• Karl

    This is really interesting and I fully agree. We may probably not find the complete theory behind the phenomena of radiation of anomalous heat energy found (CF/LENR) as long as we stubbornly cling to the old paradigm of physical theories. Some completely new thinking would certainly be required. This is a threat to some but a challenge for most that allow them self to think freely.


      Not to worry Karl. The Physics world was able to struggle its way to acceptance of Relativity and then through acceptance of Quantum Theory. We’ll make it – after a while.

    • fortyniner

      I think that when one of Rossi’s boilers is operating in public, there will be plenty of fresh minds given the job of trying to replicate cold fusion. The ‘new physics’ will arise spontaneously from this effort, and experimental results and theories will most likely be published after the appropriate patents have been obtained.

      There may be more than a few ‘early retirements’ in the hot fusion research community, hopefully including all those who have launched specious attacks on the technology and those who have pioneered it.

      • GreenWin

        Ed Moses former Director at NIF, has been kicked “upstairs” to make way for a new guy. I expect those stairs to get busy the next couple years.

  • Dr Bob

    I wonder some time if this field could lead to greater understanding the creation and evolution of the universe.

    What do you think?

    • lenrdawn

      There are no open questions regarding the birth or evolution of the universe requiring LENR as an explanation. So, no, right now it wouldn’t help.

      • Roger Bird

        I am so glad that lenrdawn is so sure of himself.

        I think that the reality of LENR should put everything in doubt, but lenrdawn is so sure of himself, without any actual reason or data, I think that we should just believe lenrdawn and stop wondering and thinking. (:->)

      • fortyniner

        “There are no questions…”

        I have to admit that I am quite stunned by both the arrogance and the ignorance displayed by this comment. Of course any new understandings that arise from proper study of cold fusion could be expected to contribute to a better theory of the origin and evolution of the universe, just as any other branch of physics or maths can contribute to this.

        In fact the cosmological ‘standard model’ or Big Bang theory is practically in tatters, having been patched in response to observations on many occasions, and now containing a host of ad hoc kludges (dark matter, dark energy etc.) necessary to keep it from falling apart completely.

        I’m reminded of the pronouncement by a Victorian physicist (attributed to Lord Kelvin) that “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement”.



    • AstralProjectee

      Sure, according to the founder of Nanospire cold fusion is actually a mini super nova. IDK if that is true, but he is a very smart guy and has some very interesting perspectives and experience.

      The Google of Nanotech Cracks Cold Fusion


      • Roger Bird

        Where have you been? Astral projecting? I have missed you.

    • Jim

      In my personal opinion, not unless we discover Fleischmann’s demons down there in the lattice batting hydrogen nuclei this way and that…

  • Roger Bird

    I am impressed. Trying to understand the nucleus like we have been doing is like trying to understand how cars work by crashing them together and then examining the pieces that we find.

  • Karl

    I definitely think the search for the real effects of the energies seen from what we call CF/LENR, will contribute to look for a better understanding of both the micro- and the macro world.

    The micro world environment and its many enigmas, may for example be hidden by wrong assumptions of how matter is shaped, how matter interact with the (a)ether. Including how the (a)ether is structured within and around the elementary particles in or Galaxy, between our Galaxy and other Galaxies.

    In this regard I have found that the theoretical discussion and elaboration in Basic Structure of Matter (BSM) founded by Stoyan Sarg, offer an interesting and new holistic theoretical model.

  • lcd

    I agree with what he’s trying to say not necessarily with what he said.

  • John Littlemist

    Off topic, International Energy Agency’s latest annual medium-term renewable energy market report was released this week.


    Ars Technica is a tech site to my taste even though they and their readers seem to be totally ignorant about LENR.

  • Steve M

    Siemens – moving into cash with sellout of the cellular division including a water processing division

    * they are moving into Alternative Energy – google- Siemens sells


  • GreenWin

    Middle Ages – When moneychangers ruled the roost:


    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Who ruled in other ages?

      • fortyniner

        Doesn’t matter – they all had their strings pulled by the userers. The only thing that has changed is the degree, organisation and ambition of ‘shadow’ rule.

        • Roger Bird

          The only thing that has changed is that fortyniner is more paranoid now than he was when he was younger. (:->)

    • Steve M

      wonder who the New money changers are, or are they the same ones. )

      • GreenWin

        Probably only the names have changed. Bankers still run most, military, church, and organized crime the rest.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          I don’t think private bankers are all that powerful. Central banks must be powerful in order to mitigate the damage done by irresponsible politicians. We can thank Paul Volcker for straightening out Jimmy Carter’s mess. He reduced Carter’s 18% interest rates by 2/3rds in a couple of years.

        • Barry

          The Vatican just got it’s hand caught in the cookie jar laundering $. I’ve heard they were doing this, but thought it was just a rumor. Guess it’s another slap in the face by reality.

    • Jim


      “According to Batra (1978), the West is currently in the age of acquisitors, also known as Capitalism. This age succeeded the ‘age of intellectuals’, which gave birth to the Enlightenment and the British parliamentary system. Before that the West went through the ‘age of warriors’ and the age of discovery. Feudalism, an earlier ‘age of acquisitors’, reigned before that. It had replaced the ‘age of intellectuals’, with restrictions on religious thought and also gave birth to the Renaissance period. Before that, Rome ruled the West under the aegis of warriors.”

      • Jim

        I note that “Intellectuals” does not distinguish between scientists and priests.

        The rest of the cycle is that the Acquistors overdo it, the Laborers revolt, the Warriors step in to restore order, the Intellectuals rationalize and administer for the Warriors, and then the Acquisitors rise again.

        But it’s “just at theory”…

  • John De Herrera

    “completely new thinking” required
    YES! We are working in a new and different environment – inside the crystal lattice of a metal, infusing hydrogen, heating the metal, then applying RF energy to get a reaction and liberate heat. There is some type of nuclear reaction occurring inside the metal? Nuclear, most likely. jdh

  • Felix Fervens

    going back beyond the Middle Ages:

    Caveman Science Committee Concludes Fire Does Not Exist

  • KD

    From J-O-N-P

    Tim, on July 1st, 2013 at 9:59 AM

    Dr. Rossi
    When the factory in the USA gets up to speed, how many 1 MW plants a month will it be producing?
    Will these be warm-cats or hot-cats or both?
    Any idea when this will happen?

    Andrea Rossi, on July 1st, 2013 at 11:44 AM

    1- probably thousands
    2- both
    3- gradually
    Warm Regards,

    • kasom

      A.R seems to be not in the mood to do “rossy says” these answers say nothing.

      Andrea Rossi
      July 1st, 2013 at 11:47 AM

      Josh R:
      1- we will give detailed information in due time. For now I cannot give information about this issue
      2- the orders are issued to the US Manufacturer
      3- The production is made in the USA
      Warm Regards,

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Allan Kiik and others on Climate Change…..I am not a climate scientist. Can you give me any reason why I should not believe an over 90 percent probability that man is creating climate change as described in the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Board on Atmospheric Science and Climate, videos below? Thanks.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Why did you post that, Bernie? To get an argument going? What difference will it make if LENR is cheap and clean? What will you argue about then?

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Iggy…..”to get an argument going”, why would you say that, I think it is important to replace man made polluting with clean LENR. If it is true and we are denying man made pollution it is a restriction to the development of LENR.

    • AlainCo

      because claiming that something is true based on numerical model based on so many unknown parameters and free knobs, raise my experience as IT numerical expert.
      because when I see the evidence of bullying against researchers and magazine that disagree, I doubt of the rationality of the consensus.
      When I see economic reports that are clearly manipulating numbers to push predefined policy, I smell the manipulation…

      all that smell…

      see how many physicist believes in LENR, and you can understand what a consensus mean when there is bullying against dissenters, manipulation of peer-review, big funding, backroom politics…

      I know that the consensus on AGW is meaningless…no opposition is allowed, none is really funded, none is covered seriously… anti-AGW is at the state of LENR in 1990…

      maybe AGW is real, but current science is corrupted.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        “Consensus is what many people say in chorus but do not believe as individuals.” – Abba Eban

        • Roger Bird

          I am trying to limit my posting, really, but Iggy your posts are so good and this one is right on again.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Iggy…..Please refute the science, it is not enough to say consensus is not always right.

          • George N

            Climate Gate, other planets are warming as well, earth was hotter in the 17th century (is it natural for the earth’s temperature to remain constant of the course of centuries?) — AGW is not motivated by the environment, but by liberals that just want to use global warming as an excuse to create more burocracy to capture a new voting block, and for scientists to obtain continued funding (similar to hot fusionists), and socialists that want to get back at their successful college roomates!

          • Shane D.


            Well said!

            Short, sweet, and right on.

          • George N


          • elasticbucket

            George, and banksters bent on creating a new source of money, i.e. carbon trading schemes. Think about it!

          • George N

            I agree!

          • Bernie Koppenhofer
          • George N


            Also, why aren’t global warming advocates at least discussing the possibility that LENR could be a solution? I’ll answer: because LENR would deem most environmental regulations irrelevant — there is no single smoking gun to say which side is right, but when looking at all the evidence and who benefits in which ways, it is clear that AGW is a farce — similar to deciding if LENR is real, once you analyze the history, what dirty tricks the opposition used to suppress LENR, and who stands to lose the most if LENR is real, when all taken together it paints a pretty clear picture that LENR is real and is definitely worth funding for further development — but we have crooks in government/academia, so it doesn’t happen

          • Omega Z


            I could refute much of it, but the post would be so big that no one would read it.

            However, a simple answer is the Science doesn’t match the hardcore Real Data.
            They proclaim sea level rise according to their models when the physical measurements are negligible to none.

            Even hard data is simple to manipulate providing rock solid data for the record & can be totally bogus.

            Simply add CO2 sensors to populated areas during a recession & see where the numbers go when business returns to normal. This is exactly what the U.S. did. 1000 new CO2 sensors who’s data will be added to the central data collection.

            Bottom line: Follow the money…

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Omega Z…..Is there a site I can go to that refutes the science point by point?

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Omega Z….Your point is that the Co2 measurements are wrong….. I have researched that point and found it highly unlikely. From one source Wikipedia: “In 2009, the CO2 global average concentration in Earth’s atmosphere was about 0.0387%,[9] or 387 parts per million (ppm).[1][10] At the scientific recording station in Mauna Loa, the concentration reached 0.04% or 400 ppm for the first time in May 2013,[11][12] although this level had already been reached in the Arctic in June 2012.[13] There is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppmv which roughly follows the Northern Hemisphere’s growing season. The Northern Hemisphere dominates the annual cycle of CO2 concentration because it has much greater land area and plant biomass than the Southern Hemisphere. Concentrations peak in May as the Northern Hemisphere spring greenup begins and reach a minimum in October when the quantity of biomass undergoing photosynthesis is greatest.[14]
            Sir Brian Hoskins of the Royal Society said that the 400ppm milestone should “jolt governments into action”.[15] The National Geographic noted that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is this high “for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history”,[16] and according to the global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Lab, “it’s just a reminder to everybody that we haven’t fixed this, and we’re still in trouble.”

          • psi

            This, however, is not the real question. Everyone knows that CO2 is increasing. In fact, that’s part of the problem for anthropogenic warming advocates, because the warming signal (not) is now diverging markedly from the Co2 signal, suggesting weak correlation between the two. The earth seems poised on the verge of a distinctive cooling, even while CO2 continues to rise.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        AlainCo….I am just asking for a rational refutation of the scientific evidence presented here.


        • AlainCo

          milankovitch cycle are not believes as the dominant factor at out scale.
          Many factors have been denies, like land-usage change, oceanic cycles, sun activity (which seems not dominant, but was denied totally until recently, showing how dogmatic was that domain)

          note that CO2 does not match better that the milankovitch cycle, with recent data, and especially if you remove the strange biased corrections that get greater each year.

          My position is agnostic… destorying the others argument will not make the CO2 more credible…

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Proof that Climate change caused my man is unknowable? Is that your stance?

          • AlainCo

            ask Judith Curry. she worked for IPCC and, and ask her about the Uncertainty Monster.

            The problem is that today saying you don’t know is not politically correct.
            And saying that it is impossible to know is even worse.

            anyway this have no more any importance.

  • barty

    In Germany many energy companies want to rise the energy prices again next year!

    I hope Rossi will bring some industrial ecats into the (public and visible) market, to make these comanpies more pressure!

    • ltl

      First-time post. I found this NASA report cited in the comments at ColdFusionNow (hugely interesting). Is this old news? It’s new to me and I’ve been lurking for 2+ years!

      “Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research – Phase II” – N+4 Advanced Concept Development


      “Even though we do not know the specific cost of the LENR itself, we assumed a cost of jet fuel at $4/gallon and weight based aircraft cost. We were able to calculate cost per mile for the LENR equipped aircraft compared to a conventional aircraft (Figure 3.2). Looking at the plots, one could select a point where the projected cost per mile is 33% less than a conventionally powered aircraft.”
      3.0 LENR Requirements Analysis …pg 24
      Figure 3.1 – Potential Heat Engines for LENR Systems ..pg 25
      Figure 3.2 – Parametric LENR and Heat Engine Performance Parameters …pg 25
      6.2.3 Low Energy Nuclear Reactor Technologies …pg 82
      Table 6.3 – LENR Technologies Success Criteria …pg 86
      Also pgs 15, 18, 19, 20, and 21.
      39 folks who have been involved in this since May, 2011.

      I found pp. 96 on particularly interesting.


    • Miles

      Australia is BLEEEEEEEEEDING from energy cost rises every year. Normal size family home 2 kids – $800 per qtr for Electricity.

      • hempenearth

        Over 1 million households in Australia now have PV cells. Business electricity costs can come down if you group together with other businesses and buy in bulk (over 160 MwH per annum cut our rate from just over 27 cents per kWh to just over 18 cents per kWh. This can work for non businesses as well but much harder to organise

  • Robyn Wyrick

    Hey everybody, there are questions that have been on my mind.

    Why do people say LENR/CF/E-Cat would be essentially limitless and free?

    As I understand it, the preferred source of fuel these days is Nickle, which is highly abundant, but certainly not limitless. Is it “effectively limitless”? Is that the point?

    As for “free”, that just seems like hyperbole. Solar is “free” but the infrastructure is pricey. Certainly Rossi intends to do good to the Earth and her people, but it seems equally certain that he (and his investors) intend to do very well for themselves.

    So, can I get that question answered? Where does the notion of limitless and free come from?

    (PS: the other notion is “clean” which I think is the really exciting part).


    • Engineer

      I am working on permitting a mining project with several Billion with a B pounds/kilograms of nickle in the ground. That will keep the cats fed for several years.

      • Roger Bird

        Let’s say 2 billion kilograms, to be conservative. That would be 2,000,000,000,000 grams. Let’s say that the population plateaus out at 10 billion, which the trends and stats show for number of children per woman. That is 200 grams for every man, woman, and child. That would last everyone for the next 100 years.

        But even better, when the nickel is “spent” it is not like fission waste. You take the “waste” and refine it, and we would have plenty of nickel from the waste. So, let us be conservative again, and say that your mine would last us 150 years. And this is just one mine.

        I suggest that the amount of nickel that we get just mining iron and other minerals would be enough to keep LENR+ going forever.

        Don’t invest in any nickel mines.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer


      • Boondogled

        Well it wouldn’t be free. But this technology may trivialize electricity to a point where we treat it like getting a glass of water at a restaurant. Water is not free, it is metered, so a glass of water may cost less than a penny. Compared to the $20 you’ll spend for the meal. If electricity cost an order of magnitude cheaper it would be a lot easier to take it for granted. Also with this technology, you could bring it to other resources easier, so many things would become cheaper.
        As an example: Pumping Oil in remote regions would be way more cost effective, if you didn’t pay through the nose burning up your revenue on gas/electric generators, which cost on the order of $30/kWh, because it uses gas to haul refuels out. An E-Cat would cost you about $0.02/kWh, and wouldn’t need to refuel for 6 months.

        What really makes this a game changer, is you will be able to hook it right up to the existing infrastructure. Bam!, low overhead to adopt too.

        For starters, using an Ecat to heat your house in the winter would takeover even Natural Gas. I heat my house with Gas, it costs me about 250 a month. The Ecat would cost about 75 bucks a month for my square footage, based on Rossi’s calculations. Plus I could get rid of those giant ugly tanks.

        • Roger Bird

          I am confused. The upfront money for the e-cat is like $500 to $1000 for a home unit. But the monthly costs are going to be way less than $75, unless you are figuring in the upfront money on a monthly basis. The monthly costs would be like $1.67 per month.

          • Omega Z

            I believe he’s figuring the cost of 1200Kwh per month electricity it requires to power the E-cat at this time.

            However this speculation means nothing until we get a physical unit with solid numbers to work with. All of which is still in flux.

            The Math works like- 1200x .xx cents=Operation cost.
            Doesn’t include price of cat or refills.

          • sparks

            Whoa! 1200 KWh per month is 40 KWh per day. I hope that is a typo (or a math-o). Power consumption of 40 KWh per day is more than most US homes use per day for ALL their electricity needs. In California (PG&E territory), 40 KWh per day would cost about $120 per month. But the worst part is, it would put the household into the highest electricity cost tier, so any additional electricity they use (appliances, lights, television, pool pumps, etc.) would cost them between 30 cents minimum, and over 50 cents maximum, per KWh, depending upon time of day — exorbitant, in other words.

    • AlainCo

      1% of today nickel production is enough for all planet energy.

    • daniel maris

      I agree- I’ve always cautioned against the idea this is going to be “free”.

      However it does seem to have the scope to reduce the cost of electricity production – maybe getting it down to something like 2 cents per KwHE. That could be significant, and of course it will bring huge environmental and economic benefits, especially for those countries dependent on imported energy.

      • Roger Bird

        daniel, I think that it will go way lower than 2 cents per Kwh, especially as we get better at this. The upfront costs will certainly not be free, but not nearly as painful as solar. Perhaps even 1/3 of wind, and far more reliable. But it will never be free. And it will do NOTHING to reduce the energy required for human effort. And once people see the beauty of simplicity thanks to LENR, they may turn against the idea of robots, which will greatly increase complexity. I am already against robots; I just had to deal with telephone robots; my frustration and words were roughly akin to your dog pooping on your living room floor carpet. (:->)

        • daniel maris

          Why do you day that Roger when Rossi charges one million dollars per 1 MW capacity – about the same as wind energy (though more reliable we might assume) – but more expensive than cheap gas ?

          I think your ideas on robots are interesting. We CERTAINLY need a debate on robots. We need to become intelligent! 🙂

          • Omega Z


            New Products always cost more & have glitches to be worked out.

            Both will improve in time.

            Rossi has already said the life-cycle of the hardware may be 50 years instead of 30. This alone changes the math on cost per Kwatt output.

            Also note that Solar & wind never meet output potential. Efficiencies are never met.

          • Barry

            off topic, Daniel, google flying robots- Ted talks. The future has happened.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      You’re right Robyn, nickel is not limitless and as for solar, the sun will eventually fizzle out too. I prefer the word cheap to free. Even lunch isn’t free.

      • Barry

        Iggy, my neighbor gave me rights to cut up trees from a storm which I cut, loaded, unloaded, split, stacked, carried into the house and loaded into the wood stove. Free energy! But boy does my back hurt.

    • Glenn

      Proponents of LENR technology need to be very careful with the language they use.

      Words like “free” and “limitless” are huge red flags to the minds of the very skeptical. Those are the words of perpetual motion, the words of the crack-pot.

      I don’t even care for the word “cheap”. Even if LENR ran on nothing but the nitrogen in our atmosphere, it would still be an enormous upfront cost to uproot our entire energy infrastructure and put a new one in place. I challenge you to look past the obvious monetary return on investment and think also of the very real and far-reaching human costs associated with a disruptive technology such as this one.

      I’d instead favor the use of words such as “abundant” and “clean”, with liberal use of “relatively” for good measure.

      • Omega Z


        Agreed, Certain words invite attacks from skeptics even in proven technology.

      • fortyniner

        Lets just say ‘less expensive’ power. Or even ‘considerably less expensive’ if we really want to push the boat out.

      • AlainCo

        NiH energy have nothing surprising from a nuclear energy.

        Hydrogen seems consumed like Fusion, and nickel seems required and not even necessarily consumed, like uranium.
        Like for nuclear energy the quantity of fuel used is ridiculous.
        The new things is that Hydrogen and Nickel are among the 5 elements the most common on earth.

        their cost is ridiculous, and their abundance is gigantic…
        Nothing is free, but sure raw nickel per kW cost less that a thousands of oil equivalent…
        Nickel manufacture may be more expensive, but seems cheap.
        Reactor is the most expensive, making it only 10x less expensive than nuke, but at a much lower scale.

        Electricity will still be quite expensive because or turbines, except if the cost or turbines get much lower.

  • BroKeeper

    I’m not sure if this was posted before but wouldn’t the operational cost of an electrical 5-10KW E-Cat installed in an average home be offset by adding its excess output to the electric grid? If so, wouldn’t that add a credit to your electric bill and eventually bring the cost of grid electricity down the more E-Cats installed to the grid. If the cost of electricity keeps dropping wouldn’t that force the electric companies to compete by installing E-Cats of their own. If the electric companies convert filthy coal/gas fuels to zero friendly E-Cats wouldn’t that result in further downturn of emissions and electrical costs, perhaps far below 2 cents/KW? Could this bring everyone’s buying power closer to equality and with less medical bills? Is this a pie-in-the-sky theory (sorry for my naivety) or is it within our grasp? What beasts are lurking in the bushes?

    • Joe Shea

      ou’ve got the potential exactly right, but it ain’t happeniung. AR says some regulator says he can’t do, in direct contravention of Pres. Obama’s October Executive Order on co-generation of heat and electricity. There is also the problem of a thermoconversion device, which either National Instruments or Siemens is reportedly working (slowly) on.

      • KD

        Maybe Rossi realised that it is better to fill market with 1MW E-Cat plants. It might bring him better profit than from domestic 10kW plants.
        Other thing. It can prevent any financial katastrofy in case of some flow in design. It is easier to fix 1MW plant than recall 100 of 10 KW plants.
        Also. To produce 10 MW of electricity it will need to make 30 1 MW E-Cats and connect to existing in production turbines and generators.
        To get the same with small plants, it will need about three thousand of 10 kW E-Cats plus design and build the same number of small turbines and generators.

    • Omega Z

      Selling to the grid would shortly cease.

      If Business & the people have E-cats, To Whom would the Power Companies sell it to?

      2 cents is probably overly optimistic.
      The E-cat only produces heat. The Turbine/Generator costs & maintenance wont be any cheaper then it is now. This has to be calculated into the per Kwatt costs.

      Maybe sometime in the future, some solid state energy conversion will change this.

      However, the real savings will come from across the board. Everything we build, use, transport or eat is highly energy intensive. All these costs will be reduced.

      • BroKeeper

        Yeah, good points from all above but wouldn’t it be great not to see power towers and telephone poles Canada is now enjoying?
        When the people recognize the huge positives, pressures won’t be far behind, unless something more sinister occurs – let us not think about that for now (head buried).
        Oh! What is this Infinity Turbine with 50% efficiency claimed using Supercritical CO2 as one moving part and produced by 3D printers – hmmmmmm.

    • Miles

      No. You have to think like a greedy corporation. The price would continue to rise as the power companies would always argue that there is infrastructure maintenance to the network. Personally, I don’t EVER see electricity coming down soon. I could be wrong. Wishful thinking??

      • Rockyspoon

        Or you could think like a super greedy tyrrant, of which there have been plenty in the past, and continue to this day. And they tend to resort to violence when they don’t get their way.

        It amazes me that people consider corporations to be evil because they want to make a profit. Corporations only exist because they provide more value than they require–that differential is measured as profit.

        You try building a corporation without the profit motive and see how many people want to invest in your little enterprise–good luck, because you’ll likely end up as a sole proprietor failure and pauper.

        Now, admittedly corporations run amok when they’re granted special privileges from governments, as they are in China–the results is called crony capitalism, which is becoming a problem in the US and other countries, too.

        Once a government chooses winners and losers, there’s always kickbacks, corruption, and less efficiencies (An extreme example is when the Soviet Union dissolved and they started using accounting procedures in their gold mining industry, they found one third of their gold production was costing more per ounce than the current spot price–certainly a profit motive eliminates such waste and inefficiencies.)

        You can always rail about corporations and wish to eliminate them, but then what do you replace them with? Completely inefficient Big Government? (It would have to be “Big” to replace what corporations currently do.) Or do you replace it with your corporation? Tell me, what has changed?

        Rossi’s product could be a game changer, and using a corporation is required, unless you want him to work for free, but then we’d never hear from him again. He might even have to develope relationships with governments that are crony in nature–if so, that might be a requirement to get into production and his product accepted.

        And Rossi can only attract the necessary capital to make this happen if he offers incentives to investors, even for himself. He’s in a position to make a difference, and a corporation appears to be the best business vehicle. I don’t see Big Government stepping in and helping. Nor should anybody want that. (A politicized Hot Cat would be a disaster.)

  • ltl

    New NASA

    New NASA report discussing use of LENR in airplanes:

    Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research – Phase II” – N+4 Advanced Concept Development

    • Andrew Macleod

      They can’t determine a performance level for lenr so they have to assume the output power, but came to the conclusion that it is do able. Maybe one of the smarter people here coulda convert the most current test results and extrapolate NASAs findings.

    • Sanjeev

      Is it new ? The date is May 2012.
      I remember the SUGAR project was discussed before. The report recommended further study and investigation of LENR. I wonder how that is going.

  • Omega Z

    I found some Rossi posts I haven’t seen here as of yet that are interesting.

    Andrea Rossi June 26th, 2013 at 7:59 AM

    Paul D. Kendall:
    Thank you for your kind considerations. Yes, soon we will need much help. Very important developments are close to pop up. The USA factory is in advanced status ( it is magnificent), and important developments are coming up.
    Warm Regards, A.R.
    Herb Gillis June 26th, 2013 at 10:38 AM

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    When you said earlier today that “soon we will need much help”, do you mean you will be hiring employees?
    Kind Regards; HRG.
    Andrea Rossi June 26th, 2013 at 1:39 PM

    Herb Gillis:
    Warm Regards, A.R.

  • TimBob

    This is a very interesting interview. Rossi uses the words destructive and constructive to describe the ways in which we go about harnessing the energy of an atom.

    I am reminded here of the work of Viktor Shauberger whom discovered the hitherto unknown process of “Implosion”, which he found was the process with which Nature uses to essntially create all that surrounds us… Explosion being the process that is primarly used by Nature to break-down degrade or destroy, NOT to create.

    Our current scientific thought process has been to use Explosion to harness the energy of an atom, this is counter-intuitive/productive since you are destroying something in order to create something… Better to create whilst maintaining the life of that which you have used to create from in the first place.

    In addition it has been theorized that inside the nucleaus of an atom lives a spiralling column of vibrational energy which again would completely tie in with Shaubergers work… Each and every atom is like a tiny Implosion power generator!