Rossi Triggered the Giants? (Mentions Meeting with Boeing and Airbus)

We don’t know very much about who Andrea Rossi, Industrial Heat, and their associates have been talking to over the years, and I think that’s understandable when it comes to business meetings. We know from Mats Lewan’s book An Impossible Invention, that there was a lot of communication between Rossi and NASA back in 2011 before the October 2011 demonstration of the 1 MW plant, and for a time it seemed that NASA would buy an E-Cat plant — but the deal fell through when Rossi would not agree to certain NASA demands about getting full disclosure of technical information before a sale was made.

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics Rossi has mentioned two more organizations he has had talks with — that I was not aware of until now. A reader mentioned to him that Boeing has patented a design for a fission-fusion jet engine (see here), and Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi
July 15th, 2015 at 9:16 AM
Gianino Ferro Casagrande:
Thank you for the interesting information. This is the answer of BOEING to AIRBUS. Maybe a coincidence that I had important meetings with both 2-3 years ago in the USA and in Italy. As I said, our work has triggered the giants.
Warm Regards,

It’s not possible for us to know how much Airbus (who has recently filed an LENR patent) or Boeing now, have been influenced by meetings with him, or studying his work. I do think it’s fair to say that the resurgence of interest in LENR/cold fusion recent years can be certainly credited in large part to Rossi’s E-Cat — which has held out the promise of moving LENR into real world applications. I hope that at some point more of the inside story will be be revealed — so we can learn better about how this fascinating time of history has developed. I find it interesting from a human, scientific an technological point of view.

UPDATE: A reader on the Journal of Nuclear Physics posted that the Boeing patent had nothing to do with the E-Cat or Hot Cat. Andrea Rossi responded:

To be more precise: the patent application of BOEING is based on the hot fusion system whose R&D is on course in the USA by the DOE, the name of the concern is NIF and the realization is of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It is based on the implosion caused by series of lasers on a pellet of condensed hydrogen. In a nutshell, the explosion caused by multiple lasers focused on the same target makes the recoil energy compress the core of the hydrogen pallet ( the target) to values of pressure able to make the fusion . The hydrogen of the pallet is a mixture of the isotopes deuterium and tritium. As a matter of fact, this patent application is based upon a phenomenon that has been supposed, but never obtained, so far,albeit funded by billions of dollars. Nevertheless, I insist: this animation around the fusion possible applications has been triggered by the apparently successful work of us, or at least this is my opinion, that, obviously, can be wrong (F9).
By the way: the more I try to find the inventive content of this application, the more I get confused, since the mechanism has been invented by the LLNL, the Jet has ben invented 60 years ago…
This looks to me more as an assembly of inventions fished from prior art, than an invention: with all the reverence due to BOEING.
Warm Regards,

  • LCD

    The invention by NIF and Boeing is essentially useless.

    I do know a bit about boeing and airbus with respect to LENR.

    Like Lockheed, Boeing AND Airbus have proponents of LENR and opponents. And yes Rossi is a big part of what happens. If Rossi were to prove incontrovertibly that his device worked with a serious COP then the internal battle in all three of these companies would go in favor of LENR. Meetings with Rossi are to assess three progress of Rossi and LENR in general.

    A central figure in all this is or at least was Dr Dennis Bushnell who has NDAs and CRADAs with at least most our all of the large aerospace and defense companies.

    I’m my estimation, Airbus is much more open to the idea of LENR than Boeing and that is strictly due to Boeings connection with the old fusion crowd.

  • Curbina

    “As a matter of fact, this patent application is based upon a phenomenon
    that has been supposed, but never obtained, so far,albeit funded by
    billions of dollars”. Nothing is truer when talking about hot fussion. And that is pursuing a theory that is supposed to be absolutely proven. I often ponder how stupid is this: a theory that everyone likes predict something that should exist and billions are spent searching for it and everything new observed is assumed to be it, even if is of dubious nature (you can think of this about Dark Matter, gravitomagnetics, Higs Bosson, and excess heat by hot fusion). The other way: finding something that no theory predicts, evenif you can repeat it at will, and no one believes you and you become a crackpot, and a scammer.

    • Mats002

      Good sum up, this path of science (fusion) is such a sad story. The prestige of a whole generation of physical scientists are at stake. Of course they deny everything that is a threat to their theories which have become a belief almost as strong as religion.

    • Omega Z

      Truth is, There is no theory that is absolutely proven even when said experiment works. There have been successful experiments done by theory only to find out latter the equations in the theory were wrong.

  • LCD

    Funny the history of pentaquarks could be the history of cold fusion/LENR

    • Mats002

      My understanding: The antiquark in this short lived pentaquark-state equals LENRs concept of a heavy electron. Next state after this is that a new ultra-low-momentum neutron is formed. This also show the weakness of the standard model; static, still pictures of a changing continous event combined with one-eyed high speed particle collisions are blind to LENRs.

      • LCD

        While I agree with some of what you are saying I just want to clarify that my point was about the existence and then non existence and then final “discovery” of the pentaquark. Weird history.

  • Agaricus

    Sorry, but I would like to rain quite heavily on this particular parade.

    Passenger jet engines typically produce 25MW or more overall output in a directly usable form, but weigh only 5 or 6 thousand kilos, occupying somewhere around one m3 per thousand kg.

    IMHO, the whole idea of LENR as a serious aircraft propulsion system is so far detached from practical developments that the idea amounts to pure speculation. Pretty much the same has to be said of the ‘conventional’ NIF fusion system that Boeing is tentatively attempting to ringfence for aviation purposes, whether or not this has any connection with Rossi’s devices.

    The order of introduction of cold fusion boilers is far more likely to be (1) industrial low grade heat and LP steam (2) industrial electrical power and HP steam (3) grid power generation (4) marine and railway propulsion. Domestic boilers could be introduced at any time, as could a new generation of steam road vehicles, but I suspect that entrenched interests will prevent this happening for decades, by which time other non-fossil power sources may be available. Developments in other areas will probably also mean that CF is never used in aviation, with the possible exception of airships.

    • georgehants

      Morning Peter, do you think that the explosive power of Cold Fusion shown in many experiments, that they try so hard to control, could be when tamed another source of energy coming from the discovery or is this just a build up of the known output?

      • Agaricus

        Morning George. For what it’s worth, my totally ininformed and speculative guess is that the ‘runaways’ that occasionally occur represent a highly localised transition into actual thermal/EM triggered H-H nuclear fusion that then quickly destroys the host environment in ‘solid’ reactors.

        Possibly this phenomenon also occurs in a more controllable form in various designs of plasma CF reactor, and this is the area of research that could conceivably provide a sustained and limited fusion reaction of this type. However, as the hot fusionists have already found, even when fusion can be triggered, there remain huge obstacles in gathering and containing the energy output, and converting it to useful work. In short, we just don’t have the materials or knowledge to do this, or any real idea as to where to start looking for them.

        Although obviously nothing can be ruled out, my personal feeling is that harnessing ‘runaway’ solid-state CF is one for my children’s children. However the phenomenon could well be the basis of another ‘just around the corner’ promise of unlimited cheap power when the plug is finally pulled on tokamaks.

        Just my ‘tuppence worth’, as they say.

        • Omega Z

          Morning Peter
          Nope. you didn’t rain on my parade. I think in time it will happen. Just not in Our time. I think ultimately they will exceed the 25Mw at lower weight then currently used along with no jet fuel. No boilers etc. It will be a modified version of the Nuke powered aircraft design.

          Personally, I’m getting old. I would be thrilled if Rossi just put a heater on the market with high COP that is indisputable while I’m still here. Industrial, commercial, home, I don’t care. After that it is just R&D and time. I’m eager to see someone stick their finger in the eye of the present paradigm. We’re past due a shift. I’m also tired of everything that doesn’t suit their thinking being called impossible.

          • Agaricus

            Morning OZ. I completely agree with your para 2. When this saga began I was in late middle age – now I’m collecting my pension! Like you, I just want to see something – anything – that will break the hold of the ‘globalists’ and trigger the transition towards a more rational world.

          • Omega Z


            I think the problem you have with LENR jet engines is the same issue i have trouble over coming. Air as a Propellent. It is something I am gradually learning to accept. I have to as it’s a fact.

            My 1st recognition of this was when LENR for Gas turbine generators was discussed. I had to recognize that the Gas wasn’t the propellent turning the turbines but the heat supply for superheated air.

            Having come to terms with this, I concluded it’s possible. It now becomes R&D of which I think will take some time(A lot) & most of all, economics. It’s like going off grid is totally possible, but not very economical.

            I suspect as an interim, we will probably see electric planes powered by LENR through direct conversion, but highly dependent of obtainable efficiency. It will need to be at least 50%.

            You also have the issue of operating these 24/7 as you can’t wait hours for power up. For commercial airlines this is not an issue. Most airlines are down only a couple hours before their back in the air. 24/7 isn’t an issue. Especially being very cheap energy.

          • Agaricus

            OZ – of course you are right, in that given time, any technical problem can usually be overcome (practical nuclear fusion reactors excluded for the forseeable future!). My original point was that when discussing LENR as a potential aviation power source, we are attempting to run before we can barely crawl.

            At the moment we appear to have more than one commercial entity that can build reactors capable of heating/boiling water, and that’s pretty much it. The jump to the idea of compact reactors that can produce the 50-100MW required to propel a jet airliner is simply so great that it amounts to pure speculation at this stage.

          • georgehants

            Omega, so agree, so many things hidden away and as Peter says below, us pensioners would like to see some tangible breakthroughs before we go to greener pastures

        • Curbina

          Do you know what is and what results were obtained in the Z machine? Enough information is freely available for you to make an idea about what it can do and what are the implications, but the more interesting results published in 2006 speak for themselves: Temperatures of over 3 billion degrees Kelvin obtained.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      If you get rid of the tons of kerosene needed for a conventional jet engine there may be enough space for the Hot-Cats needed to power the jet engines.

      • Agaricus

        True, but all ‘nuclear’ aviation proposals I’ve seen depend on near-instantaneous heating of either air or a reaction propellant (water) and ejection of this mass from some kind of engine. In the former case (air) the heat source would need to be either directly in the airflow, meaning in the engine(s), or 25MW of power would need to be transferred to each engine from a central reactor, using some currently unknown (and probably heavy!) technology. In the second case (water) you are back to carrying mass, in this case, reaction mass.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yeah Agaricus, a central reactor. It was the direct cycle nuclear jet engine I was thinking of.

        • Observer

          You forget that most of the e-cat is just the housing. The amount of reactants required for 25 MW is still only ~ 2.5 kg. It is all a matter of designing the proper reaction chamber / heat exchanger to replace the combustion chamber of the jet engine and finding a way to throttle the input compressed air flow.

        • LCD

          I agree with Agaricus that it doesn’t seem practical right now but there is so much we don’t know. For example (and I’m not endorsing this) but if it turns out this papp engine is based on the same lenr fundamental reaction then who knows.

          I really believe that time will view the Rossi effect as just one embodiment of a more fundamental reaction.

          Just my friendly opinion.

    • Pedro

      To compare current jet engines to lenr, you have to add the volume and the weight of the jet fuel to the weight and volume of the jet engines. Then assume that after some serious R&D it should be possible to shrink the eCat by a factor of 10 or even 100 in 10 years from now… that doesn’t seem so far fetched after all.

    • builditnow

      Consider the following possibility of powering an existing 747 using the cargo space and existing Hot Cats.

      The US flew a fission powered jet engine plane in the late 60’s early 70’s, now well documented. See NASA seedlings conference
      If you can do it with fission, it could be conceivable with LENR as some at NASA also think.

      The following is a loose of the cuff calculation that takes the 25MW figure Agaricus stated and assumes this is input power and concludes it could be possible to fully power a 747 with the current Hot Cat design, then discusses improvements and how long could this take.

      Volumes and Weights:
      The active volume of a hot cat is in the order of a cubic centimeter for an output of a few KW.
      The fuel weight of one reactor is about a gram.

      With current early prototypes, this requires 12.5 kg of fuel (approx 30 lbs) and about 30 cubic meters of reaction volume to produce 25MW, this is the space required by 8000 gallons (US) of fuel. A Boeing 747 has the capacity for near 60,000 gallons of fuel with 4 engines. This is only reaction space and not the containment and controls which currently take up several time the reaction space even if compressed down.

      It seems that one could fill the cargo space of a 747 (about 300 cubic
      meters) with current prototype hot cats and fully power the plane, right
      now, give no improvements in the Hot Cat.

      Improved Hot Cats:
      If we target 20kW per cc then the reaction space is equivalent to 3 cubic meters or 800 gallons of space with a fuel weight of 1.3 kg. It has been discussed that Rossi already has a working 10kW hot cat.

      With 20kW protoype Hot Cats of similar design, perhaps 1/10 of the cargo space would be needed and some of the fuel tank space could be used instead of the cargo space.

      With further development no cargo space would be required.

      Could this happen and how long would it take.

      As an example, while most people moved around in horse and buggies, in 1903, the Wright Brothers managed to achieve heavier than air flight. A few other experimenters were also trying, a relatively small number, similar to what we have with LENR.

      The Wright Brothers wanted to commercialize their invention but the patent office would not issue patents “because it was impossible”, just like now the patent office won’t issue LENR patents (for the most part, some have sneaked through).

      As a result of not getting a patent, the Wright Brothers had a conflict between being rewarded for their invention and revealing it to the public and not being rewarded.
      The press wrote negative articles about them, just like Rossi and LENR today.
      “The Paris edition of the New York Herald summed up Europe’s opinion of the Wright brothers in an editorial on February 10, 1906:
      The Wrights have flown or they have not flown. They possess a
      machine or they do not possess one. They are in fact either fliers or
      liars. It is difficult to fly. It’s easy to say, ‘We have flown.'[87]” (wikipedia)

      As a result they were close to out of business by 1907 until convinced they had to perform public flights in 1908 (military contract requirement). When they flew over a horse race track in Le Mans France 1908, it was front page news all over Europe, nothing mentioned in the US press, just like the LENR work in Japan by Toyota and Mitsubishi on transmutation made front page in Japan with not a mention in the US papers.

      What happened after 1908. Within a year it was estimated that over 7 million were working on heavier than air flight, that’s 1908, still the horse and buggy era for most.

      One year later, Loius Bleriot, an early developer of aircraft, flew across the English Channel.

      When LENR reaches the public’s awareness how many will be working on LENR. With about 7 billion people now, compared to about 1.5Billion in 1900, the equivalent number of people would be about 30million working on LENR. How fast would progress be?

      Add in computer simulations and other techniques not available in 1910 to speed up development.

      It could be a matter of when it breaks into public awareness, after that it’s difficult to predict what could happen but it could be much faster than we expect.

  • Omega Z

    Applying Moore’s law outside it’s original intent is a no no.
    However, I’ll admit, many who should no better also do this.
    It’s a bad habit they need to break.

    • fact police

      Applying Moore’s law outside it’s original intent is a no no.

      It was not an “application” of Moore’s law; it was a comparison to it. It was an observation that the triple product in fusion research has increased (on average) at a certain exponential rate — that rate being not far from the rate at which transistor density has increased in semi-conductors. Which is to say pretty damn fast. I don’t know why that should be a no-no. In fact, I consider it a no-no to make rules against the use of comparisons to aid in communication. It infringes on freedom of expression.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.