Joseph Zawodny Slide Show on LENR

I know this is a bit old — but I just came across this. It is a video of a slide presentation that accompanied a talk by Dr. Joseph Zawodny, of NASA’s Langley Research Center that was given at a LENR workshop held at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, OH on October 22, 2011. was able to obtain the slide show only (no audio) through a Freedom of Information Act request.

There has been quite a bit of discussion on this site about NASA’s involvement in LENR research, and here’s a little more that shows how interested some of the people at NASA are in the topic.


    In 1965 a friend told me he ran this engine at 94% conventional combustion efficiency but 102% output efficiency. ie 8% overunity and 80 derees F over normal temperature.This particular engine had a catalyst and was fueled with ammonia.He reckoned “It must have something to do with nascent hydrogen”. He refused to to press the issue on the grounds that”If I go down that track they will crucify me”.

    Accession Number : AD0671667


    Descriptive Note : Final technical rept. 30 Sep 1964-31 Jul 1966


    Personal Author(s) : Bull, M. G.

    PDF Url : AD0671667

    Report Date : 03 APR 1968

    Pagination or Media Count : 56 (check P48 it admits overunity)

    Abstract : Combustion rig testing with ammonia fuel was conducted using a single can burner configuration. Ammonia was injected into the burner in the liquid state, a combination of vapor and liquid, and in the vapor state. Vaporized ammonia injection gave the most encouraging preliminary results; consequently systems using liquid ammonia injection were abandoned early in the program. Ammonia vapor combustor tests showed it was possible to burn ammonia in a manner similar to that used in conventional hydrocarbon burning combustors, but with a significant reduction in range of flammability. Improvements in combustion performance were obtained by the use of catalytic aids, and techniques using catalytic oxidation of ammonia showed the greatest potential. Two different ammonia combustion systems were developed for use with a gas turbine engine in the 250 hp size range. One system was essentially similar to a conventional hydrocarbon, single can combustor, but of increased size. The second system incorporated an oxidizing catalyst bed integral with the combustor as a means of increasing fuel reaction rate and reducing combustor volume. A standard hydrocarbon burning engine was modified to enable operation using both types of ammonia combustion systems in addition to its normal hydrocarbon system. A development test program was conducted to obtain satisfactory engine operation with each type of combustion system. Performance measurements were made with the engine operating with each type of combustion system. Performance measurements were made with the engine operating with each type of combustion system. The results are plotted and allow comparison between ammonia fuel and hydrocarbon fuel engine performance.


    Subject Categories : FUELS

    Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
    Lousy PDF . I got the microfich ,much clearer but reveals nothing.

  • No need for freedom of information. There’s a simple way to check and verify if NASA is working on LENR. Find one guy who is assigned to the task.

    Take for example Joe Zawodny. Here’s his web page at NASA…

    Notice it says he works on LENR?

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    August 27th, 2012 at 4:20 AM
    Dear Larry Jameson:
    Thank you for your important question.
    My speak in Zurich will regard the report of the tests made on the 16th of July and on the 6th of August made basically for the product certification in course for the Hot Cats. This report will be published by thechnical and specialistic publications after the 9th of September, by the scientific journalists who will attend the meeting.
    The rigorous publication deriving from the third party validation that we will make, as I said, within October by a University will be made by the professors who will make the validation, so I do know where it will be published. Please do not ask me which will be the University, I am under NDA and, by the way, three Universities are candidates for this work, should the one that has been chosen since now will retreat for any reason. We have to respect the rules and the decisions of the Universities, who, obviously, do not depend from us. I can anyway say that the test made on the 16th of July has been made with 6 professors of 2 Universities, but unofficially: it has been a preparatory test.
    I am under a strict NDA for this test, whose results will be published in the context of the Certificator’s work, not of the Universities.
    Warm Regards,

  • alexvs

    Perhaps this might be interesting to posters.

    I have found at the German wikipedia an excellent article, namely “Entdeckung der Kernspaltung” (Discover of nuclear fission) unfortunately not available in English, which gives a very good perspective about the worldwide scientific method. I would add a curious anecdote: When Irene Curie and Frederic Joliot discovered the artificial radioactivity bombarding 27Al with alpha particles and detecting radiation after removing alpha source, all scientists wonder how was possible that Lawrence with his formidable equipement (cyclotron) had not found this phenomenon before. Apparently there was a common energy switch for cyclotron and particle detector so that no radiation could be detected after cyclotron shutdown.
    Apart from anecdotes, the nuclear fission history is worth of being known. The turbulent 193X years which preambled the catastrophic 194X did not hinder science men to interchange their experiences.
    Excuse for OFF TOPIC.

    • Karl

      The negative imprint of our brains are just too strong of whoever orchestrated it 1989. Normally if one of the most respected science organizations like NASA is seriously interested in a new phenomenon, respected science magazines and technical papers shod respond. It’s really an error by them not inform the curious readers.

      Thanks heaven for sites like this and a few others. I think we just have to accept the current dogma persists and carry on like this for some additional time. To be honest who will miss reading all the sh*t coming out from conventional mass media. Hoverer, giving the LENR segment more media attention should of course speed up the development and much needed replacement of nasty energy sources.

      I’m quite confident though that Rossi made the right judgement to head for the market rather to try to convince the already brainwashed in the science community et al. It’s natural for an entrepreneur to do what he is doing but it is certainly not appropriate to prevent the patenting process and support innovators work on the doubtful grounds that have been done in the case of Rossi and the entire LENR segment.

      The patent process is principally designed to benefit mankind. After 20 years of protection of the innovator to take advantage of the work, it is public goods for anyone to use. Rossi is a classic example of the type of innovator the patent organisation should support as a matter of fact to support the society with a growing level of public knowledge. As a small innovator you have always the risk of being overthrown by the guys with the much larger funds and armada of lawyers and it is natural that a man like Rossi has to very clever to protect himself and his ideas.

      I do think Rossi is not just doing it for greed. I certainly think he should be given more respect and not only for what he has done to stir up this field the last years. I find it quite disrespectful when he is not mentioned in the NASA presentation. Whatever happen to LENR of it break through I’m quite certain a “cat” like Rossi will not be invited the fine Nobel session regardless his contribution.

      • GreenWin

        Karl, it is no error. Nor an illuminati “conspiracy.” It is simply the adherence to orders. As for NASA mentioning Rossi – they see him as competition to their program. Legally, acknowledging his work would (they think) encumber their favorite WL theory adopted by NASA in hopes of securing US and international patents.

        The entire science mainstream has blown an opportunity to jump human knowledge forward. They succumbed to group/sheeple-think, aka “consensus” science. Any system intolerant of outlyers, or esoteric thought dooms itself.

        Fortunately the LENR lesson is to return to a far less centralized system. To dismantle the destructive parts of the system Eisenhower warned us of – and uplift original thinking, innovation and entrepreneurship. That is all good.

      • Sanjeev

        Karl, very good post.
        I agree with all that you’ve said. I keep saying the same things here.

  • Omega Z

    The Video shows 9/22/11, September 22,2011

    2 Weeks before Rossi’s Oct. 6th & a tad over 5 weeks before Rossi’s Oct. 28 Demo

    Accompanying audio or video is not available. Presentation given by NASA senior scientist Dr. Joseph Zawodny.

    From the Comments on U-TUBE.

    Such a shame as I talked for two hours using these slides. The slides do not speak for themselves.
    JMZawodny 6 months ago

    • Ged

      Interesting comment he left. And cool he pays attention to Youtube. Makes you wonder if he watches here, along with others.

  • Torbjörn

    Here are the pdf: (I saw the slides in May 2012)

  • Zawodny’s conclusion that LENR is not cold fusion is probably the most provocative of his findings. What is most troubling is his deep concern about reproducibility. I’d hate to see someone 10 million miles out on a space voyage confronted by an erratically performing LENR generator. The science needs the consistency promised by the E-Cat. I wonder why the E-Cat and Rossi are not mentioned in his slides? Or did I miss something?

    On another topic, is it safe to presume that the safety certification for Igr. Rossi’s 1mW device was by Underwriters Laboratory? I wish his note had mentioned that, but perhaps a later one will.

    • daniel maris

      I don’t think it’s safe to assume anything with Rossi.

    • I think that would depend on which unit was tested. If the first one went to the US military as is frequently supposed, it would probably not require any certification. That might indicate that it is one of the subsequent ‘commercial’ units that is undergoing certification.

      As only the military would be able to import such a device into the US, this would mean that the test unit is probably still in Europe, and as such would be subject to EU safety testing, i.e., the relevant IEC certifications for electrical safety systems, Directive 97/23/EC for pressure vessels (part of the CE certification process) and probably a host of other legislation covering health and safety considerations such as thermal insulation, ionising emissions testing, hoses and couplings, fail safe systems and the like. If CF is designated a nuclear process, then much stricter control system testing is required to IEC 61513, and detailed shielding, integrity and containment testing would be required, along with the installation of all manner of detection/alarm/shutdown systems. Each unit produced would have to have its own pressure vessel, pipework and IEC certification but most of the other stuff would probably carry over.

      In this case, the testing and risk assessment would be carried out by the European equivalents of UL, called ‘Notified Bodies’, which include TUV, Demko, VDE and Intertek. Safety certification, particularly of a novel technology, can be very lengthy and I find it rather surprising that Rossi is claiming that it is more or less in place.

    • Ged

      On a humorous note, be careful with your m’s and your M’s. They mean slightly different things… by 9 orders of magnitude ;).

  • Sanjeev

    New Scientist article on CF (only for subscribers)

    With thanks to Jed on Vortex for posting the link. It will be nice if anyone who is subscribed can post a summary here.

    • cx
      • Sanjeev

        Thanks. It’s a bit towards negative side (no surprise) but a good read.

    • GreenWin

      Cartwright writes in a very old-school magazine (despite its name.) But his earlier piece on Fleischmann seemed balanced and mostly fair. In this piece from the short abstract, he suggests with Fleischmann’s death a new chapter can begin. This is utter hogwash. Fleischmann has had nothing to do with science for the last 18 years. The idea that a pioneer must die for his work to be recognized smacks of voodoo ritual and hocus pocus.

      The science of LENR has made slow but steady progress from F&P’s first introduction. It was vastly accelerated in public by the work of Pam Boss and the SPAWAR team at Navy. They published peer review and presented at the 2009 ACS conference evidence of CR-39 high energy particle tracks.

      With old school gags and blinders falling away we have discovered papers like “Report 41” (commissioned by Nobel laureate Rubbia) confirming nuclear fusion via production of He4 in cold fusion experiments. Now with Celani’s demo and paper supplying more evidence of the F&P Effect – and imminent commercialization – only those ignorant of the data refuse to accept LENR.

      We have also been promised a PopSci article. PopSci is even older and more decrepit than “New” Scientist – so little is expected beyond denial and claptrap. But here is an article written for the utility industry by Mark Goldes (2009) that is interesting:

      • Sanjeev

        I agree. These “science magazines” should be the last to write something worthwhile about lenr. This is the state of science reporting in general – watered down, sensationalized and not much substance.

        They try to go with the current, not diverting too much from the dogma. Perhaps this helps to sell the magazine. NyTeknic was an exception. The reporter actually went on site to report about it. I wonder why no one from New Scientist went to iccf to witness the demo and write about it. Too much work ?

        • GreenWin

          Yeah. Too much work. Lazy. Afraid. They act like buck pvts tiptoeing past Sarg’s bunk. Orders are no LENR stories – definitely no positive stories. The only genuine science journalists are those on blogs who dare write about real, cutting edge stuff like LENR. The rest are borg.

      • daniel maris

        I think he misunderstood what Planck was saying did he not? I thought Planck point is that people had to die as they won’t give up on their ingrained ideas. So in this case it’s the wrong person has died! 🙂

        I might be wrong, but that’s what I have always understood the quotation to mean.

        • GreenWin

          You are absolutely correct. Deniers like Jonnie Huizenga are the ones Plank refers to.

        • Sanjeev

          Yes, its a case of quote being applied to wrong side and so to the wrong person.
          Lol. What a blunder.

    • Robert Mockan

      Another cold fusion pioneer has died. His name was Harold Fox. RIP.

  • Sanjeev
    • GreenWin

      This is inspired. It’s like looking into Edison or Tesla’s first demonstrations of their world-changing inventions. This comment is VERY revealing:

      “The woman is Naoko Takahashi from Toyota Central Research and Development Laboratories, Inc. Japan. She gave an excellent lecture on a research effort she collaborated on and was one of a number of examples at ICCF-17 that demonstrated large, well resourced and funded companies were taking this field seriously.

  • JC

    OT: Some may be interested in a new reactor design that may be used as a test bed for LENR.

  • GreenWin

    Joe recommends LENR as a power source for several kinds of NASA missions. For example a Single Stage to Orbit vehicle SSTO, a hypersonic or sub-orbital vehicle, vehicles with unlimited loiter ability, etc. NASA apparently was impressed by Dr. Zawodny’s presentation enough to include LENR design analysis in its Sub-sonic Ultra Green Aircraft contract awarded to Boeing Research. Boeing concluded that LENR was high risk but had by far the greatest payoff.

    “A cheap, abundant, clean, scalable, portable source of energy will impact EVERYONE.” J. Zawodny NASA Senior Scientist

    Mr. Ponzi should review this document and the results of the Boeing Research SUGAR study –when next trying to convince people NASA is not interested in LENR.

  • Camilo

    This is indeed really “old news” and this presentation was obtained by S. Krivit through a FOIA request. So, it was an internal NASA presentation.

    • Ged

      The fact it was internal is interesting in its own right. Means NASA has been pondering on this for a while, long before the public videos and releases that came months after this.

  • Robert Mockan

    Here is a You Tube satire video link completely unrelated to LENR.
    What is it doing here? (Be sure to watch to the very end at countdown 00:00).

    To those who have to ask, no point trying to explain what is going to happen when the global economic crises reaches its conclusion.

    Unknown yet if it will help or hurt the development of new technology in the short term, but in the long term we will have it, one way or another.

  • Francisco

    It seems to me that this presentation was given internally at NASA by Dr. Joseph Zawodny to try to convince the higher ups that LENR is a viable energy source worse researching.

  • Shane D.

    I must be following this too closely because nothing on those slides seemed new to me.

    • artefact

      They are from 2011

  • Andrew Macleod

    I like the rating on the video. It’s rated S, scientific not for those who follow dogma or have fixed beliefs.

  • T Lee Buyea – Fla. News Service Miam

    Did you know that acasanova’s name was Andria Rossi?

    • Andrew Macleod


    • Did you mean to type that, or did it happen when you accidentally dropped something on your keyboard?

      • Andrew Macleod

        I don’t think he/she really works for any kind of news agency. Improper grammar and misspelled Andrea.

  • Hampus

    Freedom of Information Act is a wonderful piece of paper 🙂