A Non-Conservative Outlook for LENR

The following post was sent by ECW reader Christopher Dennis as a comment on an earlier thread titled ‘The Structural Impacts of LENR‘, and I felt this would be a good starting point for a new thread.

I think the thread started by Oaklandthinktank — while very insightful about many of the possible scenarios surrounding the future of LENR, and very useful in generating discussion surrounding this — is too conservative on the dramatic possibilities of LENR, particularly in its speed of deployment and the compounding effects of its destabilising influence.

There is a tradition or tendency with destabilizing technologies to make predictions that are far too conservative — the idea that 640 K memory would be enough memory for anybody is only one example that comes to mind. While our current predictions may make sense within the paradigms that we function within at this point in time, these paradigms are pretty change , especially in conjunction with the destabilizing influence of LENR.

Paradigm shifts on several levels will have a compounding effect that will make it further difficult to predict any outcome. Furthermore, the speed at which these paradigm shifts occur currently is increasing, and has an exponential trend, so that it may be the case that full shifts are happening without us even being aware of them. With that being said, I feel we can make some projections that fall reasonably in-line with that which LENR will create.

It seems Oaklandthinktank’s this thread has probably grossly underestimated the gravity and quick impact that LENR will have on our current energy situation — particularly pricing. The tendency to be conservative both these projections, as mentioned above, is habitual and instinctive , but is shown to be incorrect almost across the board. We will not have to wait 10 to 15 years, for example, for all transport sectors to be radically modified by the deployment of LENR. Almost every argument on this forum that supports a drawn-out effect of LENR on the transport industry, as opposed to an immediate effect, makes the claim that it’ll take many years to switch to electric motors in all sectors. The presumption that we need to alter any existing craft at this point completely ignores the possibility of substituting fossil fuel with ELECTRICALLY GENERATED SYNTHETIC FUELS that will be far far cheaper with the advent of LENR.

We can all buy electric cars in the future, but as soon as LENR is deployed, the companies that make synthetic gasoline, diesel, and other fuels will be able to immediately produce these items at a far, far cheaper price than their fossil fuel analogues, making them available to pump into EXISTING vehicles. All existing refueling infrastructure (with the exemption of key input components) could remain the same. The local gas station can pump electrically-sourced gasoline into your current vehicle. Diesel trucks that form the backbone of transport of manufactured goods in North America could be refueled with existing diesel infrastructure , only with electrically synthesized diesel in the place of its regular form.

The entire shipping industry of the planet would make use of electrically synthesized fuels at a price far, far below what is currently being paid. The collective savings would not simply disappear as corporate profits – although certainly corporate profits would be increased — this money saved on fuel will be available to spend on all other areas of the economy by companies AND the consumer, where it was previously not available. This will be a BOON to all of these other parts of the economy — and will create more jobs – and will lead to greater productivity, innovation compounding towards higher economic growth, and effectively making the collective FAR richer than before.

There’s a reason why nearly no one employed in North America does the hard labor that their great-grandparents did. Most of the employed are reasonably fed, clothed, have some form of medical care, have access to basic transport ation, operate within a reasonably-conditioned temperature environment and have many other basic necessities that they did not produce themselved, but often exchange some form of service for these items that contains within it labor that is vastly less than the amount of “work” performed to create all these necessities (our great-grandparents and particularly a great-great grandparents were responsible for performing the labor to actually create many, if not most of these necessities for themselves, and thereby had far less of these necessities, with a greater amount of work invested to acquire them).

Right now the average Western desk-job worker is clothed, fed, heated, cooled and transported about, without their chopping any wood for heating or cooking, or tilling the land/growing food, or sewing/producing their own clothes (or having a family member sew them / produce them ), etc. The desk-worker gets all of the benefits of modern living via performing a service that is abstract ( for example, a computer programmer deals strictly in abstract, symbolic figures that have nothing to do directly with producing by hand all the goods and services that the computer programmer consumes). This kind of existence is made possible only by an increasing array of technologically advancing machines, all powered by cheap energy to do the ‘heavy lifting’. The advent of LENR will exponentially accelerate this process.

At the time of the American Revolution, 95% of American labor was in agriculture. As a previous post on this forum pointed out, though many dreaded the loss of employment due to the industrialization of the farm process, these workers were freed up to perform more advanced tasks – for example, working on the farm machines that had taken over their previous jobs – to the effect of eventually exploding the economy. This trend will not sputter with LENR , but will be sped up.

LENR will vastly increase our ability to “saddle” our machines with our increasing demands , further freeing us up in ways we can’t now understand, to do things we haven’t yet dreamt of. The massive effect that LENR deployment will have on world energy prices is only one effect that has been underestimated. Because of compounding effects , making any predictions about LENR is difficult , but I believe it is the conservative ones that will prove to be the most inaccurate – this being something we have seen before with other destabilizing technologies.

Christopher Dennis


  • LENR G

    I think a real good rule of thumb to keep in mind regarding human predictions are that we typically vastly overpredict short term change and radically misunderstand the direction of long term change.

    In other words our ability to factor in the necessary time for change to propagate usually misses key factors like economic and engineering realities and wrongly focuses only on what’s possible. And that our imagination usually takes us down the ‘wrong’ paths regarding long term change, which is steered by many factors, and misses many key developments.

    The reality is that predicting the future is complicated complex business.

    Hence, LENR will likely take an agonizingly long time to be acknowledged and get to market. It will also likely change the world much more radically and in different ways than even us here ‘in the know’ have projected.

  • I think a real good rule of thumb to keep in mind regarding human predictions are that we typically vastly overpredict short term change and radically misunderstand the direction of long term change.

    In other words our ability to factor in the necessary time for change to propagate usually misses key factors like economic and engineering realities and wrongly focuses only on what’s possible. And that our imagination usually takes us down the ‘wrong’ paths regarding long term change, which is steered by many factors, and misses many key developments.

    The reality is that predicting the future is complicated complex business.

    Hence, LENR will likely take an agonizingly long time to be acknowledged and get to market. It will also likely change the world much more radically and in different ways than even us here ‘in the know’ have projected.

  • bachcole

    Outstanding!

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Christopher,
    You are unduly optimistic. There is a tendency for people to be locked in current jobs and technology. When major changes came (the industrial revolution, development of automobiles, airplanes, electric light and motors, computers, etc.) there eventually was a total change for the better. However, when automobiles came on the scene, workers at horse stables, whip makers, etc., lost jobs and mainly did not adapt in favorable ways. It took a new generation to take full advantage of the change. When farm machines come on the scene, many farmers went broke and moved to the cities looking for jobs, and went through a generation of problems. When high tech machines caused loss of factory jobs (not even considering jobs lost overseas), loss of total employment grew, and is still a problem in many cities. In general, some in the generation affected by a major change suffer, and it is following generations that more fully adapt. This should not have to happen, but it seems to be human nature. I think the LENR and related technologies will have a much slower imposed positive effect than you seem to indicate (with likely negative initial impact in the very large present energy industry), but a very positive long term effect.

    • Donk970

      There’s this odd tendency in some quarters to imagine that automation and offshoring of jobs will somehow benefit the workers with easier jobs or shorter hours. What always happens is that the new profits derived from paying fewer workers goes into the pockets of the corporate owners; it never benefits workers. Corporations will always seek to remove people from the negative side of their balance sheets. In the long run this will destroy those same corporations but they are not capable of thinking or acting long term. That’s what governments are for.

      • Job001

        Agree, Short term: job losses.

        Medium term, new jobs/more small business and cheaper products.

        Long term, very cheap products and self-sufficient people.

        Another view; Corporations first, small businesses second, and people last.
        This is due mostly to investment size and economy of scale.
        Large scale investment first, medium second and small scale(personal robot, 3D printers, computers) are developed last.

    • Obvious

      Unduly optimistic comments are to be expected on a thread about non-conservative outlooks.:)

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Christopher,
    You are unduly optimistic. There is a tendency for people to be locked in current jobs and technology. When major changes came (the industrial revolution, development of automobiles, airplanes, electric light and motors, computers, etc.) there eventually was a total change for the better. However, when automobiles came on the scene, workers at horse stables, whip makers, etc., lost jobs and mainly did not adapt in favorable ways. It took a new generation to take full advantage of the change. When farm machines come on the scene, many farmers went broke and moved to the cities looking for jobs, and went through a generation of problems. When high tech machines caused loss of factory jobs (not even considering jobs lost overseas), loss of total employment grew, and is still a problem in many cities. In general, some in the generation affected by a major change suffer, and it is following generations that more fully adapt. This should not have to happen, but it seems to be human nature. I think the LENR and related technologies will have a much slower imposed positive effect than you seem to indicate (with likely negative initial impact in the very large present energy industry), but a very positive long term effect.

    • Donk970

      There’s this odd tendency in some quarters to imagine that automation and offshoring of jobs will somehow benefit the workers with easier jobs or shorter hours. What always happens is that the new profits derived from paying fewer workers goes into the pockets of the corporate owners; it never benefits workers. Corporations will always seek to remove people from the negative side of their balance sheets. In the long run this will destroy those same corporations but they are not capable of thinking or acting long term. That’s what governments are for.

      • Job001

        Agree, Short term: job losses.

        Medium term, new jobs/more small business and cheaper products.

        Long term, very cheap products and self-sufficient people.

        Another view; Corporations first, small businesses second, and people last.
        This is due mostly to investment size and economy of scale.
        Large scale investment first, medium second and small scale(personal robot, 3D printers, computers) are developed last.

      • bachcole

        “pockets of the corporate owners” always means investments. Only the fool would put their money under their mattress.

    • Obvious

      Unduly optimistic comments are to be expected on a thread about non-conservative outlooks.:)

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Synthetic hydrocarbon fuel needs energy and carbon to make. Although LENR might provide the energy, it certainly doesn’t provide the carbon. It could work if one replaces hydrocarbons with ammonia made from water and air, but then existing engines and fuel systems should be modified – perhaps not much, but modified anyway.

    • Job001

      Carbon can be recycled, absorbed from the air, plants do it, given low cost energy. US wood(and other biomass) is nearly fully renewable and will be even more so with LENR energy to harvest and process.
      Ammonia is a no-go idea, it kills people in 5 minutes at about 200PPM, at 25PPM lung damage starts.

    • Donk970

      There is a vast amount of carbon in the atmosphere which can be extracted using electricity.

    • Warthog

      Lots of carbon in the garbage you leave at your curb to go to the landfill. Plus lots of other goodies (metals). Cheap LENR energy will make it possible to gasify the carbon fraction into CO and H2 (just add water), which can then be reacted in many ways into liquid fuels. Now you have to pay to dispose of it…….in future, they may pay you for it.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Synthetic hydrocarbon fuel needs energy and carbon to make. Although LENR might provide the energy, it certainly doesn’t provide the carbon. It could work if one replaces hydrocarbons with ammonia made from water and air, but then existing engines and fuel systems should be modified – perhaps not much, but modified anyway.

    • Job001

      Carbon can be recycled, absorbed from the air, plants do it, given low cost energy. US wood(and other biomass) is nearly fully renewable and will be even more so with LENR energy to harvest and process.
      Ammonia is a no-go idea, it kills people in 5 minutes at about 200PPM, at 25PPM lung damage starts.

    • Donk970

      There is a vast amount of carbon in the atmosphere which can be extracted using electricity.

    • Warthog

      Lots of carbon in the garbage you leave at your curb to go to the landfill. Plus lots of other goodies (metals). Cheap LENR energy will make it possible to gasify the carbon fraction into CO and H2 (just add water), which can then be reacted in many ways into liquid fuels. Now you have to pay to dispose of it…….in future, they may pay you for it.

  • Christopher Calder

    “The entire shipping industry of the planet would make use of electrically synthesized fuels at a price far, far below what is currently being paid.”

    Perhaps, but only very briefly. Even first generation LENR reactors are good enough to power ships directly through making steam. A ship is an easy and large, stable platform to couple Hyperions or Hot-Cat reactors in large enough numbers to power a 80,000 HP turbine ship engine. Defkalion already has plans for that. Trains will be second easiest to power with LENR. Cars will be difficult because of the small spaces and G forces.

  • “The entire shipping industry of the planet would make use of electrically synthesized fuels at a price far, far below what is currently being paid.”

    Perhaps, but only very briefly. Even first generation LENR reactors are good enough to power ships directly through making steam. A ship is an easy and large, stable platform to couple Hyperions or Hot-Cat reactors in large enough numbers to power a 80,000 HP turbine ship engine. Defkalion already has plans for that. Trains will be second easiest to power with LENR. Cars will be difficult because of the small spaces and G forces.

    • bachcole

      Also, when you want to “sail” from San Francisco to Tokyo (5140 miles), you just turn that baby on and keep on truckin’ (so to speak). But when you want to drive from San Francisco to even just get from the Ferry Building in SF to Mill Valley in Marin County (14.8 miles), it is stop and go and stop and go and stop and go and stop and go and stop and go and stop and go and etc. You get the picture.

  • QcJym

    “synthesized fuels”? Looks like someone is missing the point here. LENR is not only to reduce cost, it’s more to get rid of pollution, you know, burning fuel, witchever kind it is…

  • QcJym

    “synthesized fuels”? Looks like someone is missing the point here. LENR is not only to reduce cost, it’s more to get rid of pollution, you know, burning fuel, witchever kind it is…

    • AstralProjectee

      I think you missed the point. synthesized fuels are just meant to be temporary until we get certification for transportation industries like planes, jets, trains, ships, cars, etc. Since it will take longer to get certification and a working system for those than it will be to just make synthesized fuels from LENR. Obviously LENR power direct is better than converting it to gas which costs money for conversion. So again it’s just temporary until we get certification, testing, and a system set up to use LENR in transportation.

      Peace.

      • timycelyn

        And it really depends on what the carbon source of the synthesised fuel is. If this abundant and cheap energy can be used to take carbon dioxide as the original carbon source, then (possibly via reduction to carbon monoxide and reaction with hydrogen from water) take it up to simple hydrocarbons, then the whole ‘burning fuels is bad for the environment’ thing would be for the history books.

        But I agree this would only be bridging technology allowing use of more or less current vehicles and fuel distribution network. In the longer term, a reactor under your car hood clearly beats all comers….

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    The total efficiency of synthesizing carbon-hydrogen fuels and then using it again for transport is very inefficient and will not be able to compete with direct conversion to electricity. True, direct conversion will take time to develop, but building large scale synthesizing factories will also take time. At the same time we know all kind of heat to electricity conversion techniques, which will not take long to develop for small size applications like transport. At he same time there is a possibility that the very strong magnetic anomalies can be used to directly generate electrical power from the LENR process.

    • Fortyniner

      I agree – I think that widespread production and distribution of synthetic fuels is unlikely. The world consumes some 3.5 billion tonnes of oil per year, mainly for liquid fuels, so at present usage, an equivalent amount of carbon feedstock would need to be found from somewhere and processed into hydrocarbons or alcohols for use in IC engines. The only feasible sources to meet such a demand are probably carbonate rocks (limestone, chalk) or just conceivably, CO2 in seawater.

      Either way a massive investment would have to be made in infrastructure in order to create the synthetic fuels at an energy efficiency of just a few percent, and in the full knowledge that the market would decline rapidly and essentially be gone in a decade or so as electric propulsion takes over. There would also be great competition from oil companies exploiting the remaining reserves by attempting to undercut any such enterprise. Quite simply, no-one is going to stump up the billions necessary to invest in such a market.

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    The total efficiency of synthesizing carbon-hydrogen fuels and then using it again for transport is very inefficient and will not be able to compete with direct conversion to electricity. True, direct conversion will take time to develop, but building large scale synthesizing factories will also take time. At the same time we know all kind of heat to electricity conversion techniques, which will not take long to develop for small size applications like transport. At he same time there is a possibility that the very strong magnetic anomalies can be used to directly generate electrical power from the LENR process.

    • I agree – I think that widespread production and distribution of synthetic liquid fuels is unlikely. The world consumes some 3.5 billion tonnes of oil per year, mainly for liquid fuels, so at present usage an equivalent amount of carbon feedstock would need to be found from somewhere and processed into hydrocarbons or alcohols for use in IC engines. The only feasible sources to meet such a demand are probably carbonate rocks (limestone, chalk) or just conceivably, CO2 in seawater.

      Either way a massive investment would have to be made in infrastructure in order to create the synthetic fuels at an energy efficiency of just a few percent, and in the full knowledge that the market would decline rapidly and essentially be gone in a decade or so as electric propulsion takes over. There would also be great competition from oil companies exploiting the remaining reserves by attempting to undercut any such enterprise. Quite simply, no-one is going to stump up the billions necessary to invest in such a market.

      IC engines are destined to become a part of the preservation movement, and in a few years your precious BMW Z4 will be something you take to rallies twice a year to be seen alongside steam traction engines and single cylinder oil burning tractors. Its fuel will probably have to be purchased from specialist companies in 5 litre drums.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Not only can we not know what change LENR will bring, we cannot know what LENR will become, or what other unrelated changes will accompany it in into the future. Prophecy is a fools game, when you are headed toward the singularity where change becomes exponentially greater with each passing day.

    But this we can know: Any thing which is capable of short term doubling (or greater) in returns. Will rage across every available avenue of advancement beyond the wildest dreams of compound interest for a banker getting 100% interest, more like yeast doubling every twenty seconds. A cascade or avalanche of unstoppable momentum. If it comes at all, it will come with an unprecedented rate of growth, and it will carry with it a wall of revolution like a tsunami.

    Embrace the change, learn to swim!

  • Ophelia Rump

    Not only can we not know what change LENR will bring, we cannot know what LENR will become, or what other unrelated changes will accompany it in into the future. Prophecy is a fools game, when you are headed toward the singularity where change becomes exponentially greater with each passing day.

    But this we can know: Any thing which is capable of short term doubling (or greater) in returns. Will rage across every available avenue of advancement beyond the wildest dreams of compound interest for a banker getting 100% interest, more like yeast doubling every twenty seconds. A cascade or avalanche of unstoppable momentum. If it comes at all, it will come with an unprecedented rate of growth, and it will carry with it a wall of revolution like a tsunami.

    Embrace the change, learn to swim!

  • AstralProjectee

    Many people also over look the potential of LENR to lower the amount of money it takes to make gold and other elements. So LENR could very well provide a efficient way to lower the price of gold by making it more profitable to make gold. There are several methods of doing this. All that needs to happen is the price of energy to go down enough and BAM we can make gold cheaper than it is to buy it. Also since we can make man made diamonds that more perfect than nature and since LENR will lower those costs, diamonds should go down too. I can only imagine. This is not even including the potential for using LENR to transmute common elements into rare elements. So instead of replying on china for rare earth minerals we can make our own rare earth minerals directly through transmutation while gaining from the excess heat. Nanospire is known for doing this kind of research. They have done a good job of it too.

    • orsobubu

      What is the sense in making gold cheaper? gold is almost useless at all, its sense is in retaining real value against inflated paper money. In an ideal, post capitalistic world, yes, we must make laws to reduce the value of gold to zero, not because it is much cheaper to produce it, but because we need to abrogate money and exploitation in general. The final task for mankind is to abolish this system altogether, not to create more problems to the already incredibly messed up situation. Not to mention that, in any case, financial authorities surely would apply any trick to manipulate gold price and avoid its democratic possession. Don’t forget that gold production price is much lower than its market price, also in these times, when the price is purposely kept freezed by central banks; I think that, against the dollar, if it should reflect the real value and let be freely fluctuating, it would be 3X, even 5X the current level.

  • Fibb

    electrically derived combustion fuels replacing fossil fuels faster than electric motors and batteries??? <<< LOL…. this is absurd. electric motors/batteries are going to win in transportation, LENR or no LENR. Please.

    • Charles

      You’re welcome. Yes, electric cars – maybe. Have you ever heard of ultra-capacitors, ala EESTOR or whomever. Bye-bye batteries, 1800’s technology. Hang around Fib. Learn something.

      • Fibb

        LOL again…. yes I’ve heard of EEStor 😉 … in fact I’m that Fibb…. y’know THE Fibb from theeestory.com. I was just speaking generically when I said batteries. ZMC PR’d today btw.

        • Charles

          Good to meet you Fibb. I’m the cstewart1929 that tabs into EESTOR.com every now and then. Great story that EESTOR. Being an electronics engineer in my past life I had fits of joy when I first found out about EESTOR and what they thought they could do. Also, I have great experience in control systems using permanent magnet (and alnico- glad PMs can replace that) DC motors, and I love the very thought of combining EESTOR capacitors and electric motors. EESTOR capacitors and solid state PWM control of pancake motor wheels seems to be the way to go for autos. Virtually instant charging of the capacitor is the thing that really rings my bell.

          I’m waiting to hear what Evans has to say, they apparently can really be relied on. I looked up the PR and presumably, Zenn is trying to totally capture EESTOR. Now why-ever would they want to do that?

  • GreenWin

    One reason for liberal optimism is the steady stream of CF patent applications appearing. The latest, partially financed by Navy Surface Warfare Center (Indian Head Div), filed by inventor Pharis Williams looks to be a D+D fusion reactor utilizing thermoelectric diodes to produce 10kWe output in an home AC-sized unit. See post in Always Open Thread. http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/10/always-open-e-cat-world-thread/

    • roseland67

      Greenwin,
      The total # of patents might slow any industrial development as
      everyone with a patent will claim their patent is being infringemed upon
      so the first succesful deployment may get hung up in court battles for decades.

      • GreenWin

        True. But I see enough major differences in the approach to obtain these LENR effects. This one claims D+D fusion (via metal hydride) without gamma at very low energy levels and Williams scales the whole thing up to achieve energy density useful even at low thermal conversion efficiency. Doubtful this infringes on any other LENR patents currently in play. But we can be sure there will be major infringement battles. Especially with big players like STMicro and Google involved.

        • SiriusMan

          In what sense is Google involved in LENR?

          • GreenWin

            They’re not, that I know of. They ARE heavily invested in HEM (Home energy Management) having acquired “energy appliance” startup Nest Labs for a 30X multiple of $3.2B. Nest is partnered with utility NRG to manage home energy systems. NRG is testing the Beacon10 micro-CHP based on Deka’s Stirling engine. Google’s overinflated price for Nest suggests “energy appliances” include more than an intelligent thermostat.

      • Allan Shura

        The patents only apply to real improvements that enhance the technology from what has expired. There has to be a significant market share to continue in business as the originator after expiry. There has to be capital and a level of knowledge to add to the product enough to put competitors using prior art at a disadvantage. That is what keeps companies going with small incremental improvements rather that the boundary of what can be realized. The irony is that prior art can be often enhanced with new materials or add-ons and that many energy expired patents have significant utility. This is even though many game changing patents were never put on to the market in useable products. Expired patents look to be the starting point or base building block for both
        start up business and open source development.

  • GreenWin

    One reason for liberal optimism is the steady stream of CF patent applications appearing. The latest, partially financed by Navy Surface Warfare Center (Indian Head Div), filed by inventor Pharis Williams looks to be a D+D fusion reactor utilizing thermoelectric diodes to produce 10kWe output in an home AC-sized unit. See post in Always Open Thread. http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/10/always-open-e-cat-world-thread/

    • roseland67

      Greenwin,
      The total # of patents might slow any industrial development as
      everyone with a patent will claim their patent is being infringemed upon
      so the first succesful deployment may get hung up in court battles for decades.

      • GreenWin

        True. But I see enough major differences in the approach to obtain these LENR effects. This one claims D+D fusion (via metal hydride) without gamma at very low energy levels and Williams scales the whole thing up to achieve energy density useful even at low thermal conversion efficiency. Doubtful this infringes on any other LENR patents currently in play. But we can be sure there will be major infringement battles. Especially with big players like STMicro and Google involved.

        • SiriusMan

          In what sense is Google involved in LENR?

          • bachcole

            At this point in time, from our perspective, we are absolutely, positively certain that in our fantasies (speculations?) Google is involved with LENR. Other than that, we don’t really know squat. (:->)

          • GreenWin

            They’re not, that I know of. They ARE heavily invested in HEM (Home energy Management) having acquired “energy appliance” startup Nest Labs for a 30X multiple of $3.2B. Nest is partnered with utility NRG to manage home energy systems. NRG is testing the Beacon10 micro-CHP based on Deka’s Stirling engine. Google’s overinflated price for Nest suggests “energy appliances” include more than an intelligent thermostat.

      • Allan Shura

        The patents only apply to real improvements that enhance the technology from what has expired. There has to be a significant market share to continue in business as the originator after expiry. There has to be capital and a level of knowledge to add to the product enough to put competitors using prior art at a disadvantage. That is what keeps companies going with small incremental improvements rather that the boundary of what can be realized. The irony is that prior art can be often enhanced with new materials or add-ons and that many energy expired patents have significant utility. This is even though many game changing patents were never put on to the market in useable products. Expired patents look to be the starting point or base building block for both
        start up business and open source development.

        • roseland67

          Allan,
          That doesn’t stop people and companies from filing lawsuits and getting
          orders from a judge to “stop” until the case can be reviewed to see if the
          suit has merit and should proceed.
          With what MAY be @ stake here, I would not be surprised to see hundreds of companies
          filinf suit to stop the introduction of any LENR device.

  • Ian Alden

    Great article, The last disruptive technology to hit the world was digital camera in mobile phones That took 9 yrs for 90% of the consuming world public to have. This time has been falling ever since the first technology arrived in the mid 1800’s Think Washing machines, Vacuum cleaners, Fridges,radio, tv, mobile phones, etc.This disruptive technology will be even faster, my guess is 7 yrs. The hard bit is guessing the start point, because its not the idea its the first commercial product. ie something for a mass market.
    The biggest problem will be taxation. Most of the cost of oil is not in its production but the tax applied.to it. This technology has the capability to interrupt governments taxation flow. This will make them panic.
    Over a year ago a 1MW heat source was claimed to be about the size of an standard 205l oil drum, You need 0.5MW to power a standard European lorry A steam turbine to use that, is about the size of 1/2 an oil drum in size, ergo a power source will be about 1 oil drum for a lorry, or about the same size as a standard engine, a straight swap can be done.
    Year 1 – a few lorrys are trailed.
    Year 2 -1/4 of the fleet upgraded to new engines,
    Year 3 – its stupid not to do the rest,
    so major haulage contractors will be there in 3 yrs
    That is quick.
    Those haulage companies that don’t change will not be competitive, so will have to play catch up.

    My start date for all this is this year!!!!!!! 2014 It will only take one company to go and that is it, Pandoras box will be open and it will not be stoppable.

    • BuildItNow

      Think about how fast some people will loose their jobs. If you are making / selling solar panels or wind turbines, how long after the public at large wakes up to the reality of LENR / Cold Fusion will the sales of these items stop. It could be real fast. What will these unemployed people migrate to …. LENR conversion work of course. One week you are having a tough time selling solar, need week the demand for LENR heaters / electric units is enormous. Plenty of people available for the conversion work could make the transition very fast.

    • OaklandThinkTank

      I like this. 🙂

      With warthog’s point about local sources of carbon, and astralprojectee’s certification-lag in mind, perhaps a rough scenario?

      DIY-win Scenario:
      This year, backyard tinkerers post youtube demos of simplistic LENR brews, COP 3, for home heating (not worth electricity, though). The set-up is minimal, just enough to work. With it, you make your own car fuel. No taxes. The carbon comes from your garbage and neighbor’s yard. Pyrolysis of biomass is nearly competitive with gasoline on its own, and worth it for folks with abundant carbon. (All Power Labs is talking to the nut-growers of CA, as walnut husks are usually burned in the open, disposal too costly…) Easy on-site heat at a 3 COP would boost that competitive advantage. (Currently, a portion of the syngas is burned to maintain pyrolysis temp. – LENR could boost output, especially combined with personal solar to run the reactor.) And tax-dodging would be a huge leveraging factor in many countries. I can gather some stats on syngas pyrolysis and gas prices – it’d be nice to see the real return for even a minimal brew, and combined with solar for electricity, any improvements/scavenge for solar /or/ LENR further lower costs. I’ll try to get a bead on the size of the market, at each price, too. 🙂

      After a couple years, certified LENR enters the market, and major power companies switch. (Electrical generation accounts for a huge fuel load, and their big budgets and need to re-allocate capital will drive rapid conversion. see: Brillouin, Industrial Heat) Certification for on-board systems may take another few years, but conversion is rapid because of green-minded subsidy countries (Germany), and countries with high fuel taxes (UK, Japan). They drive for development of economical designs, which spread to the world market.

      But, recall our DIYers – they’ll have perhaps 2-3 years lead on the power companies, and 5+ year lead on transport conversion. Local farmers and tree-trimmers will be selling “moonshine” gas off home-brews to their neighbors, and re-investing their profits in improvements to their systems. The biggest early research-push would be crowd-sourced and low-budget, increasing the likelihood of finding accessible, and wildly successful, new brews. Governments and universities waiting for 6mo. test results before iterating their design would miss the 2cent solutions that home-brewers will try. Their community-support, national green-subsidy, and early foothold on the market, would allow these backyard brewers to become modest manufacturers, ramping-up equipment and scale with local demand. How long to saturate each market? I’ll try to get solid numbers for each region…

      So, while we may not have a reliable, accessible model at this moment, we can plan around one with minimal specs, and iterate from that. Home heaters are the bare-bones LENR. The next step would be pyrolysis-assistance for folks with abundant carbon. Solar or micro-hydro would give off-grid power for the reactor, and any improvements in those technologies would boost pyrolysis yields. Once home-brewers can manage higher COP, we’d switch to self-powered reactors, solar is gone. (That may be only a few years for the solar/hydro window… worth it?) What would be the target markets for home-brewers after industrial certification? Ammonia was mentioned earlier – and fertilizers are a good potential market. Many governments may be wary of this, though – ammonia is dangerous, both to make/handle, and as a potential explosive weapon.

      Given the distribution of the applications for each form of power, we can get a rough estimate of market share for home-brew vs. industrial reactors. The big question for the long-term, though – does expensive equipment let you build a significantly /better/ reactor? (An expensive factory will probably make units cheaper, sure – at issue is COP limits for home-brews.) Factories make better car parts than I could, so I buy from them. Factories can’t make better food than me, so I make my own. We can look at data from experiments so far – what does it cost Swartz to make his NANORs? Renzo Mondaini’s reactor? Mitsubishi’s? With an estimate of the curve relating performance to fabrication capital costs, we’ll have a good understanding of the final equilibrium between micro- and macro- suppliers.

  • Iggy Dalrymple
  • Iggy Dalrymple
  • Alan DeAngelis
    • Christopher Calder

      I researched this a few years ago and believe the Papp engine is a scam from A to Z.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Mike McKubre thought it was real.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS1MsymF8hc

        • bachcole

          Oops, for me, until further notice, the Papp engine is a done deal. For me, Mike McKubre walks on water when it comes to character and observational credibility.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Here’s the whole Mallove interview (Papp at 1:40:00)
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQyduzCrTQs

          • Christopher Calder

            I hope you are right. I would love being proven wrong. All I can say is that I have never seen such a creepy website that seemed devoted to obfuscation. And they braged, claiming that “We are the experts.” Again, no legitimate, thoughtful scientist I know of would say such a thing. If it it is real science, it is done by people who have no taste, modesty, or talent for communicating with others.

        • Christopher Calder

          This is an interesting video. The scientist on this video who is doing Papp research is not the Papp engine company I saw on the web a few years ago. I did a web search and I believe the company I was referring to has been investigated by the SEC. There are several companies now on the web, and they have changed their websites, so I am not 100% sure which one was so “creepy”, but I think I found it. I don’t want to mention names. It’s still creepy. This technology has been around for decades. If it really works, why can’t anyone produce a machine that works in public? It either works or it does not work. If they have it, why not show it? Take it to MIT and get a Nobel Prize.

      • bachcole

        Did you decide this by watching the people or by watching the science or both? I am not challenging you.

        • Christopher Calder

          The website for the company is creepy and shows clear signs of a con job. I have not visited the site for years, but remember they had a picture of their laboratory and mentioned, without anyone asking, that this was real equipment, “not just stuff we have found”, or words to that effect. No real scientist would say such a thing. That is a marker for a con man, and not a very bright one. The history of the device comes from a proven con man. These are the second generation scam artists. I think they just put an electric motor inside the supposed Papp engine to give it a noise as if it is working. Watch the movie Glengarry Glen Ross. That is what I think the operation is.

      • Omega Z

        I’m of the Opinion that the Papp engine works but only intermittently.
        Note it has been around for a long time & likely suffers from what other LENR has suffered from for so long.

        The Exact perimeters of what works & what doesn’t.
        Science is just now learning to Understand Nano scale & how it works & why it appears to work under different rules then what is expected.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Eugene Mallove talks about Papp (1:00).

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvni1yvGmxc

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • I researched this a few years ago and believe the Papp engine is a scam from A to Z.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Mike McKubre thought it was real.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS1MsymF8hc

        • bachcole

          Oops, for me, until further notice, the Papp engine is a done deal. For me, Mike McKubre walks on water when it comes to character and observational credibility.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Here’s the whole Mallove interview (Papp at 1:40:00)
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQyduzCrTQs

          • I hope you are right. I would love being proven wrong. All I can say is that I have never seen such a creepy website that seemed devoted to obfuscation. And they braged, claiming that “We are the experts.” Again, no legitimate, thoughtful scientist I know of would say such a thing. If it it is real science, it is done by people who have no taste, modesty, or talent for communicating with others.

          • bachcole

            Most so-called real, legitimate, thoughtful scientists who have taste, modesty, and talent for communicating with others have failed us. They are not the explorers. They don’t seem able to jump across the paradigm boundaries. Mike McKubre has all of those qualities, plus dignity, balance, and authority, and he said that it was mysteriously real, and I accept what he has to say.

            I don’t mind messy or low budget laboratories or people who have no “credentials”. The credentialed people have dropped the ball on this one. Credentials don’t count for much when trying to get outside of the box. (:->)

        • This is an interesting video. The scientist on this video who is doing Papp research is not the Papp engine company I saw on the web a few years ago. I did a web search and I believe the company I was referring to has been investigated by the SEC. There are several companies now on the web, and they have changed their websites, so I am not 100% sure which one was so “creepy”, but I think I found it. I don’t want to mention names. It’s still creepy. This technology has been around for decades. If it really works, why can’t anyone produce a machine that works in public? It either works or it does not work. If they have it, why not show it? Take it to MIT and get a Nobel Prize.

      • bachcole

        Did you decide this by watching the people or by watching the science or both? I am not challenging you.

        • The website for the company is creepy and shows clear signs of a con job. I have not visited the site for years, but remember they had a picture of their laboratory and mentioned, without anyone asking, that this was real equipment, “not just stuff we have found”, or words to that effect. No real scientist would say such a thing. That is a marker for a con man, and not a very bright one. The history of the device comes from a proven con man. These are the second generation scam artists. I think they just put an electric motor inside the supposed Papp engine to give it a noise as if it is working. Watch the movie Glengarry Glen Ross. That is what I think the operation is.

          • bachcole

            Sorry, I think that you are mistaken. Mike McKubre signed off on it, and that is good enough for me.

      • Omega Z

        I’m of the Opinion that the Papp engine works but only intermittently.
        Note it has been around for a long time & likely suffers from what other LENR has suffered from for so long.

        The Exact perimeters of what works & what doesn’t.
        Science is just now learning to Understand Nano scale & how it works & why it appears to work under different rules then what is expected.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Eugene Mallove talks about Papp (1:00).

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvni1yvGmxc

  • Sandy

    I believe that automobiles powered by compressed air will make more sense than electric cars because carbon-fiber air tanks weigh much less than batteries. An air-powered car could have an auxiliary alcohol burner that heats the car’s compressed air and thus triples the number of miles that the car can travel on one tank of compressed air. The compressed air and alcohol could be supplied by LENR-powered service stations.

  • bachcole

    OT: Referring to the link about the coming little ice age, he mentions the growing season getting shorter and almost not being long enough this year. Not quite: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/society-eco/growing-season.html

  • OaklandThinkTank

    I like this. 🙂

    With warthog’s point about local sources of carbon, and astralprojectee’s certification-lag in mind, perhaps a rough scenario?

    DIY-win Scenario:
    This year, backyard tinkerers post youtube demos of simplistic LENR brews, COP 3, for home heating (not worth electricity, though). The set-up is minimal, just enough to work. With it, you make your own car fuel. No taxes. The carbon comes from your garbage and neighbor’s yard. Pyrolysis of biomass is nearly competitive with gasoline on its own, and worth it for folks with abundant carbon. (All Power Labs is talking to the nut-growers of CA, as walnut husks are usually burned in the open, disposal too costly…) Easy on-site heat at a 3 COP would boost that competitive advantage. (Currently, a portion of the syngas is burned to maintain pyrolysis temp. – LENR could boost output, especially combined with personal solar to run the reactor.) And tax-dodging would be a huge leveraging factor in many countries. I can gather some stats on syngas pyrolysis and gas prices – it’d be nice to see the real return for even a minimal brew, and combined with solar for electricity, any improvements/scavenge for solar /or/ LENR further lower costs. I’ll try to get a bead on the size of the market, at each price, too. 🙂

    After a couple years, certified LENR enters the market, and major power companies switch. (Electrical generation accounts for a huge fuel load, and their big budgets and need to re-allocate capital will drive rapid conversion. see: Brillouin, Industrial Heat) Certification for on-board systems may take another few years, but conversion is rapid because of green-minded subsidy countries (Germany), and countries with high fuel taxes (UK, Japan). They drive for development of economical designs, which spread to the world market.

    But, recall our DIYers – they’ll have perhaps 2-3 years lead on the power companies, and 5+ year lead on transport conversion. Local farmers and tree-trimmers will be selling “moonshine” gas off home-brews to their neighbors, and re-investing their profits in improvements to their systems. The biggest early research-push would be crowd-sourced and low-budget, increasing the likelihood of finding accessible, and wildly successful, new brews. Governments and universities waiting for 6mo. test results before iterating their design would miss the 2cent solutions that home-brewers will try. Their community-support, national green-subsidy, and early foothold on the market, would allow these backyard brewers to become modest manufacturers, ramping-up equipment and scale with local demand. How long to saturate each market? I’ll try to get solid numbers for each region…

    So, while we may not have a reliable, accessible model at this moment, we can plan around one with minimal specs, and iterate from that. Home heaters are the bare-bones LENR. The next step would be pyrolysis-assistance for folks with abundant carbon. Solar or micro-hydro would give off-grid power for the reactor, and any improvements in those technologies would boost pyrolysis yields. Once home-brewers can manage higher COP, we’d switch to self-powered reactors, solar is gone. (That may be only a few years for the solar/hydro window… worth it?) What would be the target markets for home-brewers after industrial certification? Ammonia was mentioned earlier – and fertilizers are a good potential market. Many governments may be wary of this, though – ammonia is dangerous, both to make/handle, and as a potential explosive weapon.

    Given the distribution of the applications for each form of power, we can get a rough estimate of market share for home-brew vs. industrial reactors. The big question for the long-term, though – does expensive equipment let you build a significantly /better/ reactor? (An expensive factory will probably make units cheaper, sure – at issue is COP limits for home-brews.) Factories make better car parts than I could, so I buy from them. Factories can’t make better food than me, so I make my own. We can look at data from experiments so far – what does it cost Swartz to make his NANORs? Renzo Mondaini’s reactor? Mitsubishi’s? With an estimate of the curve relating performance to fabrication capital costs, we’ll have a good understanding of the final equilibrium between micro- and macro- suppliers.

  • Charles

    Good to meet you Fibb. I’m the cstewart1929 that tabs into EESTOR.com every now and then. Great story that EESTOR. Being an electronics engineer in my past life I had fits of joy when I first found out about EESTOR and what they thought they could do. Also, I have great experience in control systems using permanent magnet (and alnico- glad PMs can replace that) DC motors, and I love the very thought of combining EESTOR capacitors and electric motors. EESTOR capacitors and solid state PWM control of pancake motor wheels seems to be the way to go for autos. Virtually instant charging of the capacitor is the thing that really rings my bell.

    I’m waiting to hear what Evans has to say, they apparently can really be relied on. I looked up the PR and presumably, Zenn is trying to totally capture EESTOR. Now why-ever would they want to do that?

  • guga

    It is very unlikely that synthetic fuels will be important any time soon, even if LENR becomes a rapid success. Imagine what huge and very expensive plants you would need to generate a significant amount of synthetic fuel. Right now we are just pumping it out of the earth, but really making it in a plant, that’s another story.
    I even doubt that all the necessary technologies are already developed for a production at such a scale, as this was not interesting in the past because of energy costs. So even if it would seem to be an interesting investment, it would take at least a decade until reasonable amounts are being produced (development, planning and building plants), and that only if big money is being invested.
    But who would invest big money if the obsolescence of liquid fuels is on the horizon with the LENR revolution? Homes can be heated without oil, cars may get their own LENR generators eventually…
    So no, LENR will be a revolution, but not of that sort. Although, most likely we will all be wrong somehow… 😉

  • guga

    It is very unlikely that synthetic fuels will be important any time soon, even if LENR becomes a rapid success. Imagine what huge and very expensive plants you would need to generate a significant amount of synthetic fuel. Right now we are just pumping it out of the earth, but really making it in a plant, that’s another story.
    I even doubt that all the necessary technologies are already developed for a production at such a scale, as this was not interesting in the past because of energy costs. So even if it would seem to be an interesting investment, it would take at least a decade until reasonable amounts are being produced (development, planning and building plants), and that only if big money is being invested.
    But who would invest big money if the obsolescence of liquid fuels is on the horizon with the LENR revolution? Homes can be heated without oil, cars may get their own LENR generators eventually…
    So no, LENR will be a revolution, but not of that sort. Although, most likely we will all be wrong somehow… 😉

  • Henry

    I’m a first time poster. Normally just lurk out here reading the posts. I thought I had to comment on this one. I am sure I will get burned a lot for it. But do you really think our (USA) government or most any other will just sit by and watch as billions/trillons of dollars in revenue slip through their greedy fingers and loose power over the people. Power (political) and electrical are a means of control. I really do hope and pray things go as many of you predict & hope. But my biggest concern is that Big Brother will get involved and will do what ever they can to retain their power and keep power from the people. Just my 2 cents.
    Let em rip. 🙂

    • bachcole

      No ripping here. But I am pretty positive that conservatives in the USA will think it important to balance the budget, and when revenues start to recede, then they will look around for another means. But remember, this is also an opportunity to reduce the size of government. We the people should jump on this opportunity to say to our elected representatives things like “hey perhaps we could dump the Rural Electrification Administration because we won’t need it or need to pay for it any more” and things like that.

      Government is absolutely, positively necessary for civilized society as long as people are imperfect and tend to misbehave. And perfect people won’t be happening anytime soon, although if you knew my children you might wonder. But I digress. Anyway, big business uses government to get it’s way with us, we the people. If you want to break that strangle hold that the Walmarts and the Big Pharma have over us, one way is to reduce the size of government, getting rid of those agencies that are unnecessary.

      For example, many regulatory agencies could be greatly reduced in the age of the Internet. Government could merely post notices saying “hey this car’s breaks suck. We recommend that you do not buy this car”. This would put the hurt in auto makers something fierce.

      But, hey, this entire comment was a digression from your point and question. Perhaps we wouldn’t be powerless victims if we stopped thinking that we were powerless victims and stopped fighting each other (left vs. right). We both want the same things: freedom and prosperity.

      • Omega Z

        Roger

        Growing the Economy(GDP) will increase Tax Revenue & reduce Government Welfare.

        Newly Created Jobs remove/reduce welfare claims And simultaneously providing Tax Revenue from payroll checks.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah Henry, the puppet masters obviously don’t give a damn about CO2 or they’d be promoting the E-Cat instead of ignoring it. What they really want is a carbon tax and you can’t get a carbon tax form a game changer that wouldn’t generate any CO2.
      The E-Cat has really called their bluff.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        …tax from a…

    • Omega Z

      I disagree…

      That’s not to say some Politicians wont think this way.
      And that doesn’t mean some Politicians wont try to take advantage of this kind of thinking to justify trying to grab a bigger piece of your income.

      But, In reality, If this technology allows a doubling of the GDP, They would in fact double their tax revenue without raising taxes by a single percent on anyone.

      Another Belief by some. The Banks will take a beaten.
      NOPE: They will make a fortune.

      All the Manufacturing facilities, All the power plant work will be financed by the Banks.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yeah Henry, the puppet masters obviously don’t give a damn about CO2 or they’d be promoting the E-Cat instead of ignoring it. What they really want is a carbon tax and you can’t get a carbon tax form a game changer that wouldn’t generate any CO2.
    The E-Cat has really called their bluff.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      …tax from a…

  • Ophelia Rump

    Welcome to the new paradigm of wealth and power. In the last Century of the Last Millennium a few powerful men realized that control of the handful of fuel sources to power technology was in a sense the ability to hoard the social equivalent of that power for themselves. With a ubiquitous source of energy that paradigm no longer holds true.
    But to truly understand the meaning of that old paradigm and the new paradigm which will inevitably take it’s place, we need to understand why that last century was that way. The seemingly limitless resources the century started out with to power the seemingly limitless possibilities was not limitless for either the fuel sources, or their consumption.

    In this new paradigm for a new millennium, if we understand there to be a new and limitless fuel source there still remains the old limit of consumption. It costs the rich man of the last century little if the poor man gets his energy for free, the vast majority of consumption for the individual today happens at the industrial level where the benefits of ubiquitous energy benefits the rich man.

    Does this mean that there will be no change in the paradigm of social power? No, it does not.
    The new power and wealth will flow from the ability to consume energy, unlike the old paradigm of controlling the source of energy. I am not saying that you will gain social control by leaving the lights on while you sleep.
    The new wealth will come from managing the industrious consumption of energy and the distribution the benefits derived from that energy.

    Now I ask you another question, but this time you supply the answer:
    Does the rich man of the last century of the last millennium really have anything to fear from this paradigm shift as long as he controls the corporations, the commodities, the physical resources of the earth itself?

  • Ophelia Rump

    Welcome to the new paradigm of wealth and power. In the last Century of the Last Millennium a few powerful men realized that control of the handful of fuel sources to power technology was in a sense the ability to hoard the social equivalent of that power for themselves. With a ubiquitous source of energy that paradigm no longer holds true.
    But to truly understand the meaning of that old paradigm and the new paradigm which will inevitably take it’s place, we need to understand why that last century was that way. The seemingly limitless resources the century started out with to power the seemingly limitless possibilities was not limitless for either the fuel sources, or their consumption.

    In this new paradigm for a new millennium, if we understand there to be a new and limitless fuel source there still remains the old limit of consumption. It costs the rich man of the last century little if the poor man gets his energy for free, the vast majority of consumption for the individual today happens at the industrial level where the benefits of ubiquitous energy benefits the rich man.

    Does this mean that there will be no change in the paradigm of social power? No, it does not.
    The new power and wealth will flow from the ability to consume energy, unlike the old paradigm of controlling the source of energy. I am not saying that you will gain social control by leaving the lights on while you sleep.
    The new wealth will come from managing the industrious consumption of energy and the distribution of the benefits derived from that energy.

    Now I ask you another question, but this time you supply the answer:
    Does the rich man of the last century of the last millennium really have anything to fear from this paradigm shift as long as he controls the corporations, the commodities, the physical resources of the earth itself?

  • JedRothwell

    I discussed this in my book, “Cold Fusion and the Future,” chapter 13. I corresponded with some oil company executives who did not have clue, in my opinion. See:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

    I predict that synthetic hydrocarbon fuel will not be produced, because by the time the technology can be perfected and scaled up, vehicles powered directly by cold fusion will already be sold. I do not think the transition to cold fusion powered automobiles will take long, for the reasons I explained here:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf

    I do predict that synthetic hydrocarbons will be used for plastic feedstock and lubrication. This will eventually be cheaper than natural oil from the ground, because it can be synthesized on site, as needed, instead of being shipped from Saudi Arabia. Oil is already made from garbage using depolymerization. This may remain cost effective because it reduces the volume of garbage that has to be disposed of. The depolymerization factory is paid at both ends, to take the garbage, and to sell the oil.

    Regarding the potential benefits of cold fusion, let me paraphrase J. B. S. Haldane. Not only is cold fusion better than we suppose, it is better than we can suppose. Quoting myself:

    “I envision a world with millions of ultra-reliable cold fusion devices, everything from pacemaker batteries to blast furnaces. I predict that not only will this drastically reduce the cost of energy; it will spur the development of countless revolutionary machines such as food factories; small autonomous robots that go around killing invasive insects; supersonic VTOL aircraft; desalination megaprojects that convert deserts into farmland, and many other marvels. I also predict it may give rise to some nightmare inventions that I hope can be prevented.”

    • Alan DeAngelis

      A little off topic but I just heard Rachel Maddow on TV referring to people who are aware of the abiotic synthesis of oil as conspiracy theorists.
      Perhaps she can tell us why Titan has more oil than earth.
      http://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html

      • bachcole

        They have all kinds of bad words for anyone who thinks outside of the box and suspects that the mainstream is not the standard for all knowledge and all knowing. They are little people who can’t do the critical thinking bit and can’t apply the scientific method.

        And your idea about Titan, that is really quite shattering to the idea that oil MUST be biotic.

      • Alan DeAngelis
        • Alan DeAngelis

          Guilty
          of holding opinions contrary to what’s on TV and speaking against it and its
          ministers.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5LF-_KdC6Y

        • bachcole

          It does seem strange that there were so many dinosaurs and that they were all concentrated in the same place and their bodies “deteriorated” so nice and evenly so deep under the ground. One would think that there would be at least one strand of DNA left and not quite so deep.

  • Omega Z

    I disagree…

    That’s not to say some Politicians wont think this way.
    And that doesn’t mean some Politicians wont try to take advantage of this kind of thinking to justify trying to grab a bigger piece of your income.

    But, In reality, If this technology allows a doubling of the GDP, They would in fact double their tax revenue without raising taxes by a single percent on anyone.

    Another Belief by some. The Banks will take a beaten.
    NOPE: They will make a fortune.

    All the Manufacturing facilities, All the power plant work will be financed by the Banks.

  • Omega Z

    Roger

    Growing the Economy(GDP) will increase Tax Revenue & reduce Government Welfare.

    Newly Created Jobs remove/reduce welfare claims And simultaneously providing Tax Revenue from payroll checks.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    A little off topic but I just heard Rachel Maddow on TV referring to people who are aware of the abiotic synthesis of oil as conspiracy theorists.
    Perhaps she can tell us why Titan has more oil than earth.
    http://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html