Rossi Working on E-Cat Jet Engine [Update: More AR Comments]

Here’s an interesting revelation from Andrea Rossi. It came about because I was confused about something that Rossi wrote on the JONP a few weeks ago, and I sent him an email asking a question. Rossi asked me to post it on the JONP. Here’s the exchange:

My email:

Dear Andrea,

You mentioned on the JONP that the Hot Cat could be useful with a gas turbine:

“If we will be able to get positive results, the ranges of temperature will be enough high to allow gas turbines or very good efficiencies with the Carnot cycle, especially in co-generation or three-generation assemblies.”

— but I don’t understand how a gas turbine would work since you have no combustible fuel.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Rossi’s response on the JONP:

Frank Acland:
Perhaps you remember that we made R&D also using gas as a fuel. That line of R&D has been carried on and we are now preparing for a pilot jet engine gas fueled hybridized with an E-Cats assembly. This is exactly what I am working upon during these very days, while the work of the third indipendent party is going on with the hot cat. Obviously, the technology of the Hot Cat is strictly connected with the gas fueled Hot Cat. But remember: I still must say that:
THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT IN COURSE MADE BY THE THIRD INDIPENDENT PARTY CAN BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE AND NOTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT THE FUTURE WORK CAN BE SAID UNTIL THE RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE AS THEY MIGHT BE.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I am not quite sure what is going on in this system. The ‘gas cat’ idea is where instead of an electric resistor is used to initiate the e-cat reaction, gas is used (which can work out much cheaper in places where natural gas is less expensive than electricity). From my understanding, a gas turbine requires some combustion within the turbine — so I’m not sure how a hybridization with an E-Cat would work in this situation. I am sure we have people here who could comment better than I on this situation.

UPDATE: A couple more JONP comments from Andrea Rossi on the jet engine development:

Mark Saker:
So far all we want to do is test the operation of the Hot Cats in a ” hybridized” old and not flying jet engine on the bench. After that we will think to the possible applications, if the results will be positive. But could be negative, so for now we are just at the R&D level.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Hank Mills:
Thank you for your good questions, useful to make clear that:
1- we are trying to use gas as fuel instead of electric power, because gas is very cheap now in the USA: this is R&D
2- jet engines do not necessarily have to fly: they can make co-generation and tri-generation, heat generation.
3- all our mail lines of R&D remain open
Warmest Regards,
A.R.


  • Chris the 2nd

    Curious. interesting. Exciting. Etc.

    But does he mean Jet Engine as in Aeroplanes? Or does he mean gas driven Turbine?

    • good remarks…
      seems more a Brayton turbine…

      anyway installing a LENR brayton turbine on an hybrid plane is a good idea.

  • Chris the 2nd

    Curious. interesting. Exciting. Etc.

    But does he mean Jet Engine as in Aeroplanes? Or does he mean gas driven Turbine?

    • good remarks…
      seems more a Brayton turbine…

      anyway installing a LENR brayton turbine on an hybrid plane is a good idea.

  • Mr. Moho

    The recent presentation from NASA about LENR aircrafts was totally, and I mean totally coincidental.
    They don’t even know if there are working, practically usable LENR devices at all.
    Just a “what if” study.

    /sarc

    • Chris the 2nd

      You’ve gotta take anything these agencies take with a grain of salt. If Lockheed are doing work at Skunk works (and you can bet they are) even if the guy doing the presentation has no idea on the status of this research you can bet the people who ordered the study do.

  • bitplayer

    “GE’s Frame 6B 3-series gas turbine is one of the most reliable heavy-duty gas turbines in the world, with more than 1,200 installed and 60 million operating hours in a wide range of applications”.

    An Economist article referred to these as “lorry-mounted jet engines”.

    http://dailyfusion.net/2013/03/general-electric-turbines-helping-indonesias-transition-from-oil-to-ga-2682/

  • LENR G

    Rossi’s wording is ambiguous: “pilot jet engine gas fueled hybridize”

    I think he might mean he’s using jet engine fuel instead of natural gas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

    Not that he’s building a jet engine.

  • Rossi’s wording is ambiguous: “pilot jet engine gas fueled hybridize”

    I think he might mean he’s using jet engine fuel instead of natural gas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

    Not that he’s building a jet engine.

  • Bernie koppenhofer

    The “gas” in gas turbine is air. It heats air. Why wouldn’t the gas turbine be a good match for the ecat?

  • Bernie koppenhofer

    The “gas” in gas turbine is air. It heats air. Why wouldn’t the gas turbine be a good match for the ecat?

    • humblemechanic

      There is a good example; Escher Wyss closed cycle external combustion turbine
      Air moved in a closed loop/duct heated and cooled in different sections. There were
      two industrial/experimental installations in Switzerland, in the early fifties I think.

  • Adam Lepczak

    Perhaps a super efficient jet engine? That still requires some fuel but there is more “kick” from the fuel due to LENR effect? Isn’t that what Justin Church is claiming with his HHO/LENR hybrid project?

  • Adam Lepczak

    Perhaps a super efficient jet engine? That still requires some fuel but there is more “kick” from the fuel due to LENR effect? Isn’t that what Justin Church is claiming with his HHO/LENR hybrid project?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I have no idea how an E-cat or Hot-Cat could be directly combined with a gas turbine. Therefore I guess that the E-Cats are used to preheat the water for a steam turbine before it reaches the main heat exchanger, in a cycle like this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COGAS_diagram.svg

    I had proposed this to Rossi some time ago, and his answer was that they were already studying this subject. There would be many advantages: First, gas is much cheaper per kWh than electricity. Secondly, very high temperatures are not necessary for preheating, about 200-240 °C should be enough. Thirdly, the E-Cats could be brought up to their starting temperature with water from the condenser, or with a bypass from the gas turbine. And finally, such a preheating system could be installed without the need for major modifications in the plant. But maybe Rossi meant something quite different.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I have no idea how an E-cat or Hot-Cat could be directly combined with a gas turbine. Therefore I guess that the E-Cats are used to preheat the water for a steam turbine before it reaches the main heat exchanger, in a cycle like this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COGAS_diagram.svg

    I had proposed this to Rossi some time ago, and his answer was that they were already studying this subject. There would be many advantages: First, gas is much cheaper per kWh than electricity. Secondly, very high temperatures are not necessary for preheating, about 200-240 °C should be enough. Thirdly, the E-Cats could be brought up to their starting temperature with water from the condenser, or with a bypass from the gas turbine. And finally, such a preheating system could be installed without the need for major modifications in the plant. But maybe Rossi meant something quite different.

  • LENR G

    Re: “I am not quite sure what is going on in this system. The ‘gas cat’ idea is where instead of an electric resistor is used to initiate the e-cat reaction, gas is used (which can work out much cheaper in places where natural gas is less expensive than electricity). From my understanding, a gas turbine requires some combustion within the turbine — so I’m not sure how a hybridization with an E-Cat would work in this situation. I am sure we have people here who could comment better than I on this situation.”

    Perhaps by hybrid system he refers to a gas turbine with an auxiliary E-Cat. Such a system would have the advantage of instant on (powered by gas). The waste heat from the initial gas operation could trigger the E-Cat at which point the gas could be stopped and the turbine driven with the E-Cat heat/steam.

    • Mr. Moho

      A hybrid LENR jet engine could be more efficient by increasing exhaust gas temperatures, generating more thrust as a result for a given fuel input. It would be like a constant constant “afterburner” effect, but without added fuel consumption.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburner

      • LENR G

        My initial take on this is that it’d be ridiculous for Rossi/IH to be working on any kind of jet engine.

        That’s an area that requires a great deal of experience and expertise. It’d be a prime candidate to license out to a Boeing or Lockheed and doesn’t mesh with their core capability or market.

        If Rossi is experimenting with souping up jet engines instead of doing core R&D — understanding, parameterizing, optimizing, specializing and miniaturizing the LENR reaction itself — then he is wasting his time and it’d be an indication that IH is not a serious company. More like a Blacklight that likes to play with things (sorry Blacklight, prove me wrong).

        • Mr. Moho

          Provided that Rossi actually meant what admin understood, it could be that Rossi/IH are helping other engineers or companies to implement/retrofit their LENR IP into existing jet engine designs, not creating their own. Such a tight cooperation would also allow strict control on how their technology is used, something that licensing might not necessarily guarantee.

        • friendlyprogrammer

          Yes. EXACTLY!!!

          Please read my newer comment where I attempt to prove Rossi/IH/Cherokee MUST be working for NASA.

          Or in the words of Rossi,
          Frank Acland:
          Extremely interesting. Soon we will learn from NASA something important.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.”

  • AdrianAshfield

    The Hot Cat would be a natural improvement for a gas turbine, whether the stationary or aircraft type. If the heat required by the E-Cat can be supplied by the fuel (easiest with natural gas) then there would be a direct improvement of the efficiency based on the COP.. Both would be desirable, but the aircraft engine would have the greatest improvement due to not having to carry so much fuel.

  • Re: “I am not quite sure what is going on in this system. The ‘gas cat’ idea is where instead of an electric resistor is used to initiate the e-cat reaction, gas is used (which can work out much cheaper in places where natural gas is less expensive than electricity). From my understanding, a gas turbine requires some combustion within the turbine — so I’m not sure how a hybridization with an E-Cat would work in this situation. I am sure we have people here who could comment better than I on this situation.”

    Perhaps by hybrid system he refers to a gas turbine with an auxiliary E-Cat. Such a system would have the advantage of instant on (powered by gas). The waste heat from the initial gas operation could trigger the E-Cat at which point the gas could be stopped and the turbine driven with the E-Cat heat/steam.

  • Christopher Calder

    The make a jet engine for aircraft, you just have to heat up allot of air very quickly. Combustion is not required if a LENR device can do all the heating work. A hybrid natural gas-LENR jet engine would be great. Boeing would love them, as would the US military.

  • The make a jet engine for aircraft, you just have to heat up allot of air very quickly. Combustion is not required if a LENR device can do all the heating work. A hybrid natural gas-LENR jet engine would be great. Boeing would love them, as would the US military.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I think “jet engine” means just a gas turbine, not an engine for aircrafts.

      • right… I was day dreaming.
        anyway that is on the roadmap, at least of NASA/NARI

        what he propose seems to be the gas turbine, LENR enhanced

  • Obvious

    Turning a jet engine into an electricity generating turbine isn’t that complicated.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I think “jet engine” means just a gas turbine, not an engine for aircrafts.

      • right… I was day dreaming.
        anyway that is on the roadmap, at least of NASA/NARI

        what he propose seems to be the gas turbine, LENR enhanced

  • Obvious

    Turning a jet engine into an electricity generating turbine isn’t that complicated.

  • AlanSmith

    I am pretty sure that Rossi is not playing with jet engines himself. That is a specialised business requiring a lot of specialised knowledge. So what does he mean?

    I think the most logical way to use a high-temperature LENR module in a gas turbine (or a turbo-jet if you prefer – there are mechanical differences but none in fundamentals) would be to position hot-cats inside the combustion chambers. These are the (several) spaces arranged around the air inlet duct. This is where kerosene jet fuel is sprayed into the already compressed and thus slightly heated air and burns to raise the temperature to the 1000C zone. The super-hot air then wants to expand urgently, and rushes out of the tail pipe spinning the turbine and its shaft as it goes. This shaft is, of course, connected to the compressor stage at the front of the air inlet duct that sucks the air in and compresses it. Thus the engine chases its tail, like a coon-dog running on moonshine.

    If you could replace just some of the kerosene with LENR heat just some of the time you would obviously save a lot of fuel and gain a lot of carbon credits while you are at it. However, because the the very stiff regulatory requirements it will be a good few years before an E-Cat would make it into the red-eye shuttle from New York. An earth bound power utility on the other hand would probably love this technology – an LENR/Natural Gas fuelled turbo-genset would be cheap to run and easy to switch in and out. and probably half the cost of the equivalent steam turbine rig.

    The real use for E-Cats in steam turbine installations IMHO is for retro-fitting into existing coal-fired power stations where their use as feed-water heaters would save a lot of coal and thus prevent an awful lot of pollution.

  • AlanSmith

    I am pretty sure that Rossi is not playing with jet engines himself. That is a specialised business requiring a lot of specialised knowledge. So what does he mean?

    I think the most logical way to use a high-temperature LENR module in a gas turbine (or a turbo-jet if you prefer – there are mechanical differences but none in fundamentals) would be to position hot-cats inside the combustion chambers. These are the (several) spaces arranged around the air inlet duct. This is where kerosene jet fuel is sprayed into the already compressed and thus slightly heated air and burns to raise the temperature to the 1000C zone. The super-hot air then wants to expand urgently, and rushes out of the tail pipe spinning the turbine and its shaft as it goes. This shaft is, of course, connected to the compressor stage at the front of the air inlet duct that sucks the air in and compresses it. Thus the engine chases its tail, like a coon-dog running on moonshine.

    If you could replace just some of the kerosene with LENR heat just some of the time you would obviously save a lot of fuel and gain a lot of carbon credits while you are at it. However, because the the very stiff regulatory requirements it will be a good few years before an E-Cat would make it into the red-eye shuttle from New York. An earth bound power utility on the other hand would probably love this technology – an LENR/Natural Gas fuelled turbo-genset would be cheap to run and easy to switch in and out. and probably half the cost of the equivalent steam turbine rig.

    The real use for E-Cats in steam turbine installations IMHO is for retro-fitting into existing coal-fired power stations where their use as feed-water heaters would save a lot of coal and thus prevent an awful lot of pollution.

  • Jimr

    I have wondered for some time if the Ecat could be involved with the pulse jet technology . ( donuts on a rope) . I have seen one in my lifetime, about three years ago flying overhead. It could be a good match.

  • Jimr

    I have wondered for some time if the Ecat could be involved with the pulse jet technology . ( donuts on a rope) . I have seen one in my lifetime, about three years ago flying overhead. It could be a good match.

  • US_Citizen71

    As stated by others below gas turbines do not necessarily mean airplanes. Gas turbines have been installed in ships as well as the M1 Abrams tank. There is no reason that they couldn’t be used to generate electricity as well. Once the burning natural gas brought the turbine to speed and the hot cat to temperature the heat from the hot cat could keep it spinning with just a small amount of gas burned to keep the hot cat at optimal temperature. It would be a far simpler setup than using steam turbines.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Good idea. Besides it’s perhaps easier to control the Hot-Cat if no phase transitions occur. I suspect that this is a major problem with the water/steam systems.

  • Gerard McEk

    This is very good news and also quite interesting. The choice for a hybrid solution tells something about the COP of the E-Cat. When it is below say 15 or perhaps 20, it is the most obvious choice to go hybrid, as in that way you can exploit the energy most optimal. Using for instance a E-Cat pre-heater for the turbine would give a considerable efficiency improvement. The controllability of both turbine and E-Cat will be quite a challenge, I wish Andrea Rossi all the luck to succeed.

  • hornster

    A gas/e-cat hybrid (i.e. gas backup) makes great sense to me in early designs. The e-cat is a novelty and may not be perceived as reliable in industry, and may need updates early on. Using a separate gas burner to heat the nickel charge makes sense also- the gas is there and cheaper than electric.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    A few points of interest.

    – NASA claims to be working with a third party on LENR flight.
    -Andrea Rossi recently mentioned maybe NASA will say something interesting.
    -NASA is known to have knocked on Rossi’s door in the past
    -NASA is clearly enthralled with the Rossi Nickel version of LENR

    -Now Rossi appears to working on the exact same Boeing/NASA LENR project.

    Cough* , Cough*, Cough*

    Why else would someone start chasing a Jet Engine over an Automotive Engine?

    Those statements are all true which those of us following this know. But you could research this.

    So… (cough*)… Is IH/Cherokee/Rossi working with NASA? Seems so.

    • digitalsailor

      Does NASA is trustable ?

      • bitplayer

        NSA, NASA, what a difference an A makes

        • Gerard McEk

          It is possibly the A team … or a team working on it.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      This comment means Rossi is Working with NASA. I felt it deserved a rewrite so added some proof and posted it again. It is an important development on the AR chain of events.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        True. But consider this: In case (A) you have 1 MW thermal plant producing 300 kW electric output and using 150 kW gas thermal input. In case (B) you again have 1 MW plant, but producing only 150 kW of output and using no input because 150 kW is circulated back through a battery array. The capital cost is similar in both cases. The cost of 150 kW gas heating typically corresponds to only 50 kW of electric power, however. Hence in case A one sells 250=300-50 units worth of electricity and in case B one sells only 150 units. It’s wasteful to use electric power for heating if a thermal source suffices. (Even better would be to somehow store the heat produced by the Cats and circulate it back when needed, but that’s another story.)

      • LENR G

        It certainly does point to some sort of relationship with NASA or an aerospace company. I can’t think of any other reason that IH would be devoting resources to this kind of R&D at this early stage other than “our partners want it.”

        I can make a similar bullet list for Google though. I think we need to be careful about drawing definitive conclusions from circumstantial evidence.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    A few points of interest.

    – NASA claims to be working with a third party on LENR flight.
    -Andrea Rossi recently mentioned maybe NASA will say something interesting.
    -NASA is known to have knocked on Rossi’s door in the past
    -NASA is clearly enthralled with the Rossi Nickel version of LENR

    -Now Rossi appears to working on the exact same Boeing/NASA LENR project.

    Cough* , Cough*, Cough*

    Why else would someone start chasing a Jet Engine over an Automotive Engine?

    Those statements are all true which those of us following this know. But you could research this.

    So… (cough*)… Is IH/Cherokee/Rossi working with NASA? Seems so.

    • digitalsailor

      Does NASA is trustable ?

    • friendlyprogrammer

      This comment means Rossi is Working with NASA. I felt it deserved a rewrite so added some proof and posted it again. It is an important development on the AR chain of events.

      • It certainly does point to some sort of relationship with NASA or an aerospace company. I can’t think of any other reason that IH would be devoting resources to this kind of R&D at this early stage other than “our partners want it.”

        I can make a similar bullet list for Google though. I think we need to be careful about drawing definitive conclusions from circumstantial evidence.

  • Frank Acland

    Is Rossi dropping a big hint here?: “This is exactly what I am working upon
    during these very days, while the work of the third indipendent party is
    going on with the hot cat. Obviously, the technology of the Hot Cat is
    strictly connected with the gas fueled Hot Cat. But remember: I still
    must say that . . (usual disclaimer)

    Would he be doing this current jet engine R&D if the hot cat was not up to par?

    • Giuliano Bettini

      Yes, and also…

      Andrea Rossi

      March 11th, 2014 at
      11:18 AM

      ….. I know strong
      activity is in course for what concerns the industrialization……

      • ‘Industrialization’ seems to imply preparations for production and marketing, rather than R&D. That might mean that one or more pilot plants are already running and being assessed and tweaked.

      • ‘Industrialization’ seems to imply preparations for production and marketing, rather than R&D. That might mean that one or more pilot plants are already running and being assessed and tweaked.

    • deleo77

      To me, this is the most interesting aspect of his comments as well. I can’t believe how far removed Rossi is from the development and commercialization of the hot cat. He said last year that the designs for commercializing the hot cat have been completed, so I think Industrial Heat took what was close to a finished product and they are simply waiting to manufacture it. They need the long term test results to convince customers to purchase the hot cats for factory heating. If the results are good then the orders will come in. Once that happens, the assembly lines will get started. But based on his own comments it seems that Rossi at this point may have little or nothing to do with any of this.

      • He does consistently seem to come over as IH’s ‘blue sky’ man, taking the lead in possible new directions for development. If that’s the case it might confirm that there is a strong team of development engineers who can take a clunky prototype or even an idea, and work these up into commercial products without further input. An arrangement like that would almost certainly suit Rossi’s temperament and skills much better than methodical development work.

      • He does consistently seem to come over as IH’s ‘blue sky’ man, taking the lead in possible new directions for development. If that’s the case it might confirm that there is a strong team of development engineers who can take a clunky prototype or even an idea, and work these up into commercial products without further input. An arrangement like that would almost certainly suit Rossi’s temperament and skills much better than methodical development work.

    • US_Citizen71

      I have a suspicion that he has been working on this for sometime. The factoid that he let loose about the new Hot Cat 1MW plant could fit in a 1m dia by 2m tall cylinder, describes something that would be appropriately sized to work with a re-purposed jet engine. Multiple small units would give plenty of surface area for heat exchange and allow for a turbine shaft down the middle if laid out correctly. My bet is the work begin with the formation of Industrial Heat.

      Using a gas turbine would solve several issues, one being no water required for cooling, making it able to be installed virtually any where. Larger systems powered by natural gas have an efficiency around 40%, if that held being powered by a Hot Cat even with a COP of 6 self sustaining mode with power out would be possible. Adding a Stirling engine or similar to use the waste heat would add to the total system efficiency with waste heat still left over for heating or cooling possibilities. Time will tell.

  • Like many other others I am confused by Rossi’s comments, which don’t seem to make much sense. The working fluid of any gas turbine including jet engines is the mix of CO2 and superheated steam produced by the combustion of hydrocarbons in air. This is already very hot and it is not conceivable that enough heat could be transferred to these gases from even a white-hot LENR core to make any difference at all to the power output of the unit. Pre-heating or even vapourising the HC fuel would again make little difference to power output – certainly not enough to justify the additional weight.

    The only interpretation I am able to put on this is that the ‘gas’ that would operate a gas turbine/jet engine would in fact be superheated steam generated not in a ‘boiler’ as such, but by injecting a water spray directly into a very hot core to flash it to steam, then exhausting the steam directly through a turbine. Perhaps the reactor core might have other internal tubes for ‘firing’ it using HC fuel, as Rossi seems to be stuck with a system that always requires heat input to produce a greater heat output. This would actually be closer to a rocket engine than a jet, as the only air intake would be a modest supply to the ‘gas cat’ burner arrangements.

    An arrangement like that could be seen as a hybrid between a ‘gas cat’, a steam turbine and a gas turbine, and as there would be no boiler, might be a good candidate for retrofitting gas turbine power stations (assuming here that by ‘jet engine’ Rossi meant gas turbine – as others have suggested). Gas turbine generators are often used where rapid start/stop cycles are necessary, i.e., to take up temporary loading, and there would be a significant market for such ‘economisers’ if the capital cost was not excessive.

    • US_Citizen71

      I would imagine it would work something like the Direct Air Cycle listing but with natural gas keeping the Ecat at temperature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion

      • Interesting (and very scary) link. I do find it difficult though to imagine a system that can transfer enough heat to air to provide much useful power, when compared to gas expansion due to combustion or a phase change.

        • US_Citizen71

          I believe the reasons for the program being scrapped was mostly due to cost, fear of contamination from accidents and defensive problems from low cruise speed due to the large amount of shielding needed. The engines met the needed specs.

        • bachcole

          I am definitely with you on this one, and you said what I was unable to say. I can’t see how an E-Cat “can transfer enough heat to air to provide much useful power”. A combustion of gas is thousands of degrees (over a very short period of time), and the E-cat is NEVER thousands of degrees and I can’t see it becoming thousands of degrees for the near future. And such an expansion of air would sort of destroy the nickel-hydrogen reaction. A jet engine run by cold fusion is getting close to free energy for me. (:->)

          • Actually that is better expressed than my version. If that IS the tack that Rossi is on then it is a diversion that can only delay the emergence of a simple LENR steam turbine generator, unless the latter is already a done deal but has not yet been announced for commercial or political reasons.

  • Daniel Maris

    One minor thought – even if it takes time to crank up an LENR machine, it’s actually not unsuitable for commercial jet flights, since they work to schedules.

  • guga

    I’m disappointed. He uses gas as a fuel because it is cheap. But that means they still have not reached a self sustained mode, where electricity generated from the heat feeds the E-Cat. Even more important, it seems like they don’t believe that this is even in sight! Otherwise it would not make sense to further develop the gas based version.

    • kdk

      Unless it were part of some sort of deal.

    • US_Citizen71

      You have to crawl before you walk and walk before you run. Besides there are plenty of renewable ways to get methane. Water treatment plants and landfills are just two examples.

    • jonnyb

      Shale Gas seems to be abundant at the moment. So it makes sense to use it, but not from a Global warming point of view. It may help calm the energy giants when LENR etc is finally accepted.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Burt Rutan, the greatest hands-on inventive aeronautical engineer of the past 50 years, rips Global Warming to shreds. Rutan is a practical doer. Your Global Smarmists are grant pimps.

        Rutan points out that current CO2 levels are close to the lowest levels in the history of earth. He further points out that of all the so-called greenhouse gases, CO2 is the least significant, and is dwarfed by water vapor.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxFm1TXshZY

        • Bernie koppenhofer

          Hi lggy. Could not let this climate change opinion go without a rebuttal. I am not a climate scientist. I must rely on expert advise. 95% of the experts say man made climate change is real. I recently had a heart bypass operation, if 95% of my doctors said it was necessary and 5% said I did not need it, guess what any logical person would do? Below is a detailed rebuttal to Rutan.
          http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2012/01/30/the-journal-hires-dentists-to-do-heart-surgery/184002

          • Private Citizen

            Bernie,

            “95% of the experts say man made climate change [assuming “climate change” euphemistically means catastrophic global warming] is real” appeal to authority is questionable.

            Any rational skeptic knows the greenhouse effect is real and that man contributes slightly to this effect. So, to add skeptics into your appeal would be disingenuous.

            Not all peers agree.
            Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

            Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics

            97% Consensus Debunked

            100% of tobacco lobby scientist of old agreed tobacco wasn’t harmful, until it became more profitable to shake down tobacco companies. And I will note that 100% of paid professional astrologers think astrology is real.

          • georgehants

            Private Citizen, I think more than 95% of “scientists” think that Cold Fusion is bunk so your whole argument falls apart.
            It just proves that science is never to be trusted or believed on any subject.
            But just like the astrologers they will all think that untrue.
            There is of course Evidence for Astrology in the positive, so you are proving my point again.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            If we took your advise we would still be living in caves.

          • georgehants

            Bernie, for your comment to make any sense you will have to expand a little I think.

          • Bernie koppenhofer

            You said, “It just proves that science is never to be trusted or believed on any subject.” Not taking advantage of the thousands of times science has been right to benefit society because you think they have been wrong a couple of times, is a bit outrageous.

          • georgehants

            Bernie why do you keep trying to turn the subject to the rare times that science is right when the topic is science being wrong.
            You seem to be unduly influenced by the establishment doctrine conning people into believing that science knows everything etc.
            Millions have possibly dies through the incompetence and corruption of science with Cold Fusion and many other subjects debunked by these wasters.
            Trying to defend such crimes is hard to understand.
            ——
            Why did you try and debunk astrology above when I doubt if you have done any Research on the subject, but are just following the religious denials of of incompetent science?

          • Bernie777

            georgehants, Very simple, because you said, “It just proves that science is never to be trusted or believed on any subject.” Which I believe to be a ridiculous statement.

          • Bernie777

            Meteorologists are not climate scientists. Like my dog groomer giving me advise about canine cancer, he might know just enough to be dangerous.

          • they just know what is a model that match the reality and give prediction that works.

            I worked on models, and climate model make me launch louder than finance model.

            They also see the money flood on climate.

            They also see the tempest which decrease, drought that happen just again, cold instead of warming…
            and most of all, they don’t take (except in some place like in France).

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            65% of your ‘experts’ are on the take and the other 30% are lockstep lemmings.

          • hempenearth

            Please provide evidence for your claim that 65% of the experts Bernie mentioned are on the take.

          • on the take, for some like wind/solar companies, CO2 adivosores, Al Gore, and top climatologis whose career would be destroyed if their fears are no more salable…

            For most others it is terror, and racket

            you have to follow the skeptics news to see:

            – how to publish you have to finish with something on AGW…

            – one editor resigned because one paper was skeptical in his journal

            – another magazine (german) was closed because one paper finished after demonstrating some interesting corelation, that it could challenge AGW theory…

            there are like for anti-LENR terro, (Miled demoted to the stock, Bochris fired and menaced… MIT fraud) many evidence that there is a coherent terror agains dissenetrs, which is quite common…

            it start like Liwis did with ridicule, then accusation fo bad science, then censorship and demoting.

            the cause of those deliria is well explained by Roland Beanbou model, by thomas Kuhn, and the higher cause is explained by Nassim Nicholas taleb, based on the manipulation by academics to show they are useful, that theory is leading progress, and not as observed that pratiotioners are lmeading progress and thus sciencien then theory…

            general problem.

            maybe talking of AGW is not productive, since it is a solved problem if real, and solved delusion if non-real. Personally I’m not even sure they are wrong (it seems from recent data, but in fact you need much more data than available, and untweaked data, to have an opinion on AGW or against). However from Climategate email, from terrorism on skeptics, on journals, from the fashion to add climate comment in any anecdotical paper, it is clearly bad science. bad scienc is sometime right, we should admit it, but not often. some skeptical science is nearly as bad, but some, the most modest like Judith curry, is simply what it should : asking more question than stating certainty.

            anyway the violation of ethic in scientific journals, the delirium of the media, the call of hate, of anti-revisionism laws against skeptics, is very similar to LENr, and when you re-read history, to Wegener (I remember reading an old comentator who said that in the 50s his geology professor told him that if he talk of Wegener theory he would get a 0/20, See Semmelweis and his 2 predecessor , and late Pasteur, see Wright brother and scientific journals, )

            http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?1008-Wright-Brother-story-It-remind-me-something

            http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?1499-Beside-scientific-bullying-against-LENR

            nothing new

        • jonnyb

          Iggy would you believe in man made global warming if Dr Caldwell Esselstyn agreed? The evidence is there, however it is not 100%. Would it not be prudent to act now, then if wrong we can pollute the world again, once proven beyond doubt. Bit like Dr Caldwell Esselstyn says preventative action, change of life style etc., strange you believe one for your heart and the contradict with the other for the world.

        • jonnyb

          Iggy look at the law dome ice core graphs and others, CO2 is pretty high at the moment compared with the last 10,000 years, and rising, beyond and real doubt. Civilisation growth was helped but a steady reliable climate, do you head in the sand guys want to put future generations existence in jeopardy? don’t just worry about your health how about the next generations and so on!!!

    • Pekka Janhunen

      From the business point of view, because electric power is more pricey than gas thermal power, one can make more profit by selling all produced electricity and buying gas for heating the device, rather than circulating part of the electricity back and not buying anything. The situation changes in favour of the self-sustaining solution only after the E-cats have proliferated so much that the price of electric power has dropped below the price of gas thermal power.

  • guga

    I’m disappointed. He uses gas as a fuel because it is cheap. But that means they still have not reached a self sustained mode, where electricity generated from the heat feeds the E-Cat. Even more important, it seems like they don’t believe that this is even in sight! Otherwise it would not make sense to further develop the gas based version.

    • kdk

      Unless it were part of some sort of deal.

    • US_Citizen71

      You have to crawl before you walk and walk before you run. Besides there are plenty of renewable ways to get methane. Water treatment plants and landfills are just two examples.

    • jonnyb

      Shale Gas seems to be abundant at the moment. So it makes sense to use it, but not from a Global warming point of view. It may help calm the energy giants when LENR etc is finally accepted.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Burt Rutan, the greatest hands-on inventive aeronautical engineer of the past 50 years, rips Global Warming to shreds. Rutan is a practical doer.

        Rutan points out that current CO2 levels are close to the lowest levels in the history of earth. He further points out that of all the so-called greenhouse gases, CO2 is the least significant, and is dwarfed by water vapor.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxFm1TXshZY

        • Bernie koppenhofer

          Hi lggy. Could not let this climate change opinion go without a rebuttal. I am not a climate scientist. I must rely on expert advise. 95% of the experts say man made climate change is real. I recently had a heart bypass operation, if 95% of my doctors said it was necessary and 5% said I did not need it, guess what any logical person would do? Below is a detailed rebuttal to Rutan.
          http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2012/01/30/the-journal-hires-dentists-to-do-heart-surgery/184002

          • bachcole

            Bernie,

            If you had gotten hardcore about alternative healing, you probably would not have needed a heart bypass. And I am not even a doctor; so even if 100% of the doctors said that you needed a heart bypass, I am saying that you didn’t, probably, but you are responsible for your decision.

            99.9% of all scientists say that LENR is bunk. Who you gonna believe?

            Believe it or not, I did get to a level of looking at the data and understanding to feel confident that AGW was not true. And I am not the smartest person in this room.

            However, the only thing that this changes in my thinking practically speaking, besides arguing with people who do believe in AGW, is that I stridently disbelieve in carbon sequestration. Pollution kills. LENR will get rid of both the pollution and that wonderful nutrient carbon dioxide. (:->)

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I do not believe 99% of scientists believe LENR is bunk. The scientists I have talked to say “I don’t know”. Like you I look at the data on both sides, at the end I just have to go with climate scientists that are independent, have no ax to grind, and the number of these scientists just overwhelms the skeptics.

          • AdrianAshfield

            You might look at the history of hysterectomy in the UK, once the popular recommendation, whose popularity plummeted when it was made less profitable.
            Or what the medical treatment was before Barry Marshall showed that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is the cause of most peptic ulcers, reversing decades of medical doctrine holding that ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid.
            Etc.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            And what about the thousands of times the scientists were right, the world is round, the sun does not revolve around the earth etc etc etc???

          • georgehants

            How does the times they are right possibly put right the times they are wrong.
            That is like saying day is the same as night.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            So, you do admit “science” is right most of the time. Then why do you say “It just proves that science is never to be trusted or believed on any subject.”

          • Trust but verify.
            Moreove the error is to say Science, when the criminal are the Academics.
            Science have proven LENR.
            Science practiced by illiterated mother in Semmelweiss hospital, were aware of the statistics of mortality and nuns in hospital were aware of the importance of hygiena agains disease.
            Only the professors and their student were so much convinced by their theory that they refused to see what illiterate mothers were aware of.

            Taleb express well the pathology of Academics who try to convince us they are more useful than the practitioners, rewriting the history to show them leading the revolution they previously opposed like priest.

            Roland Benabou model shows that if you apply the “peer review” model to science, or “peer-committee” for funding, or “jury” for prizes, you quickly goes to Mutual assured Delusion.
            Layman Market is less sensible to that because your success depend on selfish actors who independently see if you fulfill their goals… not if yo respect the group vision.
            (Nb: there are exception like financial markets and group fashion)

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            AlainCo, So, you are saying scientists and/or academics are human. I agree.

          • even entrepreneur are humans, but they are less prone to collective denial, because they have skin in the game, and they are less dependent on their peer opinion.

            Academic, more than garage scientists, are dependent on their peer-opinion to fulfill their hope, and even to work.
            It is the peer-review, the funding committees, the prize jury, the scientific editors, who are the cause of collective delusion in current science.
            Roland Benabou explain that it is a systemic problem, linked to the rule of the game, not to the individual.

            put an academic scientist into a startup, or a garage, and he believe in facts.
            put a garage scientist, an entrepreuneur, in a university with peer-pressure, and he will follow the consensus whatever it is. In a way this is what happen with financial markets, under the pressure of media and experts group (follow my eyes), led by economic or scientific academics.

            just look at the structure of feed-back in an organization to see if it can be realist or will be under mutual assured delusion.

            competition oppose delusion. delusion is son of peer-review.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Hi AlianCo:
            Our experiences are apparently from two different worlds. My background
            is from business and my wife was a college professor, so I have met and debated
            with academics. I have found them to be
            very opinionated and reluctant to relinquish their believe/fact structure, so
            my experience with “academics” would not be the same as yours when you say they
            “are dependent on their peer-opinion”. I assume your background/experience is from academe
            because of this very naive opinion of what happened to the financial markets,
            when you said “In a way this is what happen with financial markets, under the
            pressure of media and experts group (follow my eyes), led by economic or
            scientific academics.” What happened to the financial markets, was
            greed, without regulation, plain and simple.
            Financial executives, without regulation, simply wanted bigger bonuses so
            they lied and lied and lied themselves into bigger bonus checks. Put 1000 fossil fuel executives and 1000 climate
            scientists in a room and ask them if climate change is real. Guess who I am
            going to believe.
            PS The bad guys are still winning, effective financial regulations still have not been implemented.

          • about opinion of scientist , it is a question of “optimal dissent”

            to survive in academic world, or to design a car, you have to dissent a little, but not too much or you are immediately marginalized. there is taboo, and comfortable dissent.

            Today many “revolutionary” or claimed “disruptive” innovation are in fact very comfortable.

            about financial markets, the problem have been that most financial guys were aware of the problems, but when they were telling it to ben bernanke the were called “dr doom”, or simply criticized by their boss to frighten the client and miss some short term opportunities…
            moreover their incentive were to win and not to fear any downturn… it is the separation of who get the bonus and who get the losses. no skin in the game.

            That lack of skin in the game is observed and denounced by taleb, about Academic (not garage scientists)., when facing an anomaly that may challenge their theory, they take the option to ignore it (happened to LENR before F&P, to germanium PN parasitic junction), because missing a revolution is less dangerous than being wrong.

            so most of them shut up, and enjoyed the bonus… most were not only enjoying the bonus, but not even realizing it was dangerous (sincere collective delusion), as everybody around was the same.

            it was a groupthink.

            groupthink can happen in normal entrepreneurship, like in real-estate, Internet, when everybody seems to agree on a reality, and the dissenters cannot make money with their dissention…

            at the beginning all academic tried cold fusion, despite they know it cannot be real, but as it seems to be hard and as they were menaced of losing their funding, their job, their chance for nobel, their credibility, they took the safe decision to follow the group.

            Sure there is individual, but not a consensus… see howmany scientists who had positive results continued (many declared it was negative to save their soul like in an inquisition trial)

            in a way it was the same for financial guys.
            academic look for recognition, which is a kind of greed.

            the only question is whether your payback will be decided by the consensus or by the facts, and if both, if it will be decided first by consensus, or by reality.

            this is why trying to establish funding committee, peer-review, rationalization of science, government research, is leading to groupthink, which is very hard to identify because by definition you cannot realize you are in groupthink, until the reality takes revenge… and sometime reality simply ignore your delusion and let you in you dream…

            the greed you reasonably critic, is in fact not greed but greed without taking the risk of loses…
            liberalism is based on both concept: freedom to act and responsibility on all consequence of your acts. not so nice for fearful people.
            Regulation is a license to kill… more comfortable.

            to avoid groupthink, science, finance or business, the idea is that you have to win and lose depending on your acts, not on the opinion of others.
            If your payback depends on others, groupthink is one of the two cognitive states. it happen typically after a realist period, when the group committed into a vision that turned to be false, and cannot anymore get out of it.

            Paying scientist with patent fees, instead of citation, would make theme less deluded.
            I suspect that our heroes of LENr were simply trying to get rich, famous, recognized, because they know the others were wrong (like St Thomas, they touched it).
            Remove them that dream, they would have simply paid the rent with falsely revolutionary publication in nature.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            “An intelligent person can rationalize anything, a wise person doesn’t try.” Jen Knox

          • bachcole

            Outstanding!!!!!!!

          • Private Citizen

            Bernie,

            “95% of the experts say man made climate change [assuming “climate change” euphemistically means catastrophic global warming] is real” appeal to authority is questionable.

            Any rational skeptic knows the greenhouse effect is real and that man contributes slightly to this effect. So, to add skeptics into your appeal would be disingenuous.

            Not all peers agree.
            Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

            Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics

            97% Consensus Debunked

            100% of tobacco lobby scientist of old agreed tobacco wasn’t harmful, until it became more profitable to shake down tobacco companies. And I will note that 100% of paid professional astrologers think astrology is real. Sometimes consensus comes along with the agenda.

          • georgehants

            Bernie, I think more than 95% of “scientists” think that Cold Fusion is bunk so your whole argument falls apart.
            It just proves that science is never to be trusted or believed on any subject.
            But just like the astrologers they will all think that untrue.
            There is of course Evidence for Astrology in the positive, so you are proving my point again.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            If we took your advise we would still be living in caves.

          • georgehants

            Bernie, for your comment to make any sense you will have to expand a little I think.

          • Bernie koppenhofer

            You said, “It just proves that science is never to be trusted or believed on any subject.” Not taking advantage of the thousands of times science has been right to benefit society because you think they have been wrong a couple of times, is a bit outrageous.

          • georgehants

            Bernie why do you keep trying to turn the subject to the rare times that science is right when the topic is science being wrong.
            You seem to be unduly influenced by the establishment doctrine conning people into believing that science knows everything etc.
            Millions have possibly died through the incompetence and corruption of science with Cold Fusion and many other subjects debunked by these wasters.
            Trying to defend such crimes is hard to understand.
            ——
            Why did you try and debunk astrology above when I doubt if you have done any Research on the subject, but are just following the religious denials of of incompetent science?

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            georgehants, Very simple, because you said, “It just proves that science is never to be trusted or believed on any subject.” Which I believe to be a ridiculous statement.

          • bachcole

            Unfortunately this study/survey is 4 year, 1 month, and 11 days old. That really is an incredibly shameful indictment of the news media.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Meteorologists are not climate scientists. Like my dog groomer giving me advise about canine cancer, he might know just enough to be dangerous.

          • they just know what is a model that match the reality and give prediction that works.

            I worked on models, and climate model make me launch louder than finance model.

            They also see the money flood on climate.

            They also see the tempest which decrease, drought that happen just again, cold instead of warming…
            and most of all, they don’t take (except in some place like in France).

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            65% of your ‘experts’ are on the take and the other 30% are lockstep lemmings.

            If you had added Dr Caldwell Esselstyn to your list of experts, you could have avoided the bypass. Esselstyn is in the 5%, but he has 100% success in preventing heart attacks.

          • hempenearth

            Please provide evidence for your claim that 65% of the experts Bernie mentioned are on the take.

          • on the take, for some like wind/solar companies, CO2 adivosores, Al Gore, and top climatologis whose career would be destroyed if their fears are no more salable…

            For most others it is terror, and racket

            you have to follow the skeptics news to see:

            – how to publish you have to finish with something on AGW…

            – one editor resigned because one paper was skeptical in his journal

            – another magazine (german) was closed because one paper finished after demonstrating some interesting corelation, that it could challenge AGW theory…

            there are like for anti-LENR terro, (Miled demoted to the stock, Bochris fired and menaced… MIT fraud) many evidence that there is a coherent terror agains dissenetrs, which is quite common…

            it start like Liwis did with ridicule, then accusation fo bad science, then censorship and demoting.

            the cause of those deliria is well explained by Roland Beanbou model, by thomas Kuhn, and the higher cause is explained by Nassim Nicholas taleb, based on the manipulation by academics to show they are useful, that theory is leading progress, and not as observed that pratiotioners are lmeading progress and thus sciencien then theory…

            general problem.

            maybe talking of AGW is not productive, since it is a solved problem if real, and solved delusion if non-real. Personally I’m not even sure they are wrong (it seems from recent data, but in fact you need much more data than available, and untweaked data, to have an opinion on AGW or against). However from Climategate email, from terrorism on skeptics, on journals, from the fashion to add climate comment in any anecdotical paper, it is clearly bad science. bad scienc is sometime right, we should admit it, but not often. some skeptical science is nearly as bad, but some, the most modest like Judith curry, is simply what it should : asking more question than stating certainty.

            anyway the violation of ethic in scientific journals, the delirium of the media, the call of hate, of anti-revisionism laws against skeptics, is very similar to LENr, and when you re-read history, to Wegener (I remember reading an old comentator who said that in the 50s his geology professor told him that if he talk of Wegener theory he would get a 0/20, See Semmelweis and his 2 predecessor , and late Pasteur, see Wright brother and scientific journals, )

            http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?1008-Wright-Brother-story-It-remind-me-something

            http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?1499-Beside-scientific-bullying-against-LENR

            nothing new

        • jonnyb

          Iggy would you believe in man made global warming if Dr Caldwell Esselstyn agreed? The evidence is there, however it is not 100%. Would it not be prudent to act now, then if wrong we can pollute the world again, once proven beyond doubt. Bit like Dr Caldwell Esselstyn says preventative action, change of life style etc., strange you believe one for your heart and the contradict with the other for the world.

        • jonnyb

          Iggy look at the law dome ice core graphs and others, CO2 is pretty high at the moment compared with the last 10,000 years, and rising, beyond and real doubt. Civilisation growth was helped but a steady reliable climate, do you head in the sand guys want to put future generations existence in jeopardy? don’t just worry about your health how about the next generations and so on!!!

    • Pekka Janhunen

      From the business point of view, because electric power is more pricey than gas thermal power, one can make more profit by selling all produced electricity and buying gas for heating the device, rather than circulating part of the electricity back and not buying anything. The situation changes in favour of the self-sustaining solution only after the E-cats have proliferated so much that the price of electric power has dropped below the price of gas thermal power.

      • lkelemen

        If you have self-sustained mode then you pay for the input electricity
        only for the time it is used. For example for a 10 000 hours run you
        could pay the price of 1 hour electricity (let’s suppose starting it up
        takes 1 hour).
        If gas is the input you pay for 10 000 hours of gas
        (unless the gas is used at the start-up only and after start-up some
        part of the generated heat is “looped back” to sustain the process)

        • Anon2012_2014

          Everything indicates Rossi needs a low time constant very responsive (highly modulate-able) throttling system to control his LENR reaction. Hence he needs gas as that throttles faster than LENR itself and is cheaper than wall electricity. (I.e. it starts to get to hot and he has to turn it off within say 1 second.) It also indicates that his combined cycle efficiency of generating electricity is less that say net COP of say 1.5, i.e. it is not economically workable to run on self generated electricity. Hence the need for cheap modulate-able natural gas.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          True. But consider this: In case (A) you have 1 MW thermal plant producing 300 kW electric output and using 150 kW gas thermal input. In case (B) you again have 1 MW plant, but producing only 150 kW of output and using no input because 150 kW is circulated back through a battery array. The capital cost is similar in both cases. The cost of 150 kW gas heating typically corresponds to only 50 kW of electric power, however. Hence in case A one sells 250=300-50 units worth of electricity and in case B one sells only 150 units. It’s wasteful to use electric power for heating if a thermal source suffices. (Even better would be to somehow store the heat produced by the Cats and circulate it back when needed, but that’s another story.)

          • lkelemen

            Pekka you are right. I missed the part that you won’t sell the electricity which is fed back.

          • lkelemen

            So if the COP would be bigger than 6 then it would be better to use self-sustained mode money-wise.

  • otto1923

    The govt wont let them make self-sustained units at this time. They must have a way of shutting them off which depends on an external power source.

  • Obvious

    Perhaps the reaction operates as some sort of atomic lever that multiplies the input. No input, no output. Self-powering might be like trying to run a see-saw on it’s own power.

  • Obvious

    Perhaps the reaction operates as some sort of atomic lever that multiplies the input. No input, no output. Self-powering might be like trying to run a see-saw on it’s own power.

  • DrZarkov99

    Rossi again proves to be his own worst enemy. If you look at the nuclear SLAM program, a heat source can energize incoming air enough to provide thrust without combustion. Other LENR aircraft studies make the assumption that there’s no way of controlling the LENR thermal environment to enable effective throttling, which really astonishes me. If you have an effective, almost limitless (if we accept the LENR premise) thermal source, then either you know enough to control thermal production, or you throttle the system by managing the airflow. If I have almost limitless power, then efficiency is immaterial.

    I can provide enough air flow to control the engine thermal environment, and by controlling the input and output airflow, manage the thrust. As a veteran of the nuclear ramjet programs (PLUTO, DUMBO, KIWI) I apologize if I come across as an old curmudgeon.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Lots of talk about jet engines here, but I can’t really believe thats what’s Rossi is working on. A jet engine would be mounted in a highly unstable environment with lots of vibrations, shocks, g-forces and what else is happening during flight. I do not think an e-cat would work under those conditions. I think Rossi even alluded to it somewhere on his JONP site regarding the use of an e-cat in a car.

    It’s much more logical to asume he meant a gas driven LENR turbine as a drop in replacement for existing coal plants. In fact, he talked about developing such a replacement reactor some time ago, so I don’t think there’s a new development here.

    • Buck

      Claud

      March 11th, 2014 at 4:10 PM

      Dear Andrea,
      when you mention “jet engine” you mean gas turbine?
      Thank you

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Andrea Rossi

      March 11th, 2014 at 5:59 PM

      Claud:
      Yes,
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • Sean

    Well something is amiss now we are talking Jet Engines using ECAT?. I don’t
    think so. I will tell you why. Jet Engines are thermal dynamic in nature and
    makes use of various sources of fuels and oxygen in the air. They are very
    efficient at altitude. They are also getting more efficient with newer materials
    that support a hotter core. Some speculation was made about burning pure
    hydrogen @ RR, I was present with Frank Whittle and he saw no future in it.
    Possibly due to storage and materials back then. Now the ECAT is here. So the
    best way ECAT can contribute to aviation RE Thrust, is to produce electricity
    and lots of it. Why? well if you see the latest model aeroplane jet engines, you
    will find them driven by a very powerful 45,000+ rpm ducted electric fan. The
    scale thrust is enormous. My brother’s Vulcan Bomber goes instantly vertical into the blue
    sky. Scale these up and put two full size units on the Boeing 777 with
    the ECAT electric generator and now be have the correct combination. Remember
    electromagnetic force is far more powerful than chemical. Check out the BAE rail
    gun for the US navy. So again we need an ECAT to electricity generator. The
    rest will follow. Lets hope it comes soon..

  • Sean

    Well something is amiss now we are talking Jet Engines using ECAT?. I don’t
    think so. I will tell you why. Jet Engines are thermal dynamic in nature and
    makes use of various sources of fuels and oxygen in the air. They are very
    efficient at altitude. They are also getting more efficient with newer materials
    that support a hotter core. Some speculation was made about burning pure
    hydrogen @ RR, I was present with Frank Whittle and he saw no future in it.
    Possibly due to storage and materials back then. Now the ECAT is here. So the
    best way ECAT can contribute to aviation RE Thrust, is to produce electricity
    and lots of it. Why? well if you see the latest model aeroplane jet engines, you
    will find them driven by a very powerful 45,000+ rpm ducted electric fan. The
    scale thrust is enormous. My brother’s Vulcan Bomber goes instantly vertical into the blue
    sky. Scale these up and put two full size units on the Boeing 777 with
    the ECAT electric generator and now be have the correct combination. Remember
    electromagnetic force is far more powerful than chemical. Check out the BAE rail
    gun for the US navy. So again we need an ECAT to electricity generator. The
    rest will follow. Lets hope it comes soon..

    • Nathan Bundick

      Mdern tanks also have turbine engines, and they don’t fly.

    • Nathan Bundick

      Mdern tanks also have turbine engines, and they don’t fly.

  • ecatworld

    It looks like they are experimenting on an actual jet engine — Rossi says they have a ‘” hybridized” old and not flying jet engine on the bench’

    • BroKeeper

      “… on the bench” as “secured” otherwise it would take off.
      Could this be a modified open ended E-Cat with methane gas injection at one end and expanded combusted thrust out the other end? The gas not only supplies heat and pressure to sustain the catalyst but also hydrogen rich fuel – a duel chemical combustion and very hot catalyst heat expanded exhaust fast jet.

  • Frank Acland

    It looks like they are experimenting on an actual jet engine — Rossi says they have a ‘” hybridized” old and not flying jet engine on the bench’

    • Brokeeper

      “… on the bench” as “secured” otherwise it would take off.
      Could this be a modified open ended E-Cat with methane gas injection at one end and expanded combusted thrust out the other end? The gas not only supplies heat and pressure to sustain the catalyst but also hydrogen rich fuel – a duel chemical combustion and very hot catalyst heat expanded exhaust fast jet.

  • tom H

    The exhaust of an efficient industrial gas turbine is around 900°F. Perhaps the thought is to put the LENR device between the GT and a heat recovery steam boiler to create a more efficient overall electric generating cycle?

  • Tom H

    Thinking more about it….the superheater section of a coal fired boiler is designed for around 2300°F gas flow. Could a LENR device raise the exhaust temperature of a GT from 900°F to the design inlet temperature of a coal-fired boiler, sans the coal fired burners, ie, a conversion of a coal fired boiler with a natural gas fired GT and a LENR?

    • Buck

      Recently, Rossi indicated that the Hot-Cat was running stable at about 1100 centigrade or 2012 farenheit. 2300 farenheit equals 1260 centigrade.

      If a coal fired boiler requires 2300 farenheit, then the difference has to be made up by some means.

      For the engineers out there, could this be the reason for Rossi to be working to bring together a Hot-Cat with a gas turbines?

  • Tom H

    Thinking more about it….the superheater section of a coal fired boiler is designed for around 2300°F gas flow. Could a LENR device raise the exhaust temperature of a GT from 900°F to the design inlet temperature of a coal-fired boiler, sans the coal fired burners, ie, a conversion of a coal fired boiler with a natural gas fired GT and a LENR?

    • Buck

      Recently, Rossi indicated that the Hot-Cat was running stable at about 1100 centigrade or 2012 farenheit. 2300 farenheit equals 1260 centigrade.

      If a coal fired boiler requires 2300 farenheit, then the difference has to be made up by some means.

      For the engineers out there, could this be the reason for Rossi to be working to bring together a Hot-Cat with a gas turbine?

  • jousterusa

    I think there’s a missing word here, Frank. Is it “engine?” where instead of an electric resistor is used to

  • jousterusa

    I think there’s a missing word here, Frank. Is it “engine?” where instead of an electric resistor is used to

  • CancunKurt

    A bad sign for me, personally. A device that can get over unity electrical power being used to help fossil fuels… Seems they think the e-cat cannot become good enough to power aircraft by itself.

  • Chris I

    It isn’t really essential for combustion to occur in the turbine. Combustion is just one possible way of increasing the enthalpy of the gas; passing it through hot surfaces is another, so long as the thermal transfer is good. In a turbojet, the heating occurs between the compressor and turbine blades. Purely electric heating can give the same effect (aside from the practical issue of having an adequate electric source aboard).

    BTW the Carnot cycle is hardly essential and isn’t what a jet engine achieves. The only reason for mentioning it is the efficiency limitation which it constitutes.

  • Chris, Italy

    It isn’t really essential for combustion to occur in the turbine. Combustion is just one possible way of increasing the enthalpy of the gas; passing it through hot surfaces is another, so long as the thermal transfer is good. In a turbojet, the heating occurs between the compressor and turbine blades. Purely electric heating can give the same effect (aside from the practical issue of having an adequate electric source aboard).

    BTW the Carnot cycle is hardly essential and isn’t what a jet engine achieves. The only reason for mentioning it is the efficiency limitation which it constitutes.

  • fritz194

    Jet engines are not that difficult to build as some folks conclude:
    Bruce Simpson was up to a $5000 cruise missile:
    http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/
    And this guy made his own jet-engine barbecue ;-)))))
    http://www.colinfurze.com/turbojet-engine.html

  • georgehants

    Don Witcher
    March 11th, 2014 at 8:28 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi
    As you undoubtedly know, during the 1950′s GE modified two J47 axial
    flow engines and successfully ran them on three different Nuclear
    Reactors in ground based bench tests. This certainly provides a proof
    of principle for your current R&D project. My question is have you
    been able to use some of the knowledge gained by this extensive program
    either by access to project reports or by involvement with some of the
    engineers who worked on the program and are still around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_X-39#The_nuclear-powered_X39
    Warm Regards
    Don Witcher
    ——
    Andrea Rossi
    March 12th, 2014 at 1:39 AM
    Don Witcher:
    Thank you, very interesting. I did not know of this and it’s a source of useful information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Fortyniner

      Thanks, George – Don Witcher certainly asks all the right questions. Rossi supposedly sits at the head of a team, some of whom would have the task of researching info related to whatever they are doing. The fact that AR seems unaware of previous work on nuclear-heated ‘jets’ seems to indicate that whatever they are currently working on, it is not related to this idea.

      • georgehants

        Hi Peter, my wife says that if Mr. Rossi can create the same amount of hot air as I do when I talk, then he should reach the stars. Ha.

        • hempenearth

          I wish my wife complimented me like that

          • mine is less fascinated…
            the horror I tell her on science, the crazy event on business, the silence of press, make here feel “déjà vu”.
            She started in research, the moved to NGO, then to parliament staff…

            Things seems crazy simply because we are a bit naive on science, business , media and politics.
            in fact what is happening is frequent.

  • georgehants

    Don Witcher
    March 11th, 2014 at 8:28 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi
    As you undoubtedly know, during the 1950′s GE modified two J47 axial
    flow engines and successfully ran them on three different Nuclear
    Reactors in ground based bench tests. This certainly provides a proof
    of principle for your current R&D project. My question is have you
    been able to use some of the knowledge gained by this extensive program
    either by access to project reports or by involvement with some of the
    engineers who worked on the program and are still around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_X-39#The_nuclear-powered_X39
    Warm Regards
    Don Witcher
    ——
    Andrea Rossi
    March 12th, 2014 at 1:39 AM
    Don Witcher:
    Thank you, very interesting. I did not know of this and it’s a source of useful information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Thanks, George – Don Witcher certainly asks all the right questions. Rossi supposedly sits at the head of a team, some of whom would have the task of researching info related to whatever they are doing. The fact that AR seems unaware of previous work on nuclear-heated ‘jets’ seems to indicate that whatever they are currently working on, it is not related to this idea.

      As far as I’m concerned that is good – going off at a tangent before the first industrial units are released would be very counterproductive. I hope that all current work and resources are concentrated on this one objective, or we could be waiting forever.

      • georgehants

        Hi Peter, my wife says that if Mr. Rossi can create the same amount of hot air as I do when I talk, then he should reach the stars. Ha.

        • hempenearth

          I wish my wife complimented me like that

          • mine is less fascinated…
            the horror I tell her on science, the crazy event on business, the silence of press, make here feel “déjà vu”.
            She started in research, the moved to NGO, then to parliament staff…

            Things seems crazy simply because we are a bit naive on science, business , media and politics.
            in fact what is happening is frequent.

    • Mikael

      You also have NERVA, a nuclear rocket engine. Was supposed to be used as a socond stage on the Saturn rocket on a mars mission.

  • pg

    Any update regarding the third party report?

    • Fortyniner

      Supposedly the tests are concluded but it will take a few weeks to write up. If the paper is to be peer reviewed (seems unlikely) it could be up to a year before publication, although there would be no reason not to pre-publish on Arxiv.

    • Christopher Calder

      pg

      Yea. I feel like a kid in the back seat of a car asking “Are we there yet?” The sooner the report comes out, the better. They must have started writing the report at least a month before its scheduled end. They would certainly know by then what the outcome would be. Thus, the paper could be submitted immediately upon the official end of the test
      .

  • pg

    Any update regarding the third party report?

    • Supposedly the tests are concluded but it will take a few weeks to write up. If the paper is to be peer reviewed (seems unlikely) it could be up to a year before publication, although there would be no reason not to pre-publish on Arxiv in a month or two.

    • pg

      Yea. I feel like a kid in the back seat of a car asking “Are we there yet?” The sooner the report comes out, the better. They must have started writing the report at least a month before the test’s scheduled end. They would certainly know by then what the outcome would be. Thus, the paper could be submitted immediately upon the official end of the test
      .

  • MMK

    Interestingly from JONP
    John L

    March
    12th, 2014 at 2:33 AM

    Andrea,

    Perhaps this CSIRO Brayton Cycle turbine but instead of the mirrors you have
    the Hotcat or many Hotcats

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfto-kLUZ5A

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc1SfL3TO0c

  • Fortyniner

    Actually that is better expressed than my version. If that IS the tack that Rossi is on then it is a diversion that can only delay the emergence of a simple steam turbine generator, unless the latter is already a done deal but has not yet been announced for commercial or political reasons.

  • Bob

    A bit off topic—
    Rossi has mentioned that the long term report could possibly be published by the end of
    March or so. It is now March 12th. Testing would almost certainly be complete if a report
    was to be issued by the end of March. This gives only two weeks to write up, proof read etc.

    Can you ask Rossi if testing is complete and the report in progress? If testing is not
    complete, then I would not expect a report in March. It would also indicate that some issue,
    (positive or negative) has delayed the testing some what.

    This report, if overseen by Industrial Heat and is publicly signed off by them, would have
    to be one of the milestone events of LENR / Cold Fusion. I would think the most important
    event to date.

    Again, if you could ask the question that does not disclose any secrets…. is the testing complete?

    Keeping my fingers crossed!

  • fusionrudy

    If Jeremy Leggett is correct we have to accelerate LENR marketing urgently:

    http://www.mejudice.nl/video/detail/jeremy-leggett-over-de-energiecrisis

  • georgehants

    Good piece from Cold Fusion Now.
    ——–
    NASA LENR Aircraft and Spaceplanes
    http://coldfusionnow.org/nasa-lenr-aircraft-and-spaceplanes/

    • Gerard McEk

      Interesting, it seems NASA investigates LENR also at a more senior level.

  • georgehants

    Good piece from Cold Fusion Now.
    ——–
    NASA LENR Aircraft and Spaceplanes
    http://coldfusionnow.org/nasa-lenr-aircraft-and-spaceplanes/

    • Gerard McEk

      Interesting, it seems NASA investigates LENR also at a more senior level.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I do not believe 99% of scientists believe LENR is bunk. The scientists I have talked to say “I don’t know”. Like you I look at the data on both sides, at the end I just have to go with climate scientists that are independent, have no ax to grind, and the number of these scientists just overwhelms the skeptics.

  • Bruce M
  • Chris Marshalk

    It’s 2014, we have people in some parts of the world in desperate need of water. Rossi gets tricked into helping a jet death flying machine for some corrupt government !!!! He needs to put this into perspective. We need energy e-Cat devices to stem the global energy crisis and help people. He should not be assisting in WAR planes technology.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Just a minute, Rossi has said the Thermo Cat is in production. Rossi’s is now doing research.

      • winebuff

        More research and no products. Seems we could put out some product to
        Create an income stream and bring more people to the party. I think we are decades from this product having a true effect on the world. I dont want to be negative but this thing is going to get bogged down by R+D, gov, and multinational corps.

        • US_Citizen71

          The low temperature Ecat is currently the only one for sale. The only use for it that I can think of outside of an industrial process would be for heating. Unless he decides to package a single reactor cell in something like oil filled radiator styled heater I do not see many buyers. This means R&D must continue in order to develop a salable product.

    • mcloki

      Rossi should be doing this jet turbine research. It’s just going to end up being a hybrid electric generator. LENR is just a tool and the next few years everyone will be finding new and interesting ways to use LENR for their own end. That guy who’s making cars, Home heating. desalination plants, Smelters? It’s endless, so let a thousand projects bloom, or more precisely how are you going to stop them from blooming?

    • US_Citizen71

      Take a deep breath you are getting worked up over nothing. Gas turbines are what the current generation of natural gas electrical plants use for power generation. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#Industrial_gas_turbines_for_power_generation ) Micro versions are used in several CHP setups. Turbine doesn’t always mean airplane.

    • US_Citizen71

      Take a deep breath you are getting worked up over nothing. Gas turbines are what the current generation of natural gas electrical plants use for power generation. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#Industrial_gas_turbines_for_power_generation ) Micro versions are used in several CHP setups. Turbine doesn’t always mean airplane.

  • Andrew

    Currently there are two things stopping humanity from really exploring our solar system. A power source and an engine. We have both pieces. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket coupled with an efficient power source could kick start the space age. I think this is where things are going to be headed.

    Even with a conservative estimate it could cut the travel time to go to mars from years to months.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes explore space as never before because the asteroid belt has all the fuel we need. Hydrogen (from ice) and nickel (the iron-nickel asteroids). Take all the building materials from space (not out of the gravity well of earth) as Gerard K. O’Neill envisioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill

      • Obvious

        I always thought that hollowing out a nickel iron asteroid might be the cheapest large space station. You could toss out chunks from the “back” to push it around to where you wanted it.

        • BroKeeper

          Be careful or your wife may push you out to give it extra boost.

  • Andrew

    Currently there are two things stopping humanity from really exploring our solar system. A power source and an engine. We have both pieces. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket coupled with an efficient power source could kick start the space age. I think this is where things are going to be headed.

    Even with a conservative estimate it could cut the travel time to go to mars from years to months.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes explore space as never before because the asteroid belt has all the fuel we need. Hydrogen (from ice) and nickel (the iron-nickel asteroids). Take all the building materials from space (not out of the gravity well of earth) as Gerard K. O’Neill envisioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill

      • Obvious

        I always thought that hollowing out a nickel iron asteroid might be the cheapest large space station. You could toss out chunks from the “back” to push it around to where you wanted it.

        • Brokeeper

          Be careful or your wife may push you out to give it extra boost.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe this has been proposed before. Instead of having a jet engine, have a rocket engine (no intake, just an exhaust). Instead of an airplane carrying kerosene fuel it would carry water. The water would be sprayed onto the Hot-Cat to create steam (the propellant). After all, what is in the exhaust of a jet engine? The kerosene (liquid) when it burns with air (from the intake) is turning into hot gasses (CO2 and steam). This would allow the plane to fly higher (even into space) because it needs no air. The range would be limited to the amount of water it could carry.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe this has been proposed before. Instead of having a jet engine, have a rocket engine (no intake, just an exhaust). Instead of an airplane carrying kerosene fuel it would carry water. The water would be sprayed onto the Hot-Cat to create steam (the propellant). After all, what is in the exhaust of a jet engine? The kerosene (liquid) when it burns with air (from the intake) is turning into hot gasses (CO2 and steam). This would allow the plane to fly higher (even into space) because it needs no air. The range would be limited to the amount of water it could carry.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Everything indicates Rossi needs a low time constant very responsive (highly modulate-able) throttling system to control his LENR reaction. Hence he needs gas as that throttles faster than LENR itself and is cheaper than wall electricity. (I.e. it starts to get to hot and he has to turn it off within say 1 second.) It also indicates that his combined cycle efficiency of generating electricity is less that say net COP of say 1.5, i.e. it is not economically workable to run on self generated electricity. Hence the need for cheap modulate-able natural gas.

  • Bernie777

    Just a minute, Rossi has said the Thermo Cat is in production. Rossi’s is now doing research.

    • winebuff

      More research and no products. Seems we could put out some product to
      Create an income stream and bring more people to the party. I think we are decades from this product having a true effect on the world. I dont want to be negative but this thing is going to get bogged down by R+D, gov, and multinational corps.

      • US_Citizen71

        The low temperature Ecat is currently the only one for sale. The only use for it that I can think of outside of an industrial process would be for heating. Unless he decides to package a single reactor cell in something like oil filled radiator styled heater I do not see many buyers. This means R&D must continue in order to develop a salable product.

        • Chris I

          I don’t agree with saying astrology has not been debunked and I disagree that your method would be necessary. I do agree this method would not make much sense; as you say, one could hardly objectivise the comparison. Think instead of giving horoscopes to people of the wrong sign and even for the wrong day (week or what) and then interviewing them. It would be less difficult to devise the questionaires to suit the purpose. In any case, the basic principle is well known. Many people have been able to do it for debunking rather than for deception.

          BTW, before the days of research institutions, many an astronomer was the king’s astrologist; it was the best way to be patronized for this kind of endeavour. Galileo was more fortunate, he had the Medici family’s hign interest in culture and philosophy on his side and he could afford to decry astrology.

          Bigfoot? (yawn) I don’t know of there being as much evidence for it as for the yeti. The Sherpa have always had to protect their livestock from it and lately they believe they’ve finally got rid of it. The only thing is that it might not be a hominid or any kind of primate. Some have linked it to a known species of plantigrade which is called the meti in areas not far away. The conjecture is that it might be often seen walking erect and yeti could be a variant name by which the Sherpa call the same thing. Muchless interesting than a real live hominid, or even just a knew species, nevertheless this might be the answer to the riddle. I think more effort could have been put into it. I also think Nessie would be well worth investigating more than so far.

          One factor is that research does not always take a great interest in things. In some cases greater interest would by appropriate (e. g. cold fusion). In other cases, the lack of interest is quite understandable. There’s a mighty difference between these different things. And you ought to think again about deeming it easy to search for bigfoot from above with IR imagery. The problem isn’t just penetrating the foliage; try scanning NW USA with Google at the required scale and then let’s talk about what a task it would be.

  • georgehants

    “Not Fit to Be Printed”: The Suppressed Alchemical Papers of the Great Scientist Sir Isaac Newton
    http://www.dailygrail.com/Hidden-History/2014/3/Not-Fit-Be-Printed-The-Suppressed-Alchemical-Papers-the-Great-Scientist-Sir-Is

  • georgehants

    “Not Fit to Be Printed”: The Suppressed Alchemical Papers of the Great Scientist Sir Isaac Newton
    http://www.dailygrail.com/Hidden-History/2014/3/Not-Fit-Be-Printed-The-Suppressed-Alchemical-Papers-the-Great-Scientist-Sir-Is

  • georgehants

    Why is there a person below actually debunking Astrology when science does not have the slightest Evidence to show that it is not a genuine science.
    I am not saying it is, I am asking how can science be so dim as to deny so many possible phenomenon by dumb-brained “opinion” alone.
    Scientific and logical answers please, but all scientists will probably run away and hide.

    • CancunKurt

      Because it does not conform with objective observations or has any valid theory worth exploring.

      In cold fusion, the observations was the badly tried experiments afterwards and the fact that the main characters did not produce much even when given oppertunity.

      In astrology, everyone should be able to see the effects, yet only a few does.

      • georgehants

        CancunKurt, thank you for being brave enough to reply.
        Interesting to see if you give fair reply’s to these query’s on your reply.
        To who’s “objective observations” does it not conform, as it obviously conforms correctly to those who believe it’s results?
        Why would it make the slightest difference if it has a valid or invalid theory?
        Good that you agree that the scientists who failed to find anything performing the early Cold Fusion Experiments where completely incompetent.
        Who are you suggesting gave the true Rebel scientists the ” oppertunity.”?
        Nobody gave them the opertunity, they like all good scientists took it upon themselves to do the Research and not just give dumb-brained “opinion” like the rest of science.
        Are you saying that by only producing a little extra energy that proves it is not worth Researching?
        Why would it matter if “the main characters did not produce much even when given opportunity.”
        Would it not be worth Researching even if nothing was ever found?

        • Obvious

          I have a report link regarding this side topic. It is quite detailed, but you can skip to page 187 to get to the time twins section (it starts at page 175 so don’t panic). I have no desire to do the wizards vs aliens conversation that the astrology topic may wander into, but this report does contain a good summary of the modern arguments against general astrology. You can use it to refine pro astrology arguments, if you prefer.

          http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

          Part of the modern argument against astrology may be flawed since that the usual newspaper astrologists may be hacks vs real astrologists that would obviously be foolish to flaunt their power in a daily newspaper. 🙂

          • georgehants

            Obvious, very kind but I have learnt to disregard almost all so called scientific writing on any subject beyond a steam engine and then I am very careful.
            I would rather follow the common sense and logical arguments that I have put forth above.
            I am very happy for you to answer Factually any of those queries.

          • ecatworld

            I think arguing the merits of astrology is way off-topic here. If anyone wants to discuss the topic I would suggest going over to the forum and starting a thread there. http://www.e-catworld.com/forum

          • georgehants

            Admin you may note that I am not “arguing the merits of astrology” but discussing the scientific approach to topics such as Cold Fusion.
            To use another example of the same incompetence is I think perfectly reasonable.
            If the failures of science regarding Cold Fusion are to be censored and hidden away please make that clear.
            Thank you.

          • ecatworld

            The thread is about an E-Cat jet engine, and astrology is a topic far removed from that. I know people get off topic in these conversations, but we are a long way from home here.

          • georgehants

            Admin you may note that I am not “arguing the merits of astrology” but
            discussing the scientific approach to topics such as Cold Fusion.
            To use another example of the same incompetence is I think perfectly reasonable.
            If the failures of science regarding Cold Fusion are to be censored and hidden away please make that clear.
            I note that Mr. Rossi has taken the same route of bowing to the establishment cover-up.
            Thank you.
            ——-
            Please state that you do not wish discussions on the incompetence of science regarding Cold Fusion on page.

          • ecatworld

            Discussions of cold fusion are almost always on topic, I’d just rather not have these threads get into debates about astrology, as most people don’t come here for information about it.

          • Obvious

            George, I get what you mean, I think, but I don’t see how you can logically argue your point about the failings of broad brush “science” regarding various subjects when you Dogmatically ignore the science about the subject you specifically asked about. (The specifics need not be expanded on here) If you offhandedly ignore evidence as presented (whatever the subject, and especially if you don’t agree with the premise) then you are maintaining the same type of close-minded position as those that you are complaining about. IE: refusing to look at some type of evidence because it does (or might not) not fit your viewpoint. This is self-censoring, and doesn’t require the broad brush “establishment” to cover anything up. If everyone falls into the same logical traps, then who lets us out?

            I don’t agree with everything in the Wikipedia, but is still useful. For example:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

          • georgehants

            Obvious, I agree it can look that way but you must see. —–
            My point is not to look at or discuss if Astrology or any subject is genuine, only to discuss the scientific situation regarding their dismissal, without adequate competent Research.
            Without un-biased, competent, open Research then no subject can be debunked or denied.
            I will say again my point is the ridiculous refusal of science to look sensibly and scientifically at subjects outside of their reductionist religion.
            Best

          • CancunKurt

            I was just explaining why mainstream science abandoned cold fusion. You are preaching to the choir here, I have been onboard fir years

        • CancunKurt

          “obviously conforms correctly to those who follow it’s results?”
          I have not seen anything supporting this fact, only the opposite.
          Just people who want to simplyfy the complex, just like religion.

          If you cannot show objective observations or a valid theory how are you going to get people interested in research?

          I am not here to give evidence, since all mine are not objective observations but personal experiences, but if you claim something it is up to you to prove it, before it is up to others to disprove it. That is how it works.

          Cold fusion was rightly disregarded with f&p cause they could not prove their claims. And afterwords they had the chance to step up their game but did not.
          Right now, however, the scientific community is still tainted by that and the opinions of warm fusion money wasters that are keen on keeping their money and does not easily accept they ate barking up the wrong tree.

          • georgehants

            CancunKurt, it is unpleasant for me to see that you have no concern for the possibly millions who have suffered in the World because of the 24 year delay in competent Research by the establishment of proven Cold Fusion.

    • georgehants

      Just for those “scientists” that are consoling themselves saying, you can’t prove a negative, I am not asking for definitive proof, just fair proof.

      • Chris I

        I am not asking for definitive proof, just fair proof that could slightly justify your claim that the debunking of astrology by science is ridiculous.

        • georgehants

          Chris, like most scientists you are either purposely or unknowingly missing my point.
          Like Cold Fusion many other subjects are debunked by science on incompetent religious like grounds only.
          This needs putting right as it causes much harm.
          If you wish to continue defending such an incompetent organisation then you will have to do better than your efforts so far.
          Why would you wish to defend such a unscientific organisation, when you have the proof of their incompetence undeniably in front of you?

          • Obvious

            (sarcasm)
            Like most opinionators you are either purposely or unknowingly missing the point.
            Like the Spherical Earth many other subjects are debunked by opinion on incompetent science like grounds only.
            This needs putting right as it causes much harm.
            If you wish to continue defending such incompetent opinionating then you will have to do better than your efforts so far.
            Why would you wish to defend such an opinion-based group, when you have the proof of the science undeniably in your GPS?

          • Chris I

            Well, I guess we’re even, since neither answered the other was asking.

            You mustn’t thing I’m defending such an unscientific organization. I only asked what’s ridiculous about their debunking of astrology.

  • georgehants

    Why is there a person below actually debunking Astrology when science does not have the slightest Evidence to show that it is not a genuine science.
    I am not saying it is or is not, I am asking how can science be so dim as to deny so many possible phenomenon (including Cold Fusion) by dumb-brained “opinion” alone.
    Proper scientific and logical answers please, but all “scientists” will probably run away and hide.

    • CancunKurt

      Because it does not conform with objective observations or has any valid theory worth exploring.

      In cold fusion, the observations was the badly tried experiments afterwards and the fact that the main characters did not produce much even when given oppertunity.

      In astrology, everyone should be able to see the effects, yet only a few does.

      • georgehants

        CancunKurt, thank you for being brave enough to reply.
        Interesting to see if you give fair reply’s to these query’s on your reply.
        To who’s “objective observations” does it not conform, as it obviously conforms correctly to those who follow it’s results?
        Why would it make the slightest difference to the validity of an effect if it has a valid or invalid theory?
        So far you have not given a shred of Evidence that Astrology is not a genuine effect.
        ————-
        Good that you agree that the scientists who failed to find anything when performing the negative early Cold Fusion Experiments where completely incompetent.
        Who are you suggesting gave the true Rebel scientists the ” oppertunity.”?
        Nobody gave them the opertunity, they like all good scientists took it upon themselves (like Mr.Rossi et al) to do the Research and not just give dumb-brained “opinion” like the rest of science.
        Are you saying that by only producing a little extra energy that proves it is not worth Researching?
        Would it not be essential to competently Research the reported anomaly even if nothing was ever found, if only to point to the negative?

        • Obvious

          I have a report link regarding this side topic. It is quite detailed, but you can skip to page 187 to get to the time twins section (it starts at page 175 so don’t panic). I have no desire to do the wizards vs aliens conversation that the astrology topic may wander into, but this report does contain a good summary of the modern arguments against general astrology. You can use it to refine pro astrology arguments, if you prefer. I should mention that is a direct pdf link.

          http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

          Part of the modern argument against astrology may be flawed since the usual newspaper astrologists may be hacks vs real astrologists that would obviously be foolish to flaunt their power in a daily newspaper. 🙂

          • georgehants

            Obvious, very kind but I have learnt to disregard almost all so called scientific writing on any subject beyond a steam engine and then I am very careful.
            I would rather follow the common sense and logical arguments that I have put forth above.
            I am very happy for you to answer Factually any of those queries.

          • Frank Acland

            I think arguing the merits of astrology is way off-topic here. If anyone wants to discuss the topic I would suggest going over to the forum and starting a thread there. http://www.e-catworld.com/forum

          • georgehants

            Admin you may note that I am not “arguing the merits of astrology” but discussing the scientific approach to topics such as Cold Fusion.
            To use another example of the same incompetence is I think perfectly reasonable.
            If the failures of science regarding Cold Fusion are to be censored and hidden away please make that clear.
            I note that Mr. Rossi has taken the same route of bowing to the establishment cover-up.
            Thank you.

          • Frank Acland

            The thread is about an E-Cat jet engine, and astrology is a topic far removed from that. I know people get off topic in these conversations, but we are a long way from home here.

          • georgehants

            Admin you may note that I am not “arguing the merits of astrology” but
            discussing the scientific approach to topics such as Cold Fusion.
            To use another example of the same incompetence is I think perfectly reasonable.
            If the failures of science regarding Cold Fusion are to be censored and hidden away please make that clear.
            I note that Mr. Rossi has taken the same route of bowing to the establishment cover-up.
            Thank you.
            ——-
            Please state that you do not wish discussions on the incompetence of science regarding Cold Fusion on page.

          • Frank Acland

            Discussions of cold fusion are almost always on topic, I’d just rather not have these threads get into debates about astrology, as most people don’t come here for information about it.

          • Obvious

            George, I get what you mean, I think, but I don’t see how you can logically argue your point about the failings of broad brush “science” regarding various subjects when you Dogmatically ignore the science about the subject you specifically asked about. (The specifics need not be expanded on here) If you offhandedly ignore evidence as presented (whatever the subject, and especially if you don’t agree with the premise) then you are maintaining the same type of close-minded position as those that you are complaining about. IE: refusing to look at some type of evidence because it does (or might not) not fit your viewpoint. This is self-censoring, and doesn’t require the broad brush “establishment” to cover anything up. If everyone falls into the same logical traps, then who lets us out?

            I don’t agree with everything in the Wikipedia, but is still useful. For example:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

          • georgehants

            Obvious, I agree it can look that way but you must see. —–
            My point is not to look at or discuss if Astrology or any subject is genuine, only to discuss the scientific situation regarding there dismissal, without adequate competent Research.
            Without un-biased, competent, open Research then no subject can be debunked or denied.
            I will say again my point is the ridiculous refusal of science to look sensibly and scientifically at subjects outside of their reductionist religion.
            Such as Cold Fusion etc.
            Best

          • bachcole

            The main argument against astrology is based upon materialism, but materialism itself is based merely upon the reality that we are used to, i.e. what we are familiar with, which to my mind is a little weak. My own experience has been that even a good astrologer 3,000 miles away can surprise the disbelief out of you, but your chances of finding a good astrologer are slim.

        • CancunKurt

          “obviously conforms correctly to those who follow it’s results?”
          I have not seen anything supporting this fact, only the opposite.
          Just people who want to simplyfy the complex, just like religion.

          If you cannot show objective observations or a valid theory how are you going to get people interested in research?

          I am not here to give evidence, since all mine are not objective observations but personal experiences, but if you claim something it is up to you to prove it, before it is up to others to disprove it. That is how it works.

          Cold fusion was rightly disregarded with f&p cause they could not prove their claims. And afterwords they had the chance to step up their game but did not.
          Right now, however, the scientific community is still tainted by that and the opinions of warm fusion money wasters that are keen on keeping their money and does not easily accept they ate barking up the wrong tree.

          • georgehants

            CancunKurt, it is unpleasant for me to see that you have no concern for the possibly millions who have suffered in the World because of the 24 year delay in competent Research by the establishment of proven Cold Fusion.

          • CancunKurt

            My post has nothing to do with concern and wants. Millions suffer everyday for other reasons too, that we have the power to change. I hate that, but that is not what this is about, everyone here wanted cold fusion years ago.

            If you put forth incredible claims, with bad backing, then cannot up your game when people question you, what do you expect to happen?
            And there is no competent research being done in any other fields, so why should it be in cold fusion? The medical field is a joke, no cures only symptom relief with big checks on it, physics theory is very far in very narrow passages leaving everything else, the goverment funded science is either social (ie a joke) or hugely expensive stuff like ITER that is basically throwing money in a hole even if AR is very diplomatic about it.
            I could go on but I am too filled with bile at the state of things right now. Need to take a chill pill. Sorry about the rant.

      • georgehants

        CancunKurt, thank you for being brave enough to reply.
        Interesting to see if you give fair reply’s to these query’s on your reply.
        To who’s “objective observations” does it not conform, as it obviously conforms correctly to those who follow it’s results?
        Why would it make the slightest difference to the validity of an effect if it has a valid or invalid theory?
        So far you have not given a shred of Evidence that Astrology is not a genuine effect.
        ————-
        Good that you agree that the scientists who failed to find anything when performing the negative early Cold Fusion Experiments where completely incompetent.
        Who are you suggesting gave the true Rebel scientists the ” oppertunity.”?
        Nobody gave them the opertunity, they like all good scientists took it upon themselves (like Mr.Rossi et al) to do the Research and not just give dumb-brained “opinion” like the rest of science.
        Are you saying that by only producing a little extra energy that proves it is not worth Researching?
        Would it not be essential to competently Research the reported anomaly even if nothing was ever found, if only to point to the negative?

      • bachcole

        CancunKurt, Your information is out-of-date, by about 24 years. You are also listening to people with a strong financial and intellectual bias. You can get up to date with these links:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtweR_qGHEc&list=PLFBAB0BB637C4A59E

        http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3913.pdf

        These are not isolated events. There are HUNDREDS of replications. I am giving you just two of the better links.

        Good luck with the paradigm shifting. (:->)

        • CancunKurt

          I was just explaining why mainstream science abandoned cold fusion. You are preaching to the choir here, I have been onboard fir years

    • georgehants

      Just for those “scientists” that are consoling themselves saying, you can’t prove a negative, I am not asking for definitive proof, just fair proof that could slightly justify the ridiculous debunking by science.

      • Chris, Italy

        I am not asking for definitive proof, just fair proof that could slightly justify your claim that the debunking of astrology by science is ridiculous.

        • georgehants

          Chris, like most scientists you are either purposely or unknowingly missing my point.
          Like Cold Fusion many other subjects are debunked by science on incompetent religious like grounds only.
          This needs putting right as it causes much harm.
          If you wish to continue defending such an incompetent organisation then you will have to do better than your efforts so far.
          Why would you wish to defend such a unscientific organisation, when you have the proof of their incompetence undeniably in front of you?

          • Obvious

            (sarcasm)
            Like most opinionators you are either purposely or unknowingly missing the point.
            Like the Spherical Earth many other subjects are debunked by opinion on incompetent science like grounds only.
            This needs putting right as it causes much harm.
            If you wish to continue defending such incompetent opinionating then you will have to do better than your efforts so far.
            Why would you wish to defend such an opinion-based group, when you have the proof of the science undeniably in your GPS?

            Edit: Sorry, It’s Friday and I thought I would have some fun.
            Also, I just got these two headlines in the same newsletter:
            “Commodities Rise on Global Tension” and
            “Market Falls in Reaction to Global Issues”

          • bachcole

            Chris I, I really am waiting for a good answer to this one. To put it more politely than George, if the science establishment is so wonderful, how come they missed LENR and why is it that they won’t even touch BigFoot even to disprove it’s (his) existence. Like now that we have infrared imaging that will penetrate forest tops, why has there been no comprehensive infrared survey of the NorthWest of the USA to see if the forests are completely devoid of any anomalous heat (excuse the expression) signatures, any unaccounted for heat signatures? Why are scientists such shameless cowards!

          • Chris, Italy

            I don’t agree with saying astrology has not been debunked and I disagree that your method would be necessary. I do agree this method would not make much sense; as you say, one could hardly objectivise the comparison. Think instead of giving horoscopes to people of the wrong sign and even for the wrong day (week or what) and then interviewing them. It would be less difficult to devise the questionaires to suit the purpose. In any case, the basic principle is well known. Many people have been able to do it for debunking rather than for deception.

            BTW, before the days of research institutions, many an astronomer was the king’s astrologist; it was the best way to get patronage for this kind of endeavour. Galileo was more fortunate, he had the Medici family’s hign interest in culture and philosophy on his side and he could afford to decry astrology.

            Bigfoot? (yawn) I don’t know of there being as much evidence for it as for the yeti. The Sherpa have always had to protect their livestock from it and lately they believe they’ve finally got rid of it. The only thing is that it might not be a hominid or any kind of primate. Some have linked it to a known species of plantigrade which is called the meti in areas not far away. The conjecture is that it might be often seen walking erect and yeti could be a variant name by which the Sherpa call the same thing. Muchless interesting than a real live hominid, or even just a knew species, nevertheless this might be the answer to the riddle. I think more effort could have been put into it. I also think Nessie would be well worth investigating more than so far.

            One factor is that research does not always take a great interest in things. In some cases greater interest would by appropriate (e. g. cold fusion). In other cases, the lack of interest is quite understandable. There’s a mighty difference between these different things. And you ought to think again about deeming it easy to search for bigfoot from above with IR imagery. The problem isn’t just penetrating the foliage; try scanning NW USA with Google at the required scale and then let’s talk about what a task it would be.

          • bachcole

            Chris I, you keep getting focused on the objects like BigFoot rather than the subject, the scientists (no big surprise here). I couldn’t care less whether BigFoot or Nessie or the Yeti exist. I do care that scientists are a bunch of chicken hearted cowards. That is why so many won’t touch cold fusion.

            I thought that Nessie really was debunked. Some dude admitted to putting a model in the water and photographing it. The rest is power of suggestion.

            The word “debunked” is redundant.

            I could never understand why people are so interested in whether BigFoot exists or not, unless BigFoot fully understands cold fusion and how optimize it. (:->) Nothing else matters.

          • Chris, Italy

            Well than why did you get so uptight about astrology? Why did you mention bigfoot, when there are better examples? The word “debunked” is more redundant for astrology, chemtrails, Hartman nodes, Bach flowers and homeopathy.

            Chicken headed cowards is not the right wording. They all work each on their own field and can’t be bothered with all the rest. Unfortunately, there is the difference between what esteemed colleagues are working on and what most consider bogus.

            If they can’t be bothered much with things outside their own field, all the less can they be bothered to examine something better than those who scoffed at it. They can’t be bothered. Just like you did not look further into Nessie. It’s easier to just say what most others say. What obligation do you think they’re under?

          • bachcole

            Since you didn’t bother to understand what I said and your first sentence was completely wrong, all I will be responding to is your first sentence. I am not uptight about astrology. I am uptight about scientists being cowards. I didn’t bother to read the rest of your rant; get at least your first sentence right and then I might read and respond to the rest of you comments.

          • Chris, Italy

            But I did understand what you said and you did rant about astrology.

            Read what you like and don’t read what you don’t desire to…

          • bachcole

            Astrology works. But I eschew it because it does not encourage people to think and do for themselves and take responsibility for themselves. Is that what you mean?

            But my point is and was that scientists are too gutless to investigate it properly. And you are too annoying for me to want to converse with, so don’t expect me to even open another of your emails. I will delete them without opening them.

          • Chris, Italy

            Delete what you like but no, that isn’t what I meant.

            If you want to see how astrology may often work, look up the pygmalion or Rosenthal or placebo/nocebo effect especially in relation to self-fulfilling prophesies. Add confirmation bias and a dose of cherrypicking.

          • bachcole

            I can’t delete emails using the email client or else I delete all emails from e-catworld.com, and I don’t want to do that. Doing so by hand is not always reliable, as you can see by my response.

            I was studying the placebo effect since about 49 years ago. How old did you say that you were? I was USING the placebo effect for the past 45 years. I know all about the placebo effect. I know all about cherry picking. The only real reason that you discount my observations and cry “placebo effect” is that you are a materialist. Your experience has been limited to the material-physical world, so you have naturally built all of your thoughts, science, and personal philosophy on materialism. This is the most natural thing in the world. I am not a materialist and I never can be because I have had spiritual experience. But I suspect that your problem is more than just experience limited to the physical world. I suspect that you are hard-hearted, have few friends, and are arrogant. Is this true? Do you believe that you have a monopoly on the truth or at least have a monopoly on epistemology, i.e. that your materialistic science is the ONLY way to understand the world?

            I suggest that you read “Flatland” by E.A. Abbott. Or I can give you the short version. You are like a 2 dimensional creature trying to understand the 3 dimensional world and 3 dimensional creatures. But you are different from many of your fellow 2 dimensional creatures; you are absolutely positively certain that there is no such thing as a 3 dimensional world.

            I also did not think that there was such a thing as the spiritual world or transcendental reality or ultimate reality, being outside of Plato’s cave. I know now since about 44 years that material world is the dream, and the reality is the spiritual world.

          • Chris, Italy

            Of course you’re an expert on cherrypicking, you’ve just done it on my last post. As for your ad hominem (and personal) attack, it is highly unwelcome. You know absolutely nothing about me and you sure ain’t guessing it right.

          • bachcole

            Chris I, you keep getting focused on the objects like BigFoot rather than the subject, the scientists (no big surprise here). I couldn’t care less whether BigFoot or Nessie or the Yeti exist. I do care that scientists are a bunch of chicken hearted cowards. That is why so many won’t touch cold fusion.

            I thought that Nessie really was debunked. Some dude admitted to putting a model in the water and photographing it. The rest is power of suggestion.

            The word “debunked” is redundant.

            I could never understand why people are so interested in whether BigFoot exists or not, unless BigFoot fully understands cold fusion and how optimize it. (:->) Nothing else matters.

          • Chris, Italy

            I don’t agree with saying astrology has not been debunked and I disagree that your method would be necessary. I do agree this method would not make much sense; as you say, one could hardly objectivise the comparison. Think instead of giving horoscopes to people of the wrong sign and even for the wrong day (week or what) and then interviewing them. It would be less difficult to devise the questionaires to suit the purpose. In any case, the basic principle is well known. Many people have been able to do it for debunking rather than for deception.

            BTW, before the days of research institutions, many an astronomer was the king’s astrologist; it was the best way to get patronage for this kind of endeavour. Galileo was more fortunate, he had the Medici family’s hign interest in culture and philosophy on his side and he could afford to decry astrology.

            Bigfoot? (yawn) I don’t know of there being as much evidence for it as for the yeti. The Sherpa have always had to protect their livestock from it and lately they believe they’ve finally got rid of it. The only thing is that it might not be a hominid or any kind of primate. Some have linked it to a known species of plantigrade which is called the meti in areas not far away. The conjecture is that it might be often seen walking erect and yeti could be a variant name by which the Sherpa call the same thing. Muchless interesting than a real live hominid, or even just a knew species, nevertheless this might be the answer to the riddle. I think more effort could have been put into it. I also think Nessie would be well worth investigating more than so far.

            One factor is that research does not always take a great interest in things. In some cases greater interest would by appropriate (e. g. cold fusion). In other cases, the lack of interest is quite understandable. There’s a mighty difference between these different things. And you ought to think again about deeming it easy to search for bigfoot from above with IR imagery. The problem isn’t just penetrating the foliage; try scanning NW USA with Google at the required scale and then let’s talk about what a task it would be.

          • Chris, Italy

            Well, I guess we’re even, since neither answered the other was asking.

            You mustn’t think I’m defending such an unscientific organization. I only asked what’s ridiculous about their debunking of astrology.

          • bachcole

            Chris I, you have my attention and understanding. The problem with science’s debunking of astrology is that they aren’t actually debunking astrology; they are not even addressing the issue scientifically. Just saying that something is bunk is not scientific.

            And debunking astrology would be expensive and difficult. They would have to “hire” a bunch of psychologists and a bunch of astrologers, have both groups do their thing, and then compare the descriptions for each subject. Who is going to pay for that? Also the two descriptions may not be comparable. The shrink my say that so-and-so was obsessive-compulsive and the astrologer might say that so-and-so was well-focused or was going to get married in June. It would be a heck of a challenge to get them on the same page and speaking the same diagnosis/description. I am sure that that has never been done properly to even be close. Yet scientists don’t even try, because they are afraid of censure. They just say that astrology is bunk because there is no PHYSICAL reason why it should work.

            I gave up on astrology long ago not because it wasn’t accurate but because it did not allow me any means for self-improvement; there was no freedom. I gave up on psychology long ago because it didn’t accomplish anything and cost a lot of money. Psychology has moved on from talk therapy, but I haven’t looked back to see how far they have progressed.

  • US_Citizen71

    A thought just came to me, Rossi must have found a way to either use a more solid form of nickel or is stabilizing the nickel powder in some type of high temperature aerogel. A turbine will create a lot of vibration from the turbulence of the air being pushed through the compressor vanes. It will manifest as sound and as physical vibration of the entire unit. These vibrations should be able to move a nano powder around quite a bit causing all kinds of technical fun. Unless that has been already been solved the first run of the gas turbine experiment will likely end spectacularly like one of the destructive tests. Any thoughts?

    • Obvious

      I think a video of the test would look really cool.

  • Chris I

    But I did understand what you said and you did rant about astrology.

    Read what you like and don’t read what you don’t desire to…