Zurich E-Cat Conference Thread (Day 2)

Here’s open thread to discuss the events of Day 2 of the Zurich E-Cat conference.

The live stream can be followed here here

At the moment Andrea Rossi is answering questions from the audience. I did not catch it all but he did mentions working with someone from Siemens

On transmutation from nickel to copper — when they started work, Rossi and Focardi thought that this transmutation was at the heart of this process, now they have changed their thinking. Rossi is convinced this is a side effect that comes from the production of low energy gamma rays. Copper is produced in only tiny amounts — ‘picograms’. Transmutation is not the main process. His theory has ‘substantially changed’.

Now they are extremely focused on producing electric power — not doing primary research on using materials other than nickel. He says if they can make electricity they will be able to adapt the system so they can create an infinite COP — fulfil Nikola Tesla’s dream. He wants to make a difference in combating poverty as soon as possible.

Question time now over. Much applause.

22passi.blogspot.com has a link to a slideshow in which Siemens is mentioned as a partner helping with the hot cat: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/09/e-cat-in-corso-di-sviluppo-con-siemens.html

  • georgehants

    Information from Cold Fusion Now.

    Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference Organizes Paradigm Change
    September 10, 2012 Ruby Carat Events, James Martinez
    An international conference sponsored by the Global Breakthrough Energy Movement (GlobalBEM) will be held November 9, 10 and 11 in Hilversum Holland highlighting new energy science and technology.
    The program will feature LENR, as well as advanced physics concepts in hybrid energy sources, noble gas and plasma technologies, magnetics, and zero point energy and is dedicated to Dr. Brian O’Leary, an astronomer, planetary scientist, and Apollo-era NASA astronaut who later embraced new energy technology becoming the founder of New Energy Movement [about].
    GlobalBEM started as a volunteer driven group and non-profit organization in 2011 “to educate and bring awareness to the general public about breakthrough energy technologies, which are clean, sustainable, abundant and world-changing.”

  • georgehants

    I cannot find a single report from any known source on the conference.
    One from a fringe Website.

    • Martin

      Just wait until the report is being pubished in a “scientific magazine”. Muahaha, it won’t happen, I guess.

      • It certainly won’t make any mainstream publication, TV science slot or anywhere else it might come to the attention of anyone who is not actually looking for it.

        Lets (probably generously) assume that by now, 10,000 people are following the story. The adult population of the world numbers about 3 billion. So that is 10000/4000000000, i.e., about 0.00025% of the world’s adult population who know about CF. Even if I’m a factor of 10 out in the number of ‘followers’, it hardly makes any difference. This is how TPTB are playing the game at the moment.

  • Heine

    Maybe old news – but this press release from HydroFusion worries me. Is it the reason why Magnus Holm backed out from the conference?


    Hydro Fusion witnessed a new independent test of the high temperature ECAT prototype reactor on September 6th in Bologna. Although no full report has yet been received, early indications are that the results of the July 16th/August 7th reports could not be reproduced.

    Hydro Fusion cannot at this stage support any claims made, written or other, about the amount of excess heat generated by the new high temperature ECAT prototype.

    • That is indeed a rather curious news item, from a company that supposedly represents Rossi in the UK and scandinavia, and also runs ecat.com. I would have thought that keeping quiet until they had all the information was a commercially preferable option. It’ll be interesting to see what else they publish.

      Holm recently said: “In particular, we want to be as officially linked to Rossi as (closely as?) possible in order to capture as much commercial interest as possible through Ecat.com.” He is not going to capture much interest with statements like the one on the Hydro Fusion site.

      • mcloki

        Seems odd that this HydroFusion site is dormant for such long periods of time. And they just reuse graphics from old presentations on their site. I suspect their credibility.

  • Omega Z

    All the Data & Info to date on the Hot-Cat is preliminary.
    This is a certification in process & many more tests will be done over the coming weeks. The Certification is not yet complete. This presentation was for the licensee & potential investors. Not for us. Most of what was presented, we are already aware of. SGS as the certification authority is the only real news.

    As for the numbers & COP, it’s neglected a lot of radiated power to avoid disputes. Also ran in a Ramp up mode thru the test. Like stomping the pedal to the floor in your car from 0 to 60. Mileage not so good. Improves drastically when you level off & cruise at 60mph.

    There’s already been improvements made since these tests were performed.

    • LCD

      Okay your saying this based on what information?

      When the hot cat information came out, myself and a lot of technical folk i think assumed that the temperature was being reached was due to more “nuclear-type” reactions but that report makes it sound like the drive temp was increased with very little increase in LENR output.

      I guess i thought the COP of 6 WAS A CONSERVATIVE estimate. OF COURSE its still early and only a fool would make solid conclusions one way out another at this point but the hydro fusion comments are not good for the hot cat anyway.

  • Lu

    Sterling Allen recorded Rossi’s Day One presentation. Video and Audio are very good but it is long (1:30:00) even without the Italian.

    You can see here: http://pesn.com/2012/09/09/9602178_Rossi_Reports_Third-Party_Test_Results_from_Hot_Cat/

  • AstralProjectee

    We think this is something, just wait till when Rossi starts selling those babies to everyone. I can only imagine the debate that will go on. And probably for a long time afterward.

    I have to give credit to Rossi though for doing this. I am still waiting for the silver bullet though to pierce the mainstream ego into bits and pieces.

  • Lu

    The tests are one validation. Operating plants will be another:

    Dear Luigi Versaggi:
    The main stream media need to see plants in operation: they will be satisfied soon.
    Warm Regards,

    • Miles

      They can’t sell something without documenting & testing. Some people need to have faith.

      • Lu

        According to Rossi, they’ve already sold plants. And according to Rossi as I just quoted, we will see them soon.

  • ccatt57_77

    So now the conference is over, what can we make of everything that has been reported the skeptics are not convinced and there was no definitive demo but the report looked good on paper – whats to make of all this?

  • Sailawaybobby

    I wish it to be real. The truth is that if it was, it would of already disappeared as would of Rossi himself. We are totally owned by big oil and the NWO.

    • Almost like saying that we cannot be alive since if we were, there would be others alive as well in the vast universe and since we don’t see them, we are dead as well.

      Anyway I guess your comment was a joke, if so then mine is continuing it.

  • Barry

    Thanks Frank.

  • Ivan_cev

    I have been reading other blogs, and some people is pointing out the measurement of radiated heat using the total area of the device is WRONG, the internal area of the tube can not be used as is self absorb, and a factor of about 0.2 should be used for this area, How came the certifier does not know that?
    Is he a professional in the area or is just a newee making a silly mistake, Many of us make mistakes were talking about a field we not familiar with.
    This is giving me a very bad impression.
    Rossi I think if you continue doing this you will cause a huge damage to the LENR research field.

    • Ged

      Erm… Let’s do the math ourselves instead of listening to folks, since we have the raw data. (Hint: those folks are wrong, the calculations are basically correct as far as I can compute them)

      Diameter of outer cylinder was 0.08559, divide by 2 for radius = 0.04280 m . Height = 0.33 m

      Surface area of cylinder, but without top and bottom = (2(pi)(radius))(height) = (2(pi)(0.04280m))(0.33m) = 0.0887 m^2. The camera can see half of that, so 0.0444 m^2 for one side of the cylinder is the surface area.

      We’re doing black body radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation

      So watts per square area (j*) = stefan-boltzmann constant (s) * temperature (t)^4

      j* = (5.67 * 10^-8)(1066 C + 274.15 = 1340.15 K)^4 = 182892.84 W/m^2.

      Actual power produced (P) = (j*)(surface area) = (182892.15 W/m^2)(0.0444 m^2) = 8120 W of power from one side of the hot cat when at a temperature of 1066 C (max); or 8.12 kW.

      Notice, this calculation is ONLY USING black body radiation of heat in the wavelength of light as detected by the infrared camera to determine temperature.

      Notice too, this is taking peak power, not integrating power from across the entire temperature curve; so this is not a measure of energy.

      The value seems to agree well enough with their stated max output power of 8.4 kW. But they were able to account for some convection, which I am not.

      So, it seems those people you are listening to are -incorrect-. The calculations as done here using the raw data from the Errata slides and ONLY considering black body radiation, matches within 320 W of the value given in the slides for peak power.

      • Ivan_cev

        This is not my area of expertise, So I am not sure why to use 1/2 of the Area, the argument about the internal area or the cylinder is that the cylinder is long so lots of the energy is retro-feed into the device so the radiation only happens at he extremes this is why they propose a factor of 0.2 for the internal area of the device. (The thinking looks reasonable to me) but I am not versed in this subjects.
        What I will love to see is measurements against a control device, this will put all arguments off. even better see the device and control device making real work like heating water.

        • Ged

          Radiation is -not only at the extremes-! That is ridiculous. Black body radiation happens wherever there is a temperature.

          No idea why they say anything about the inner area. Notice that is completely irrelevant for the black body calculations I did.

          But yes, you’re completely right that it’s best idea to have a control, then we don’t have to deal with many of these issues, as we can just look straight up at the temperature differences of control versus active hot cat.

          edit: Oh, I guess by “at the ends” they are talking about radiation by the inside surface? In that, it would just get absorbed by the steel again unless it’s at the ends and thus exposed and can radiate away from the device? That’s irrelevant if one only considers the outside surface, which is all radiating away from the device. And I’m not sure how good the steel is at reabsorbing photons it emits from the inside surface. That is just.. crazy complex. But 0.2 does seem to come from anywhere, nor do I see anything that makes sense of that number; neither based on the surface area of a cylinder at the ends or anything else I can see.

          • Ivan_cev

            I see what you mean , you only using the external area of the device, and the camera only sees half of it, and you not using the internal area of the cylinder.

            We should all petition Rossi please use a control device when making test!!!!

            • Ged

              Here here!!

          • I suspect that heat emission from the inner tube is actually quite large, especially from convection, as very hot air leaves the upper part of it and is replaced by ambient air entering from below. In addition, although there must be some self re-absorption occurring in the inner cavity, the open ends mean that the entire inner surface is actually in line-of-sight with an exit route for IR radiation, albeit at highly oblique angles to the internal surface.

            Although these factors have rightly been ignored as they are not measured, I think that better calorimetry would probably show a significant additional output from the inner tube, and a correspondingly higher COP. As others have pointed out, this experiment was designed to eliminate a chemical source for the extra energy (which it has done), and further optimisation of the effect and more accurate measurements will follow.

            • I see that Zedshort has covered radiation from the inner tube far more scientifically than above! It should be noted though that despite the ‘shape factor’ reducing the emmissivity to c. 20% of a fully exposed surface, the inner tube is much hotter than the outer one, which may shift this figure upwards.

        • Ivan Mohorovicic

          What I will love to see is measurements against a control device, this will put all arguments off. even better see the device and control device making real work like heating water.

          For what is worth (although I don’t see why one should not trust what he says, he’s proven to be quite reliable), Cures wrote that this is planned (“in calendario” meaning “in program”. lit “in calendar”. See here).

      • Ged

        I suppose that the take away message here is that there are several different ways to skin this cat (no pun intended). I took the simplest possible calculations and got close within 3.3% of the way more complex calculations. I don’t feel these calculations are correct. We only consider one side of the cylinder, and on the other hand, I am not considering reabsorbance, which I’m not sure how to calculate. Conduction/Convection are not considered, nor the ends of the hot cat (nor the open inner surface).

        Could be I’m off in another way, but all the calculations are there, so anyone can have at them!

      • See WP article on view factor or shape factor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_factor . It is the fraction of the energy radiated from a surface that is intercepted by another surface. In the case of the inner tube, the radiation from points away from the ends and toward the mid span, is largely intercepted by that same surface giving a shape factor near zero. In the case of points near the exit of the tube, those portions of the inner tube surface radiate a fraction of about half their energy to the room and the other half to the inner portions of the tube for a shape factor of 0.5 . Hence the shape factor is somewhere between the two. I would guess at about 0.2. In other words, when calculating the energy radiated from the inner tube’s surface to the room, you must reduce it to only 20% of that calculated from the gross area. The shape factor of the outer surface w.r.t. the room is 1.0 by inspection. Please believe me I have at least one semester of heat transfer experience.

        • Ged

          But the question isn’t about what the inner tube is radiating to the outside room.

          In the report, I see them using thermal conductivity. Remember, the inner temperature is feeding the outer temperature we are measuring. This business about the inner radiating to the room is a red herring. That 0.2 value, if correct, is -not accounted for- in the calculations. It’s loss power, and means the E-cat is making more power than the calculations suggest.

          Remember, all things want to be in thermal equilibrium (not saying this for you, as you well know, but others). The inside wants to be in equilibrium with the outer surface. The outer surface wants to be in equilibrium with the room. The outer surface is where we’re measuring, and the heat from the inner surface is delayed reaching the outer surface by the thermal conductance and heat capacity. But for the calculations here, all that is ignored, and basically lost heat that is not contributing to the final power calculation.

          Again, in the report it specifically states the ends of the e-cat were ignored. That is power lost and not considered. The full power of the device is the full heating that occurred for the volume of the device. That… is way beyond the scope here.

          • Ivan_cev

            The 1066 Celsius is at the center of the device, The external temp has be be lower

            • Ged

              The center was 1200 C as measured by the laser thermometer, I believe.

          • The “ends of the e-cat” they were referring to were the annular ends that had been slathered with the putty. The radiation from the inner tube was included in the power calcs and that value should have been multiplied by 0.2 to account for the shape factor of the inner tube surface. As a result, the power out was overestimated w.r.t. that calc. They underestimated the power out by not including the convection from the surface. That was brought up in the “Eratta” but the error is small. Overall the calculations were close enough.

            • Ged

              Hm, maybe. My understanding from reading the report was the inner temp was only a factor in trying to calculate the average temperature of the entire device (hence their need for the thermal conductivity values); and then that was applied to the black body calculations. I could very well have missed where the ends were somehow factored in, but I do think I remember it saying the open parts of the caps not puttied were ignored… Hum. I wish I had time to look through it closer at those parts.

      • Andrew Macleod

        You lost me at diameter!

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Ged: Thanks for your expertise. I have been following Rossi long enough to realize his skeptics will not be satisfied until they see their electric meter running backwards.

        • ivan_cev

          This is the end goal, isn’t

          • ivan_cev

            We just trying to shake it as much as possible, if it stands, then is true!

        • georgehants

          Agreed, what a wonderful string, thanks Ged, Peter etc.
          The most important point made by Ged —
          “Erm… Let’s do the math ourselves instead of listening to folks,” —-
          This is by far the most important Website re. Cold Fusion and as was again reported yesterday Wiki-rubbish is infested with professional debunkers and serves no purpose, except for possibly looking up the date of Newton’s death, but I would still check that information elsewhere.
          PESN has it’s own resident gang that completely stops all fair and open discussion.
          Some other excellent Websites but they do not attract much discussion.
          It will be noted that when attacked by these unpleasant people most commenters stay silent, but say they dislike the arguments.
          Just the usual few thick skinned individuals defend and as fair defense is virtuly impossible against such circular and calculated attack only the policy of the moderator can, if he wishes save the day.

          • ivan_cev

            Actually you have to be thick skinned to not to believe by faith. Science does not believe, it verifies the existence of something real or not.
            Is our duty to refuse to belive, but be convinced when the argument can not be falsified.
            This is why I will like to see tests with control units

            • georgehants

              ivan_cev, it would be useful if you would put up a name of any person on this page that is demonstrating “a belief by faith”.
              You are attacking by false implication.
              As far as I can tell we are all waiting like you for Evidence but choose to have an optimistic outlook as against a damaging negative philosophy.

            • ‘Faith’ doesn’t come into it. Any reasonable person can operate on the basis of a balance of probabilities, in the absence of ‘absolute proof’. In fact there is no such thing, and ALL scientific theory is no more than a current best fit to the available data. A good scientist is capable of provisionally accepting new data, and theorising on a ‘what if’ basis. If the old model no longer fits it should be modified until it does. Only a bad scientist will continue to deny a thing until it becomes undeniable through the work of others.

      • Robert Mockan

        I did not see a calibration chart for the camera, with a correction factor applied to the particular surface they are using as a heat radiation source, to allow for the variance from a pure black body radiation source. Without that their measurements could be several percent off. Also when one has a discrepancy between different electric power measurement indicators, it is NOT all right to just use the numbers that seem to make sense, and discard the others. Using an ammeter and voltmeter for AC power measurements is also incorrect procedure. Electrical noise and power factor variation from a pure resistance can also insert another few percent error into AC power measurements. Finally, where are the error bars on the charts showing the data? Where are the scatter plots? As much as people would like these tests to be definitive, they are not given the poor data accumulation. What we are being shown as far as data is concerned would not be acceptable even for a college physics class experiment.

        • Ged

          Very true, there are some controls missing that cause the error range of the data to be increased. You bring up very important points.

  • This is again promising and with an eye industrial sales results.

    There has been a shift in the direction of the debate toward the
    industrial hopefully with no effect on the domestic e-cat timeline
    apparently delayed singularly by the UA certification.

    I find it harder to stay focused when at least two of the promising
    new energy solutions suddenly hit a brick wall at the finish line
    this year (South African generator in April and Plasma-Erg in
    September) and some others have shifted plans with more reasons
    given for delay. I have no doubt that cold fusion/LENR will be
    practical but it is harder to predict who will be first.

  • Ivan Mohorovicic

    I found this interesting image from one of the latest 22passi comment feeds:

    It looks like “Cures” (Domenico Fioravanti, if this is his real name) made thermal measurements during the test mentioned in the Peron report. Or that others used his laptop.

    • Wolf

      Not really “independent” if an old buddy is doing the measurement…

      • Ged

        That image there does not appear in the report, from what I saw. Remember there were two tests. July 16 and August 7th. The report is from August 7th and is a repeat (replication) of July 16. Cures leaked the July 16 info, which is why Rossi had to do it again with a different party.

        • Ivan Mohorovicic
          • Ged

            Hah, I was thinking about page 10, but looks like the image you posted was lifted from page 12.

            We can’t assume the generic “Cures” here is the same as the internet forum Cures of Domenico Fioravanti, but using that name does provide excellent cover for leaks.

        • Red_Baron

          We see that the image of the report is called CURES in electronic directory. Maybe it’s not a leak but a premeditated disclosure by rossi or authorized by him. I think the leak is a parallel authorized information.

      • Ivan Mohorovicic

        You’re willing to believe that Fioravanti shortly met with Rossi in the 70’s, but not that, according to both of them, they didn’t meet again until 2011. Why?

        Or either your meaning of “old buddy” is different than that of most people.

        • Wolf

          An “Old buddy” to me is someone that you have known for a long time, independent of how often you have seen him during this time frame. So of course, perhaps Rossi and Fioravanti were regularly drinking a cold beer together, not just in 1970 and 2011.

    • Loop

      Great catch Ivan

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    What’s important to highlight is the fact that the report that Rossi provided us, is exactly the same what Rossi has been saying to us all the time.

  • georgehants

    It seems to have all gone quiet, time to thank Frank for all his hard work, without which none of us could have seen the last two days with so many helpful comments.
    The saga continues to it’s inevitable end, on this site hopefully without abuse and distortion but just a gathering of Evidence to reach the Truth.

    • Indeed. Great job as always Frank – thanks.

  • GreenWin

    With “Implied Consent” I re-post this poignant comment from Redford:

    Redford on September 9, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    ” but that there has been no verifiable third party substantiation.”

    Sure. Rossi also spoke Ouzbek the whole conf and his skin was purple. Hello ?
    We have 3 names of 3rd party with consistent resume signing a report confirming announced results. We have the name of big, credible certification company which has certified the industrial e-cat.

    If you think this is the same than october 2011, you could add that it’s the same than january 1st 0000, as it imply you just don’t have any sensible criteria for progress.

    • pete

      I wasn’t able to follow the conference.

      Could you please cite the 3 names, what they signed(approved?) and what makes them 3rd party. Btw are their resumes accessible online eventually (link)?

      Can someone (not Rossi and co) confirm the name of the big credible certification company?

      • Ged

        Check yesterday’s thread, on the reports which have the names. Renzo found both people, and some others, on-line. All backgrounds check out stellarly. SGS is the purported certifier. All your questions have been answered if you’d look.

        • pete

          Which yesterday thread do you mean exactly.

          All I see atm is: “Rossi said this, Rossi said that”.

          • Ged

            … Please don’t make me do everything for you. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/high-temperature-e-cat-report-published/

            The names of the two authors of the two part of the report are printed on it. You can see it with your own eyes.

            I’m not trying to be rude of mean in any way, but… seriously… Just look.

          • Ged

            Oh, technically too, -both threads- yesterday. So pick one, you get the knowledge you want. But looking at the reports is easiest, no having to wade through comments.

            • Ged, I think you may be wasting your time trying to educate ‘Pete’. He is not interested in information, he is trying to make the usual ‘skeptic’ debating points.

  • Nixter

    Many posting here, both for Rossi and against Rossi, are missing an important angle, it is clear that Rossi is not interested in making scientifically correct reports to convince supporters, scientists, physicists or skeptics of anything. He wants to convince future customers, licensees and vendors, and not much more than that. He has stated repeatedly that he is working hard to bring a workable functioning product to the market, trying to convince these other interested parties would substantially detract from his stated goal, to make a working e-cat and sell it. Both the skeptics and fervent supporters are at odds with Rossi in this regard. I admit his methodology is a bit strange and unconventional, but it is his invention, he is self funding most if not all of it, and he will most likely not be swayed by any of us here or by anyone anywhere. All the rampant speculation and criticism is pointless until and unless the hardware is examined and validated by third party entities. As long as A. Rossi is working without proper Patent protection you can expect him to safeguard his exclusive Intellectual Property by limiting it to a select few. I did think that by now we would know more than we do, it is frustrating, all of these months, years, and still we wait,… Let this bizarre event play itself out, don’t let Grandma invest her life savings into this yet, but be ready for anything.

    This is a once in a lifetime event, either Rossi is a deluded crank, or the inventor of the Century, savor the moment, wait for the conclusion, either outcome is interesting.

    • GreenWin

      Nixter, see Redford above. This is not rocket science.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        We should find a new analogy. Rocket science is pretty old, well understood, Newtonian mechanics. Rocket science isn’t “rocket science”.

        • Garry

          This isn’t quantum physics.. Oh wait…

    • Ivan_cev

      I See the effort to bring the Ecat to the market rather inefficient. If Rossi did a serious well designed public test, inviting press, an scientific community then investors will came with trillions of dollars to put the technology in the market fast.
      I find Rossi way a bit cumbersome.

      • Jim Johnson

        “investors will came with trillions of dollars”…to find a way to do it without Rossi, having access to his un-patented technology.

        • ivan_cev

          You want to patent a perpetual motion machine? is possible!, just show the device.

    • Nixter, your conclusion is certainly on target, as are your points about third-party validation. But one can question whether it benefits anyone (including ultimately Rossi) to be so secretive or to focus on trying to make financial profits directly from patenting the device it it truly works as well as suggested (being as you say the invention of the century if it works, not just some run-of-the-mill incrementally slightly better mouse trap). Here is an alternative perspective on that in a comment I posted yesterday, suggesting why such information could be freely shared, since it may well mean the end of economic scarcity as we know it — which would make amassing profits in fiat dollars or euros from a patent on the e-Cat fairly pointless in the long term:

      A document linked in that comment includes a note I sent to Andrea Rossi back in January 2011 (via his Journal website). This is the beginning of that and a bit from near the end:
      When Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made their original cold fusion announcement, I sent them a copy of the book “Midas World”. It is a collection of science-fiction short stories by Frederik Pohl on some of the socioeconomic implications of cheap fusion energy. It includes a funny satirical story called “The Midas Plague”, originally published in 1954. Wikipedia has a page on the book, which reads in part: “… in this new world of cheap energy, robots are overproducing the commodities enjoyed by mankind. So now the ‘poor’ are forced to spend their lives in frantic consumption, so that the ‘rich’ can live lives of simplicity.” In that imaginary world, only the “rich” get to have small homes, eat plain food, and work a lot both to help other people and in their small gardens; the “poor” are condemned to living in mansions, eating vast amounts of fancy food, being entertained endlessly, and are not allowed to do meaningful work for others or themselves — all to make an old-fashioned scarcity-based economic model still work out in an age of cheap energy. 🙂

      In the last chapter of the book, there is a section quoted from the inventor’s diary on his bitter disappointment about how humankind used his invention. He had hoped cheap fusion power would liberate humanity for a life of contemplation, creativity, or even just loafing around (see also Bob Black’s essay “The Abolition of Work”). But instead that fictional world ended up with “a snowmobile in every driveway … and a dune buggy plowing up every patch of sand”.

      The inventor said he was shut out by large corporations etc. from advocating positive ideas about the social issues relating to his invention of cheap fusion energy, and his aspirations for humankind’s social uplift. While he got a lot of money from the patents, the cheap energy soon made everyone rich in material terms, and so being financially obese did not mean much anymore. Fortunately, even though the inventor was pessimistic, humanity did expand into space habitats eventually in that fictional world (given room in the solar system for quadrillion of people in habitats built from asteroidal ore), and one could hope such a human proliferation (or even better robotics and AI) would bring some wider social diversity along with time for reflection by some individuals on a healthier relationship between consciousness and the universe.

      I’d recommend reading that book just for some general insights into the social and economic side of cheap energy (and some laughs for stressful times). As it is a satirical novel, I’m not saying its predictions are going to be 100% true (I sure hope not), but it is a useful cautionary tale to read none-the-less. James P. Hogan’s hard sci-fi novel “Voyage From Yesteryear” is another good book on a similar topic, about the collision of a society rooted in scarcity assumptions with a society built around abundance assumptions and cheap energy. …

      So, when you think about the financial aspects of your innovation, please consider that fundamental things may change with cheap energy. Please consider how the scarcity-based economic model we all grew up with still govern so much about how innovations such as cold fusion are created, discussed, and distributed. Please consider that a scarcity-based economic model, and all the thinking and fiat-dollar-based financial conflict that relates to it, may be made obsolete very quickly by the rapid spread of a cold fusion innovation.

      Sure, some people may get rich in fiat dollars in the short term by speculating on nickel futures (until cheap energy and cheap robotics drives down the price of all commodities). [Or maybe not, if it does not take much nickel.] But ultimately, the bigger issue is encouraging a broad social transformation in a healthy way that makes the world work for everyone. That is something that will ultimately be about a lot more than a few bits flipped in some computer memory representing a bank account somewhere, and which Frederick Pohl suggested in 1954 would ultimately be meaningless in an age of cheap energy and cheap robotics. …

      So, we need a paradigm shift to account for all the technologies of abundance that inventors like yourself are giving the world. In days to come, if people ask for your opinions about what the implications are of your invention, I hope you reflect on these words. …

      Here is a quote emerging from Lila Watson’s work as part of an Australian Aboriginal Group that may help put any efforts to help the world in perspective: “If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.”

      • Tony76

        Another greart post.

        Judging by the zero response it looks like we are already heading for Midas World. Corporate and mainstream media politics will ensure it.

        There is some post on e-catworld from a “crack engineer” who said he and his buddy crack engineers would work on Rossi’s project for free if he would open up the project wider.

        As far as I know, all the energy claimaints apart from Pirelli School are pushing and jostling for patents and mountains of fiat bills. This, is occuring whilst the military prepare a conflict in the Middle East over “energy” (lack of).

        You are a true visionary Paul Fernhout.

        • Tony76, thanks for your kind words in this reply and the other reply to the previous article, including your insightful point that the Pirelli School people get it (as do some others if you google on “open source ecat” which brings up “Fusion Catalyst” as one). And thanks to the others who replied as well.

          It’s been said: “If I stand so tall, it is only because I stand on the shoulders of giants.” In my case, it is giants like Theodore Sturgeon, James P. Hogan, Bucky Fuller, Ursula K. Le Guin, Daniel Quinn, Albert Einstein, and many others who have written deep thoughts about the relations between society, technology, and economics. Also, others like Doug Lisle have written about “The Pleasure Trap” that a society or individual can fall into and get stuck in if not careful; that helps in understanding the irony of how our natural inclinations attuned to certain types of scarcity may not serve use well around certain types of abundance — unless we develop new new wisdoms out of which flow new patterns of healthy behavior. Psychiatrist Donald Pet has a great website about that, inspired by an Albert Einstein quote, called “A Newer Way Of Thinking (ANWOT)”.

      • Karl

        Interesting thoughts. It may be time to start to seriously think about human life after the emergence of almost free energy.

      • “So, we need a paradigm shift to account for all the technologies of abundance that inventors like yourself are giving the world.”

        True enough – but that doesn’t mean we’ll get one in the near future. There have been many technological revolutions in our society in the historically recent past – industrial farming, mechanised production, industrial steam power, self propelled ships and railways, telephone and radio communications, digital computers… The ease with which each in turn has become embedded in society has depended on the balance between losers and gainers (as perceived by same) and the power of the individuals concerned in each camp. The end result is always the same of course – the new technology is adopted and society changes to accommodate it – but initially there may be problems.

        The extent of the problems in this case will depend on exactly the same factors; who will lose – (principally energy producers who cannot/will not adopt CF [most energy producers are owned by the banks], market traders and manipulators who profit massively and directly from energy markets [principally the banks], and governments which depend on energy revenues including ‘green’ taxes) – and those who will gain (more or less everyone else). While there is a massive imbalance in numbers here, it is unfortunately the former group that holds nearly all the power – the banks and their tame governments.

        Through political control and ‘influence’ the very rich have indirect control of police forces and military power across the world. This is not the stuff of a peaceful and orderly transition, it is the stuff of revolution. The bankers and their puppets will never voluntarily relinquish the power they presently enjoy, nor will those who become aware of the propsperity that CF could make possible be able to let abundance pass by, and settle for indefinite financial servitude. Those who currently run the world will continue their attempts to head off CF by means of propaganda, but sooner or later this will become untenable, and stronger methods will be needed if they are to preserve the status quo. I can’t see any negotiated settlement being possible; one side or the other must prevail, and I think the transition process may become quite difficult.

      • Nixter

        I am a big Sci-Fi fan, I make time to read every day. Science Fiction in its many forms is a prime factor in promoting advanced technology in our modern society. The average person cannot “Think Big”, like a top Science Fiction Author can, they inject concepts and mental imagery into the collective consciousness of Earths population, and that literally “sprouts”, into actual advancements, manifesting into new ideas and pushing forward a evolution into state-of-the-art hardware.

      • Steven

        In addition to cheap energy and robotics, another factor is 3D printing, which is on a trajectory to becoming a Start Trek style replicator technolgy. Your post is absolutely correct.

  • Andrew Macleod

    I’m really getting tired of the same old song and dance from both sides of the coin. Rossi leaves enough ambiguity to create controversy feeding the sceptics, a very tiresome game.

    • Ged

      Most controversy are people not paying attention or not being willing to look up information to answer their questions, so we see the same things over and over again.

    • GreenWin

      I agree Andrew. The script here has become pathetic – reading like those ridiculous American Presidential elections, or rigged sports events, or people hiding their true identities. There are some mindsets that suggest seeking entrance into the universe will be a great disappointment – as even the “evolved” are cynical self-serving solipsists.

      GW out.

  • GreenWin

    Just for the fun of it I have recreated the dialog following the famous test by Robert Oppenheimer at Trinity Site July 16, 1945:

    General Groves: Whoa… That was BRIGHT!

    Oppi: Sure was!

    Groves: But, a bright light isn’t what we’re hoping for.

    Oppi: There was also lots of heat.

    Groves: Okay, but heat I get in a desert!

    Oppi: And a lot of energy!

    Groves: I get energy from an electric socket.

    Oppi: And a 19 kiloton shock wave!

    Groves: I get that with TNT.

    Oppi: We have the data…

    Groves: Okay, look, we’re no further along than that thing you showed us in Chicago. Get back to work and let me know when you’ve got something I can wrap my hands around! This is war son!

    • Very funny stuff.

    • Jim Johnson