Focardi TED Talk (English Subtitles)

Here’s something from the archive that I think is worth posting here. At a TEDx conference held in Bologna on October 14th 2011, Sergio Focardi gave a talk about cold fusion, and specifically his work with Andrea Rossi. I had seen this talk before, but not with English subtitles. It’s a great piece of documentary history when it comes to the development of the E-Cat as Focardi describes and shows pictures of some of the very early experiments he and Rossi did together and discusses some of his insights into their work together.

If you’re not able to see the subtitles, click on the ‘cc’ button at the bottom of the video.

  • artefact

    From JONP:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802&cpage=2#comment-674704

    Frank Acland
    April 10th, 2013 at 4:00 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    You mention you are not going to go public at this time, and that you enter into strategic partnerships with individuals and corporations. Does this mean the Leonardo Corporation is still an independent entity? From some of your comments it seemed possible that you had merged with a larger corporation.

    Many thanks and best wishes,

    Frank Acland

    ####

    Andrea Rossi
    April 10th, 2013 at 4:28 PM
    Dear Frank Acland:
    Leonardo Corporation is still an indipendent company, even after the strategic contract made with our USA Partner.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • georgehants

    From Wired
    Open a middle-school textbook or look on the wall of a science classroom. There it is. Written like the Ten Commandments of science – THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Too bad it’s mostly a lie. Yes. I’m going there.
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/whats-wrong-with-the-scientific-method/
    —–
    “The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind.”
    ~H.P. Lovecraft

  • artefact

    Some more from Defkalion:

    From Bruce Fast of Nickelpower.org

    http://nickelpower.org/2013/04/10/my-visit-to-defkalion-canada/

    • georgehants

      🙂

    • artefact

      from the text:

      “Further, the Canadian government has recognized that the LENR reaction is not a classic nuclear reaction, so it does not need to comply with the safety regulations developed for classic nuclear reactions. CSA (The Canadian Standards Association) is just down the street, and has rights to certify safety even for the US market. “

      • barty

        Yeah, this sounds realy nice.
        I hope they bring a working reactor shortly after Rossi releases his one.
        If one LENR reactor is certified for private usage, the other certification-processes will be under pressure.

  • Omega Z

    Report on the Yildiz Magnet Motor Demo in Geneva, April 10, 2013

    The motor ran for 4.5 hours at ~2600 rpm before malfunctioning. Plan to repair it this evening to resume demo tomorrow.

    Further Details: Pure Energy Systems News/PESN-Sterling Allan

    http://pesn.com/2013/04/10/9602291_Yildiz_magnet-motor_runs_5.5-hours_at_Geneva_demo_day_1/

    • Lukedc

      Everybody say together. 1 2 3 “batteries!”
      In all seriousness it would be very easy to secret away a PIC that controls the whole show. Monitor RPM of the output shaft, and battery bank voltage. Then when voltage drops below defined amount, cut engine.
      “Oh oh, broken” “bearings out of alignment” “output shaft issue” “Have to stop because the polarity of the magnets is now in such a state that if I run it longer it will be damaged beyond repair” INSERT OTHER EXCUSE HERE….

      Sorry for being cynical…
      Rossi isn’t breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics with the E-CAT. But old mate Yildiz is trying with this one.

      • stuey81

        still, very entertaining story to follow.

      • Curious

        Regarding the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics, I have a question.

        If i understand correct, 2nd law plays the same role in LENR as in f.ex Fusion in the sun. Lenr could potentially operate under the rules of standard physics and thus do not break this law.

        I had a discussing about this recently.
        I think the person was confusing 2nd law with the Collumb barrier.

        Can you please update me on the relation between the Collumb Barrier and 2nd Law of “Thermos Dynamics”.

        / Eager to lern

        • Peter Roe

          They are rather separate things.

          The ‘coulomb barrier’ is the thing that prevents fusion of atomic nuclei from happening spontaneously, which would obviously be a problem. The +-+ electrostatic repulsion between nuclei keeps them apart, unless a large amount of energy is applied to overcome it (normally in the form of extreme temperature = velocity of particles).

          Various means by which this ‘barrier’ may be bypassed in LENR have been suggested, including altered ‘ground states’ of hydrogen leading to reduced electrostatic charge, ‘cloaked’ protons pretending to be neutrons by means of shared electron fields, localised intense energy produced by phonon ‘waves’ and/or the internal geometry of a metal matrix, and momentary ‘2-body wave functions’ where matter briefly becomes a wave function in a way that allows two ‘particles’ to occupy the same space and to emerge from this state as one particle (as I understand it!).

          The second law of TD essentially says that (in this context) that for work to be done (motor turning) you need a high energy source and a low energy dump. The work results as energy flows from the HE source to the energy ‘dump’ and will stop when the differential evens out. In other words, for a machine to do something, it needs a power source, and none is evident in the case of magnet motors. Of course this doesn’t mean that there are not energy sources available that are currently not known, and that arrangements of magnets might conceivably be able to tap such sources through field interactions.

          • Curious

            That was the kind of answer I was hoping for. Thanks.

            • Barry

              Interesting, thanks Peter, I think E-Cat World is rubbing off on me, I almost understood all of that.

              • Peter Roe

                Me too!

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          2nd law of thermodynamic is related to heisenberg Uncertainty.
          Note that in stable world (maybe in cosmology it is more subtle if the space-time lattice grows) , 1st and second laws are related, since if you can reduce entropy without energy, then you can reuse that entropy to produce energy for free…

          There are other laws like this one that seems unbreakable :
          – speed of usable information transfer (group speed of field waves = particles)
          – conservation of quantum numbers (leptonic, quark, charges,spins)

          conservation of mass=energy is IMHO less solid, but is a consequence of others conservation in a stable world.

          Coulomb barrier, like weak interaction barrier, is simply a fact that reduce probability of reaction…
          some specific condition may overcome it…

          it is like saying that safe in bank cannot be open.

          It is hard, but with competence it may be possible.
          And the solidity of iron is not the question.
          Only the subtleties of safe construction, and gangster imagination, are the challenge.

          • buffalo

            @alainco.will you kindly stop equating the 1st law thermodynamics to the 2nd law thermodynamics?completely different issues.

            • http://A AlainCo

              if you break one, with a thermal engine, you can break the other.
              so they are related.

              give me a machine that break the 2nd law, I make a perpetual movement machine.
              give me a machine that produce energy indefinitely and I can reverse entropy of a closed system.

      • buffalo

        @lukedc.hey listen man,the 2nd ‘law’ has loopholes.that law only holds only for random systems,ie.what happens when you have steady state nonequilibrium systems?non random systems?

    • Peter Roe

      “The 2nd device needs the controller from the 1st device, so they can only run one or the other….. The second one is there partially as a back-up in case of significant failure of the first.”

      This kind of seemingly illogical arrangement always worries me. Surely it is far more likely that a control unit will fail than a motor, so why have only one of these? And what could the ‘control unit’ be? – not a powered circuit presumably as the unit runs without electrical connections.

      I dunno – maybe I’m just being overly cynical. After all the thing does seem to run. The second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant if such a device taps a power source that is not described by conventional physics, i.e., it is part of an open system and is still just tranferring/converting energy from ‘somewhere’. However, unless output energy in excess of what could be held in batteries (in the ‘wedges’?) can be demonstrated, then it remains just a curiousity.

      Perhaps some doubts will be dispelled today. Even if Yildiz has found a way to build batteries that can withstand hundreds of gravities into a motor, he would still have several patentable inventions on his hands I think!

    • Bob

      I notice the magnet motor which in one of the videos is said to be capable of generating 100 horsepower is only driving a 12 inch model airplane propeller at 2600 rpm down to about 1700 rpm.
      In another vid it is claimed by Sterling that the fan would take 380 watts to drive it.
      I can only assume he has never played with model aircraft to make a statement like that with a straight face.
      At 2600 rpm those props push very little air and my guess is it would be consuming about 20 watts. 380 watts at 12000 rpm maybebut at 2600, definitely not. The power in fluid systems decreases with the cube of the speed so 2600 rpm would be miniscule.
      In comparison, an electric fan driving a 14 inch fan paddle blade consumes about 45 watts and throws out buckets of air, far more than that high aspect ratio prop would push out at 2600 rpm. How on earth can he justify the claim of 380 watts to drive this ?
      It is on the basis of this highly inflated 380 watt figure that he calculates it is not possible to run the motor for 5 hours on LiPo batteries.
      I think he should recalculate this on a 38 watt consumption and see if it is possible.
      Apparently he doesn’t want to connect it to an alternator because he can’t get the shafts to align and might damage the motor from the mis-alignment. On a motor capable of 100 horsepower? Really?

      Also in another vid regarding the motor attracting copper coins, which of course it should not, but this amazing motor is so radical that it does,
      http://www.youtube.com/watchv=t7f3JSB3948&list=UUnF2pFCQbYgxmqx3imNsTCQ&index=10
      At the end of this vid I see some inconsiderate observer had the audacity to produce his own small pocket magnet and would you believe his magnet also attracted the “copper coin” and did not attract the silver coin as it was supposed to.
      I can only conclude that either the magnet motor is so amazing that it can influence the properties of all other magnets in the near vicinity, or perhaps the coins are electroplated fakes made to look like something they are not.
      I might just go with the latter explanation.

      The whole thing is so transparently fake.
      I suppose some will say that’s just me being negative again.

      • Bob
        • Barry

          Interesting, thanks Peter, I think E-Cat World is rubbing off on me, I almost understood all of that.

        • Barry

          Thanks Bob, great vids. The copper coins magnetically sticking to the motor is quite impressive. As a part-time magician I own some magnetised coins. If I was at the conference I would palm a magnet and ask to see the copper coin. If it didn’t stick I’d be duly impressed.
          My psyche can only wait for one miracle at a time so I’m keeping a distant eye on magnetic motors and UFO’s.

      • Peter Roe

        I think that quite a bit of European ‘copper’ currency is now made of a steel core with a heavily plated exterior, because copper metal is worth considerably more than the coinage face value. Guv’mints have probably melted all the old ones down to sell to China. I’m not sure about ‘silver’ coins – they may still be made of nickel-copper alloy. Use of various alloys and/or mixed metals would certainly explain ‘inexplicable’ behaviour when placed near a magnet.

      • Bob

        Day 2. The batteries must be more expensive than I thought. Day two operations were limited to short runs of 10 to 20 seconds. That’s seconds, not minutes.
        Originally it was announced that it would run continuously for the full three days.
        It seems “free energy” is in short supply.
        And so far from day three, they have proved that there is a magnetic field in close proximity to the motor, which has 1200 magnets in it. Yes really! And it diminishes as you move further away. Yes, really and truly!
        Who would have imagined that.
        (My mother told me sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but since the bar has been set so low, I don’t have to aim very high.)
        [/sarcasm off]

        • Roger Bird

          Inayat Khan, the Sufi saint, said, I think, that sarcasm is an abuse of the intellect. He may have meant, and I do mean, sarcasm is intellectual abuse. And, although I do it a lot, it IS intellectual abuse. But it sure is fun. (:->)

  • pg

    4

    • c. kirk

      +12 = 16 days until Quenco announces the measurements of their first batch of Quenco’s April 27th http://www.quentron.com supposedly breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics I believe buffalo (or someone else ) mentioned quenco on this site earlier fascinating I find it unbelievable but if it works great

      • buffalo

        yes indeed twas me @captain.this is why i keep saying that theres a concerted assualt from many fronts on establishment physics,by no means exclusively lenr.

      • artefact

        hehe. I’m watching “him”, too.

  • buffalo

    let my theory be known as buffalo,s ‘tug-of-war’theory,where electrons are stripped loose from the nickel shell,mm.

  • artefact

    from JONP:

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802&cpage=1#comment-674638

    eernie1
    April 10th, 2013 at 1:52 PM
    To the readers of this site,I would like to present a few thoughts while we await the TP report.(1)Trying to explain LENR by using proton capture(fusion)processes is very difficult because of the high energy(Mev)or the requirement of exotic means for overcoming the barrier that is necessary.I would leave this approach to the hot fusion experimenters and wish them good luck.(2)Electron capture is much easier achieved,is involved in many isotopic branching stimulations,and in some cases occurs spontaneously in certain atoms.The energy associated with forcing electrons into the nuclei are in the ev range(H-,D-,plasma discharges,rf pulses,electron clusters etc).(3)Use isotopes that decay with Beta emissions.With each electron capture you get two electrons emitted(conversion electrons and Beta electrons along with neutrinos and sometimes a small amount of Gamma).This is an analog of U235 where a neutron capture produces more neutron emissions(chain reaction).
    Perhaps the electron emission of proper isotopes can also produce a sustained or manageable chain reaction.(4)Possible isotopic mechanisms may include 63Ni to 63Cu,and 65Ni to 65Cu,both by Bete decay and both end products are stable copper isotopes.Copper has been reported to be found in reactor ash in early accounts by a number of reporters.Perhaps better isotopes were discovered in later experiments.(5)I would highly recommend, that if anyone has thought of a possibe mechanism,that person should run it into a patent application as soon as possible no matter how obscure it may be.This is what companies like IBM and Microsoft do.You don’t need expensive lawyers since inexpensive patent application packets are available and the Patent office will guide you for free if you make any mistakes in your applications.They are already issuing some applicable patents at the present time.If I were not independently wealthy and 83 years old I would put in the effort myself.Good fortune in all your efforts.

    • vbasic

      This is similar to Robert Godes
      CECR Controlled Electron Capture Reaction idea in the Brillouin LENR devices. They did apply for patents and got one in all places, China.

    • buffalo

      @artefact yeah ive also had those thoughts.the electrons almost certainly get stripped from the nickel atoms as they find themselves in a ‘tug.of.war’between spitting off the hydrogen gas and wanting to give their electrons to it to form the hydride at such temperatures.there would be highly energetic ‘loose’ electrons and protons under the circumstances..mm intresting

      • artefact

        If you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay
        and: _ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_beta_decay
        I think the electrons / positrons / neutrinos get generated in the process and are not there in the beginning (not from the shell).
        The trick of Rossi would be to trigger a beta decay were normaly it occours not often.

  • Roger Bird

    Try to remember that most if not all of us are going one soft/social evidence. And with enough “Rossi says”, faith in Rossi can waver. This video is very reassuring. Rossi has something. Whether he can deliver a commercial product remains to be seen. But after 1.5 years, it would be inconceivable that he has not gotten the interest of some strong company with a lot of money and that he has not made serious improvements on what Focardi has told us about. So, you can peg me at 95% certain the Rossi is close to blowing the collective minds of the world.

    • Bob

      It wasn’t all that reassuring to me, even though it was when I first saw it nearly two years ago.

      He mentioned copper as the by product which at that time I took as proof of a fusion type reaction.
      Since then the talk has drifted off that point and I don’t think anyone has verified that there is any copper being produced from the reaction.
      Also, he speaks of gamma radiation, which would be clear proof of a nuclear process occurring.
      All later tests have not detected any gamma radiation, which was taken as proof that the shielding worked. It can equally be taken as proof that no gamma radiation is produced to begin with.
      Everybody knows lead shielding works and that point doesn’t need proving. The point which needed proving was that gamma radiation was produced to begin with. That proof has never been demonstrated. It’s easy to do but it has not been done. No secrets would be given away by doing it, except it would prove beyond doubt that a fusion process is ocurring.

      I think there is a reasonable probability that Focardi was and still is being used as collateral, the first reputable person to convince so as to convince other notable names to join him in speaking publicly in favour of the technology. It was all about building collateral. There is no doubt that Essen and Kullander so readily accepted what they were seeing as being genuine largely because they trusted Focardi and his assessment. I don’t believe they would have accepted it as being genuine if they had only Rossi’s word and demonstration to rely on.
      There is also no doubt that many others, including myself, were hugely influenced into accepting the technology as real largely on the basis of the endorsement from Essen and Kullander.
      The problem here is that the acceptance of there being anything real in all of this is based on an inverted triangle of reputable people going right back to Rossi. Unfortunately at this point and in view of everything that has happened, or not happened since, I don’t find that to be a very sound foundation.

      Within a week or two if things happen as previously announced, some will say there is a 95% chance I will be proven wrong.
      We will see.

      • NJT

        Excuse me, you sound like a regurgitated “John Milstone”, in sheep clothing, from a now defunct blogsite you once dominated. Maybe you should be posting somewhere else…

        • Bob

          You are excused.
          You are also wrong.

          • NJT

            But close on the verbatim you expose…

            • http:[email protected] Blanco69

              I believe Bob’s point is perfectly valid. There have been a few subtle but profound changes in the theory over the past 2 years. Transmutation and Gamma radiation were at the top of everybody’s list of reaction explanations. I recall Rossi saying in video that radiation heats the shielding which then heats up the reactor coolant. We’ve moved away from the classic cold fusion idea over the past 12 months. The rub, IMHO, is whether you believe this shift is a natural phenomenon as enlightenment unfolds. Or, as Bob says, the 5% chance that we are being manipulated in some way. I prefer a stance of reasonable faith in Rossi and not blind faith. This position has always been welcomed here in the past and I hope that continues.

      • c. kirk

        Well Bob I think your thinking that there is a reasonable probability that Focardi was and still is being used as collateral is most likely a highly flawed analysis Oh sure Focardi is easily duped right
        Within a week or two if things happen as previously announced, some will say there is a 95% chance I will be proven wrong. As previously announced there is no date for the publication duh!

        • Bob

          It’s a sad fact of life that people are most easily duped by those who they are familiar with and trust. It happens very often at all levels, right down to family life.
          When later on, the truth comes out, the common line is then “how could I have been so stupid?”

          As to the timeframe for delivery of the report, I see no valid reason for any delay past April. They have been working on it since December and there it is a small experiment with clear boundaries.

  • artefact

    If more people would be aware of LENR some(more) of that money
    would go into LENR projects:

    “Crowdfunding platforms raised $2.7 billion (an 81% increase) and successfully funded more than 1 million campaigns in 2012. Massolution forecasts an increase in global crowdfunding volumes in 2013, to $5.1 billion. ”

    http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/2013cf-the-crowdfunding-industry-report/25107?utm_source=release&utm_medium=text&utm_content=top&utm_campaign=2013CF+Launch

  • GreenWin

    Focardi is a formidable scientist. As are many others involved in the E-Cat tests and verifications.

    Prior to the October 2011 tests this short overview (June 2011)describing the upcoming test protocols appeared. RAI News24 Reporter Angelo Saso supplies critical commentary. Christos Stremmenos discusses the [now defunct] DGT partnership, Prof Levi discusses how UniBologna Dept. Physics would be involved.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V79rAMI1ACw

    Obviously a lot has changed since then, but both of Rossi’s public demos (October 6th and 28th) were successful in the eyes of all but the Associated Press who censored their coverage without explanation.

    Following Fox Network News’ inquiry to SPAWAR verifying their presence at the October 28th 1MW demonstration – all mainstream news was ordered to stop. Thereafter only dis-info style articles from Forbes (Mark Gibbs) and WiredUK (David Hambling) were allowed to publish E-Cat stories.

    We are still waiting free press coverage of the E-Cat.

  • daniel maris

    Yes, this was good. I remember thinking at the time that unless Focardi was lying, this seriously reduced the chances of the E Cat being a fraud.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I read an impressive article about Sergio Focardi four years ago, his open association with Rossi is one of the main reasons I started following Rossi and his E-Cat. Sergio Focardi is a great man.

    • Curbina

      Indeed he has always been considered a brilliant scientist and a very good person, that’s how one becomes professor emmeritus. Can you remember where you read that article, was it on the web?

    • Omega Z

      There is 1 important statement by Focardi to take Notice of.

      He DID most of the Energy Measurements. Not Rossi…

  • Jack

    This video clip needs some one to add to it a translation to English by voice and not subtitle.

  • Curbina

    Recently I became aware that all TED talks that are labelled TEDx are locally organized events that do not have the full support from TED, and therefore TED can (and has done it so far in some cases) deny the validity of what is said by any invited to a TEDx talk. Hence, TEDx talks cannot be claimed as “mainstream supported”. I really don’t care for mainstream support, but certainly it can boost the advance of LENR, and learning that TEDx talks are “unsupported” is a downer.

    • GreenWin

      TEDx Talks must meet strict criterion set out by the TED Talks head office. They are supported by their local TEDx staff. e.g. the recent censoring of White Chapel TEDx Talks by Sheldrake and Hancock were attacked by mainstream TED conservatives but fully supported by TEDx staff in London.

  • NJT

    Our president has just released his proposed budget. it contains proposals that could impact LENR research and the patents thereof. You can read and download it at:
    http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/president-obamas-2014-budget-proposal/94/

    • GreenWin

      “To ensure our energy security and combatglobal climate change, we must continue to focuson energy production, the development of clean energy alternatives…”

      Not much new I can see.

      • NJT

        Greenwin, There is a lot more in there than your pulled tiny quote. A lot could be inferred between the lines, and it could possibly help open some new doors, hopefully with the patent office, etc. I agree there are no direct references to LENR like energies though, which is unfortunate…

        • GreenWin

          You are correct NJT, I did not look far into this. Imagine if the annual $40BILLION in federal research dollars was keyed to new criterion. Let’s say the university or institute that produced the most socially positive results would be eligible for funding increases. Whereas those who produce less socially valuable research are subject to cuts.

          The fact that government continues to pour tax dollar billions into “climate” and hot fusion – in the face of overwhelming EVIDENCE that both are scientific frauds or “make-work” projects.

          Then there are subsidies for fossil fuel projects. Should we take a look at all the funds spent on military adventurism and waste – most citizens would gag… or regurgitate part of their last supper.

          Ah well. Soon people will have a new energy choice and some of this tom-foolery government waste will diminish. And we will be forced to reckon with a return to research that encourages independent original thinking, instead of consensus lockstep.

          • NJT

            Thanks Greenwin for your excellent logic and analysis. Unfortunately for us all, our government can never apply simple logic to anything it seems. Maybe when Congress gets through with this budget proposal there might be a little something for LENR particularly if the e-cat independent studies are released soon and somebody notices?

  • Barry

    Thanks for the vid link. Glad to see Prof. Focardi on a Ted Talk. Saw this before but I didn’t realize you could press the cc button for captions. I’m a big fan of the Ted talks but was always disappointed at the lack of CF as a subject. The only thing I could find was Stevan Cowley putting down CF at 8:38 http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_cowley_fusion_is_energy_s_future.html

    I hope Prof. Focardi gets to see the fruition of his work and gets the recognition all CF researchers deserve. (Stevan Crowley will go down in history on the other list.)

    • Omega Z

      Barry

      That’s because Steven Cowley is a Hot Fusion supporter. The Big Bucks.

      • Barry

        His entire talk seemed like one big commercial for HF. It’s upsetting how he put CF down. History will not be kind to him Omega.

  • NJT

    As the old saying goes, Professor Focardi is indeed “A Gentleman and a Scholar” of the highest order I might add. I just hope and pray that this technology makes it too the average Joe and is not waylaid by governments and big business…

  • Jack

    This Focardi’s video was on 14th October 2011, and now we are on Apr 10,2013 – Actually the time is passing very fast, I am worry about my life time to end that fast before I see a working e-cat reactor at my home !

  • Torbjörn

    Search on Youtube for “e-cat sub” and you will find more videos that previously did not have english subtitles.

    • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

      Thanks for the tip!

  • http://www.drboblog.com DrBob
    • Lukedc

      Sorry but that’s means nothing if Rossi has the goods.

      • http://www.drboblog.com DrBob

        Non taken my friend.

        I know this is a “e-cat” forum but you are all often of topic but I happen to believe in diversified investments.

        If Rossi have the gear which we all hope its still good with competition. Competition tends to drive prices down and accelerates research and development.

        • buffalo

          its high risk betting drbob,high temp CONTROLLED nuke fusion,uh-uh.

        • Omega Z

          Bob

          I was interested in Hot Fusion at 1 time. Until I dug a little deeper. The Devil is in the details. I wish I had Tabbed those sites so I could direct people to them. There Not what is Hyped.

          Very expensive- Short Life Cycle-equals frequent dismantle & rebuilds.. The Energy tho cheap, but cost is not.

          There’s only about a dozen suitable location on earth to build them. Reason is their safe unless something goes wrong. Hence they require large desolate unpopulated zones.

          The Limited Numbers due to this means they could never provide energy for everyone & would have large energy losses to long transmitting power lines due to safe zone locations.

          There was other issues with them, but with the above info, I had already determined they were not reasonable nor economically Viable.

          I had determined that even over priced variably dependable Wind & Solar was more preferable.

          One has to ask why the Governments would support Hot Fusion over Wind & Solar when they are a much better option.

          • http://www.drboblog.com Dr Bob

            I dont limit myself to one form of technology, I want to learn about all potential Green Energy Sources.

            Thanks!!