CFA Institute on Possible Global Impact of Cold Fusion

Here’s a little mention of LENR from the CFA Institute.

According to its own profile, “The CFA Institute is a global community of investment professionals working to build an investment industry where investors’ interests come first, financial markets function at their best, and economies grow.”

In a Christmas day review by Ron Rimkus of the CFA Institute, titled “Best of 2015: Economics, Innovations, and Magic Leap”, he covers some of the major finance-impacting events of this year. The article is here:

He mentions the sluggishness of major economies around the world, calling the United States the “cleanest dirty shirt in the laundry”. He also looks at significant technologies that have made an impact in 2015 and singles out Bitcoin, desalination in Israel, and Google’s Magic Leap augmented and virtual reality glasses.

Then, he brings up cold fusion, saying:

Lastly, discussion of cold fusion as a serious technology often elicits scoffs and ridicule. Nevertheless, it is something I check in on from time to time. I recently learned of a company called Brillouin Energy that claims to have perfected the technology. To be sure, many others have made similar claims before. This time, however, validation tests of the energy output were performed by scientists at Stanford Research International and appear to confirm a fourfold gain in power as well as control of the fusion trigger. If true, and this is a big if, this technology could not only transform the energy industry, but also geopolitics as we know it. It will be fascinating if this thing succeeds.

I think this is a little more evidence that CF/LENR is beginning to be taken more seriously by people watching important trends and technologies. To me it’s not really surprising; the benefits — if it can be successfully commercialized — are obvious. It is just taking some time for the news to spread and for the potential promise to start sinking in.

  • bachcole

    SRI International. It used to be called Stanford Research Institute, but Stanford University objected since Stanford University had no legal relationship with Stanford Research Institute. So they switched to SRI International. (:->)

    • Albert D. Kallal

      There no question that SRI tends to “ride” on the reputation of Stanford University.

      However, to be fair, the trustees of Stanford University established SRI in 1946 as center of innovation to support economic development in the region.

      So the “formal” separation occurred in 1970. Surprising, they employ about 2100 people and are a formidable research organization.

      So SRI still maintains a high degree of respect, and they are the ones that verified and ran tests on Brillouin LENR devices.

      So dropping the SRI nameplate STILL holds a lot of credibility and respect.

      So SRI remains a highly credible endorsement of Brillouin’s technology.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • bachcole

        Thank you for the clarification. I had no idea it was so big. (:->)

  • Gerard McEk

    If all these 120,000 members read this and spread the word, then the ball may start rolling. Who wants to gamble on when LENR goes viral?

  • Christina

    If on 02-29-16 or the week after Rossi’s company announces that it’s a done deal some eyebrows are going to reach the ceiling in surprise.


    • Albert D. Kallal

      I wish it was a “given” that on a particular date that launching a rocket to the moon, or in this case an announcement by Rossi in regards to his reactor. We had at least a date for the moon launch, but we don’t for Rossi’s test results.

      While Rossi has been VERY generous and kind about sharing many aspects of his work, there has NEVER been ANY commitment or statement that at the END of the test anything would be released to the public.

      So while we have knowledge of the 1 year trial of the 1MW reactor, we DO NOT have ANY commitment from Rossi that on that date some announcement will be made. Rossi certainly has suggested that results “may” be released at some future date, but NEVER has any particular time frame been given by Rossi as to when such a date or release of his test results will occur.

      I have great expectations for LENR next year, and Ross’s testing a reactor in real world conditions is A HUGE step forward for all of us watching LENR.

      However, it remains unknown and remains NOT a given when results of the year test will be made public.

      I support and like the “count down” counter on ECW showing the number of days left for the yearlong test. However the countdown clock here often gives the impression that on that date or near so of that Rossi will make an announcement or release some information to the public – this is NOT the case nor a given and NEVER was.

      Regardless of the yearlong test, we seen a GOOD NUMBER of articles and renewed interest in LENR. This article simply is ANOHTER good step towards LENR awareness.
      I think 2016 is going to be a GREAT year for LENR.

      LENR is “close” to being something that mainstream press and science cannot ignore – here hoping to 2016 being a BREAKOUT year for LENR!

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Christina

        Hi Mr. Kallal:

        I realize that Andrea Rossi won’t make a huge announcement, probably, but at least we’ll–at ECW– be cognizant that the next step in the cf/lenr adventure is beginning.

        Have a Holy Christmas and a Blessed New Year. Stay warm.

        (Sir, I don’t know whether or not your Christian, but this the best hope for a blessing I can give to others.)


      • MasterBlaster7

        If there is no immediate information released, when the clock reaches zero, there should be indirect evidence of the plants success. Rossi has stated, a few times, that after the tests they will be rushing to commercial production. So, if you see multi-million dollar plants being built and orders receiving a time frame for commercial reception you can infer that the tests went well. But, I do see your point.

        • Owen Geiger

          Due to all the technical problems with the current version of the E-Cat, the first phase of commercial production may be relatively small, slow and cautious. Ex: first sales go to Darden’s network of business associates. This approach allows time to work out the kinks, develop more durable materials and do further testing. This is all a guess of course, but I can’t see them building thousands of these given the current problems (mostly with peripheral equipment). What I’m trying to explain is just normal product development work. You don’t rush something to market that is prone to failure.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            The Geiger Detector senses serious peripheral problems. Time to regroup and hunker down.