Rossi: LENR Acceptable Term for E-Cat, Others Problematic

Thanks again to all who have contributed to the discussion around the new “What is LENR?” page (now posted). In the process of working on the page, and in the light of discussion about various theories I decided to put a question to Andrea Rossi about what term most accurately describes his technology. I was quite surprised by the length of his response, since I am used to seeing one word answers to many questions.

My question:

There have been a number of labels applied to the phenomenon that was originally referred as ‘cold fusion.’ Some are: LENR (Low energy nuclear reaction), LANR (Lattice assisted nuclear reaction), CANR (Chemically assisted nuclear reaction), Anomalous heat effect, Fleischmann Pons effect, Cold fusion — and more.

What do you think is the most accurate label that should be applied to your technology — and why?

Rossi’s response:

Andrea Rossi
June 2nd, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Dear Frank Acland:
Very problematic question, but intriguing.
LENR ( Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) is acceptable, based on my personal experience, because the Third Indipendent Party Report has accertained beyond any reasonable doubt that the energy produced cannot be generated by the quantic status changement of the electrons orbiting around the nuclea ( see the Ragone diagram of the well known Report).

CANR is difficult to define: what does mean “chemical assisted” exactly? Definitions “de omnino et nihil” are basically meaningless.

LANR comes from a nuclear model based on ” lattice structure of nucleons”, but when it turns into models, NUclear = UNclear. It comes from the W-L theory, which is wrong because unsustainable under the theoretical point of view ( conflicts with the leptons conservation law and confers to virtual particles characteristics limited to the real e.p.) and under the experimental point of view ( it has never worked in 10 years of attempts. By the way: I have given to 2 of our US scientists the task to work full time for 1 year to replicate all the existing patents of LENR in the world, to analyze which of them can work. We also analyze the theoretical claims, checking with the instrumentation we can use, very complete, if the supposed radiations, fusions etc really happen. We are making this work both for scientific purpose and for understanding which patents work and which ones do not work).

ANOMALOUS HEAT EFFECT : “anomalous” is generic, this too is a substantive that does not confer a precise meaning. “Anomalous” can be used as an adjective of a phenomenon observed in an experiment or a test, indipendently from a defined process.

FLEISCHMANN-PONS EFFECT is valid for electrilytic systems, but has nothing to do, for example, with my Effect, which is based upon a precise mechanism that has nothing to do with electrolysis.

COLD FUSION is limited to the energy produced if and when fusion is effectively reached: my personal experience is that cold fusion is a side effect of the LENR.

This is my opinion, but maybe Others will be able to coin better definitions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I thought it was especially interesting to learn about the 2 scientists who are assigned to try and replicate patented processes. Rossi contends that there have been patents granted for processes that don’t work, and I guess he is out to prove that’s the case.

  • www.pottawattomie.com

    Hello, just wanted to say, I enjoyed this post. It was funny. Keep on posting! http://www.pottawattomie.com http://www.pottawattomie.com/images/photo-gallery/vmuvuy.asp

  • Rical

    In 2011, Vladimir I. Vysotskii studied more completely the tunnel effect, in condensed matter, inside the standard model [1] [2].
    Then the probability of quantic jumps through the Coulomb barrier are multiply by 10^50 to 10^1000 times.
    This extends without contradiction, naturally and theoretically the standard model to phenomena known as cold fusion, LERN and others. And then specifically to E-Cat [3].

    Vysotskii also explain that Widom-Larsen Theory need a plane field which cannot exist inside condensed matter [3].

    [1] French Wikiversity http://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Recherche:Transmutations_biologiques/Recherches_r%C3%A9centes#2011_Reduction_of_the_Coulomb_barrier_hypothesis

    [2] Vysotskii “Low-energy Nuclear Reactions and Transmutation of Stable and Radioactive Isotopes in Growing Biological Systems” in http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf

    [3] page 5 in Vysotskii “On the possibility of application of Widom-Larsen Theory for Analysis and Explanation of Rossi Experiments” in Vysotskii “Application of Correlated States of Interacting Particles in Nonstationary and Periodical Modulated LENR Systems” in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf

  • Leo Kaas

    Surprises are arriving? Is he referring to the arrival of the plant to his customer?

    Andrea Rossi
    June 3rd, 2013 at 8:11 AM

    Dear Friends Giovanni Guerrini, Pierino S., Lucio Martini, Fabio 82,
    Pietro F., Gian Luca:
    Thank you for your kind greetings! I am celebrating working, but big surprises are arriving…
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea

  • Fibb

    Can we no longer subscribe to a thread and get emails of new posts?

    • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

      Hi Fibb, I turned off that feature for now because someone was having problems getting so many messages and couldn’t turn it off. I think there is a bug somewhere. I’m looking into a fix.

      • Fibb

        bummer…. I LOVED that feature! absolutely loved it. Please put it back in if you can.

        Thanks

        • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

          I am going to try a different version, hopefully with bugs worked out.

        • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

          Ok I have installed an updated version of the plugin. I hope it doesn’t cause anyone problems.

  • Jerry Jones

    Cold Fusion – just makes things easier for everyone in general, to vocalize scientific names will not make sense to most people and after all thats what it is a form of Cold Fusion that everyone already knows it as, that elusive alternative energy source.

    • fortyniner

      Actually, I agree. Without a sound theory it is general enough to make sense, so long as some limited transmutation occurs. The term will lose its artificially-attached negative overtones quickly enough when a working cold fusion plant becomes public knowledge. Before that, it doesn’t matter what its called.

      • Fibber McGourlick

        I agree. It’s simple and meaningful and memorable. It will also be a justly ironic payback for all the naysayers when it changes the world and vindicates Pons and Fleischmann as well as the brave objective scientists who responded to a significant and curious phenomena in the proper scientific way. Let it rattle forever in the ears of the hot fusion dreamers. Cold Fusion Forever!

        • khawk

          We still don’t really understand electricity or gravity so Rossi and the collective scientific community of believers can take their time on this one.

          • NJT

            Yes, your comments make good sense. I especially like Fibbers point…

        • Barry

          True Fib, even though Martin F didn’t like the term, many will think “Hey those guys we on to something after all.” The credit might get a little lost with LENR, besides Cold Fusion has become poetry. LENR is totally lacking. It’s fine for preaching to the choir with but not very effective or exciting to the masses.

    • Bob

      I would prefer the name “cold fusion” was maintained, even if the mechanism by which it works turns out to be something else.
      Nearly 25 year ago when Fleischmann and Pons made their original announcements on their experiments, the whole lot was thrown out the window amidst a barrage of derision because of the firm belief that ‘cold fusion’ was impossible and therefore the experiments were false. In effect, the whole lot was discounted to zero due to an argument over words and their meaning. If it had not been called ‘cold fusion’ then the results might have been treated with more respect. The annoying thing was, Fleischmann did not originally call it cold fusion. The term was applied by someone else in the reporting of it and because it was an easy term which sort of loosely defined the process, the name stuck. It was then an easy job for others to shoot it down.
      I would therefore like the term ‘cold fusion’ to remain so that when it is finally proven that something which looks like it does really happen, all those established and honoured experts who assisted in its demise will have to explain why they assisted in its supression for so long.
      If the name is changed to anything else, it will be used to justify their proclamations that cold fusion was impossible.
      Call it cold fusion.

      • fortyniner

        The term ‘cold fusion’ will stand as a permanent accusing finger pointing at all those who have sought to suppress the technology by denial, ridicule, misinformation, fund manipulation, employment of shills and other manipulations.

        • Bob

          Yes, and preferably, the middle finger, pointing upwards, with the other fingers folded.

          • AlainCo

            yes finger upward,

            X-ray was also a ridicule term, like impressionism, like fauvism,

  • pg

    Any news from EU parliament conference?

  • Sandy

    The Patterson Power Cell was able to cause radioactive elements to transmute into elements that are not radioactive. The E-Cat can cause nickel to transmute into iron and copper and several other elements.

    These devices both cause transmutations. They might each be described as a Relatively Low-energy Nuclear Transmutation System (RELONUTS). This description gives a general name to the devices. A name for the physical processes that occur in the devices can be coined at a later time, when more data is available.

    • fortyniner

      What, you mean this thing uses hydrogen… and it’s nookular… just like a hydrogen bomb! (We need to get away from that word ASAP).

  • Charles

    Sir Isaac Newton would have liked to see Alchemy in the plot. ECat does turn nickel into copper does it not?

  • Chris I

    Rossi: “LANR comes from a nuclear model based on ”lattice structure of nucleons”, but when it turns into models, NUclear = UNclear.”

    One must appreciate his sense of humour but That it simply not the meaning of “lattice assisted” in this acronym. It refers instead to the metal lattice being loaded to form a hydride, in which the phenomenon may occur. It is just like any other crystal lattice, except we don’t think of it as a crystal because it doesn’t look quite so crystalline; it isn’t very crystal clear at all. Yet it is the same thing as far as material structure goes and it is certainly a lattice, there’s no doubt about this.

    I don’t know where Rossi get’s the idea of it referring to ”lattice structure of nucleons”.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      See http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/02/andrea-rossis-reading-list/, a book on lattice structure of nucleons by Norman Cook is his favourite nuclear physics book.

      • Chris I

        So it appears to be a misunderstanding. AFAIK the acronym refers to the metal lattice and I don’t know how many in the field are reasoning along with that author.

        In any case the acronym LANR remains suitable on the grounds of the metal lattice being a key ingredient in most of the reported phenomena, I find it better than LENR for this reason along with the fact that fission and spontaneous decay.are just as “low energy”.

        If it gets confirmed to be some kind of fusion we could call it LEF or LENF without it including familiar fission and decay, as of now I find LANR is better.

        • Charles Stewart

          Is AFAIK pronounced “a fake”.

        • Charles Stewart

          Is AFAIK pronounced “a fake”?

          • fortyniner

            Is there an echo in here…?

            Once was one too many.

  • Bård Havre

    O, be some other name! What’s in a name? that which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet. In the long run the term does not really matter,I think Rossi is right preferring LENR until a more accurate description can produce a new acronym. As for the produced thermal effect I propose LENRgy, to differentiate it from conventional fossil combustion energy.

    • clovis

      +1

    • Barry

      “LENRgy” good one Bard, I knew sooner or later a poet would chip in. We can say we heard it hear first.

  • lenrdawn

    “By the way: I have given to 2 of our US scientists the task to work full time for 1 year to replicate all the existing patents of LENR in the world, to analyze which of them can work. We also analyze the theoretical claims, checking with the instrumentation we can use, very complete, if the supposed radiations, fusions etc really happen.”

    All of that sounds like utter rubbish to me.

    • rolando

      I’d wish to collect all of these utter “rubbish” reports and put them in my uni library!

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      lenrdawn……Why?

      • lenrdawn

        Because there is no way two of Rossi’s guys (however skilled they may be) could do that in a year in any way leading to conclusive results. Look at MFMP.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          He is not looking for “conclusive results” he is looking for hints to guide his research. He is not interested in building the best calorimeter.

    • AB

      Careful, the high skeptic maryyugo once believed that the 1 MW plant would never be built nor demonstrated, and that no third party test would ever take place.

      • lenrdawn

        Point taken. But this isn’t about building a plant. This is about replicating other people’s work and drawing conclusions from it. In such a short time and with only two people, it would have to be quick and dirty, which would lead to a flame war in the field – just imagine Rossi’s people trying to replicate Piantelli and coming up with nothing. They’d say “You see? It doesn’t work.” and Piantelli would say they did it wrong – and back and forth ad nauseam for eternity.

        • fortyniner

          That’s true, but I don’t suppose there is any intention to publish, so the problem is unlikely to arise. It sounds to me that by ‘I have given…’ Rossi probably means that he is acting as director for a couple of the partner’s lead researchers.

          I imagine he will ‘filter’ available data looking for three or four possibles who (a) have actually done the work (as opposed to patent trolling) and (2) may have published enough detail to allow attempts at replication. (Patterson, Brillouin, Piantelli, Lenuco/Miley, etc.).

          There is also a list of other possible candidates here:

          http://www.patentkinetics.com/lenr-patents-and-applications.html

          • lenrdawn

            Ok, if he doesn’t publish, then the flame war won’t happen (but why is he talking about it when the results aren’t supposed to become known? We’ll never know.).

            And that doesn’t change the pointlessness of the idea, of course. Even if “replicate all the existing patents of LENR in the world” was meant to say “replicate a select few patents I’ll filter using totally subjective criteria”.

            • fortyniner

              Rossi is probably in a pretty good position to ‘filter’ proposed CF systems, even if that does mean that his criteria are subjective.

        • AB

          How many LENR patents have been granted? In the US, probably not that many considering the USPTO’s hostility.

          • lenrdawn

            “replicate all the existing patents of LENR in the world” probably would mean more than twenty and less than a hundred. I don’t see the point of the exercise anyway but if he narrows it down to only US patents and only ones that have been issued until a certain, arbitrary date (say today) it would still be an impossible task (and even more pointless).

            • Jim

              It appears that you have the behavior of drawing and expressing strong and definite conclusions based on information that is limited to what you already know or can immediately access.

              Maybe Rossi has knowledge, perspectives, motives, values, interests and resources that you are not aware of.

              Or do your conclusions include assuming that he does not?

              That would improve your logic, but weaken the connection of your assertions to reality.

        • Barry

          Come on lenrdawn, you’re starting to sound like a prophet of doom.

      • hokmah

        FactsAreFun is the new skeptic king (looks like he is
        a theoretical physicist, so he knows all of these stuff), dethroning Maryugo.

        For this guy, nothing works outside of known, generally
        accepted physics laws, all else falls under fraud.

    • Bob

      Whichever way you look at it, this sentence is really strange.
      The easy answer is that it’s just rubbish as suggested above, and that is just a bit strange. But if it’s true it is even more strange.
      Why would someone who has been saying all the competition have nothing and are just making “idle chatters”, need to replicate all the existing patents to analyse which of them can work?
      I thought he was already supposed to have the only one which worked and was already in the process of making robot factories to mass produce the products for market.
      If I had something which I had proven to be way ahead of the competition and was setting up for mass production, I would not be wasting time and resources looking into other peoples work which I believed was not as good as mine. I would put every resource I had into getting my technology commercialised and out in the market place.

      • Mick D

        Possibly to prepare for patent infringement charges against Rossi from those patent holders.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Or to be able to go to the patent office and say: look, you granted patent to that guy and his device doesn’t even work, mine provably does so gimme a patent.

          • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

            He has complained before about patents being granted for processes that he contends don’t work. So I think this probably at least part of the reason he’s doing this.

          • lenrdawn

            And then what? Proving that something works isn’t part of any patenting process I ever heard of. And having something that actually does work isn’t enough to get a patent either. That is not what patent means.

            • Warthog

              “Proving that something works isn’t part of any patenting process I ever heard of.And having something that actually does work isn’t enough to get a patent either. That is not what patent means.”

              Actually,it used to be. The Patent Office rule was that the inventor had to prove an actual WORKING MODEL of their devices. It got to the point that the PD couldn’t afford to warehouse all the models, so they changed the rules.

              • Bob

                The working model only has to be supplied for perpetual motion machines. Any other patents could be applied for and granted even if the device did not work.
                The critical requirement is that the patent has to be detailed and specific enough so that someone else who is knowledgeable in the art could reproduce the device from the information given in the patent application.
                The reason for this is to prevent people being able to patent only an idea. If this was possible then by now people would have patents for the star ship “Enterprise”.
                Rossi’s application was rejected on the grounds that it was not sufficiently and uniquely described. From what has been reported, he was advised of this and invited to submit refinements to the application.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          +1

  • fortyniner

    Update:- No reply or acknowledgement from the UK Dept of Energy to my email over a week ago, so today I’ve sent the following to the UK Energy Minister:

    Michael Fallon MP
    Minister for Energy

    Dear Mr Fallon

    The European Union’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation has published a 2012 document entitled “Industrial Technologies Material Unit Forward Looking Workshop on Materials for Emerging Energy Technologies” which identifies, summarizes, and evaluates a number of potentially useful energy technologies, and makes recommendations about them to the European Commission. The document is the product of a workshop held on October 28, 2011 in Brussels, Belgium with the purpose of identifying low-carbon energy solutions.

    One section of the document (3.4) deals with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter. The section begins with a definition of the Fleischmann and Pons Effect (FPE) and states:

    ” ‘The Fleischmann and Pons Effect (FPE)’ is the production of large amounts of heat, which could not be attributed to chemical reactions, during electrochemical loading of palladium cathodes with deuterium. Energy densities measured during excess of power are tens, hundreds, and even thousands times larger than the maximum energy associated to any known chemical process. On the basis of the present status of knowledge the large amount of energy may be ascribed to a nuclear process only.”

    The phenomenon, which now seems to be well established experimentally, is characterised by a lack of the expected nuclear emissions associated with so-called ‘hot’ fusion, a field that has received very large subsidies over many decades but has so far not shown any signs of producing a practical technology. Certain aspects of the technology also indicate that it may be useful (perhaps critical) in the remediation of high level nuclear waste and contamination following accidental release of radionuclides.

    Today the European Parliament is hosting a conference under the auspices of ENEA to discuss the current state of research in this area. Details (in Italian) can be found at the following link: http://utagri.enea.it/news/bruxelles/prossimi-eventi-bruxelles-2 where the following summary appears:

    3 June 2013 , Brussels. New advancements on the Fleischmann-Pons Effect: paving the way for a potential new clean renewable energy source? Event co-organized by ENEA at the European Parliament. Under the patronage of Hon. Amalia Sartori, Chair of the ITRE Committee c / o European Parliament, the event sees participants between the Commissioner ENEA Giovanni Lelli, the Director of the Industrial Technologies Directorate Herbert Von Bose, the Director of the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (USA) Graham Hubler, and the Vice-Chancellor for Research, University of Missouri (USA) Robert Duncan.

    At least one individual (Andrea Rossi, an Italian engineer) claims that he has bought this technology to a useable state, and a series of tests of one of his devices have been recently published as a research paper authored by a number of prominant scientists. A copy of the research report can be downloaded at: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf. The research was commissioned and underwritten by a large Swedish consortium of power generation operators and manufacturers known as Elforsk AB. The most recent statement from Elforsk can be viewed at: http://www.elforsk.se/Aktuellt/Svenska-forskare-har-testat-Rossis-energikatalysator–E-cat/. On the basis of the study, Elforsk has now decided to invest some 2,000,000 Krona per year in further research and development of the technology.

    Some time ago your department issued a brief statement to the effect that it had a ‘watching brief’ in respect of the reported work of Ing. A. Rossi in connection with his ‘E-Cat’ (energy catalyzer) invention, a novel energy source employing nickel nanopowder, hydrogen and certain commercially sensitive materials or systems. I am contacting you to enquire if you are aware of these recent developments, and if so if your department is now taking a more active role in investigating this possible alternative to existing energy sources.

    It is notable that development of this device has apparently proceeded at an unusually fast pace over the last year or so, with the direct involvement not only of Elforsk AB but also of an un-named US corporate concern plus interest from other parties such as National Instruments Inc and Siemens. Other parties are also claiming success in the development of useable heat producing systems that appear to use similar or related technologies. It would seem that at the present rate of development, ‘LENR’ may present a viable alternative to widely opposed new nuclear fission power stations, and may become available in the form of distributed power generation systems some time before new installations such as Hinkely point C could be commissioned, and at a fraction of the cost, both immediate and ongoing.

    At the moment it would seem that the UK is in danger of ignoring an important development and possibly losing out heavily as other nations stake their claims. A brief statement summarising your current position on the invention and its gathering support, as this might affect the UK’s ‘energy mix’, would be appreciated.

    With best regards,

    • AB

      Good summary.

    • Sean

      Nice letter. However one big problem. You are writing to a politician. Errr, they are mostly lawyers and accountants not engineering or science driven types. Also the have a slight ego. The British Government has had a somewhat negative track record. Like they thought the Jet Engine was a toy in 1927. They also thought that of the Harrier jump jet was a gimmick. If it was not for the British public privately investing and donating we would have nothing. Like the Jodrell bank radio telescope, computers, Radar, spitfire and now Reaction Engines space plane to name a few. We have to do these things ourselves. We need to interest doers not those egotists that are having a nice lunch in cushy surroundings with perks and the rest. Remember people power? There are 62 million of us, 450 Million of our cousins in the US and over 2 Billion in the commonwealth. So if we want to help ECAT and Rossi, we have to do it ourselves. Let’s get started.

      • freethinker

        Excellent initiative! 10/10 🙂

        • fortyniner

          Driven more out of frustration, and impatience with the pr*tts who ‘govern’ us, than any high ideals I’m afraid. I don’t expect much to come of it – democracy is a very vague concept for most politicians.

      • fortyniner

        Big problem – agreed. Fallon is a typical classics/history-educated politico, nonsensically charged with making binding choices in the highly technical field of energy supply. As always we pray that he has effective advisers on his staff – but I wouldn’t necessarily take any bets on it.

        I’m working my way up the political pecking order, and will resort to an FOI request if I get the usual brush-offs. I’m also trying to interest a couple of magazines in publishing a piece on Rossi, but no bites so far (people I’ve spoken to still seem to think that cold fusion (LENR means nothing to them) was a fake that has long since passed into history).

    • freethinker

      Excellent initiative! 10(10) 😀

  • AlainCo

    Last year there was a similar discussion on terms for cold fusion… and I get convinced that, if LENR is the best technical term, Cold Fusion is the best popular name…

    here is my old position:

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?454-Choosing-the-name-Cold-Fusion-LENR

    “Here is my position on the naming.
    Some people, like me initially wanted a precise, scientific, less connoted term like LENR. Today here is my position.

    Some corporate serial innovator said me that
    Cold Fusion
    is the best name.

    Today it is satanic because of mainstream denial, but soon people won’t care…

    but unlike LENR, CANR, LANR, HENI… it is not NUCLEAR …

    it is COLD, thus safe, not dangerous

    it is FUSION, so it is sexy, inclusive

    the only good name might be the Quantum Reactor…
    it is a bit geek … not for my mum.
    For me like for many geek, quantum is sexy (!) , and reactor is macho (!) … but for mum, it is doubtful and dangerous black magic :-O …

    so really COLD FUSION is the best name…
    the brand is established, the 2 words have good connotation (safe, sexy, inclusive 😎 ), and bad reputation will disappear with a feeling of revenge on the men in power 😈 …

    like raising the finger in front of the government. a safe sexy rebel reactor 😎

    • GERARD

      My suggestion would be LATTICE ORIGINATED TRANSMUTATION REACTION, because that is what happends and that is what generates the heat, so LOTR!
      All the transmutation reactions we have seen so far seem to indicate that some sort of lattice is required, otherwise it does not work. LOTR can be initiated chemically, electrically, by heat and by mechanical forces.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Really? LOTR??? It may be a good description of the process, but for 99% of the world it will mean Lord Of The Rings 🙂

        • Barry

          Heh heh heh.

      • clovis

        Hi, Gerard,
        My thought’s exactly, love the name, and have equated this saga,to the lord of the rings before to Dr. Rossi himself .. lol.

    • artefact

      We have seen after the release of the arxiv paper, that in nearly every news artice the process gets called cold fusion.
      It could be good to stay with that term to better clear things of the past up (P&F etc.)

      • clovis

        +1

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The problem with acronyms such as LENR, LANR, CANR is that they only make sense in English. They cannot be meaningfully translated.

      Fusion means joining and fission means splitting. To liberate nuclear energy from non-radioactive elements, one or both must happen. It is customary to call reactions such as p+Li6->He4+He3 “fusion” even though they also involve a splitting aspect (fission). Generalising a bit, anything which is exothermic and which classically involves overcoming the Coulomb barrier would then be called fusion. (If one does not apply this logic, then p+Li6->He4+He3 should be called something else which is neither fusion nor fission, but such third term is lacking.) From this point of view, cold fusion is not a bad term for any phenomenon which yields to liberation of nuclear binding energy from normally stable, non-fissionable elements. As alternatives to cold fusion one could use “solid state fusion” (as some Japanese are using) or “quantum fusion” (provided that the explanation, once someone finds it, proves to be enough “quantum” to warrant such term).

  • Dickyaesta

    More new science from University of Missouri, what an impressive place to be at this moment in time:

    New Plasma Device Considered The Holy Grail Of Energy Generation And Storage http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112824374/plasma-launched-into-open-air-for-energy-generation-041713/

    • Manuel Cruz

      That is neither a battery or a generator, that’s a weapon designed to destroy missiles launched at navy ships. Obviously, being a military research, they have to disguise it somehow.

    • Barry

      UofM is putting MIT to shame.

  • Fibb

    Thanks Frank. Much appreciared.

  • Julian Becker

    So any news regarding today’s European Parliament Conference?

    It should take place this afternoon….

    • Bob Greenyer

      Mathieu getting on train to EU in 15 mins armed with preliminary assessment of our second steel and glass differential cell results.

      • artefact

        🙂

  • Roger Bird

    I do not think that the imminent demise of the much of the power companies, oil, coal, electricity, grid, will have a direct impact on the “unfairness” of our society. Some people will get hurt to some degree, but most rich people are diversified and nimble. However, the idea that we can do better and have a somewhat more level playing field will help. And the direct economic impact of LENR is such that necessities will become cheaper, but un-necessities will pretty much stay the same. For example, water in West Africa will be much cheaper, but the gold in the ground will still be just about the same cost.

    I invite responses.

    • Kim

      What I see is people beginning to understand
      that energy is not in short supply.

      The hoarding of Material Possessions will
      slowly begin to diminish as people realize
      there is plenty to go around.

      Respect
      Kim

      • Bob

        I disagree. Human nature is such that ‘more to go around’ will simply be seen as ‘more to hoard’.
        The proof of this is that in countries which have great natural wealth, there is still the normal distribution of ‘more than much to a few’ and ‘not much to the rest’.
        To arrive at anything different from this will require a big shift in human nature and I don’t think any physical invention will change this condition.

        • fortyniner

          Human nature seems to have been much the same for tens of thousands of years, probably for the whole history of the species – it’s not going to change now because of a new kind of boiler.

          Increased profitability of energy production will by default simply add to the bottom line of the cartels. If we, the great unwashed, want some of the financial benefits cold fusion could potentially produce, we are going to have to fight for them.

        • fortyniner

          Second try – first still in moderation.

          Human society seems to have been much the same for tens of thousands of years, probably for the whole history of the species. A few psychopaths and sociopaths corner the larger part of available wealth, and the rest let it happen. None of this is going to change now because of a new kind of boiler.

          Increased profitability of energy production will by default simply add to the bottom line of the cartels. If we, the great unwashed, want some of the financial benefits cold fusion could potentially produce, we are going to have to take on the establishment.

          Edit – moderated again. I give up.

    • AlainCo

      You raise an important point.
      Since a decade, In france at least (probably in EU and more) we observed Inflation of survival/mandatory product prices, and deflation of leisure/luxury/accessory product prices.
      Food, fuel, housing prices increase . In France it is greatly due to increase in standards (green, safety, organic, energy saving standards), in constraints, in oil prices, and asset bubble on housing. in US ther was more impact of monetary inflation and asset bubble (housing).

      On the opposite for accessory goods there is a decrease of price, part because of low-cost goods and low quality, but also part because of asian industry and international commerce development.

      What you describe with LENR is the exact opposite, and it is VERY GOOD.

      price of food, water, electricity, heating will decrease.
      price of house building will decrease because less insulation needed, and less focus on (sometime even not profitable today) energy saving standards.

      price of electronics, will decrease much less…

      by the way, when I say price, it may not be the apparent price, but in buying power.

      I suspect that like in the 60s, the wages will increase instead of the price to decrease… some apparent inflation to account for productivity gain.

      very good!

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Roger….my opinion, when LENR becomes an energy source, all goods or services which include a large percentage of energy to produce will cost a lot less, e.g. Chemicals, Aluminum, desalination of water. All goods and services which include a small percentage of energy will not cost a lot less, e.g. software, legal advise, pharmaceuticals. Generally, especially initially, LENR will create product deflation. The big unknowns, when, how fast, how much, how disruptive.

  • Dr. Mike

    Frank,
    This is one of the best questions and answers that I have ever read on Rossi’s blog. As the theory for LENR is established over the next several years, it will be interesting to see how similar (or dissimilar) the reaction is in Rossi’s device to the original Pons-Fleischmann effect. My guess is there is considerable similarity in at least a portion of the reactions and that similar reactions (capturing the energy from similar nuclear reactions) will be exploited in future devices that are quite different from the e-cat.

    • Curbina

      I agree the question and the answer are very interesting.

      Just out of curiosity, are you the same Dr. Mike that wandered the Steorn forums back in the 2006-2009 time frame.

      • Adam Lepczak

        I wanted to ask too.

      • Dr. Mike

        Curbina,
        No I am not. I was an early believer in Pons and Fleischmann back in 1989 and always wondered why their work was dismissed by the scientific world without anyone ever making a reasonable alternative explanation as to what the source of excess heat was they were seeing. I’ve been following Rossi’s work for more than 2 years ever since it was brought to my attention by my brother. At that time I did an internet search of “cold fusion” and was quite surprised that data and information was available on the internet to validate Pons and Fleischmann’s 1989 results. I certainly hope that both they and Rossi eventually get the recognition in the scientific community that they justly deserve.

  • Roger Bird

    I am so naughty! I added to the biographies about Sven Kullander and Hanno Essen in a certain website that starts with a W about how they participated in a certain test: “In 2012 and 2013, Sven Kullander [or Hanno Essen] participated in 3 tests of LENR, all three of which were dramatically successful, creating more than 10,000 times excess energy than is possible in any chemical reaction.” Let us see how long they stay there. Of course, if we have a spy amongst us, those inclusions might not last very long.

    Please don’t write out the entire W word in your responses. I want those additions to last as long as possible.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      I looked and couldn’t find your input.

      • Roger Bird

        That really was quick. They caught it in about 30 minutes. They must have some some kind of software to look for LENR or the names of those dudes. Notice that poor Sven Kullander hasn’t done anything for 9 years, according to the excrement bags who patrol Wikipedia.

        I guess we can dispense with the idea that democracy goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech is a wonderful gift, but not from democracy but from wisdom. Wikipedia has just now dropped several notches in my esteem index. I think that I will send to my friends these comments in chronological order so that they will learn that Wikipedia is wicked.

        I just now had no trouble finding an entry about the Hollow Earth idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth Yet poor Sven Kullander has been idle for the past 9 years, according to them. This makes me think that there is a conspiracy with Wikipedia.

        • Patrik

          9 years…….should be more or less 9 years since he retired.

        • Bob

          30 minutes? You would have to be happy with that.
          I once heard each person is allocated only 15 minutes of fame, so you got double your allowance.
          I’m not sure if I’ve had mine yet or not.

        • Felix Fervens

          How long until the general public realizes what a dysinfo control center the W site is?

          Am noticing the same level of control on most every popular science site with supposed social input.

          Funny that science is becoming the most oppressed, least free, forum for discourse. As it is the new secular religion, it controls the popular dogma.

  • alex

    Found this Positive Ecat article on the Extreme Tech website.

    http://tinyurl.com/mqo62wg

  • Anonymous Reader

    Ing. Rossi,

    Good professional answer to Frank Acland’s question. This builds confidence.

    Thank you.

  • sgt

    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/06/vgv-20130602.html

    Use of a E-Cat to generate electricity hooked to a VGV system pretty much solves all of our energy needs and does it without expensive redesigns of IC engines and other similar systems.

  • Sean

    Thank you, Frank and Andrea Rossi for getting this out to us. What’s exciting is I believe there is more to come. I have been lucky in my life to have met inventors / engineers like Sir Frank Whittle and in my family. I believe that Andrea Rossi will join the ranks of like people that have changed the world. This invention is truly massive. Scientists will have to restart their engines for a new beginning.

    • Roger Bird

      Sean, in my opinion, this invention will make Rossi the most important single inventor in the history of the world. He is currently the most important person in the world, if one person can be more important than another person. The E-Cat will have the greatest impact on humanity of any invention since perhaps the invention of writing.

      • Adam Lepczak

        I agree Roger.
        Ecat will turn our civilization into Type 1 finally. In my opinion, FBI, CIA, DARPA, and the President should focus on capturing and utilizing this technology.
        Nothing is more important.

      • Ryan

        I agree that LENR/Cold Fusion will likely be a major component of a radically different future but there are also a number of other areas (that expanded power from LENR will help develop more easily) that may also make massive changes in our future. Things such as nanomachines/construction and advanced AI will play just as large a role. Personally I see all three as key stones to launching us into a Level 1 society and perhaps rapidly propelling us towards a Level 2. Add in the possibility of Harold White at NASA detecting naturally occurring warp bubbles and then maybe being able to scale them up and many of us might be seeing changes long thought to be entirely in the realm of science fiction.

        • Roger Bird

          What is a Type 1 and Type 2 society?

          • Jim Anderson

            I think the types of societies refers to energy creation and utilization of a society. Type 0 is a society that can utilize the resources on a planetary scale. Type 1 is a society that can create and utilize the output equivalent to stars. Type 2 refers to galaxy equivalent energy levels. I’m not sure where that comes from and I may be wrong on the details.

          • fortyniner

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

            A very ’60s’ idea that more is better, so better (more advanced) must mean more. The concept of a biological species consuming energy on the same scale as a galaxy is mid-20th century consumerism extended ad absurdum.

            In fact, as technology advances, any given objective tends to consume less, rather an more energy because efficiency increases. Of course, for humans that just means doing more or larger things to make up the difference.

        • John De Herrera

          ” I see all three as key stones to launching us into a Level 1 society and perhaps rapidly propelling us towards a Level 2.”
          Ryan, you are so right about ‘3 key stones’ HOWEVER, I thing the ‘stem cell’ research will also contribute immensely to a fantastic future for mankind! jdh