide humanitarian and philanthropic aid to suffering people would surely wish to help provide a clean and cheap source of energy to people in need.

Consumers

Cheap energy is something that almost all consumers would welcome. Increasing energy costs are putting strains on households everywhere. Energy poverty is a very real problem for billions around the world who struggle to be able to find and afford the basic energy resources for heating, cooking, lighting and electricity. Cheap power from LENR could literally transform lives around the globe. Off-grid living is something that is very attractive to many, regardless of political philosophy. Anyone who has lived through extended loss of power would be in favor of power supplies that are much less prone to disruption by natural or man-made disasters.

Who Could Oppose LENR Adoption?

Andrea Rossi said recently in response to a question about his major fear concerning the future of his invention, “We will be subject to a massive attempt of discredit, from many differentiated sources, but I think that we can win just installing operating plants. Our work will beat any chatter.”

With all the advantages cheap and clean energy brings, who could be against it? From a rational standpoint adoption of LENR would seem to be a slam dunk — but that is only if one does not take into account human nature — peole do not always behave rationally. There are plenty of people in government, business and society in general who benefit from the current energy situation. Anyone whose livelihood, status and power is bound up with the current energy status quo might resist its adoption. How easy it would be to successfully stand in the way of such a revolutionary technology remains to be seen.

Have I missed anything important in this analysis?

  • Bruce Fast

    Oh my goodness. The opponents to LENR are abundant! Consider the oil industry — it will loose its shirt. Do you expect a person who has built a career in oil geology to get excited by LENR?

    What of countries that have built their entire economies around oil? Do you really expect Saudi Arabia to say “oh boy, LENR!”? Many countries will sink from first-world-like status to third world in a big hurry.

    And what about those who have invested time or money in wind power, solar power, or any other adjective-power you can name? Are they going to be excited by LENR?

    What of the high temperature nuclear boys? Are they going to be excited? And then there’s all of those nay-sayers who put their reputations on the line in rejecting LENR. Are they going to jump with joy as they eat crow?

    That’s just the “for starters” list. Change always has the “don’t rock the boat” crowd. Many are set to loose a lot, a whole lot, with a paradigm change like LENR. There will be plenty, plenty of detractors.

    • AstralProjectee

      I think at first the oil companies and oil rich nations might think that at first Bruce but ultimately I think that they will all eventually realize that they too are in the long run better off with LENR. I think that is what Frank was thinking in his thoughts.

    • Roy O’Neil

      To Bruce Fast:
      Outstanding post. Oil in the ground will quickly lose value and the owners (companies and countries) wont be able to do anything about it. There will be too many lenr/ecat beneficiaries.

    • jpelsor

      Bruce,
      I think you have a good start. Next tier includes any governmental agency, state, fed. that depends on taxes from businesses and sales of petroleum products.
      Next, any safety oriented group that perceives potential explosive dangers – security, police, fire safety, consumer groups, etc.
      Any perceived change of status, be it through obsolescence of equipment, tax advantage or income, or control of resources will regard this as a threat.
      The cost, speed or breadth of deployment will also influence the various stakeholders of more traditional energy resources. If they can participate in the process(IE, income), absorption will be somewhat more peaceful. With multiple parallel technologies apparently close at hand and a low cost to replicate, I would put my money on this being disruptive to the world economy with our largest multinational companies vehemently opposing the technology through every avenue at their disposal unless they are on the inside and allowed to price the dissemination for cost parity – no matter the actual production cost per unit of power.

    • Ben

      I think that just the considerations of the Oil industry could be expanded upon at great length.

      An industry so powerful they can make us fight wars over it. Topple governments over it. Look at history. It’s a well accepted fact that Iran used to have a democratically elected government, and then in 1953, the oil company BP didn’t like what Iran wanted to do with its oil, so they had our CIA help to topple their government and install a dictator who would give us good oil deals.

      • Roger Bird

        Ben, you are greatly simplifying things. First, Iran wanted to nationalize their oil industry. “Nationalize” is a euphemism for “steal”. Second, the oil companies can only get politicians to start wars if the politicians also see that our transportation and economy is threatened. If cumin importers wanted politicians to start wars because cumin imports were threatened, the politicians will just say, “Let them eat coriander.” If politicians see, and they will, just like everyone else, that we don’t need oil, the oil importers can just go pout in the corner.

    • sempervivum

      Exactly Bruce

      That is why I think Mr Rossi finally acknowledged that threats had been made against his life. And I do not think that he has taken these threats complacently.

    • kwhilborn

      Oil investors now own as many shares in Apple and Pepsi. Oil money is old now and diversified. Governments and the Countries however will need to refine their peoples “attitudes” if the wish to compete in world Markets.. In other words… They must align with World views concerning religion and human rights.

      • Roger Bird

        There is no such thing as an oil investor. There are investors, some of whom have secondary motivations, like Sidney Kimmel. OK, there may be a few investors like the Koch brothers who know oil so well that they specialize in oil stocks. But 99% of all investors in oil are investors. And 99.99% of all investors are investors, not oil investors. Many investors are mutual funds and pension funds. These are professional investors who don’t own the stocks that they invest in, but rather are paid to be experts in investing.

  • Curbina

    Admin, in a perfect world your analysis would be valid, but in this world it shows naivety. LENR is a paradigm shifting technology. No paradigm dies without a fierce battle.

    • Christopher

      We will have to wait and see what the throes of that shift may be. However, someone wisely pointed out here a while ago that even though Big Coal/Oil/Gas etc. has massive money-influence, industries,corporations and many other bodies that consume power (basically everyone) by far outweigh the economic might of current Big Energy. THEIR bottom-line gets better when energy is cheaper (e.g. they can make a higher profit from their manufactured goods). If we agree that money translates into power, then this “pulling force” of companies/industries/people that want cheaper power has to be reckoned with and will likely win out over Big Energy’s influence.

  • Morgan

    Oil? You have to be incredibly naive to think that the largest industry in the history of humankind would not try to restrict their competition

    • Roger Bird

      Oil has not done anything about solar or wind. They will look upon LENR+ as the same thing. Not a big deal, until it is too late. Heck, it is already too late.

      • DrJohnGalan

        The oil companies know solar and wind do not cut the mustard without massive subsidy. Long term these will remain marginal and no threat to big oil. However, if the potential of LENR can be realised, it is truly world-changing. I am sorry to be cynical, but I am sure that all sorts of measures were put into place by the vested interests very soon after March 1989 to slow progress of this technology to the maximum extent possible.

        • fortyniner

          I agree. The cynical and destructive disinformation campaign (successful) is starkly visible in retrospect, now that Rossi has pioneered a resurgence in CF. I believe that as the largest potential losers, it has been the fission industry and the hot fusion lobbies who have been the main players in this process, rather than ‘big oil’, although they may well have been involved at some level.

        • Fibb

          insanity. it is fossil fuels that can’t compete on a level playing field

    • Barry

      Big oil already knows their days are numbered.

  • Stew

    The E-Cat produces heat, the next step could be electricity. I do not see any mayor interference with the oil industry. Only about 10-15% is used as heating oil. LENR driven cars and planes would be something, but that is still a long way to go.

    • Roger Bird

      My guess is that the energy companies are going to about as threatened by LENR+ as they are about solar, wind, or geothermal. I think that at first they will have a failure of imagination. As LENR+ creeps up and up in market share, they will be like the frog put in a room temperature frying pan and the heat is applied slowly. By the time that their imagination or good sense kicks in, it will be too late.

    • Christopher

      It won’t necessarily take a long time to have LENR powered cars and trucks. There is already a company in England that produces synthetic gasoline using “micro beads”. This fuel works in standard internal combustion engines. The main requirement in manufacturing this fuel is electricity, something LENR can provide cheaply. Technology like this fuel will be the “bridge” between the internal combustion infrastructure that we now have, and the vehicles of the future – this way people don’t have to buy a new vehicle to use LENR-powered gas/transportation and trucking companies do not have to purchase new vehicles. This synthetic fuel can also be pumped through existing fuel infrastructure and service stations.

      • TQ

        And most people would always prefer a gasoline car to an electric one.
        But I can imagine a not very far future with combustion engines an nuclear fision forbbiden by law to avoid polution.

        • Roger Bird

          Count me out. I would much prefer an electric car to a gasoline car. Better acceleration, MUCH quieter, no pollution, fewer moving parts thus lower maintenance costs, no transmission, etc.

        • Fibb

          no way

        • fortyniner

          I could be very tempted by a steam car (cold fusion power of course).

    • Adam Lepczak

      You can make oil with an ecat

      • Roger Bird

        When energy is almost free, this technology should be easy.

  • Roger Bird

    People who hate hope and love darkness and stagnation and hate change will oppose LENR+. Oh, I’m sorry, they already oppose LENR+. We call them skeptopaths.

  • I

    Most dangerous seems to be countries/groups whose wealth depends on oil and gas prices.
    And were’ talking about some really nasty ones including:
    – Iran (whose nuclear and derived ambitions will collapse if oil/gas prices go down and who controls large part of worldwide terrorists)
    – Saudi Arabia (that can influence/control a lot of the rest of terrorists)
    – Putin (whose personal fortune exceeding 50 BILLION $$$ is to a large extent in oil and gas assets) and his ex-KGB buddies in Russia (that will kill whoever they consider to be a threat to their wealth).

  • Dr. Mike

    Frank,
    You are correct that most people will be very much in favor of LENR; however, the owners of other energy producing assets will not be happy with the decrease in the value of those assets.

  • rolando

    LENR has countless enemies but which are
    the ones in an immediate “head-on collision” with LENR?
    my 2 cents on: 1, Centralized EHV cable grids and manufacturers (billion $ indurstry) 2, Wind and Solar farms 3, Coal mining industry.

    • fortyniner

      4. The nuclear industry (largest and most immediate losers with billions in legacy liabilities).

      5. Governments (who rely massively on revenues from energy in all forms, and often seem to be unduly ‘influenced’ by nuclear lobbies).

      • Barry

        I agree 49r, I would put the nuclear industry at the top of the obstructionist list.

  • Jim

    (In violation of protocol, I repost part of this from this from late in the last blog)

    Who could oppose LENR Adoption?

    I think the question needs to be broken out like this:
    A) Who could oppose LENR adoption BEFORE it is incontrovertibly proven to be commercially useful.

    B) Who could oppose LENR adoption AFTER it is incontrovertibly proven to be commercially useful.
    —————————————
    Answer to A) (before proof): Everyone in the category of B, plus the “gatekeepers of what is real”, as follows:

    Senior science editors and senior scientists enforce conservative views on each other through the tacit (but real) threats of peer group disapproval, subtle reputation attacks and non-sharing of technical and group-network information.

    They then enforce conservative views on younger editors and reporters and younger scientists through economic coercion (no job, no raise, no grant money, etc.)

    In addition, there is plenty of potential for deliberately directed power-center interference in the form of disinformation if not actual sabotage. However, I personally believe that these pre-proof oppositional forces can only delay proof, not completely suppress it.
    —————————————
    Answer to B) (after proof):
    The simple answer is “anyone whose economic interests would be harmed”, like the managers and shareholders of hydrocarbon energy companies and the political, military and security forces of hydrocarbon energy-dependent national governments. (For some reason I don’t see wind and solar farmers sneaking around in trench coats and flying through the night in black helicopters).

    The more interesting extension to question B (in my mind)is:
    B1: “How will the people who oppose the adoption of LENR after proof conduct that opposition?”
    > Discrediting proof will be too late
    > Physical sabotage will be too late
    So, I suggest we prepare ourselves for more disinformation around:
    > Pollution
    > Cost
    > Reliability
    > Endangerment of pubic energy security
    > Endangerment of public energy investments
    > And?

    • Joe Shea

      Your headline asks who could oppose LENR, and then proceeds to a list of all those who should support it. You could have started instead with utilities, then gone on to oil companies, natural gas companies and, as you finally mentioned, all the millions of people engaged in those industries as breadwinners or dependents.

    • fortyniner

      .. And
      > Public safety (use of manufactured fear to support the introduction of legislative ‘controls’)

    • Roger Bird

      Outstanding comment, Jim.

    • AlainCo

      I agree.
      Have to separate before evidences are clear (physicist are the only aware and opposing), and after (the people who are afraid of losing).

      after the evidences proven, the opponents will be the people living from pollution fear, and thod living of others energies… the double loser will be renewables.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    It is pretty obvious, if you had Trillions (1000 Billions) of dollars invested in fossil fuel and fossil fuel infrastructure, it would be to your advantage to, delay, discredit, delay, discredit, hire Krivit, delay, delay, delay LENR. In my opinion it has been going on since 1990.

    • Owen

      +10 They won’t go down without a major fight.

    • fortyniner

      Yes, delay is key. The energy cartels need time to rearrange the furniture in order to minimise their losses and maximise their gains.

      In practice this means offloading soon-to-be-liability assets onto uninformed purchasers (and in the case of nuclear facilities, onto governments), designing the legislation they require (including monopoly control) and having this enacted by pocketed politicians wherever they operate, and making deals as required to gain full control of cold fusion technologies as and when they evolve to the point of usability (or eliminating them one way or another if they can’t be bought).

    • John Littlemist

      Just a thought, but could a new verb be introduced:

      “to krivit”

      • Roger Bird

        Like the Hebrew word “kibitz”, to look on and offer unwelcome advice, especially at a card game. “Krivit”, to viciously turn on the truth or one’s compatriots because one is a pouting child.

        • John Littlemist

          Scepthopaths like to krivit LENR?

          • Roger Bird

            (:->)

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Don’t forget the libertarians with a small “l”. They want maximum liberty and independence, both of which LENR will help enable.

    Socialists want to force equality on everyone and to do so they must control everything. The socialists will sorely miss the tentacles of the grid. Yes, the socialists would enjoy LENR, but only from central power stations so they they can monitor your life, to make sure you stay equal.

    • Omega Z

      Iggy

      The only way Government can Guarantee all is equal is with the lowest possible denominator.

      We all become poor.
      They Level Down, Not Up.

      However, even this Guarantee fails as No 2 people are equal. Some will find a way to get ahead.

  • Marcel

    Dear Mr. Rossi
    I know, that you must ignore this question: “Have you ever been contacted by government officials or by Mr. Obama directly?”
    Your plan is part of their plan….sooner or later!

  • George N

    Wall Street won’t like lenr because it will lower the barriers of entry into many industries, thus creating more competition and thinner profit margins — but the small business economy, e.g. Main Street, will benefit greatly. Al Gore won’t like LENR because it undercuts the whole premise that the world governments need a large buearocracy to combat global warming (but in actuality it is to create a new voting block and gain more control over industry). the oil industry may not be fully opposed to LENR because they seem more adaptable than they were in the past and they may be able to figure out a way to make money off of LENR at least initially. The scientific community will continue to be against LENR similar to how they said that airplanes were impossible. Rossi may have calculated correctly by announcing his LENR discovery 2+ years ago to build up an Internet following because that may have made it harder to silence him and the ecat, as well as some crowdsourcing of ideas (which he says his JONP blog has been very usefull for)

  • Alexvs

    Putting in the EU market a simple bread toaster needs lot of certifications and bureaucracy (time and money before cashing). However the sine qua non condition is that the bread toaster toasts bread. Be heat or electricity production the goal of a device, be LENR, cold fusion, hot fusion or any other process to achieve it, the first condition imposed to such device is that it produces heat or electricity.
    This said, I do not think that the oil industry is going to be seriously affected. It can absorb the consequent changes as they would not be inmediate. You know that there are many interesting products to be gotten from oil, much better than burning it.

  • Methusela

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/10105715/God-particle-overhyped-says-man-behind-discovery.html

    Peter Higgs, the British academic after whom the particle is named, said it is being used by scientific institutions to justify massive research budgets.

    Certainly the LHC people are against LENR.

    I wonder what Higgs’ opinion is?

    • georgehants

      Methusela, don’t blame science, nothing is their fault and the Fact that the money wasted on the higg’s and toy’s to Mars could be used to Research something like Cold Fusion first is not to be spoken.
      As Peter Higgs has come out against the waste he will be called a nutter and his Nobel Prize gone forever.

    • AlainCo

      It is true that since LENr is ignored (don’t believe the optimistic analysis of oil feed sales, and other business announces, LENR is ignored!) the only opponents today are the physicist, who behave like keeper of the truths, mother of morality, and king advisor against charlatans.

      when it get accepted, problem will be with environmentalist afraid of losing power, allied with big corps.

  • Timar

    Well, I hope you are right Frank, but let me play the advocatus diaboli.

    Socialists
    Will fear LENR for its enormous potential of decentralization and self-subsistent power generation, thus diminishing governmental control. They will only ever allow LENR after they made shure it is only allowed in centralized power plants and burdened with high taxes.

    Conservatives
    Conservatism as commonly understood is only the capitalist’s ideology, so see there. For “real” conservatism see environmentalism.

    Capitalists
    Will fear LENR because it threatens their fossil fuel assets and, more generally, because it disrupts the very economic system they are constantly profiting from. They will only ever allow LENR after they made shure that is is monopolized by those companies they hold shares in.

    Environmentalists
    Will fear LENR because of the “N” in the term. It is a unknown, not thoroughly understood nuclear technology, so for them it must be very dangerous. Moreover, the “conservatives” among them will reject LENR because it drives technological progress and thus only accelerates our journey on the road to perdition.

    Philanthropists
    Will fear LENR because it will help people to put themselves out of misery, so that their ego-boosting charity won’t be needed anymore.

    Consumers
    Will fear LENR for almost the same reason they capitalists do: because it disrupts a system both have comfortably adapted to. The capitalist needs the consumer and vice versa. LENR will enable a level of autonomy that threatens passive consumerism.

    • fortyniner

      Excellent analysis.

      This is what advocates are up against – an unholy alliance of greed and fear. The hope must be that some of the greedy see opportunities to enrich themselves that will offset the greed of those exploiting the status quo, and that fear of being left behind might balance fear of change.

      • Jerry Jones

        Remember recent news reports – America will be #1 in Oil Production in the World, and exploration was at record levels,
        we were all expecting LOWER GAS prices instead main stream media reported that now big oil is EXPORTING our excess oil to keep prices where they are.

        • Roger Bird

          Jerry Jones, the meanie head oil companies are exporting oil because they can get a better price overseas. Or is it perfectly OK with you that the economies of foreign countries DIE just because you think that oil companies should be “fair” and give us the great prices. DYING economies mean dying and impoverished people. Is that OK with you?

    • AlainCo

      good analysis.
      Environmentalist should be happy, because it solve pollution, CO2, soot, environment impact of mining, solar surface, wind noise and birds death, Of course they will oppose. First will be by habit, like physicist whe reject what they don’t have invented. second is because they are funded by renewable lobbies, co2 advisors and finance funding, because their existence depends on pollution, and fear.
      Of course the majority of them today are malthusianist (despite all evidence), so they will be afraid of population getting wealthy in poor zone, of industry revival… even if no pollution… they cannot understand that they have to rethink the problems.

      Government centered countries (socialist you say) will be afraid of the Electric utility collapse, nuclear collapse, and all their workforce… they will appreciate the saving, the growth, the way to fund the system again… They will push for centralized usage, community usage at most. Like city CHP, and big GW power-plants. they will try to jump on the fashion and fund it like for renewable.

      Capitalist force are separate. the incumbent crony, who will be afraid to lose their dominant position, will ask help to environmentalist to stop LENR, until they can capture the market. The real capitalist actors (small corps, entrepreneurs, shops, SMB) will love that revolution, because of money saving and opportunities.
      State will support the crony part.

      Big NGO are crony corps who make a business called environment or charity… treat them like Exxon&Monsanto, in worse.
      Small NGO will change job (help development, promote higher education), or die happily like hardworkers taking their retirement…

      consumers will love LENR because of cheaper and new usage, but will be manipulated by lobbies of fear…

      for me the animal to target are the environmentalists. They have a much more powerful lobby system that corps have… They control fear, morality, and are supported by corps and journalists. Politicians are used today to obey them.

      • Timar

        Alain, take that analysis with a grain of salt, though. It wasn’t meant to be objective but rather as an (hopefully) cathartic exercise in pessimism – like Brecht plays or Lars von Trier films.

        Yes, there will be fear from emotionally driven environmentalists for which the “N”-word is a red rag. And of course there are those who would rather stop any progress and see the world brought back to a preindustrial state. But those people are a small minority and have no political influence. The power is where the money is. There will be resistance from the “green bourgeoise” with investments in regenerative energy, probably particularly deceptive because it will work by evoking green sensitivities like fear of technology. However, most alternative energy is on the very level of small-scale capitalist actors you accurately described as flexible and bound to profit from LENR.

        The big money is elsewhere. It is in the fossil fuels and conventional nuclear industry. Expect severe resistance from there. They may realize that they can’t stop the technology, but they will do (and already are doing?) everything within their considerable power to delay its development. There is no big money in renewables, because most of it comes from governmental subsidies and governments will be happy to cut those if there’s a better and less expensive alternative to solve global warming. They will, however, made sure to tame the disruptive power of LENR by ensuring a high level taxation. It is in their own interest and in the interest of all the aforementioned lobby groups, so it is unavoidable.

        NGOs may embrace LENR, or oppose it for them reason. It won’t matter. They have no money and thus almost no political power.

        • Timar

          Err, “oppose it for some reason”, of course. And the governments will “make sure”. It’s pretty late where I am 😉

    • Manuel Cruz

      Terrible analysis. Environmentalists and Socialists can only hate it. The reason is that Socialists have spent decades putting socialist dictators and puppets on all countries that produce oil, so a paradigm change would DESTROY them. Environmentalists, on the other hand, have invested a lot in the ABSOLUTE WORST industries of energy generation, and because they cannot compete with any other, they have both to lie about their options being clean and environment friendly, and also spread FUD about the competence, most often Nuclear, because it’s the most efficient one.
      So, environmentalists and socialists would undoubtly HATE, HATE, HATE LENR, and will attack it with all their force. For an obvious example, look at Wikipedia, known by its very strong liberal bias.

      Capitalists, on the other hand, are attracted to anything that offers something better for less price, and as such, they are expected to be the first ones to adopt the technology. Conservatives will wait a bit until they see other countries adopt the technology and it proves to be secure, then will slowly accept it.

      In fact, that’s what we already are seeing in the field of LERN.

      • Timar

        I think you show an overt ideological and emotional bias that should better be kept in check in order to allow a meaningful and enjoyable discussion.

        FYI: I consider myself an environmentalist as well as a (moderate) socialist. Many of my friends who share my political opinions are exited about LENR when I tell them about it.

        • Roger Bird

          This is very good to hear. My only libertarian friend is happy about LENR. I think that much of this talk about how this group or that group will react is generalizing too much for it to be of much use.

          • Timar

            I agree, Roger. We should all try to put down our ideological blinkers in order to see what is really happening. Reality isn’t black and white.

        • Tappanjack

          The main plank in the socialist platform is to put in check an individual’s expression of their opinion!

          • Roger Bird

            I think that that strident anti-individualism is farther to the left, the communists. I know that the Soviet Union gave a hard time to one of their gymnasts for showing a little too much ego. And the underlings of sweet hearted (sarcasm) Stalin would encourage people to speak out at meetings, and those people brave and individualist enough that did later disappeared. This was a long standing policy in the Soviet Union. This is also why it is difficult to find too much individualism even today in Russia.

        • Manuel Cruz

          Because you are at the bottom of the socialist/environmentalism chain, while I’m talking about the ones with power. For example, there are people that sympathize with PETA because it supposedly is an organization that is about animal rights. Then, you have the actual people that manage PETA, known for killing 99.7% animals that fall in their hands and sterilize the rest so that they don’t have offspring (they are also known for portraying woman as livestock and sex objects to attract funding).

          The first group are known as useful idiots, the second group are the ones that actually understand what their ideology is truly about. For example, socialism/communism is about brutally controlling/reducing population and turning them into work slaves, while the “environmentalism” that originates from communism (instead of, say, conservatives) is just a poorly-disguised hatred for humanity, that has to be brutally controlled in order to save the world.

          • Timar

            Alright, tin foil hats are en vogue here I suppose.

  • Owen

    I think this analysis underestimates those who oppose development of LENR. For instance, look at all the money and effort going into creating a police state in the US (massive ammo purchases, armored vehicles, spy grid…). This isn’t being done for the welfare of the people. It’s being done to protect those in control.

    “Know your enemies.”
    Sun Tzu, The Art of War

  • georgehants

    It is interesting that neither Admin or any of the comments below start at the beginning.
    Why is most of science against Cold Fusion?
    If the Scientific journals, university’s, NASA, CERN, etc. etc. where publishing the Facts about Cold Fusion then all the other areas mentioned would find it very difficult to ignore.
    It must be fair to say that Cold Fusion is first and foremost of scientific concern, without them reporting on the True position then nobody can blame others for not embracing the Technology.
    I detect a very strong bias on these pages to keep away from blaming the people who of course are the most to blame.
    Just for me, another strange part of Human nature to try and understand.
    Many posts on the effect on jobs as usual, if all economy’s where based only on production and man-hours worked then the effect would be simply to reduce working life times and hours worked to allow these “un-employed” to move to areas of most help to society such as welfare, medicine, food production, clean water production etc. etc.

    • fortyniner

      I’m struck by the perception, analytical skills and clear thinking displayed by many commenters on this page. I don’t think there is any obvious avoidance of blaming those who have sought to suppress CF (and continue to do so now), simply an understanding of the human failings that drive such people, and the certainty that their numbers and positions of power will ensure that no accounting for their reprehensible actions ever takes place.

      The Park’s and Huizenga’s of the world, and all their willing stooges in academia and the media will retire on fat pensions, the executives who hired shills will move on to other projects, as will the shills, the politicians who have been corrupted by energy lobbyists will continue to rise up the greasy pole, and in short it will be business as usual.

      It is also because of the strength of this ad hoc alliance of interests that the process of adoption of cold fusion technologies will be deliberately slowed to a minimum, ‘regulated’ by governments and controlled by legislated monopolies to ensure minimum disruption and maintenance of the status quo, as far as this is possible. As always the interests of the people, including those who suffer great lack, will be nowhere in the thoughts of the people who run the world.

      • fortyniner

        Apologies for the ‘grocer’s apostrophies’ in the (currently moderated) comment above – the edit window closed before I could delete them!

      • Roger Bird

        If you spent half as much time spreading the LENR+ gospel to relevant sites as you do complaining about the meanie heads who “run this world”, perhaps you wouldn’t feel so powerless.

        • georgehants

          Roger, explain to me how you think that my putting more comments about than I have will do more than a press release from the relevant scientific institution that Cold Fusion is a Fact.
          Please anybody explain why we are blaming everybody else, I am not saying others are not or will not try to stop or delay Cold Fusion but it is like blaming governments for not developing the Atomic Bomb before Einstein and others wrote their letter to Roosevelt.
          Without clear conformation of a new unknown effect that produces much power from a serious recognised scientific source, journal etc. it will still be treated by many as all the other fringe topics that are ignored by most.
          I am Amazed at the thinking that moves on to blame others when the establishment concerned does nothing.

          • Roger Bird

            george, I said that you comment a lot about the opposition and the PTB, but are you doing something active to promote LENR? You will feel more powerful if you promote rather than complain about us being victims.

          • georgehants

            Roger why are you repeating yourself and not answering my comment.
            That is not like you to use the skeptics tactics.

          • Roger Bird

            Please, you use the same tactics as those that you criticize by mentioning that I might be a skeptic. I am saying it as clear as I possibly can: You are whining and not doing. Is that clear enough? You are commenting here and acting like we are some kind of victims rather than going out to blogs and leaving comments about how good the E-Cat is. Is that clear?

            I don’t know what your comment was, so you might restate it.

          • georgehants

            Roger, I think you may have just lost all the respect
            you may have had.
            I did not say you where a sceptic but that you where using there bad tactics. Please read before commenting.
            My comment is just above, replying to your comment, if that helps.

          • Roger Bird

            We can’t do anything about “a press release from the relevant scientific institution”. We can do something about our actions. Unless you want to send email to scientific institutions. But I think that this forum to a large extent is mental masturbation. I enjoy it, but it’s purpose is limited. We, and I do mean we, which includes you and me, need to spend more time telling others and less time fretting about every little nuance of every little aspect of LENR; especially the part about whining about how the meanie head oil companies are going to oppose us. The best defense is an offense. If we think that large groups of powerful people are going to oppose us, then we should hit the ground running and get there the firstest with the mostest. And stop whining about what victims we are or are going to be.

          • georgehants

            Roger, thank you, do you agree that if science did it’s job and made an official announcement confirming Cold Fusion then the whole situation would change and there would not be the same need (hopefully) to have to convince other organisations etc. of it’s reality.
            Then others could fairly be blamed for any inaction but not before.
            Cold Fusion would be on it’s way.

          • Roger Bird

            Yes, I agree. So what are we going to do about it?

          • georgehants

            Ha, how about on a Cold Fusion website such as this one containing I think many “applied” scientists we try and get the pressure to be put in the right place.
            I look forward to you, Admin and many others to start demanding that the science establishment and journals inform the rest of the World on the current state of Cold Fusion.
            It has not even crossed my mind that as there are so many scientists on page they will naturally take offense at their trade being shown-up as corrupt and incompetent.
            Well I prefer the Truth to distortion and only being shown to be wrong will change that and if shown with fair debate and not just because people do not like my point I will immediately change my view.

        • fortyniner

          “If you spent half as much time..”

          So far, I’ve contacted the UK Dept of Energy, and the UK Minister for Energy, sent synopses of a proposed article on Rossi to two magazines and spoken to their editors, informed the local anti-nuclear lobby organisation of developments to date, and written to my MP.

          What have you done, Roger?

          • Roger Bird

            Absolutely, positively good for you, 49er. Please pass the crow. I have, as I have said before, been posting to news article comment sections, if they have a comment section. Yesterday I did several articles in venture capital sites. Any suggestions about what more I could do and what other strings I could search with would be welcome. I EVEN got a positive response from one dude who demonstrated that he was up-to-date and was very positive about the idea.

          • fortyniner

            Good for you too, Roger. Momentary spasm of irritation – apologies.

            No further suggestions – just keep on doing what you are doing!

          • Roger Bird

            But it was an irritation that I cause. Please pass the crow again.

          • fortyniner

            Sometimes my wife irritates me, sometimes my kids, my cat, the TV or radio, or a biro that stops working. I am just a bit grumpy I’m afraid.

      • georgehants

        Peter please see above my reply to Roger.
        I do not disagree that all your above is correct, but lets not put the horse before the cart.
        An editorial in Nature, Science etc. would leave the situation where we could all then judge what your above people are doing to implement Cold Fusion.
        Until that scientific announcement based of the Evidence we all have, then only science is at fault.
        We cannot blame others who rely on science for their Truth perceptions.

        • fortyniner

          George –

          People in positions of authority always have and always will lie in order to further their personal objectives, avoid blame or otherwise paint a false picture. Everyone has an ‘angle’ and propaganda is the rule not the exception.

          “We cannot blame others who rely on science for their Truth perceptions.”

          I’m not sure about that. You and I and many others are here because we’ve taken the time and done our ‘due diligence’ to uncover the facts, even though another narrative has been carefully constructed around us for many years. I believe that other adults have the same responsibility to inform themselves if they want to understand why things are as they are, and to have an opinion that is worth having.

          Those who don’t do this are sheep, and will be controlled by whatever someone in ‘authority’ (scientist, journalist, politician) tells them is so. I’m afraid there’s not much that we, from our position of ‘non-authority’ can do about this, and certainly nothing we can do about the lying propagandists who have distorted public perceptions of cold fusion and practically everything else. We do what we can do, but unfortunately that doesn’t include remodeling the world we find ourselves in – only chipping away at it.

        • fortyniner

          George – replied, but in mod.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      georgehants….It is my opinion hot fusion scientists are stooges for the Trillions of dollars money interests.

      • georgehants

        Bernie, you could well be right but is not just them but all of science concerned with announcing Cold Fusion.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Most scientists are just neutral, they have a wait and see attitude, all the noise is coming from hot fusion directed by big money. Think about it, big fossil fuel interests thought process, who can we get to delay this…who is credible…….hot fusion scientists. Tell me Krivit is not being paid for his attacks.

  • georgehants

    Cold Fusion Now
    E-Cat World wants your video for LENR/cold fusion movie
    Sunday, June 9, 2013
    Frank Acland, proprietor of E-Cat World, will compile video clips from the public on low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). The purpose? Increase awareness about the current revolution in energy happening now unbeknownst to the majority of people.
    http://coldfusionnow.org/e-cat-world-wants-your-video-for-lenrcold-fusion-movie/

  • AB

    I believe the fossil fuel and nuclear power industry will fight LENR with all their might. Not to destroy it, but to gain control until they have secured their slice of the pie. They will not lean back and watch as their investments are obliterated.

    Governments of certain countries whose economy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels may also attempt to delay LENR.

    • Mick D

      Do you think the US Partner has secured his slice of the pie? If so, companies with credibility in one field will often team with other companies to access new markets, sharing the pie.

      Defkalion has partnered with 20+ companies giving each a slice of the pie. Things could move fast despite resistance.

      • AB

        You are right. There are also winners, but they will not share the pie with everyone. The losers will not give up without a fight.

  • John-64

    I am against LENR.

    That’s according to some of the commenters on this website. I ask for independent testing, and multiple independent testing. One is not enough. That makes me a “pathosceptic” according to some people here. So be it.

    So yeah, I am against LENR. Sitting here at my laptop in my spare room, I am trying to stifle LENR. All by asking for multiple independent testing.

    • georgehants

      John-64, are you in any way saying that Cold Fusion cannot exist, if so you are as you say a —-“pathosceptic” —- if you are simply saying you have an open-mind but feel the Evidence has not yet convinced you then you are being fair.

    • AB

      I ask for independent testing, and multiple independent testing. One is not enough. That makes me a “pathosceptic” according to some people here.

      That doesn’t make you a pathoskeptic. A pathoskeptic is a disbeliever masquerading as skeptic.

      A pathoskeptic would refuse to participate in, or hinder, independent testing because he is certain of the outcome. If a test reported a positive result, a pathoskeptic would find imaginary flaws with the test to safeguard his beliefs. A pathoskeptic would loudly proclaim fraud even without any proof because he is certain that it cannot be real.

    • Warthog

      Depends.

      There is “reasonable skepticism” and “pathological skepticism”.

      “Reasonable skepticism” is leery of Rossi, as his tech has not been replicated in the scientific sense. But your attitude begins to shade into the pathological because there have already been multiple independent tests. The very first test, and all subsequent tests, have had independent observers.

      But true pathological skepticism is to deny that LENR itself does not exist and has not been sufficiently tested.

      • lenrdawn

        “But true pathological skepticism is to deny that LENR itself does not exist and has not been sufficiently tested.”

        The double negative is a typo, I guess. But you’re still wrong anyway. LENR hasn’t been “sufficiently tested” by any stretch of the imagination. Constantly pretending that it has may be popular on this blog but is totally unjustified in reality and doesn’t merely place most of main stream science in the “pathological” corner, but most LENR researchers, too.

        • Barry

          John and Lenrdawn, read the signs around you. “You don’t have to be a weather-man to know which way the wind blows.”

        • Roger Bird

          Proof is in the eye of the beholder.

        • Warthog

          Sorry, friend. But I’m a PhD chemist with nuclear background. I’ve read the published reports in depth. I understand the science behind the measurements (though not the theory, as there is none). The evidence is conclusive. LENR is real. Period.

          • Roger Bird

            The problem is that there are no FACTS, there is only people’s perceptions of facts. And people’s perceptions can be greatly improved given more independent tests. It is a FACT that it took at least 5 years for people to accept heavier-than-air flight. Wilbur didn’t telegraph friends in Dayton from North Carolina and say, “We flew stop heavier-than-air flight is a fact stop end message”, and then everyone in the world accepted it. The brothers flew and flew and flew. And then, they flew and flew and flew, and eventually it got threw other people’s thick heads that heavier-than-air flight was possible and that the Wright Bros. had achieved it. (Not Langley, who looked like a complete fool.) I invite more testing, and more and more and more, by other people.

          • Warthog

            There are plenty of facts. There is also plenty of FUD, spread by the anti-LENR factions. Rossi’s work is not “proven conclusively” in the scientific sense, but LENR most certainly is.

          • Roger Bird

            But more testing is always good. The impact of a test is greater the closer to the perceiver the test is done. For example, a test done in India is bound to have a bigger impact on Indians than it is on Americans. And vice versa.

          • lenrdawn

            “PhD chemist”

            I doubt that. PhDs are usually trained not to make non-sensical, generalized comments like that and learned to be specific and careful about things preceding a period.

          • Roger Bird

            lenrdawn, proof is in the eye of the beholder.

          • Warthog

            Precisely the same response I usually get from the skeptopath types. You don’t actually think the typical PhD scientist uses the same language informally online that he uses in a formal paper, do you. Yeah, I type fast, and sometimes don’t proofread closely enough…..in internet forums.

            Let me ask this, what pieces do you think are missing from the proof of reality of LENR??

            And likewise, what is YOUR area of expertise and level of academic accomplishment?? (Note to lurkers…typical skeptopath response……crickets).

          • Barry

            Lenrdawn, it’s starting to sound like you doubt everything.

        • AB

          You must be unfamiliar with the literature.

          An effect that has been replicated hundreds of times in different labs with different methods is most certainly real when also considering that it obeys certain rules that allow predictions to be made. With the F&P effect there’s tritium and helium production commensurate with heat production as well.

          A person that is familiar with the literature and asks for better proof is clearly a pseudoskeptic.

          That papers on LENR are rarely published in journals has social reasons.

          • Roger Bird

            “A person that is familiar with the literature and asks for better proof is clearly a pseudoskeptic.” You imply in your comment that they could be uninformed. So you are contradicting yourself. You are also being mean-spirited to say such a thing. No fact was ever harmed by more testing. LENR and LENR+ PR can only be improved by more testing.

          • lenrdawn

            I think I asked you before – but what is the ultimate paper proving LENR in your eyes? Since you claim there are tons of those around, it can’t me much a difficult question.

          • AB

            There is no ultimate paper and I have not claimed that. The evidence comes from many sources taken together.

            Edmund Storms summarizes the information better than I could:

            Status of Cold Fusion (2010)

            Edmund Storms on cold fusion (youtube video)
            Slides for the video

          • lenrdawn

            “evidence comes from many sources taken together.”

            Doesn’t that strike you as a bit weak for something supposed to be proven? And it’s not like the lack of theory would prevent an ultimately conclusive paper. If you’d ask anybody for the ultimate paper on HTSC, they’d name either Bednorz or Chu or Tanaka without hesitation. The number of experiments overall (thousands) would only have to play a supporting role but are never required. In LENR there is nothing like that, despite the fact that LENR isn’t even defined and the effects claimed under that name are very diverse. What is considered proven in LENR? Ni-H? Pd-D? Is the detection of radiation which is claimed by people like Storms a hallmark of it? And if it isn’t – is Storm right and the others are wrong or vice versa is are they all talking about the same thing? Does transmutation occur and if yes, then how can McKubre and Piantelli possibly claim the same effect when their supposed transmutation products couldn’t be more different?

          • AB

            Doesn’t that strike you as a bit weak for something supposed to be proven?

            Not at all. Multiple sources are needed because the phenomenon is not fully controllable at the moment. Asking for a “complete solution” is an unreasonable demand.

            As for the rest of your comments – everyone will readily admit that many questions remain unanswered, but that doesn’t mean that the reality of the phenomenon is in doubt.

          • Roger Bird

            The Mike McKubre series of 8 videos was the turning point for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtweR_qGHEc&list=PL4774A5E3164F4290 The plethora of others helped. As the context built, Pons and Fleishmann became important; when Pons said that they burned through their table.

          • lenrdawn

            I read McKubres papers (at least those on lenr-canr.org – but I think that’s pretty much it) and none of them struck me as conclusive. He measured Helium but mostly far too much. He should have detected lots of electrons but didn’t even try (ever, afaics). McKubre does some thorough calorimetry but even he himself stated that he needs a lot more data before he can say anything definitive.

          • AB

            [McKubre] stated that he needs a lot more data before he can say anything definitive.

            Citation needed.

          • lenrdawn

            Here’s a pretty recent one from “Cold Fusion (LENR) One Perspective on the State of the Science”:

            Limited resources have limited to only 2 the number of successful heat producing experiments in helium leak-tight calorimeters for which effort was extended to scavenge 4He held up (by whatever means) in the cell volume. Of these one performed at SRI [25] and the other at ENEA (Frascati) [15], both yielded a total mass balance of 4He produced within approximately ±10% the 2.5 value, supporting a claim for an overall reaction Q of ~24 MeV/4He atom produced. This is an important result that needs further verification.

          • AlainCo

            Longchamp reproducing F&P
            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

            anyway nothing will be enough for you…

            like convincing a believer that his god is fake.

            I’ve discussed with hundred of you clone, and no evidence is enough.

            each paper individually should raise great doubt.
            two should make reader support LENR.
            and 3 papers should be enough to be sure.

            we try to find best papers, but most are just enough…
            Bockris and Tritium, BARC and tritium, ENEA Deninno report 41, the latest NRL Dawn Dominguez ICCF17… and hundred of other…

            If you cannot see them convincing, just change your eyes.

    • Roger Bird

      John-16, stop pouting. No one has said that you are against LENR because you want more independent testing. I don’t need more independent testing. georgehants doesn’t need more independent testing. Other believers don’t need more independent testing. But obviously more independent testing would help the billions of people in the world who haven’t even heard of LENR. I suppose there may be some believers who are so self-centered that they don’t realize this.

      • AlainCo

        we need a show that will permit to the clown of MIT to pretend there is new evidence that at last allow LENR to be accepted…
        so they don’t look like pure deniers and total incompetent.

        It is psychiatry, not science.

    • kwhilborn

      Actually this comment is unfair. It also ignores the question.

      This post is obviously regarding Andrea Rossi, but LENR is coming from many Directions. The Dr. George Miley Device, Peter Hagelsteins MIT device, The Athanor Device, The successes at Toyota, Mitsubishi, Honda, the Celani device replicated by the MFMP, The Brillouin device, The Patterson cell, etc..

      and those are just off the top of my head without checking notes. Even Steven Krivit Rossis (aka The Snake) nemesis thinks Rossi is fake but thinks LENR is real.

      Ask Dennis Bushnell chief research Scientist at NASA, etc.

      No. There is plenty of peer reviewed papers that now exist, and if your education is telling you LENR is false then you need to update it and get with the program.

      Ignorance is no excuse.

  • Marcel

    Dear Mr. Rossi
    I know, that you must ignore this question: “Have you ever been contacted by government officials or by Mr. Obama directly?”

    • Omega Z

      Marcel

      Obama- Not likely.

      Government Officials- Some have been present at some of his tests.
      Whether they were there Officially? We Don’t know.
      Whether they were there Officially unofficially we don’t know. 🙂

      • Roger Bird

        I have never known government outside of the military to be ahead of the curve. Take raw milk. They send their fascist thugs with drawn guns and automatic weapons to shut down (sometimes Amish) raw milk dairies because they still have their heads stuck in the a55hole of the 19th century. This is not exactly leading edge.

  • Peterem

    Dear Frank and all,

    Are there objections to cutting and pasting these discussions and comments onto social media with or without proper attribution to the writer? The objective is to spread the word. I apologize if this is a redundant question?

    • fortyniner

      As far as I’m concerned, if you think any of my comments are worth copying , please feel free to do so. I would prefer attribution to ‘fortyniner’ but its not essential.

      • Peterem

        Thanks, fortyniner. Are you mining for gold? Does your nickname refer to a search for truth?

        • fortyniner

          You have it.

          • Peterem

            I like it.

    • Roger Bird

      Cut mine all you want. Only you have to pay me $1.00 for each one. (:->) Just kidding.

      • Timar

        If everyone got paid $1 for every single comment he has ever posted on LENR sites, some of us would earn a small fortune.

        If payment was to be determined by the number of words though, Mary Yugo and Joshua Cude would be billionaires 😉

      • Peterem

        +1 I just posted georgehants tax quest. Hopefully, these posts will start to go viral and start the change we need. Hope and pray and work. The payoff for mankind will dwarf trillions.

  • Peterem

    Dear Frank and all,

    Are there objections to cutting and pasting these discussions and comments onto social media with or without proper attribution to the writer? The objective is to spread the word. I apologize if this is a redundant question.

    • Hi Peter,

      I have no problem with you cutting and pasting from the article with a link to the original.

      • Woo

        I am glad to hear that, because some of the comments posted here are as
        disruptive (in the before mentioned neutral meaning) as the technology and very much worthy to be added to the chart of impressions for those who want to get to know LENR, CF, Rossi, new energy as well as social/politival/economical consequences …

        + social media is the real deal for boosting this (the question is: does especially Rossi want more attention and or focus right now, or is he right now doing better without it?)

  • lenrdawn

    The only person I ever talked to who said he (actually she) would oppose LENR was an environmentalist/politician who shut down as soon as she heard the word “nuclear”. She was very interested and asked me all sorts of questions during the rest of the flight but my impression was that she primarily thought about where and when to initiate the first anti-LENR picket sign rally. I think most other people would see the $$$ more than anything else – even “big oil”, most of which nowadays seems to be a misnamed branch of investment banking rather than a mining endeavor anyway.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Follow the money! Who has the most to lose from successful LENR reactors? It is so naive to point out as important someone who is for LENR when he has no financial interest in delaying its implementation.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Who could be against LENR?
    The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab in Plainsboro New Jersey was an awesome sight http://www.princetonsiteoffice.energy.gov/pppl_airview_lg.gif until March of 1989 when Fleischmann & Pons made their announcement. If they were jealous of the “incompetent boobs” Fleischmann & Pons, they have to be terrified of Rossi.
    http://ecofriend.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/e_cat_cold_fusion_system_r82vl.jpg

    • GreenWin

      +1

  • Jerry Jones

    Posting on relevant forums is effective, I recently found myself posting on financial stock forms where analyst are pushing coal – fracking – even corn as a energy source,all of these energy products will be affected.

  • Gus Mason

    Such a shift (should it ever occur) could certainly be assimilated within a capitalist model. Especially considering it would signal the transformation from one world economy to another.

    Just like in the realm of physics, it is the change and flow from one state to another that releases energy. Imagine how much money could be made in re-ordering the world with near limitless energy; capitalism would thrive off that, just my musings.

    Fundamentally an ideology will survive if it is fit for task, without a rejuvination such as LENR, our current consumerism based on growth and crash will be replaced by more regressive regimes after a particularly bad downturn, think in history in terms of hegemonies, nothing lasts forever.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Much of the fear of the advent of LENR in the energy sector is misplaced. A portable fuel is needed for aircraft, ships, and ground transport, and LENR is not likely to dominate these areas for many decades if ever. Home and industrial heating and power would slowly be impacted, but several decades would have to pass before LENR became dominate, due to cost of replacing infrastructure, and initial low gas and coal cost compared to LENR. As the LENR technology became more mature and widely used (and thus less expensive), it would slowly take over some of those uses. Since the remaining Carbon based fuels are slowly being used up, and would start to be less available (at reasonable cost) in a few decades, the merging of one technology into another is a natural choice if it is available.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Without an active campaign to delay LENR introduction, I think it would be accepted and purchased just as fast or faster than refrigeration.

      • frank sedei

        I believe you are absolutely correct. Also, aircraft, ships and ground transport would be among the first to capitalize on inexpensive LENR energy.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          My guess would be ships in 10 yr, locomotives 15 yr, heavy trucks 25 yr, commercial aircraft 40 yr.

          • frank sedei

            Good guess. But, military forms of transport much sooner.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          +1

    • Kim

      When they figure out the definitive mechanism
      of how LENR works…

      The sky is the limit! Creativity and Usage will
      abound, and that will be just the thermal component.

      Respect
      Kim

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        +1

    • Tor

      many boats have diesel-electric engine
      yue can just take the generators and replace
      it with a hot-cat generators.
      low fuel cost will kill the competitors

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    It seems to me Rossi is having a hard time creating electric power via the Carnot cycle. I do not understand why, given the temperatures reported in the third party report. I am not an engineer; could anyone provide some insight into the possible reasons why?

    • fortyniner

      Temperature is not the same as power, and one possibility is that if heat is actively removed (by coolant) from ‘hot cat’ reactors, the reaction might be subdued or quenched entirely.

      IMHO the ‘gas cat’ is being developed as a possible solution to such a problem, as additional heat could be supplied internally as required from a gas flame.

    • SteveW

      The reactor is continually cycling to maintain control, producing varying amounts of heat. It may be one thing to be able to control the reaction just to keep it going but quite another to produce a consistent supply of heat to run a turbine. Imagine if you had to keep a fire going by throwing logs on the fire but you didn’t know how the logs would burn. Some may be wet and not burn at all and then later burst into flames and get out of control. Some may be soaked in gasoline and burst into flames as soon as you throw them on so you have to keep a hose ready to douse the flames to keep things from getting out of control. Now imagine if this fire was being used in the burn box of a steam locomotive. One moment the train would be stopped, you throw in a few logs soaked in gasoline (you don’t know), and now the train is hurtling down the tracks at 70 miles an hour or the boiler explodes.

      • lenrdawn

        You can smooth that erratic kind of output away with a sufficiently inert, multi-staged coolant cycle (much like in thermal solar plants, which have to deal with that problem a lot).

        • Omega Z

          Rossi is in fact designing it to heat oil. Which will in tern heat the water. This will stabilize the system.

          That said, You can dump diesel fuel into your gas powered car & it will run & get you their, but it will run rough as that’s not what it was built for.

          The E-cat boilers & likely even the Turbines will have to be redesigned for best performance.

    • lenrdawn

      Why do you say he’s having a hard time creating electric power?

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Because he says “What you say is correct, but it will be valid from when we will be able to make electric power.” He has been trying for over a year.

        • lenrdawn

          Maybe he just talks to the wrong people at Siemens. The guys who did DESERTEC developed complete plants for non-constant power sources in the 300 to 600 C range and are currently twiddling their thumbs (or probably not 😉 ) due to dropping PV prices and the slow realization that TREC was a stupid idea in the first place.

      • Roger Bird

        Rossi has to get an utterly and completely steady heat source that is well above a COP of 3 for electric power to be of any use.

        • lenrdawn

          Roger, forget “steady”. As I pointed out above, solar power is unstable and unpredictable and still there are turn-key thermal power plants on sale. It is simply an engineering problem and it’s been solved. No need for Rossi to get any more stable or re-invent the wheel.

    • kwhilborn

      This technology is in its infancy and needs to be improved and understood. It appears AR has decided to focus on these tasks and leave the Electric Generation to Siemens.

      As pointed out Temperatures and power/heat can be misleading. A light bulbs filimant is over 2000 degrees, but that cannot boil water (at least not a lot).

      We have seen the Hot Cat glow metal White hot and Andrea Rossi says it should easily be able to generate power now. I believe this is true. Once all catalysts are reveiled this technology can move forward.

      Shouldnt Focardi Know the Catalyst?

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      fortyniner, SteveW, lenrdawn, kwhilborn ….thanks for your responses very helpful.

    • LENR4you

      Maybe the LENR NiH Carnot is already protected?

      • kwhilborn

        It is likely not published as there is likely no new steam power or electric generators that have not been patented to death. We are likely going to use some standard steam engine with nothing new.

        It is simply adapting these to ecats in size and temperatures that matter.

  • Felix Fervens

    >Who Could be Against LENR?

    Technology is always a double edged sword. A technology, even at an unrefined, poorly understood state that offers energy densities 10x greater than gasoline or dynamite will be weaponized. We’ve reportedly seen the awesome power of just a few grams of the inexpensive, abundant and rather low-tech fuel: what will a few hundred kilos or a few tons do?

    LENR fueled armies sporting LENR powered weapons could unleash misery on a scale unseen.

    Some will argue that LENR will raise living standards and thereby reduce population growth, but really did the industrial revolution or the green revolution reduce population? One of the first applications likely will be well meaning philanthropists (as Rossi plans to be) bringing potable water and improved agriculture to the poorest peoples. LENR will radically increase the carrying capacity of the planet. If you like the idea of 100 billion people on earth, so be it.

    Cheap abundant energy will enable rapid automation of jobs done with human power. Yes, this is happening anyway. The first jobs to go will be unskilled work. So, how will we deal with a disrupted world where billions of people have no purpose in life beyond eating the minimal trickle-down wealth LENR provides? Will they all become scholars or artists or technologists overnight? Will income inequality shrink or grow?

    These are just devil’s advocacy questions, least the more ban-happy frequent posters here demand my head for questioning the happy dogma. In the short run, greedy I still want my LENR home heater and LENR powered car before the negative tide sweeps in.

    • Roger Bird

      Felix Fervens, many of us have already seen and written about these problems. Some of those problems are non-problems. The world’s population will plateau off at about 10 billion, probably because of education. The number of children per woman has already been plummeting towards 2 over the past 40 years. We are just beginning to see this as a reduction in population growth rate.

      I have already posted numerous times that LENR will decrease the suffering that is the result of lack (starvation, drought, mortgage worries, poverty of all sorts, etc.) LENR will increase the suffering that is the result of plenty (drug addiction, purposelessness, kardashianitis, i-pad-itis, staying up late, laziness, obesity, sex addiction, suicide, etc.)

      We already know that this energy will be used for military purposes. Please, everyone raise your hands who still think that guns make people violent. Violence comes from the human heart, a heart that is filled with anger and hatred. No technology will change that, except perhaps a mirror. LENR as the direct weapon does not seem likely, but as an aid to weaponry, it is a certainty. The Navy is probably already working on it.

      No one likes to ban. People only get banned when their behavior is outrageous, not when they have doubts. I can’t remember anyone actually having gotten banned. I haven’t been banned so you are probably save.

      • kwhilborn

        LENR might increase more “haves” as opposed to “have nots”. The average welfare bum can likely live a better lifestyle than many kings in the past. Our access to television, education, and 2013 3D movies makes lives very good although not always recognized.

        Population control is an issue that the world needs to face, and allowing 1 child per couple is a good start in areas currently suffering like China. It seems unfair, but would war/Mass murder be any better?

        This technology would enable warships to travel faster and farther. It would no doubt allow us to wage war cheaper.

        I think it is a pessimistic stance however. The technology is certainly better than our current nuclear programs and oil both in costs and pollutants.

        We need to improve our technologies and pray the governments we elect do not kill each other and us.

        • AlainCo

          no need of malthusians measure against fecundity.
          If people get wealthy, educated, they have less kids.
          And note that china is aging terribly, one fear is that it may be too aged before getting developed enough to pay the retirements.

          Malthusians fears are, and have always been, false.

        • Roger Bird

          kwhilborn, go to http://www.gapminder.org/ Click on “Load Gapminder World”. It will take time to load, so wait patiently. To the right of where it says “Income per person (GDP/capita, PPP$ inflation-adjusted)” there is a little down arrow. Click on that down arrow and a popup window will appear. Click on “Children per woman (total fertility)”. On the vertical axis click on the same kind of arrow and select “Children per woman (total fertility)” again. Same data for both axises. Now click on “Play” and get a whole new perspective on population. It will show the number of children per woman from 1800 to 2011. Notice how it streams toward the low numbers, especially in the past 40 years. This should help you sleep at night. And with LENR, it will be easier for people to live away from current population centers so 10 billion won’t feel like 10 billion. For example, instead of eastern Colorado being empty, it will be dotted with a farm here and a farm 1/2 a mile away and so forth.

  • georgehants

    I have written below asking how anybody could have blamed the American government, military, financial institutions etc. for not developing the Atomic bomb if scientists namely Einstein and the others who asked Einstein to help because they needed his name to have the desired effect, had not made clear that it was possible.
    From that warning came the Manhattan project which shows what can be done when there are no capitalist involvement, just a desire to achieve, imagine if that had been Cold Fusion.
    But spending money and manpower for the good of mankind will take a lot more persuading.
    If science had not informed Roosevelt and the government and made clear from very few experiments that a chain reaction was possible then no bomb would have been made at that time.

    • georgehants

      To add, I do not disagree that pressure on all fronts is good and worthwhile, each to their own.
      My pressure lies where in my opinion the basic fault is most justified. Science.
      If anybody wishes to advise me as to why science should not be blamed for having debunked and denied Cold Fusion for 24 years, then do not abuse me but put your case below.
      Science in my opinion is still, until Mr. Rossi or another comes out with a fully open working device that others are able to inspect or are verified by many trustworthy customers, the only organisation responsible for passing on the knowledge to the press, governments, industry etc. and if that outside release happens first before science announces the current and passed successful Research then their failure and incompetence will be complete.
      I of course always mean official, establishment science not those Wonderful Rebels that operate at great risk to themselves outside of the religious fraternity.

  • Roy O’Neil

    With all the potential beneficiaries (socialists, conservatives, environmentalists, etc) why is the mainstream media (MSM) avoiding ecat/ cold fusion/etc?
    –Is it because they don’t know about it? Doubtful.
    –Is it because they don’t think it’s worthy of discussion? Doubtful.
    –Is it because it’s too controversial?. Doubtful. When has the MSM
    avoided controversy? Human caused global warming gets tons of
    coverage and is very controversial.
    –Are they afraid discussion will alert more people to the possibility
    of a huge disruption of world economics? More likely.
    –Are they being coerced by big governments or big oil? Quite possible.

    Are there other reasons?

    • Owen

      Exactly. Who owns the big media companies? They’re the same players who are corrupting the government. Follow the money.

  • Fibb

    Frank I think you meant libertarians when you said conservatives in the original post.

    answering the original question…. I think big fossil fuel and the government’s they support, Wall Street etc will launch massive FUD campaigns at some point. The rest of the world will generally approve of the idea until the world’s economy collapses due to all the upheaval LENR+ will cause and then everyone and their dog will come to despise it for a decade or two until stability returns.

  • georgehants

    For those who wish to do something about governments, capitalism, etc. and help Cold Fusion then here is your chance to vote.
    Avaaz. org
    In days, governments will discuss whether to plug a gigantic $1 trillion per year corporate tax loophole – enough money to end poverty, put every child in school, and double green investment! Most governments want powerful multinationals to pay these taxes, but the US and Canada are on the fence. To get a deal, we need them to feel the pressure.
    $1 trillion is more than every country combined spends on their military. It’s bigger than the budgets of 176 nations. It’s $1000 each for every family on the planet. And believe it or not, it’s the amount that our largest corporations and wealthiest individuals evade each year in taxes.
    http://www.avaaz.org/en/g8_tax_havens_ph2/

    • Fibb

      already did that. everyone here should as well.

      • fortyniner

        Likewise. My wife did too, although I haven’t mentioned it to her her yet.

        • Barry

          Heh Heh!

    • Omega Z

      This is why you & I disagree on certain subjects.

      Does the IRS pay Taxes. NO, It collects them from the People.
      Do Corporations pay Taxes. NO, It collects them from the People.
      It is just a cost of business.

      Presently, if your in a country that has a 35% tax, you can move to a country with a 25% tax Hence a savings for the customer.

      With a Global Tax, all corporations are on an equal footing in tax expense. Thus all are forced to pass on this cost to YOU. It’s a hidden consumer tax.

      If you think about it, Why else would a U.S. Corporation say $2 an hour wages in China is to expensive & Move it’s operations back to the States where wages are 5 to 10 times higher then in China. It’s the tax deferential. The Reason Corporations use Labor costs as an Excuse is because it’s about the ONLY expense it has any control over. Everything else is mandated by Government.

      A $1 tax on Corporations, by the time it gets through the supply chain equals a $4 to $10 product price increase. Dependent on the length of the Supply chain & product destination. The Type of Government doesn’t matter.

      Honestly, There are many inequalities in the World, but most are caused by Government deception. Not the Corporations.

      I’m also not a Flat taxer as I do believe the Wealthy should pay a higher rate. It’s a symbiotic relationship. If I stand on Your Shoulders to obtain the better fruit from the tree, I have an Obligation to pass some of that fruit down to you. I couldn’t have done it without your help. It’s just the right thing to do.

      • Roger Bird

        I like the Fair Tax ™ and my Skip-A-Generation inheritance tax.

        The Skip-A-Generation inheritance tax means that wealth earned by work and investments can be passed on to your children. They, however, cannot pass that money on to their children, only money that they have also earned. The unearned inheritance goes to the government as a 100% tax. (Farms and domiciles don’t count.) This incentivizes work and helps to level the playing field.

      • Charles Stewart

        The Flat Tax is a fraud. It is nothing more than a single rate Income Tax. Same IRS. Same bribery.

        Fair Tax. Rich pay more. The more you spend the more you pay. The Rich spend more.

        Fair Tax. Repeal 16th amendment. No IRS. Computers already know how to collect sales tax.

        Fair Tax. Simple. Percentage of final retail sale. One page law instead of 70,000 pages.

        See FairTax.org

        • Roger Bird

          Here, here. (Isn’t that what people say when they agree.)

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      +1 Just signed up.

  • kwhilborn

    Who could be against LENR/

    Anybody running a New Energy Website that Co-Authors books on outdated LENR might feel a pinch. (AKA – The Snake) Who could this be?

    I think Oil money is now diversified and these people want a clean planet as they now own as much APPLE and PEPSI.

    -Any small investor in clean energy might be hurt. A farmer who drops 2 Million USD on a windmill to sell electricity from his farm might be hurt along with those that sold it to him.

    Power companies will shrink to 1/100th of their sizes if power goes off grid, with no need for heavy infrastructure.

    Corner gas stations will vanish once cars start coming with a lifetime worth of fuel built in. Only for bathroom breaks, but who will have a car without a bathroom with fuel prices so low?

    Researchers or anyone involved in green energy will not be needed once a real green energy like this arrives.

    The rest of the world will rejoice.

    • Roger Bird

      There will be ghost towns, literally and figuratively. But people will be able to afford to move into the literal ghost towns and live off of their gardens and such.

      • kwhilborn

        Yes.

        – We should add any property owner in cities to this list.
        Once trucks can deliver products cheap and far there is less need to run businesses in a city. Cottage country might start seeing major industry.

        Property values will fall in the city and increase somewhat in the country.

  • Stefan

    A little off topic,

    I was trying to find out if McKubre’s correlation plot between He measurements and generated heat have been published in a peer reviewed
    paper. It is not the old M4 correlation but a pure correlation plot
    with around 50-100 datapoints that was showed in the EU meeting. It’s probably a unique dataset in that it is a very good statistical base to draw conclusions from.

    Cheers

    • Stefan

      Heh, I debugged this, I just looked at the presentations in high res
      and the swarm turned to error bar structures. Also finding the article
      behind this was now simpler and it is evident that this is what you get from basically taking the derivative from a curve of heat generation and a curve of He detection.

      Comments
      1) Looks better because one does not need to do 50 successful cases
      to find this structure.

      2) Not clear how often one can see this behavior.

      3) A common reason behind systematic errors in random models are that they are a consequence of a non-linear random model e.g. val = f(x + error), It is wrong to then take as the estimate f(x) especially in the case of a significant sized error. A little better is to use,

      E[f(x + error)] = E[f(x) + f'(x)error + f”(x)/2 error * error + …]
      ~ f(x) + f”(x)/2 Var(error)

      I do not know if this apply to the He graphs shown, but it is a good question to state to the researchers.

      Have fun

  • daniel maris

    Russians, Qataris, Saudis…that will do for starters. They all have strong influence in Western media through outlets that have bought and control.

  • Fibb

    so while I’m excited about lenr providing cheap energy for the masses I am well aware that cheap energy alone does not a utopia make. resource extraction run amuck (made possible by cheap energy) has a definite and profound downside when it comes to the ecology. we should make sure to guard against this with responsible regulation.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      cheap energy alone does not a utopia make

      True, socialists can mess up a wet dream. Venezuela has 20¢/gal gasoline but no eggs, butter, or meat. But Venezuelans that live next to Colombia can swap gasoline for butter and eggs.

    • GreenWin

      Fib, aside from the obvious elimination of man made CO2, and the lack of need to drill or mine (significantly) for fuel; LENR could replace the majority of wood burning cookstoves around the world. Heat for cooking is a major destroyer of forest.

      Additionally, desalination can bloom deserts and replace dirty, water borne disease with fresh, clean water – a major health improvement. With abundant low cost energy, access to information networks and education rises – minimizing some tribal conflict and eco-damaging behavior.

      • Roger Bird

        I awoke this morning realizing that desalinization even with (almost) free energy is no easy matter. And maintaining a massive desalinization plant would be a massive undertaking. And the brine left over from such a plant would be ecologically problematic. I am not saying that such a thing could not be done; I am saying that it will not suddenly become easy. I may become easier, but not easy.

        • Fibb

          Roger… I was wondering about that myself. But then I thought… why not dump the salty solids back into the ocean? It should be able to take all of it without hurting anything. I think….

          • fortyniner

            All the water extracted (minute anyway, in terms of the total) would simply return to the oceans, one way or another, and restore the normal salt concentration. A bit hard on whatever is living where the salt is dumped though.

            Instead, it could probably be exported as a resource, and like the water, would (mostly) eventually find its way back to the sea.

          • fortyniner

            A better way to use energy to create a water supply is probably the use of atmospheric water generators, which are in effect modified air conditioners which collect and purify the condensate.

            People living in hot areas could enjoy cool spaces where such machines operate (water from breath would also be recovered), and there would be no need for vulnerable water pipelines from a coast that could be hundreds of miles away. All a bit ‘Dune’-like, but entirely feasible, given cheap, locally generated electricity from CF plants.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_water_generator

          • GreenWin

            I have seen these are getting some use in the desert nations and, as you note, avoiding vulnerable pipelines is a plus.

            Michio Kaku suggests the step from a Type One to Type Two planet is weather control. With abundant energy and HAARP technology, this may be next.

        • Warthog

          Why would it be “problematic”?? If you take the saline feed from the ocean, and put the spent brine back into the ocean you, you change the overall balance of the ocean not at all. If you get your feed from (say) underground brackish water, then you will need to re-inject the spent brine back into the aquifer from which it came. Still not “problematic”.

          • Roger Bird

            Any place in the ocean close to the outlet of the brine would be negatively impacted. For the rest of the ocean, the impact would be equivalent to more evaporation and rain that week.

          • Warthog

            I very seriously doubt that it would even be possible to measure the increase, much less “have a negative impact” unless the outlet were put at the head of a very small bay. Which most design engineers are already smart enough not to do.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Sorry, GreenWin, but the CO2 has already beat desalination to the punch, in the greening of the desert.

        One suspected side effect of global warming is lusher vegetation, and a new study shows that leaf cover on plants rose by 11 percent in arid areas between 1982 and 2010.

        During photosynthesis — the process by which plants make food — plants pull carbon dioxide from the air. More carbon dioxide should mean more plant food, and studies in recent decades have confirmed increased plant life, but did not control for increased rainfall or changing temperatures.

        Researchers in Australia looked at desert plants and adjusted for precipitation and temperature to weed out other effects. They first created a computer model to estimate the global “fertilization effect” of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

        The model estimated that during the study period foliage would increase by 5 to 10 percent, affected by a 14 percent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the same period. The team then used satellite imagery to view the greening from 1982 to 2010.

        Arid regions including the southwestern United States, Australia’s Outback, the Middle East and parts of Africa experienced an 11 percent increase in leaf cover on plants, according to results published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

        But lead study author Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra warns that rising carbon dioxide won’t impact all vegetation the same, and new species could dominate in dry areas.

        “Trees are reinvading grasslands, and this could quite possibly be related to the carbon dioxide effect,” Donohue said in a statement. “Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in carbon dioxide.”
        Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/06/03/Carbon-dioxide-fertilization-is-greening-deserts/3081370268043/#ixzz2VmCPJZr7

        • GreenWin

          Iggy, yes, I read this. Fascinating problem for warmists to spin greening into some kind of negative. As for ease, nothing at large scale is easy – but the technology is well known. Israel and many OPEC countries use massive desal to grow their economy.

          In thermal desal (multi stage flash) the brine/salt is trucked offsite either for burial or to be leached back into the ocean. What makes this very attractive is the LENR process heat required can cost as little as 10% of fossil fuel-fired heat.

        • Fibb

          Oh good… there is nothing to worry about… the deserts are not expanding and the land is becoming lush and fertile all over the place….. oh wait…

          Desertification crisis affecting 168 countries worldwide, study shows http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/17/desertification

          Oh and this is where you say the UN is in on the conspiracy to make harmeless CO2 (plant food) into a pollutant so they can take away your freedom.

          • Roger Bird

            Fibb and Iggy, go to your corners and answer me this question: Do you believe that LENR is real.

            If so, please stifle your AGW debate.

          • Fibb

            I would be very happy to never again see the word “climate” used on this site. Roger, I’ve been the one repeatedly asking for people to stay on topic, i.e. on LENR/Rossi. But I find it hard to let AGW deniers go unchallenged. And I know LENR is real.

          • Roger Bird

            I feel exactly the same way. I have difficulty letting AGW advocates go unchallenged. Imagine my exercise of self-control when I try to post my LENR-boosting missives at a pro-AGW site. But it has NO purpose except to make us feel good. It is mental masturbation. Perhaps today I should look for “AGW hoax” sites; I won’t feel any urge to correct them.

      • Fibb

        Those all sound plausible.

  • AB

    Continuing discussion with lenrdawn here

    Here’s a pretty recent one from “Cold Fusion (LENR) One Perspective on the State of the Science”:

    Limited resources have limited to only 2 the number of successful heat producing experiments in helium leak-tight calorimeters for which effort was extended to scavenge 4He held up (by whatever means) in the cell volume. Of these one performed at SRI [25] and the other at ENEA (Frascati) [15], both yielded a total mass balance of 4He produced within approximately ±10% the 2.5 value, supporting a claim for an overall reaction Q of ~24 MeV/4He atom produced. This is an important result that needs further verification.

    This does in no way imply that McKubre is doubting whether LENR is real or not.

    His opinion on that point is unequivocally expressed in section 3. on page XVI under “Why do we think we know it?”

    It can no longer be asserted rationally that there no heat effect in any of
    the very large number of experiments reported here and elsewhere [5], or that the effect is the result of (unknown) energy storage or (unseen) chemistry. Also, at this point, any claim that the Fleischmann-Pons Effect is “irreproducible” is not only unsound, it is unscientific.

    For me, if it’s reproducible, then it’s proven to be real.

    Source http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

    • lenrdawn

      I don’t doubt McKubre thinks LENR is real. However he, like you, isn’t building that confidence on his work or anything else specific, but on a “very large number of experiments”. What these experiments have in common is the observation of excess heat. Most of the rest is inconsistent. Sometimes there is Tritium, sometimes 4He, sometimes Cu or even O, sometimes radiation, sometimes no radiation etc. The reasoning seems to be that anything where more heat is measured than expected qualifies for a successful LENR experiment. If there was such a thing as perfect calorimetry, that could still suffice. But in reality, 500 out of every 1000 calorimetry results will be higher than expected. And before anybody calls me names again – I also think LENR is real (for very different reasons) but constantly claiming it has been proven is wrong and doesn’t help “the cause” at all (“the cause” for me being that it’s research needs more funding).

      • AB

        I also think LENR is real (for very different reasons)

        You don’t trust calorimetry, you dismiss other results as inconsistent, you don’t believe in the combined weight of evidence that comes from a multitude of papers, you disagree with McKubre who could be considered an expert on the topic. How do you justify your belief that LENR is real?

        • freethinker

          There is something pathological about his logic, I dare say.

      • Roger Bird

        lenrdawn, you look very closely at the evidence and come to reasonable conclusions. I will never call you a bad name. I am very happy that you are here.

        If your first name is Dawn, I might call you, but never a bad name. (:->)

      • Stefan

        The problem is the mix of well funded institutes like SRI and ENEA and combine that with equal weight with other experiments done with perhaps people with no less potential, but with much less resources. I would like to see something like 4 institutes
        trying to match say 25-50 successful runs in a 1 out of 20 success rate, with a as lenrdawn suggest well defined notion of what a success means. Maybe the EU quadrojka could qualify for
        this don’t know. So this will decide that there is an effect. Added to this could be some experiments deciding for example Helium, just take what SRI got and replicate 4 times and get some good statistics of when this effect is noticable.

        My 2c

      • Warthog

        So, we should say it is “not proven” in spite of the fact that, having examined the experimental evidence, we believe that it is?

        You appear to be of that school which purports to believe that experiments must be 100% reproducible to be accepted.

        According to the accepted rules of real science, LENR “is” proven. Experiments have been done and the same experiments replicated successfully, by different researchers, in different labs, and often in different countries. That is all that is necessary for scientific proof.

        That different researchers look at different aspects and get different results merely proves that LENR is a very broad phenomenon, not that it doesn’t exist.

        And in fact your insistence that it is “not proven” is actually detrimental to your cause of getting more funding. “Proven but not fully understood” is a better incentive than “not proven”.

  • Roger Bird

    I do not fear rich investors. Most large oil companies are publicly owned, so that the real hands-on investors are, well, professional investors, like managers of pension funds, mutual fund managers, very rich people, etc. They are NOT professional owners. The Koch brothers may be professional owners of their oil company. Professional investors are our friends. They make things happen. We want them to invest in LENR+ companies. We want to be friends with them. We want them to like us and more importantly to trust us. We want to be able to pass information on to them and they will trust it, sort of like Sidney Kimmel. Professional investors sometimes have secondary (second to making a profit) goals like the environment, civil rights, or cancer cures (I guarantee that cancer rates will go down when LENR+ gets cranking.)

    Professional investors keep their jobs, if they are not investing their own money, when they make good investments. They lose their jobs when they screw up. There were 7,691 mutual funds in 2009. We should try to be on good terms with every single manager of those funds. Since I have almost no social skills, it probably wouldn’t be a great idea for me to try to do it. (:->)

  • georgehants

    Admin, you asked above —
    “Have I missed anything important in this analysis?”
    I think I have today made a good enough case for the updating of your list to include science administrations.
    24 years and counting is surely long enough.

  • Roger Bird

    lenrdawn, I hate those really narrow comments, I mean that visual appearance, after a whole bunch of “Reply”s in a row.

    The fact that the experimenters get different transmutation end-products just goes to show that we do not really understand what is going on. Perhaps we are like paleo-man: One dude tosses a dry log on the fire and says, “See, it happens about once every three times”, assuming that they understood the concept of three. And other paleo-dude tosses a set log on the fire and nothing happened and he said, “See, it is just fraudulent. You Oog are a fraud; I am going to toss you on the fire. Fire is in the domain of the spirits and you are messing with the spirits.”

  • Anonymole

    I suppose, Frank, such a post is good for traffic and keeping the activity up with regards to the defacto topic but you and all here no doubt realize that such analysis has been done time and time again by the media and futurists over the years. In fact in ’89 dozens of articles and multiple books dedicated themselves to exploring NFE. And then again when this whole Rossi craze popped up two or so years ago the schemers, lemurs and dreamers (myself among them) all spent hundreds of thousands of words pontificating about NFE and its world impact. Predictions are fun but ultimately pointless.

    And with regards to the fossil fuel industry and NFE, these people, millions of them, are not stupid. LENR has no doubt been vetted and found lacking (for now) and poses no threat to the $trillions in profits they accrue now and into the near future. Yes that industry has, like all others, become short sighted focusing primarily on their next quarter’s profits but they’re not fools. Were LENR a true threat to the fossil fuel industry we would have known by now. Rosneft, Aramco, Gazprom, Statoil, Exxon, BP, etc. will never just acquiesce, rollover and expose their underbelly to the likes of Rossi, Defkalion and the others.

    • Roger Bird

      Anonymole, I find your comment mean spirited. I hope that you did not mean it to be so.

      • freethinker

        Maybe not mean, but misantropic. What he says is most likely true on some level. Me, I think that the people vetting this for big oil did a poor job, as it has been so deeply rooted that this is not supported by science and any contraption based on this stuff simply cannot be economially viable on a scale that would hurt big oil. But they were wrong. Dead wrong. Probably they are not fully realizing yet what is about to come, because their scientific alibis – main stream scientific analysts – cannot wrap their head around this.

        • Roger Bird

          If most people get their scientific march orders from mainstream science, and if mainstream science has it all wrong, then what are we afraid of? NO ONE with any power is going to think that LENR is a threat, because mainstream science says that LENR is bunk (his exact word). So stop worrying and start influencing people.

      • Anonymole

        Oh I enjoy the exercise of dreaming about the what ifs as much as anyone, more probably. And I can see that there might be a ‘mean spirited’ interpretation to my post. I suppose it came out that way as I felt Frank’s post seemed to rehash what so many of us have already hashed many times in the past. No offense intended.

        But I doubt very much that the oil/coal/gas cartel has swept LENR beneath the carpet all those years ago and have ignored it since. No, they undoubtedly have continued to maintain a handle on LENR’s viability quotient and remain disinterested.

    • One of the purposes of this post is that it seems to me that numbers-wise, there would be many more people in favor of bringing LENR forward than against. I understand that for various reasons certain groups and individuals might be against it, but I would guess overall, if the knowledge of this technology was widely known, that there would be wide popular support for it.

      • Anonymole

        I think the 99% vs the 1% would agree with you. Polling the public few if any would balk at the chance for nearly free energy. NFE is liberating. And what people doesn’t want to be liberated?

        So who would benefit? The 99%. Who might not? The 1% currently in power who do not want their cash machines tampered with, their apple carts overturned.

        If LENR becomes commercially viable, knowledge of it, in this day and age especially, will be widely and instantly available. If such a time does ever come there won’t just be an Arab spring, there will be a humanity spring. The 1%’ers will quiver in their boots.

        • Roger Bird

          How do you explain Sidney Kimmel if your Marxist garbage is correct? And, frankly, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Andrea Rossi used to be in the top 1% income wise. And I bet that Brillouin and Defkalion have 1%er backers.

          • Paul Mannstein

            At least Rossi isn’t a bankster or an investment manager taking investors’ money whether their portfolio increases or decreases in value.

          • Roger Bird

            This is called damning with faint praise.

          • Roger Bird

            So, Paul Mannstein, I think I have you figured out. You want to introduce yourself by saying something nice about Rossi/LENR without violating your conscience and without get ripped by us. Here, I will give you a hint. Doubt all you want, openly or to yourself. But should we point you in the direction of evidence, read/watch it. If you don’t, you are a skeptopath. If you do read/watch the evidence, and still don’t believe, then you are merely a skeptic, which EVERYONE here was when they got interested in Rossi/LENR. And there are still skeptics here. If anyone gives you a hard time, I will find out and defend you and give them a hard time. And my fingers can deliver punishing sarcasm and heavy guilt tripping. (:->) So far, under my benevolent protection, I don’t think that anyone has given a skeptic a hard time twice. If a person wasn’t a skeptics when that person got here, they would be a very pathetic scientist/thinker/philosopher.

          • Robyn Wyrick

            You don’t need to “Marxist Garbage” people. It’s really just incendiary.

          • Roger Bird

            I guess the murder of 100 million people, the oppression of at least 1.5 billion, the current oppression of the people in North Korea, and the voluntary switching out of Communism by perhaps 800 billion people isn’t an important indicator of the value of Marxist thought. Valuing anything out of context is pointless. Yes, I was incendiary. I just want to remind people that we the people of Planet Earth tried Communism and found it deeply flawed. The time for Communism is over; try something else that has a chance of not phucking things up so royally as did Communism.

      • GreenWin

        Admin, here is a recent review of a book by Prof. Henry Bauer titled:

        “Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth” https://socialepistemologydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/westrum_review_bauer1.pdf

        It is brief and to the point discussed here.

        • AlainCo
          • GreenWin

            Alain, thank you for citing Dr. Bauer on lenr-forum.com! There is a positive phase in any cycle and perhaps we can help realign research to be more open-minded.

            What I find inspirational is that in spite of fierce opposition, our small band of LENR scientists have triumphed. We now have a working, near-industrial device. Now the forces of commerce will disregard opposition in pursuit of profit.

          • Roger Bird

            “Now the forces of commerce will disregard opposition in pursuit of profit.” = service to others

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      What do you think has happened since 1990, the fossil fuel industry has successfully delayed LENR. Get real, LENR is a proven energy source, do you read about it in any major publication, have any research dollars been spent in the last 25 years to hasten LENR introduction, who has the power to make this not happen: Follow the money.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        I don’t think that the lack of progress on LENR was solely due to “suppression”. After all, it was the news of Fleischmann/Pons’ discovery that spurred Rossi’s interest. And Rossi’s publicity has triggered research by others.

        I suspect this is typical of new technological development.

        For example, when William McLean first came up with the idea of a heat-seeking missile in 1946, no one would listen to him. So he scrounged parts and worked on it at home. The Sidewinder missile didn’t make it to combat until 1958, and immediately revolutionized aerial combat. It’s projected that the Sidewinder will remain in use throughout the 21st century.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          If there was an oil industry that did not want that Sidewinder made because it would threaten the price of their product, the Sidewinder would never have seen the light of day.

          • Roger Bird

            You mean like solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

    • Barry

      “Predictions are fun but ultimately pointless.” Your missing some big points Anonymole. It’s very important to have a broad conversation and keep the CF awareness going. CF has suffered from unconsciousness and one of the purposes of this site is to keep the light on.
      Another point is we are brainstorming. Just in this one article I realized powering cars by CF isn’t as far off as we think. As soon as we can generate electricity we can plug in electric cars that are already on the market.

      • GreenWin

        Barry, I agree. Before we see LENR-powered cars, we will see LENR charging pedestals at supermarkets and malls. Even if your EV only gets 40 miles per charge, a 25 cent (or free) charge at the mall is attractive.

        Tesla Motors is already advertising free energy for the life of the vehicle. Presently their super-chargers use solar and chemical storage (batteries.) As E-Cat reaches stable industrial status, it will replace both as the preferred source of green, renewable energy.

  • Orlando

    academia, the government, industry, science. These are just a few ‘that could be against lenr’. Why? The fusion industry exists to keep nuclear scientists employed to the tune of 100B dollars world wide in subsidies and grants. This industry has produced zilch in fifty years, despite the known theories. Who ‘keeps’ this industry alive, try all the above. Whether or not LENR is validated (and I believe lattice energy is the ‘future’ whether it’s called that or LENR), we have to deal with entrenched interests that live with their heads in the sand.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      This pales to the fossil fuel industry, Trillions of dollars a year, not including the huge infrastructure investment, pipelines, refineries, offshore drilling platforms and on and on.

      • Anthony

        And many millions in fuel taxes raised by govts. Also, here in the UK many politicians have their snouts in the windfarm subsidy trough and windafrms will become obsolete overnight; very difficult to get a pig away from a trough with food in it !

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Imagine where LENR technology would be today if there had never been a fossil fuel industry.

  • Anthony

    A worrisome inclusion to your list: military. LENR provides dense local power; with ground & water heat sinks, underground structures can power food and air… rather than asking ‘who could be against LENR?’, the question may be ‘who profits from delay?’

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      I don’t think there has been a delay. The technology is moving forward at breakneck speed.

  • Thinks4Self

    Those producing and refining oil should not have a huge fear of LENR. While it is true the low end crude that is hard to refine might become pointless to extract in a decade or more the easier refined crude will have a market for many decades to come.

    And here is why…

    Electrical Generation

    In 2011 the last year on record the US peaked at just over 1000 gigawatts of use during the summer peak season. To replace that power generation you need 500 million hot cat modules that put out 6kW with a COP of 6 generating electricity with a 1/3 efficiency. You would also need all the support parts, pipes, heat exchangers, etc. to go with them. All of that takes time to build no matter if it is done for commercial use or home use. The materials to manufacture all of it are fairly substantial. They will be mined and transported by petroleum fueled machinery. Petroleum only makes up about 5% of the US generating capacity.

    http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/

    Cars

    Before you can have electric cars you need to more than double the electrical generation capacity of the USA. As well as upgrade the transmission capacity, build charging stations, vastly increase charging rate and capacity of batteries if you want to convert everyone.

    Ecat or other LENR powered cars will be at least 20 years out. Many technical challenges have to be overcome to produce a reactor and some form of electrical conversion that can handle the rigors of being in a moving vehicle. Vibration, slants and acceleration forces would move powders around for instance. Once you overcome those obstacles, you then have to prove that it can handle a high speed collision without causing any serious danger to anyone.

    Plastics

    LENR doesn’t replace oil’s use in plastics. It would make them even cheaper to produce further increasing their use.

    Shipping

    LENR will be quickly adopted here as it is a perfect match. Decreased shipping use of diesel will hurt oil but the savings in shipping for themselves likely would make up much of it. Imagine 60 knot tankers that basically only cost the salary of the crew to operate.

    Mining/Driling

    LENR can provide the power needed for mining and oil drilling/extraction lowering the cost to extract.

    Industrial chemicals

    Possible increase of demand due to sudden manufacturing burst to produce LENR power generation.

    There just isn’t enough enough in the short to middle future to cause oil to freak out. They will likely save money through adoption of LENR long before it hurts them in any serious way.

    If I can come to this conclusion it is likely they have too.

    • Thinks4Self

      I messed up my efficiency math it would take 1 billion hot cats to produce 1000 gigawatts of capacity. Shouldn’t drink and post.

      Reply to post in moderation.

    • Roger Bird

      I think that thinks4self proves that thinking for oneself works. You make perfect sense. Good post.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      A 10 to 20 percent market penetration by LENR will have a huge effect on the price of fossil fuel, the oil industry is very aware of this fact.

      • Thinks4Self

        But that same penetration likely reduces the costs to oil producers as well. Lower production costs allow the ability to make the same profit on a lower sale price.

        • psi

          Excellent exchange on all parts.

      • Roger Bird

        Bernie, please substantiate that the oil companies know this. They can’t know this until they believe that LENR is real.

    • kwhilborn

      The Andrea Rossi version of LENR is using powder, but most other variations we have seen from everyone else do not. Celani uses a wire etc. Electric conversion in a car would be wasteful, but I think could probably be done now with a truck or car with a trailer. Another option is to then use the electricity to create hydrogen for gas engines.

      This technology is in its infancy but if organizations accept it as real (coming soon) then we will see BILLIONS of dollars thrown at this, and BILLIONS of reasons why it will progress exponentially faster that AR ever could. Once major corporations see a dollar value at tunnel end they will fund it, and the tech will grow fast.

      The heat energy we see now is based on a technology that is not even understood yet. Once it is understood we may see machines 100 times more efficient.

      • Thinks4Self

        I think LENR in a car will be done much the same way as a plane via direct electric conversion by highly efficient thermocouples which seem to be just at the laboratory testing level currently. Uncontained powder won’t be the fuel, wire mesh or maybe something like fine steel wool might work, it seems surface area is the key to higher energy output comparing Rossi to Celani. I have no doubt that the engineering challenge will be eventually met.

        • AlainCo

          You may talk of Seebeck Thermoelectric generators.
          This is the idea of LENR-Cars for the first generation of LENR hybrid based on tesla S.
          http://lenrnews.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/LENR_CARS_NChauvin_ILENRS-12x.pdf
          http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?221-Swiss-startup-plan-to-build-LENR-car

          There is maybe a possibility of using Thermoionic convertors, like what Climeon is working on:
          http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1195-Climeon-Claims-New-Low-Temperature-Heat-to-Electricity-Process-Applies-for-Patent

          I’ve discussed with a linkedin friend who is engineer in heat to work devices, and he told me that TEG are not the best solutions.
          There are already very good technology for turbines, or better some “engine” like stirling, rankine, and some variants (that he know well)…

          If you read the sugar Nasa/Boeing plane report, as you say the plan a hybrid electric plane as most easy…
          http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?217-NASA-Boeing-research-on-2040-plane-LENR-among
          Good batteries are needed for take-off.

          Some reports propose to use superconfuctors…
          http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1242-Superconduction-and-planes

          • Thinks4Self

            Nice links! As for plane propulsion I think they are forgetting the KISS principle.

            If you use a much larger version of a ducted fan jet used in model airplanes and put a cylindrical reactor covered with a thermoelectric and cooling fins inline with the fan before the exhaust port, you could get thrust from the fan and add the heat energy derived from cooling the thermoelectrics to the total thrust. Some type of expansion chamber might be advisable aft of the reactor after all hot air expands. You would end up with a device that looks something like a common turbojet engine but burns no liquid fuel.

            For commercial airliners this could be ideal because once they heat the reactors up for the day they could leave them running. You store the the power created on the ground in the batteries and only push minimal air past the reactor, just enough to keep from melting itself. That air could be ducted straight up so you don’t cook the baggage handlers or across the wings to give the plane self deicing. Use the batteries and the reactor to spin the ducted fans up for takeoff and run on reactor power during flight. The batteries would give you a power supply to land if you lose your reactors.

    • GreenWin

      The fear of LENR shows up in the electric utility industry’s recent attention to Distributed Energy Resources.

      http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Technologies_DG_Renewables/Expert-advice-on-how-to-face-up-to-the-distributed-energy-threat-5800.html#.UbVMhdj3OnQ

      Smartgrid News sees DERs (ref LENR) as a threat to their collapsing monopoly on energy generation. Solar is setting the table, later we will see district LENR generators and local microgrids to distribute.

      • Thinks4Self

        The electricity producers are definitely in for a change, but they can adapt. Initially they will convert over to LENR to lower their own costs and eventually likely go from sole producers to a marketplace for trading unused power generation as LENR penetrates the market, they own the lines. Not everyone will have the means nor the desire to have their very own LENR power generation setup and those that do will still need extra capacity from time to time and won’t mind making money selling unused capacity through the grid. The role of the utilities will change but there is ample room for them to turn a profit.

      • Roger Bird

        I think that ***we*** are being too LENR-centric. I checked for “LENR” and “cold” in that article and I didn’t see either. I did see a picture of a roof top solar panel.

  • buffalo

    1)the leftists down below will love it but the leftists high above will be uneasy with it. 2)the rightwing below wil love it but up above will be uneasy with it.3)the middles down below will love it but up above will be uneasy with it… In short,the fabulously wealthy will be uneasy with it but the poor man will love it,the theme runs through all politic spectrum.

  • clovis

    Hi, ya’ll.
    I was just over on DR. ROSSI site and was reading this from Amos, about generation of electricity, and Dr. R answer was this.

    2- we are working very hard on it. We will use the carnot Cycle.
    I must admit i an not up on this Carnot cycle, is it a theoretical term.
    I would think, this would be big news, that the c cycle is being used as the way to gen electricity, anyone care to fill us/me in on the c cycle, and how it might be used with the e. cat

    • clovis

      this is off topic, sorry, FRANK

  • Roger Bird

    Apparently the editor of this local newspaper in New Zealand is against cold fusion, or he/she is sadly and deeply misinformed: http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/8772196/In-search-of-cold-fusion

    If you want to send him/her a NICE email to correct his/her error, you can reach him/her at: editor@dailynews.co.nz

  • Sandy

    LENR is a threat to the U.S. Government because the widespread implementation of LENR will reduce the need for foreign governments to use U.S. Dollars to purchase petroleum, leading to a collapse of the international exchange value of the U.S. Dollar and the end of the ability of the U.S. military/industrial complex to dominate the world.

    The U.S. Dollar will probably lose about 40 percent of its present international exchange value. So U.S. militarism will come to an end unless they can find a way to take our Social Security money to pay for more and more new wars and to pay for past wars.

    • Roger Bird

      That is about as speculative as speculating in international currencies day by day. A lot more things are going to happen long before that were to happen. For example, the world’s and the US economy could become so much stronger that no one will care or even notice. That is like saying that the automobile death rate will increase because people will feel invincible because their cars are powered by a nuclear reaction.

      • buffalo

        nope,a total collapse of the dollar wont make a single dent in the american military might.in fact it would probably do the opposite.the people in power do not need money because weapons IS money ,ie.fear.money is fear.

        • Roger Bird

          The US military does not make me feel afraid. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and secure, knowing that brave young men are ready to protect me. I only wish that they would protect me from the FDA, the IRS, the DOJ, etc.

    • Omega Z

      Sandy

      The sole purpose for the world to use the USD is so that they can easily redistribute wealth to the non-industrial societies. As much as 10% or more of all the U.S. GDP is transferred to systems in development Every Year.

      As for Social Security funds, It’s already spent All that remains are I.O.U.’s to eventually be made up for through the General Revenues.

      • psi

        So, are you seriously saying that the reason for the Dollar standard is philanthropic? Somehow, I don’t think so.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      I agree that once LENR is mature(when it’s started replacing oil and gasoline), it will be a net negative for the USA in its competitive position with other countries. This is because that the US currently enjoys a preferential energy supply compared with other industrial countries. Our West Texas Intermediate oil price is usually about $10 a barrel cheaper than European Brent Crude. Our abundant natural gas supply, with its low price, gives American industries a leg up on most other countries. When LENR is widely distributed, it will level the energy playing field, worldwide.

      Of course the worldwide adaption of LENR may raise the world economy so much that the US’ relative energy position would be a moot point.

      • Roger Bird

        What Iggy said.

        • psi

          Hope you guys are right.

      • Thinks4Self

        It won’t be an overnight adoption, but in 30 to 40 years you’ll start to see some stabilization once there is product on the market that is a stand alone electric generator. Say a standard shipping container that puts out 100kW of power for six months or longer between cartridge changes and things will begin to change. But you need to build multi-billions of them before you’ll see anything approaching equalization where home energy stores become moot for any country.

  • GreenWin

    At the moment the loudest opposition comes from academia and “knowledge monopolies.” To be very clear, these are not conspiracies, but they are a component of the military industrial complex President Eisenhower warned of. Dr. Henry Bauer is one of the few courageous voices who focus on the issue:

    “For several centuries, modern science was pretty much a free intellectual market populated by independent entrepreneurs who shared the goal of understanding how the world works. Nowadays it’s a corporate enterprise where patents, pay-offs, prestige, and power take priority over getting at the scientific truth, and the powers-that-be have established knowledge monopolies.” “Suppression of Science Within Science,” Henry Bauer, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences and Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies at Virginia Tech.

    http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/21stCenturyScience.pdf

    A quick read through Dr. Bauer’s essay provides a good overview of the challenges not just to LENR, but any scientific pursuit that is unorthodox. Knowledge monopolies oppose LENR. In the States and EU, that includes industry, publishing, academia, and military. Yet there are heretics in each area as we’ve seen, and they support the good news. Those voices get louder by the day, and the facts and evidence is now irrepressible.

    If we focus on the growing community achieving LENR breakthroughs, the inevitable happens; New Fire spreads.

    • AlainCo

      good point.
      For now the “business monopolies” are ignoring LENR, and the real hard opposition is “knowledge monopolies”.

      It is clear from the data about LENR history, and on some other subjects.

      By the way, it does not mean all heretic are right, just that they should be criticized, not blocked.
      In a way, LENR get much benefit from being criticized, yet too few. The few critics forced LENR scientists to look wider, to be more precise, to tighten evidences…
      Today evidence are incontrovertible, thanks to critics.
      In some domain, banning discussion just allow independent camps to live in their ideology bubble, and be sure their are right.

      All that tragedy is based on the “look good” principle that population and budget should be protected from errors. The problem is that you know errors, only after the battle.
      That is the key idea of nassim Nicholas Taleb, that there is no intelligence to predict black-swan, just intelligence to accept them as real, and take the benefit… predicting and controlling truth is just hubris.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, Thank you for in effect agreeing that science is responsible for the current Cold Fusion situation, do you agree that a honest assessment of the subject in a major science editorial would release Cold Fusion to the World.

      • GreenWin

        Yes George. If the London or New York Times were to write an honest editorial based on the Levi-Essen Elforsk results, other knowledge monopolies would follow. I do not expect Science or Nature to support LENR as it would require loss of face.

    • AB

      This rings true to me.

  • Roger Bird

    History Lesson. The printing press in the West was invented in 1450. Of course, over the decades and centuries printing improved. The Reformation started in about 1517, when people realized that they did not need a priest to have a personal relationship with God, arguably the beginning of individualism and modern society. That was 67 years after the printing press. The so-called Enlightenment started in 1650 and lasted until about 1800, roughly. That would be 200 years after the invention of the printing press.

    The telegraph was invented in about 1838. That invention has come a long way until Al Gore (tee hee) invented the Internet in about 1995. That is 157 years, so we have a gradual explosion in communications for 157 years, but the Internet is been like multiplying communications times infinity. So, what can we expect over the next 200 years? I doubt if LENR would be taking off if it were not for the Internet.

    • Hampus

      yes, all technology makes the progress of science even faster. its not linear but exponential.

    • Karl

      Roger I agree, but this freedom risk leading to the paradox of much stronger control society which we have seen during the last days after the news in the

      Guardian.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance.

      The freedom of an open discussion among interested parties such as this site among people that want CF/LENR to get is fair chance without silly debunking issues taking over, is possible thanks to many participants of course but thanks to the philanthropic and engaged moderator.

      • Karl

        However, although all technologies could be used for good or evil. I think CF/LENR gives humans a chance to reduce its fight for access to nature resources such as oil and gas. This to my mind is one of the major roots to the problem we see reviled in the Guardian link above.

    • Roger Bird

      Part of my point is that it took 200 years for the invention of the printing press to have an impact on the minds of Europeans in ways that most of us could relate to: the Enlightenment. And we can see big changes down the road with the introduction of the telegraph->Internet.

  • georgehants

    Admin I asked below for science administrations to be added to your list of those against Cold Fusion.
    No reply, could I ask why you feel they should not be on the list.

    • I don’t have an argument with them being on the list, George.

      • georgehants

        Wonderful day, thank you, I am a little bemused that they where not the first one on the list.
        Would you agree that an official announcement from a journal, science minister or equivalent stating that Cold Fusion although not understood is a proven phenomenon and demanding immediate Research, would free Cold Fusion to the World.
        Until that clearly happens it is not reasonable to blame others who mistakenly take official science statements as Facts.
        We could then concentrate on who else is delaying the implementation.

        • georgehants

          I will add that if science is in any way being coerced into not releasing the Cold Fusion Facts then only science is to blame for not informing the World that such pressure is being put upon them.

          • psi

            In my experience academicians who are on the losing end of a paradigm shift are the last people to know that their own colleagues are putting pressure on them to conform. The socialization is so intense that only the most independent ones can resist it and even they are reluctant to examine the dynamics of self-oppression involved in constant accommodation to a reigning dogma. Think about what Mike McKubre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McKubre) said on 60 minutes when they asked him if he was surprised by Rob Duncan’s “coming over.”

            “I know what I’ve seen.”

  • zapece

    I have already planned ahead for that day having bought a large house in the countryside with a large garden in one of the more inhospitable parts of the planet during winter.

    With LENR I will be able to keep the winter garden at summer like temperatures in the dead of winter combined with a large geodesic dome of course.

  • georgehants

    From Vortex with thanks
    [Vo]:ecat arxiv.org paper updated
    Hamdi Ucar Mon, 10 Jun 2013 03:16:26 -0700
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1305.3913
    Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device
    Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
    (Submitted on 16 May 2013 (v1), last revised 7 Jun 2013 (this version, v3))
    Comments: Appendix on electrical measurements added
    I had not realized that he is using 3-phase system for just obtaining 380V AC single phase power
    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg82857.html

  • pg

    OT: from Hydro fusion website:
    Hydro Fusion is looking for a Pilot Customer for the first ECAT 1 MW Plant to operate in Sweden. The customer will only pay for the energy produced by the ECAT, i.e. Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation will take responsibility for all associated costs including: the plant itself, installation and any transportation costs. In return the Pilot Customer agrees upon

    Scheduled Installation time by late fall 2013.
    Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation to use the Pilot Plant as a Showcase where external customers can be introduced to an ECAT 1 MW in operation.
    Hydro Fusion is open to any type of heat application given the restriction of a maximum 120 C temperature. The ECAT’s energy specifications are:

    Heat energy is produced according to specs.
    Heat energy 1 MW thermal at up to 120 C
    Heat exchanger from ECAT system to customer heat application.
    Electricity is consumed according to specs.
    250 kWe maximum power consumption
    166 kWe average power consumption, i.e. COP=6
    Hydro Fusion would like to receive quotations from Pilot Customers on both thermal MWh price and electric MWh price, based on an assumption of 7,000+ operating hours per year. Please specify clearly if your quotes depend on the outdoor temperature.

    Pilot Customers, with an interest in this game changing technology, are kindly asked to contact us at info@hydrofusion.com. Please write “Pilot Customer” in the subject of the email.

    For more info see, ECAT 1 MW Plant.

  • PaulS

    I don’t understand why people consider LENR, or e-cat, to be used mainly as distributed power instead of centralized power. Our current fossil power sources are centralized because the efficiency of power production increases with the size of the plant (chemical or nuclear). I don’t see the reason why LENR powerplants would not follow this trend as well, with bigger being more efficient and cheaper.

    Maybe the idea is that LENR energy will be so cheap that making it even cheaper by using larger, more efficient plants won’t be interesting enough to forgo the independence allowed by having a powerplant in each house?

    • Roger Bird

      PaulS, I believe that in the short run you are probably right, and I think that Rossi agrees with you. This is a change from our original thinking in 2011. The problems associated with control and safety are such that small E-Cats in people’s homes does not seem feasible at this time.

    • TPBurnett

      Centralized power plants are not efficient if you consider the waist. Centralized plants and home plants can be within a very few percent of each other in base efficiency. But, except in very dense cities, the waist heat of the centralized plant is just thrown away. Home plants can use that waist heat for all heating needs. None of the electrical output need to be used for that purpose. Also, a great deal of the power from centralized plants is lost in the distribution grid. Again, this is not a problem for the home plant. Lastly, the distribution grid is a monster of man hours, material and energy. This show up as the non-fuel part of your electric bill which is usually bigger than the fuel part.

  • Jack stokes

    Congratulations to mr Rossi

  • mario

    probably it’s a real concern.
    The only fact that you are asking yourself the question let the issue become real.
    Why if there is a personal system that give the freedom and indipendence of choice,
    === without any aggressions to others people habits or environment, ===
    someone has the right to state rules or dictate how to behave. Is anyone in charge to rule your lunch/dinner? The way you cook your meal? Do you welcome some control or supervision? I think you don’t.
    Do you know how much money is raised in excises, sale taxes, Vat, etc..etc.. on power or fuels in general? If common people will be free from energy taxation slavery, who will pay for the insane nationstates political activity? Wars included!
    How much I want to be free? That is the question. Any classification or abstract subjectivization is misleading. Simply answer a simple question in harmony with others. If I protect your freedom, would you possibly reserve the same treatment to me? The freedom I have is the freedom I care for.

  • Stephen

    I think LENR could be opposed by people scared that it will bring too much anarchy and unpredictable changes to the system: for instance, people concerned with security or those who in general have interests in conserving the status quo. Given enough time and energy you can achieve almost anything… I am not sure that some people would be happy to know that any of the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet can have access to an unlimited amount of energy. I like freedmon, but I might even share some of their concerns.

    I make a very simple and extreme example. Imagine LENR is real (still neutral and curious, waiting at the window for incontrovertible proofs, sorry :)…) and imagine there is a way to make a nasty and extremely powerful bomb out of it. Imagine if anybody in his/her garage would become able to build the equivalent of a nuke with standard stuff available on the market: not a nice perspective, in my opinion. However, luckily, -IF- LENR is real it seems at least quite hard to achieve and, even if explosions have been reported, I am not aware of clear evidences for this kind of extreme misuses.

    Having said that, I am always skeptical with large-scale conspiracies: I might be wrong but, to me, they seem too hard to implement and maintain. -IF- this thing is real, I think nobody will be able to stop it for a long time… even if I can imagine some would like to.

    • mario

      since the stone age humanity had broad availability of weapons, I mean, more broadly available than nowadays, at least in Europe. People is not going arround killing eachother. The exceptions confirm the general situation. So don’t be afraid. Human cooperation is far most desirable than conflicts. In conflicts both parts lose something by force, with cooperation both parts earn something voluntary.
      Armies are nationstate’s tool used either by kings or parliaments

    • Roger Bird

      I think when we say rapid change, we are talking about rapid historical change, not rapid emotional change. Look rapidly the cellphone appeared, from no one had them to bricks to everyone had them. Probably 10 years or less. LENR will more likely be no one has them to a few power utilities brag about having them to most power utilities have them to a few car. This could be in 20 years. Since they aren’t causing people to not pay attention and get into automobile accidents, I doubt if some people who prefer security will care.

  • TPBurnett

    I don’t know if it has been brought up yet, but I believe there is a danger from the tree hugger crowd. Some of them have the rational that current sources of energy are being used to rape the planet of resources. They are counting on oil and gas to run out so the raping can end. Now, with the potential of LENR, even resources that were already out of reach because of energy cost are suddenly available. The very near barrier that earth’s population was facing may have gotten a reprieve and is now, I suspect, able to increase an order of magnitude.
    I would suggest to the tree hugger crowd that LENR will also open the possibility of resources from space. These space resources may be the preferred as it will cost less to get them. These resources may be many times what is available on earth. So I think earth will be OK and beautiful for a long time if we do it right.

    • Roger Bird

      Sounds like you should forward that comment to the FBI. But first you have to convince the FBI that LENR is real.

      You might check out http://www.gapminder.org. Click on “Gapminder World”. Then set both axises to “Children per woman. (total fertility”. Then click “Play” and watch the fun over time. The last forty years are really obvious; you won’t need me to explain what is happening. Population won’t be a problem in the future.