Who Could be Against LENR?

As I think about what the emergence of LENR as a major source of energy could mean to the world, I struggle to think of good reasons to oppose it. It seems to me that it is something that people from all walks of life and with different political philosophies would have good reason to get behind the cause of LENR.  Here are some of the major groups that I have considered, and my thoughts on how they might respond to the new technology.

Socialists

Those who advocate social systems where social programs and services are provided for from the taxation of the wealthier in society should be happy to have cheap energy to provide for the needs of society. There are many nations where fuel subsidies make up a large portion of public expenditures, and one would expect a much cheaper fuel source to be embraced. Countries with economic systems planned and funded by government would also likely find cheap energy from LENR attractive as it would cut their huge energy budgets.

Conservatives

One of the great attractions of LENR is that it promises to allow for localized, decentralized energy production. For those who seek to live with as little government interference as possible LENR would be an attractive proposition, as it could allow for self-determination and self-sufficiency on a level that is not possible today. Those who advocate for lower taxation could make a case that costs of running government would be significantly reduced as energy costs are reduced.

Capitalists

Business owners should be some of the first constituents to embrace LENR. Anything that will cut overhead costs is great news for for business. In many industries energy makes up a high percentage of overall costs, and anything that could give businesses the ability to cut costs and thus be more competitive will surely be adopted.

Environmentalists

The environmental argument has been tremendously influential in shaping todays energy policies in many nations. The push to reduce greenhouse emissions has spurred on investment and development of alternative energy technologies, with many governments subsidizing renewable energy projects. Unfortunately alternatives like wind, solar, biofuels and geothermal power are not able to put much of a dent in the overall production of greenhouse gases as economic development increases energy use from fossil fuels. With LENR (E-Cat) able to produce energy at least one order of magnitude higher than any known chemical energy source, and without it producing emissions or radiation, one would expect LENR to be the energy source of environmentalists’ dreams. The claims of almost zero consumption of nickel in Ni-h reactors must be great news to those who are concerned about the depletion of the earth’s natural resources.

Philanthropists

Those who seek to provide humanitarian and philanthropic aid to suffering people would surely wish to help provide a clean and cheap source of energy to people in need.

Consumers

Cheap energy is something that almost all consumers would welcome. Increasing energy costs are putting strains on households everywhere. Energy poverty is a very real problem for billions around the world who struggle to be able to find and afford the basic energy resources for heating, cooking, lighting and electricity. Cheap power from LENR could literally transform lives around the globe. Off-grid living is something that is very attractive to many, regardless of political philosophy. Anyone who has lived through extended loss of power would be in favor of power supplies that are much less prone to disruption by natural or man-made disasters.

Who Could Oppose LENR Adoption?

Andrea Rossi said recently in response to a question about his major fear concerning the future of his invention, “We will be subject to a massive attempt of discredit, from many differentiated sources, but I think that we can win just installing operating plants. Our work will beat any chatter.”

With all the advantages cheap and clean energy brings, who could be against it? From a rational standpoint adoption of LENR would seem to be a slam dunk — but that is only if one does not take into account human nature — peole do not always behave rationally. There are plenty of people in government, business and society in general who benefit from the current energy situation. Anyone whose livelihood, status and power is bound up with the current energy status quo might resist its adoption. How easy it would be to successfully stand in the way of such a revolutionary technology remains to be seen.

Have I missed anything important in this analysis?

  • TPBurnett

    I don’t know if it has been brought up yet, but I believe there is a danger from the tree hugger crowd. Some of them have the rational that current sources of energy are being used to rape the planet of resources. They are counting on oil and gas to run out so the raping can end. Now, with the potential of LENR, even resources that were already out of reach because of energy cost are suddenly available. The very near barrier that earth’s population was facing may have gotten a reprieve and is now, I suspect, able to increase an order of magnitude.
    I would suggest to the tree hugger crowd that LENR will also open the possibility of resources from space. These space resources may be the preferred as it will cost less to get them. These resources may be many times what is available on earth. So I think earth will be OK and beautiful for a long time if we do it right.

    • Roger Bird

      Sounds like you should forward that comment to the FBI. But first you have to convince the FBI that LENR is real.

      You might check out http://www.gapminder.org. Click on “Gapminder World”. Then set both axises to “Children per woman. (total fertility”. Then click “Play” and watch the fun over time. The last forty years are really obvious; you won’t need me to explain what is happening. Population won’t be a problem in the future.

  • Stephen

    I think LENR could be opposed by people scared that it will bring too much anarchy and unpredictable changes to the system: for instance, people concerned with security or those who in general have interests in conserving the status quo. Given enough time and energy you can achieve almost anything… I am not sure that some people would be happy to know that any of the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet can have access to an unlimited amount of energy. I like freedmon, but I might even share some of their concerns.

    I make a very simple and extreme example. Imagine LENR is real (still neutral and curious, waiting at the window for incontrovertible proofs, sorry :)…) and imagine there is a way to make a nasty and extremely powerful bomb out of it. Imagine if anybody in his/her garage would become able to build the equivalent of a nuke with standard stuff available on the market: not a nice perspective, in my opinion. However, luckily, -IF- LENR is real it seems at least quite hard to achieve and, even if explosions have been reported, I am not aware of clear evidences for this kind of extreme misuses.

    Having said that, I am always skeptical with large-scale conspiracies: I might be wrong but, to me, they seem too hard to implement and maintain. -IF- this thing is real, I think nobody will be able to stop it for a long time… even if I can imagine some would like to.

    • mario

      since the stone age humanity had broad availability of weapons, I mean, more broadly available than nowadays, at least in Europe. People is not going arround killing eachother. The exceptions confirm the general situation. So don’t be afraid. Human cooperation is far most desirable than conflicts. In conflicts both parts lose something by force, with cooperation both parts earn something voluntary.
      Armies are nationstate’s tool used either by kings or parliaments

    • Roger Bird

      I think when we say rapid change, we are talking about rapid historical change, not rapid emotional change. Look rapidly the cellphone appeared, from no one had them to bricks to everyone had them. Probably 10 years or less. LENR will more likely be no one has them to a few power utilities brag about having them to most power utilities have them to a few car. This could be in 20 years. Since they aren’t causing people to not pay attention and get into automobile accidents, I doubt if some people who prefer security will care.

  • mario

    probably it’s a real concern.
    The only fact that you are asking yourself the question let the issue become real.
    Why if there is a personal system that give the freedom and indipendence of choice,
    === without any aggressions to others people habits or environment, ===
    someone has the right to state rules or dictate how to behave. Is anyone in charge to rule your lunch/dinner? The way you cook your meal? Do you welcome some control or supervision? I think you don’t.
    Do you know how much money is raised in excises, sale taxes, Vat, etc..etc.. on power or fuels in general? If common people will be free from energy taxation slavery, who will pay for the insane nationstates political activity? Wars included!
    How much I want to be free? That is the question. Any classification or abstract subjectivization is misleading. Simply answer a simple question in harmony with others. If I protect your freedom, would you possibly reserve the same treatment to me? The freedom I have is the freedom I care for.

  • Jack stokes

    Congratulations to mr Rossi

  • PaulS

    I don’t understand why people consider LENR, or e-cat, to be used mainly as distributed power instead of centralized power. Our current fossil power sources are centralized because the efficiency of power production increases with the size of the plant (chemical or nuclear). I don’t see the reason why LENR powerplants would not follow this trend as well, with bigger being more efficient and cheaper.

    Maybe the idea is that LENR energy will be so cheap that making it even cheaper by using larger, more efficient plants won’t be interesting enough to forgo the independence allowed by having a powerplant in each house?

    • Roger Bird

      PaulS, I believe that in the short run you are probably right, and I think that Rossi agrees with you. This is a change from our original thinking in 2011. The problems associated with control and safety are such that small E-Cats in people’s homes does not seem feasible at this time.

    • TPBurnett

      Centralized power plants are not efficient if you consider the waist. Centralized plants and home plants can be within a very few percent of each other in base efficiency. But, except in very dense cities, the waist heat of the centralized plant is just thrown away. Home plants can use that waist heat for all heating needs. None of the electrical output need to be used for that purpose. Also, a great deal of the power from centralized plants is lost in the distribution grid. Again, this is not a problem for the home plant. Lastly, the distribution grid is a monster of man hours, material and energy. This show up as the non-fuel part of your electric bill which is usually bigger than the fuel part.

  • pg

    OT: from Hydro fusion website:
    Hydro Fusion is looking for a Pilot Customer for the first ECAT 1 MW Plant to operate in Sweden. The customer will only pay for the energy produced by the ECAT, i.e. Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation will take responsibility for all associated costs including: the plant itself, installation and any transportation costs. In return the Pilot Customer agrees upon

    Scheduled Installation time by late fall 2013.
    Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation to use the Pilot Plant as a Showcase where external customers can be introduced to an ECAT 1 MW in operation.
    Hydro Fusion is open to any type of heat application given the restriction of a maximum 120 C temperature. The ECAT’s energy specifications are:

    Heat energy is produced according to specs.
    Heat energy 1 MW thermal at up to 120 C
    Heat exchanger from ECAT system to customer heat application.
    Electricity is consumed according to specs.
    250 kWe maximum power consumption
    166 kWe average power consumption, i.e. COP=6
    Hydro Fusion would like to receive quotations from Pilot Customers on both thermal MWh price and electric MWh price, based on an assumption of 7,000+ operating hours per year. Please specify clearly if your quotes depend on the outdoor temperature.

    Pilot Customers, with an interest in this game changing technology, are kindly asked to contact us at [email protected]. Please write “Pilot Customer” in the subject of the email.

    For more info see, ECAT 1 MW Plant.

  • georgehants

    From Vortex with thanks
    [Vo]:ecat arxiv.org paper updated
    Hamdi Ucar Mon, 10 Jun 2013 03:16:26 -0700
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1305.3913
    Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device
    Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
    (Submitted on 16 May 2013 (v1), last revised 7 Jun 2013 (this version, v3))
    Comments: Appendix on electrical measurements added
    I had not realized that he is using 3-phase system for just obtaining 380V AC single phase power
    http:[email protected]/msg82857.html

  • zapece

    I have already planned ahead for that day having bought a large house in the countryside with a large garden in one of the more inhospitable parts of the planet during winter.

    With LENR I will be able to keep the winter garden at summer like temperatures in the dead of winter combined with a large geodesic dome of course.

  • georgehants

    Admin I asked below for science administrations to be added to your list of those against Cold Fusion.
    No reply, could I ask why you feel they should not be on the list.

    • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

      I don’t have an argument with them being on the list, George.

      • georgehants

        Wonderful day, thank you, I am a little bemused that they where not the first one on the list.
        Would you agree that an official announcement from a journal, science minister or equivalent stating that Cold Fusion although not understood is a proven phenomenon and demanding immediate Research, would free Cold Fusion to the World.
        Until that clearly happens it is not reasonable to blame others who mistakenly take official science statements as Facts.
        We could then concentrate on who else is delaying the implementation.

        • georgehants

          I will add that if science is in any way being coerced into not releasing the Cold Fusion Facts then only science is to blame for not informing the World that such pressure is being put upon them.

          • psi

            In my experience academicians who are on the losing end of a paradigm shift are the last people to know that their own colleagues are putting pressure on them to conform. The socialization is so intense that only the most independent ones can resist it and even they are reluctant to examine the dynamics of self-oppression involved in constant accommodation to a reigning dogma. Think about what Mike McKubre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McKubre) said on 60 minutes when they asked him if he was surprised by Rob Duncan’s “coming over.”

            “I know what I’ve seen.”

  • Roger Bird

    History Lesson. The printing press in the West was invented in 1450. Of course, over the decades and centuries printing improved. The Reformation started in about 1517, when people realized that they did not need a priest to have a personal relationship with God, arguably the beginning of individualism and modern society. That was 67 years after the printing press. The so-called Enlightenment started in 1650 and lasted until about 1800, roughly. That would be 200 years after the invention of the printing press.

    The telegraph was invented in about 1838. That invention has come a long way until Al Gore (tee hee) invented the Internet in about 1995. That is 157 years, so we have a gradual explosion in communications for 157 years, but the Internet is been like multiplying communications times infinity. So, what can we expect over the next 200 years? I doubt if LENR would be taking off if it were not for the Internet.

    • Hampus

      yes, all technology makes the progress of science even faster. its not linear but exponential.

    • Karl

      Roger I agree, but this freedom risk leading to the paradox of much stronger control society which we have seen during the last days after the news in the

      Guardian.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance.

      The freedom of an open discussion among interested parties such as this site among people that want CF/LENR to get is fair chance without silly debunking issues taking over, is possible thanks to many participants of course but thanks to the philanthropic and engaged moderator.

      • Karl

        However, although all technologies could be used for good or evil. I think CF/LENR gives humans a chance to reduce its fight for access to nature resources such as oil and gas. This to my mind is one of the major roots to the problem we see reviled in the Guardian link above.

    • Roger Bird

      Part of my point is that it took 200 years for the invention of the printing press to have an impact on the minds of Europeans in ways that most of us could relate to: the Enlightenment. And we can see big changes down the road with the introduction of the telegraph->Internet.

  • GreenWin

    At the moment the loudest opposition comes from academia and “knowledge monopolies.” To be very clear, these are not conspiracies, but they are a component of the military industrial complex President Eisenhower warned of. Dr. Henry Bauer is one of the few courageous voices who focus on the issue:

    “For several centuries, modern science was pretty much a free intellectual market populated by independent entrepreneurs who shared the goal of understanding how the world works. Nowadays it’s a corporate enterprise where patents, pay-offs, prestige, and power take priority over getting at the scientific truth, and the powers-that-be have established knowledge monopolies.” “Suppression of Science Within Science,” Henry Bauer, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences and Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies at Virginia Tech.

    http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/21stCenturyScience.pdf

    A quick read through Dr. Bauer’s essay provides a good overview of the challenges not just to LENR, but any scientific pursuit that is unorthodox. Knowledge monopolies oppose LENR. In the States and EU, that includes industry, publishing, academia, and military. Yet there are heretics in each area as we’ve seen, and they support the good news. Those voices get louder by the day, and the facts and evidence is now irrepressible.

    If we focus on the growing community achieving LENR breakthroughs, the inevitable happens; New Fire spreads.

    • AlainCo

      good point.
      For now the “business monopolies” are ignoring LENR, and the real hard opposition is “knowledge monopolies”.

      It is clear from the data about LENR history, and on some other subjects.

      By the way, it does not mean all heretic are right, just that they should be criticized, not blocked.
      In a way, LENR get much benefit from being criticized, yet too few. The few critics forced LENR scientists to look wider, to be more precise, to tighten evidences…
      Today evidence are incontrovertible, thanks to critics.
      In some domain, banning discussion just allow independent camps to live in their ideology bubble, and be sure their are right.

      All that tragedy is based on the “look good” principle that population and budget should be protected from errors. The problem is that you know errors, only after the battle.
      That is the key idea of nassim Nicholas Taleb, that there is no intelligence to predict black-swan, just intelligence to accept them as real, and take the benefit… predicting and controlling truth is just hubris.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, Thank you for in effect agreeing that science is responsible for the current Cold Fusion situation, do you agree that a honest assessment of the subject in a major science editorial would release Cold Fusion to the World.

      • GreenWin

        Yes George. If the London or New York Times were to write an honest editorial based on the Levi-Essen Elforsk results, other knowledge monopolies would follow. I do not expect Science or Nature to support LENR as it would require loss of face.

    • AB

      This rings true to me.

  • Sandy

    LENR is a threat to the U.S. Government because the widespread implementation of LENR will reduce the need for foreign governments to use U.S. Dollars to purchase petroleum, leading to a collapse of the international exchange value of the U.S. Dollar and the end of the ability of the U.S. military/industrial complex to dominate the world.

    The U.S. Dollar will probably lose about 40 percent of its present international exchange value. So U.S. militarism will come to an end unless they can find a way to take our Social Security money to pay for more and more new wars and to pay for past wars.

    • Roger Bird

      That is about as speculative as speculating in international currencies day by day. A lot more things are going to happen long before that were to happen. For example, the world’s and the US economy could become so much stronger that no one will care or even notice. That is like saying that the automobile death rate will increase because people will feel invincible because their cars are powered by a nuclear reaction.

      • buffalo

        nope,a total collapse of the dollar wont make a single dent in the american military might.in fact it would probably do the opposite.the people in power do not need money because weapons IS money ,ie.fear.money is fear.

        • Roger Bird

          The US military does not make me feel afraid. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and secure, knowing that brave young men are ready to protect me. I only wish that they would protect me from the FDA, the IRS, the DOJ, etc.

    • Omega Z

      Sandy

      The sole purpose for the world to use the USD is so that they can easily redistribute wealth to the non-industrial societies. As much as 10% or more of all the U.S. GDP is transferred to systems in development Every Year.

      As for Social Security funds, It’s already spent All that remains are I.O.U.’s to eventually be made up for through the General Revenues.

      • psi

        So, are you seriously saying that the reason for the Dollar standard is philanthropic? Somehow, I don’t think so.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      I agree that once LENR is mature(when it’s started replacing oil and gasoline), it will be a net negative for the USA in its competitive position with other countries. This is because that the US currently enjoys a preferential energy supply compared with other industrial countries. Our West Texas Intermediate oil price is usually about $10 a barrel cheaper than European Brent Crude. Our abundant natural gas supply, with its low price, gives American industries a leg up on most other countries. When LENR is widely distributed, it will level the energy playing field, worldwide.

      Of course the worldwide adaption of LENR may raise the world economy so much that the US’ relative energy position would be a moot point.

      • Roger Bird

        What Iggy said.

        • psi

          Hope you guys are right.

      • Thinks4Self

        It won’t be an overnight adoption, but in 30 to 40 years you’ll start to see some stabilization once there is product on the market that is a stand alone electric generator. Say a standard shipping container that puts out 100kW of power for six months or longer between cartridge changes and things will begin to change. But you need to build multi-billions of them before you’ll see anything approaching equalization where home energy stores become moot for any country.

  • Roger Bird
  • clovis

    Hi, ya’ll.
    I was just over on DR. ROSSI site and was reading this from Amos, about generation of electricity, and Dr. R answer was this.

    2- we are working very hard on it. We will use the carnot Cycle.
    I must admit i an not up on this Carnot cycle, is it a theoretical term.
    I would think, this would be big news, that the c cycle is being used as the way to gen electricity, anyone care to fill us/me in on the c cycle, and how it might be used with the e. cat

    • clovis

      this is off topic, sorry, FRANK

  • buffalo

    1)the leftists down below will love it but the leftists high above will be uneasy with it. 2)the rightwing below wil love it but up above will be uneasy with it.3)the middles down below will love it but up above will be uneasy with it… In short,the fabulously wealthy will be uneasy with it but the poor man will love it,the theme runs through all politic spectrum.

  • Thinks4Self

    Those producing and refining oil should not have a huge fear of LENR. While it is true the low end crude that is hard to refine might become pointless to extract in a decade or more the easier refined crude will have a market for many decades to come.

    And here is why…

    Electrical Generation

    In 2011 the last year on record the US peaked at just over 1000 gigawatts of use during the summer peak season. To replace that power generation you need 500 million hot cat modules that put out 6kW with a COP of 6 generating electricity with a 1/3 efficiency. You would also need all the support parts, pipes, heat exchangers, etc. to go with them. All of that takes time to build no matter if it is done for commercial use or home use. The materials to manufacture all of it are fairly substantial. They will be mined and transported by petroleum fueled machinery. Petroleum only makes up about 5% of the US generating capacity.

    http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/

    Cars

    Before you can have electric cars you need to more than double the electrical generation capacity of the USA. As well as upgrade the transmission capacity, build charging stations, vastly increase charging rate and capacity of batteries if you want to convert everyone.

    Ecat or other LENR powered cars will be at least 20 years out. Many technical challenges have to be overcome to produce a reactor and some form of electrical conversion that can handle the rigors of being in a moving vehicle. Vibration, slants and acceleration forces would move powders around for instance. Once you overcome those obstacles, you then have to prove that it can handle a high speed collision without causing any serious danger to anyone.

    Plastics

    LENR doesn’t replace oil’s use in plastics. It would make them even cheaper to produce further increasing their use.

    Shipping

    LENR will be quickly adopted here as it is a perfect match. Decreased shipping use of diesel will hurt oil but the savings in shipping for themselves likely would make up much of it. Imagine 60 knot tankers that basically only cost the salary of the crew to operate.

    Mining/Driling

    LENR can provide the power needed for mining and oil drilling/extraction lowering the cost to extract.

    Industrial chemicals

    Possible increase of demand due to sudden manufacturing burst to produce LENR power generation.

    There just isn’t enough enough in the short to middle future to cause oil to freak out. They will likely save money through adoption of LENR long before it hurts them in any serious way.

    If I can come to this conclusion it is likely they have too.

    • Thinks4Self

      I messed up my efficiency math it would take 1 billion hot cats to produce 1000 gigawatts of capacity. Shouldn’t drink and post.

      Reply to post in moderation.

    • Roger Bird

      I think that thinks4self proves that thinking for oneself works. You make perfect sense. Good post.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      A 10 to 20 percent market penetration by LENR will have a huge effect on the price of fossil fuel, the oil industry is very aware of this fact.

      • Thinks4Self

        But that same penetration likely reduces the costs to oil producers as well. Lower production costs allow the ability to make the same profit on a lower sale price.

        • psi

          Excellent exchange on all parts.

      • Roger Bird

        Bernie, please substantiate that the oil companies know this. They can’t know this until they believe that LENR is real.

    • kwhilborn

      The Andrea Rossi version of LENR is using powder, but most other variations we have seen from everyone else do not. Celani uses a wire etc. Electric conversion in a car would be wasteful, but I think could probably be done now with a truck or car with a trailer. Another option is to then use the electricity to create hydrogen for gas engines.

      This technology is in its infancy but if organizations accept it as real (coming soon) then we will see BILLIONS of dollars thrown at this, and BILLIONS of reasons why it will progress exponentially faster that AR ever could. Once major corporations see a dollar value at tunnel end they will fund it, and the tech will grow fast.

      The heat energy we see now is based on a technology that is not even understood yet. Once it is understood we may see machines 100 times more efficient.

      • Thinks4Self

        I think LENR in a car will be done much the same way as a plane via direct electric conversion by highly efficient thermocouples which seem to be just at the laboratory testing level currently. Uncontained powder won’t be the fuel, wire mesh or maybe something like fine steel wool might work, it seems surface area is the key to higher energy output comparing Rossi to Celani. I have no doubt that the engineering challenge will be eventually met.

        • AlainCo

          You may talk of Seebeck Thermoelectric generators.
          This is the idea of LENR-Cars for the first generation of LENR hybrid based on tesla S.
          http://lenrnews.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/LENR_CARS_NChauvin_ILENRS-12x.pdf
          http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?221-Swiss-startup-plan-to-build-LENR-car

          There is maybe a possibility of using Thermoionic convertors, like what Climeon is working on:
          http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1195-Climeon-Claims-New-Low-Temperature-Heat-to-Electricity-Process-Applies-for-Patent

          I’ve discussed with a linkedin friend who is engineer in heat to work devices, and he told me that TEG are not the best solutions.
          There are already very good technology for turbines, or better some “engine” like stirling, rankine, and some variants (that he know well)…

          If you read the sugar Nasa/Boeing plane report, as you say the plan a hybrid electric plane as most easy…
          http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?217-NASA-Boeing-research-on-2040-plane-LENR-among
          Good batteries are needed for take-off.

          Some reports propose to use superconfuctors…
          http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1242-Superconduction-and-planes

          • Thinks4Self

            Nice links! As for plane propulsion I think they are forgetting the KISS principle.

            If you use a much larger version of a ducted fan jet used in model airplanes and put a cylindrical reactor covered with a thermoelectric and cooling fins inline with the fan before the exhaust port, you could get thrust from the fan and add the heat energy derived from cooling the thermoelectrics to the total thrust. Some type of expansion chamber might be advisable aft of the reactor after all hot air expands. You would end up with a device that looks something like a common turbojet engine but burns no liquid fuel.

            For commercial airliners this could be ideal because once they heat the reactors up for the day they could leave them running. You store the the power created on the ground in the batteries and only push minimal air past the reactor, just enough to keep from melting itself. That air could be ducted straight up so you don’t cook the baggage handlers or across the wings to give the plane self deicing. Use the batteries and the reactor to spin the ducted fans up for takeoff and run on reactor power during flight. The batteries would give you a power supply to land if you lose your reactors.

    • GreenWin

      The fear of LENR shows up in the electric utility industry’s recent attention to Distributed Energy Resources.

      http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Technologies_DG_Renewables/Expert-advice-on-how-to-face-up-to-the-distributed-energy-threat-5800.html#.UbVMhdj3OnQ

      Smartgrid News sees DERs (ref LENR) as a threat to their collapsing monopoly on energy generation. Solar is setting the table, later we will see district LENR generators and local microgrids to distribute.

      • Thinks4Self

        The electricity producers are definitely in for a change, but they can adapt. Initially they will convert over to LENR to lower their own costs and eventually likely go from sole producers to a marketplace for trading unused power generation as LENR penetrates the market, they own the lines. Not everyone will have the means nor the desire to have their very own LENR power generation setup and those that do will still need extra capacity from time to time and won’t mind making money selling unused capacity through the grid. The role of the utilities will change but there is ample room for them to turn a profit.

      • Roger Bird

        I think that ***we*** are being too LENR-centric. I checked for “LENR” and “cold” in that article and I didn’t see either. I did see a picture of a roof top solar panel.

  • Anthony

    A worrisome inclusion to your list: military. LENR provides dense local power; with ground & water heat sinks, underground structures can power food and air… rather than asking ‘who could be against LENR?’, the question may be ‘who profits from delay?’

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      I don’t think there has been a delay. The technology is moving forward at breakneck speed.

  • Orlando

    academia, the government, industry, science. These are just a few ‘that could be against lenr’. Why? The fusion industry exists to keep nuclear scientists employed to the tune of 100B dollars world wide in subsidies and grants. This industry has produced zilch in fifty years, despite the known theories. Who ‘keeps’ this industry alive, try all the above. Whether or not LENR is validated (and I believe lattice energy is the ‘future’ whether it’s called that or LENR), we have to deal with entrenched interests that live with their heads in the sand.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      This pales to the fossil fuel industry, Trillions of dollars a year, not including the huge infrastructure investment, pipelines, refineries, offshore drilling platforms and on and on.

      • Anthony

        And many millions in fuel taxes raised by govts. Also, here in the UK many politicians have their snouts in the windfarm subsidy trough and windafrms will become obsolete overnight; very difficult to get a pig away from a trough with food in it !

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Imagine where LENR technology would be today if there had never been a fossil fuel industry.

  • Anonymole

    I suppose, Frank, such a post is good for traffic and keeping the activity up with regards to the defacto topic but you and all here no doubt realize that such analysis has been done time and time again by the media and futurists over the years. In fact in ’89 dozens of articles and multiple books dedicated themselves to exploring NFE. And then again when this whole Rossi craze popped up two or so years ago the schemers, lemurs and dreamers (myself among them) all spent hundreds of thousands of words pontificating about NFE and its world impact. Predictions are fun but ultimately pointless.

    And with regards to the fossil fuel industry and NFE, these people, millions of them, are not stupid. LENR has no doubt been vetted and found lacking (for now) and poses no threat to the $trillions in profits they accrue now and into the near future. Yes that industry has, like all others, become short sighted focusing primarily on their next quarter’s profits but they’re not fools. Were LENR a true threat to the fossil fuel industry we would have known by now. Rosneft, Aramco, Gazprom, Statoil, Exxon, BP, etc. will never just acquiesce, rollover and expose their underbelly to the likes of Rossi, Defkalion and the others.

    • Roger Bird

      Anonymole, I find your comment mean spirited. I hope that you did not mean it to be so.

      • freethinker

        Maybe not mean, but misantropic. What he says is most likely true on some level. Me, I think that the people vetting this for big oil did a poor job, as it has been so deeply rooted that this is not supported by science and any contraption based on this stuff simply cannot be economially viable on a scale that would hurt big oil. But they were wrong. Dead wrong. Probably they are not fully realizing yet what is about to come, because their scientific alibis – main stream scientific analysts – cannot wrap their head around this.

        • Roger Bird

          If most people get their scientific march orders from mainstream science, and if mainstream science has it all wrong, then what are we afraid of? NO ONE with any power is going to think that LENR is a threat, because mainstream science says that LENR is bunk (his exact word). So stop worrying and start influencing people.

      • Anonymole

        Oh I enjoy the exercise of dreaming about the what ifs as much as anyone, more probably. And I can see that there might be a ‘mean spirited’ interpretation to my post. I suppose it came out that way as I felt Frank’s post seemed to rehash what so many of us have already hashed many times in the past. No offense intended.

        But I doubt very much that the oil/coal/gas cartel has swept LENR beneath the carpet all those years ago and have ignored it since. No, they undoubtedly have continued to maintain a handle on LENR’s viability quotient and remain disinterested.

    • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

      One of the purposes of this post is that it seems to me that numbers-wise, there would be many more people in favor of bringing LENR forward than against. I understand that for various reasons certain groups and individuals might be against it, but I would guess overall, if the knowledge of this technology was widely known, that there would be wide popular support for it.

      • Anonymole

        I think the 99% vs the 1% would agree with you. Polling the public few if any would balk at the chance for nearly free energy. NFE is liberating. And what people doesn’t want to be liberated?

        So who would benefit? The 99%. Who might not? The 1% currently in power who do not want their cash machines tampered with, their apple carts overturned.

        If LENR becomes commercially viable, knowledge of it, in this day and age especially, will be widely and instantly available. If such a time does ever come there won’t just be an Arab spring, there will be a humanity spring. The 1%’ers will quiver in their boots.

        • Roger Bird

          How do you explain Sidney Kimmel if your Marxist garbage is correct? And, frankly, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Andrea Rossi used to be in the top 1% income wise. And I bet that Brillouin and Defkalion have 1%er backers.

          • Paul Mannstein

            At least Rossi isn’t a bankster or an investment manager taking investors’ money whether their portfolio increases or decreases in value.

            • Roger Bird

              This is called damning with faint praise.

            • Roger Bird

              So, Paul Mannstein, I think I have you figured out. You want to introduce yourself by saying something nice about Rossi/LENR without violating your conscience and without get ripped by us. Here, I will give you a hint. Doubt all you want, openly or to yourself. But should we point you in the direction of evidence, read/watch it. If you don’t, you are a skeptopath. If you do read/watch the evidence, and still don’t believe, then you are merely a skeptic, which EVERYONE here was when they got interested in Rossi/LENR. And there are still skeptics here. If anyone gives you a hard time, I will find out and defend you and give them a hard time. And my fingers can deliver punishing sarcasm and heavy guilt tripping. (:->) So far, under my benevolent protection, I don’t think that anyone has given a skeptic a hard time twice. If a person wasn’t a skeptics when that person got here, they would be a very pathetic scientist/thinker/philosopher.

          • Robyn Wyrick

            You don’t need to “Marxist Garbage” people. It’s really just incendiary.

            • Roger Bird

              I guess the murder of 100 million people, the oppression of at least 1.5 billion, the current oppression of the people in North Korea, and the voluntary switching out of Communism by perhaps 800 billion people isn’t an important indicator of the value of Marxist thought. Valuing anything out of context is pointless. Yes, I was incendiary. I just want to remind people that we the people of Planet Earth tried Communism and found it deeply flawed. The time for Communism is over; try something else that has a chance of not phucking things up so royally as did Communism.

      • GreenWin

        Admin, here is a recent review of a book by Prof. Henry Bauer titled:

        “Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth” https://socialepistemologydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/westrum_review_bauer1.pdf

        It is brief and to the point discussed here.

        • AlainCo
          • GreenWin

            Alain, thank you for citing Dr. Bauer on lenr-forum.com! There is a positive phase in any cycle and perhaps we can help realign research to be more open-minded.

            What I find inspirational is that in spite of fierce opposition, our small band of LENR scientists have triumphed. We now have a working, near-industrial device. Now the forces of commerce will disregard opposition in pursuit of profit.

            • Roger Bird

              “Now the forces of commerce will disregard opposition in pursuit of profit.” = service to others

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      What do you think has happened since 1990, the fossil fuel industry has successfully delayed LENR. Get real, LENR is a proven energy source, do you read about it in any major publication, have any research dollars been spent in the last 25 years to hasten LENR introduction, who has the power to make this not happen: Follow the money.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        I don’t think that the lack of progress on LENR was solely due to “suppression”. After all, it was the news of Fleischmann/Pons’ discovery that spurred Rossi’s interest. And Rossi’s publicity has triggered research by others.

        I suspect this is typical of new technological development.

        For example, when William McLean first came up with the idea of a heat-seeking missile in 1946, no one would listen to him. So he scrounged parts and worked on it at home. The Sidewinder missile didn’t make it to combat until 1958, and immediately revolutionized aerial combat. It’s projected that the Sidewinder will remain in use throughout the 21st century.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          If there was an oil industry that did not want that Sidewinder made because it would threaten the price of their product, the Sidewinder would never have seen the light of day.

          • Roger Bird

            You mean like solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

    • Barry

      “Predictions are fun but ultimately pointless.” Your missing some big points Anonymole. It’s very important to have a broad conversation and keep the CF awareness going. CF has suffered from unconsciousness and one of the purposes of this site is to keep the light on.
      Another point is we are brainstorming. Just in this one article I realized powering cars by CF isn’t as far off as we think. As soon as we can generate electricity we can plug in electric cars that are already on the market.

      • GreenWin

        Barry, I agree. Before we see LENR-powered cars, we will see LENR charging pedestals at supermarkets and malls. Even if your EV only gets 40 miles per charge, a 25 cent (or free) charge at the mall is attractive.

        Tesla Motors is already advertising free energy for the life of the vehicle. Presently their super-chargers use solar and chemical storage (batteries.) As E-Cat reaches stable industrial status, it will replace both as the preferred source of green, renewable energy.

  • Roger Bird

    lenrdawn, I hate those really narrow comments, I mean that visual appearance, after a whole bunch of “Reply”s in a row.

    The fact that the experimenters get different transmutation end-products just goes to show that we do not really understand what is going on. Perhaps we are like paleo-man: One dude tosses a dry log on the fire and says, “See, it happens about once every three times”, assuming that they understood the concept of three. And other paleo-dude tosses a set log on the fire and nothing happened and he said, “See, it is just fraudulent. You Oog are a fraud; I am going to toss you on the fire. Fire is in the domain of the spirits and you are messing with the spirits.”

  • georgehants

    Admin, you asked above —
    “Have I missed anything important in this analysis?”
    I think I have today made a good enough case for the updating of your list to include science administrations.
    24 years and counting is surely long enough.

  • Roger Bird

    I do not fear rich investors. Most large oil companies are publicly owned, so that the real hands-on investors are, well, professional investors, like managers of pension funds, mutual fund managers, very rich people, etc. They are NOT professional owners. The Koch brothers may be professional owners of their oil company. Professional investors are our friends. They make things happen. We want them to invest in LENR+ companies. We want to be friends with them. We want them to like us and more importantly to trust us. We want to be able to pass information on to them and they will trust it, sort of like Sidney Kimmel. Professional investors sometimes have secondary (second to making a profit) goals like the environment, civil rights, or cancer cures (I guarantee that cancer rates will go down when LENR+ gets cranking.)

    Professional investors keep their jobs, if they are not investing their own money, when they make good investments. They lose their jobs when they screw up. There were 7,691 mutual funds in 2009. We should try to be on good terms with every single manager of those funds. Since I have almost no social skills, it probably wouldn’t be a great idea for me to try to do it. (:->)

  • AB

    Continuing discussion with lenrdawn here

    Here’s a pretty recent one from “Cold Fusion (LENR) One Perspective on the State of the Science”:

    Limited resources have limited to only 2 the number of successful heat producing experiments in helium leak-tight calorimeters for which effort was extended to scavenge 4He held up (by whatever means) in the cell volume. Of these one performed at SRI [25] and the other at ENEA (Frascati) [15], both yielded a total mass balance of 4He produced within approximately ±10% the 2.5 value, supporting a claim for an overall reaction Q of ~24 MeV/4He atom produced. This is an important result that needs further verification.

    This does in no way imply that McKubre is doubting whether LENR is real or not.

    His opinion on that point is unequivocally expressed in section 3. on page XVI under “Why do we think we know it?”

    It can no longer be asserted rationally that there no heat effect in any of
    the very large number of experiments reported here and elsewhere [5], or that the effect is the result of (unknown) energy storage or (unseen) chemistry. Also, at this point, any claim that the Fleischmann-Pons Effect is “irreproducible” is not only unsound, it is unscientific.

    For me, if it’s reproducible, then it’s proven to be real.

    Source http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

    • lenrdawn

      I don’t doubt McKubre thinks LENR is real. However he, like you, isn’t building that confidence on his work or anything else specific, but on a “very large number of experiments”. What these experiments have in common is the observation of excess heat. Most of the rest is inconsistent. Sometimes there is Tritium, sometimes 4He, sometimes Cu or even O, sometimes radiation, sometimes no radiation etc. The reasoning seems to be that anything where more heat is measured than expected qualifies for a successful LENR experiment. If there was such a thing as perfect calorimetry, that could still suffice. But in reality, 500 out of every 1000 calorimetry results will be higher than expected. And before anybody calls me names again – I also think LENR is real (for very different reasons) but constantly claiming it has been proven is wrong and doesn’t help “the cause” at all (“the cause” for me being that it’s research needs more funding).

      • AB

        I also think LENR is real (for very different reasons)

        You don’t trust calorimetry, you dismiss other results as inconsistent, you don’t believe in the combined weight of evidence that comes from a multitude of papers, you disagree with McKubre who could be considered an expert on the topic. How do you justify your belief that LENR is real?

        • freethinker

          There is something pathological about his logic, I dare say.

      • Roger Bird

        lenrdawn, you look very closely at the evidence and come to reasonable conclusions. I will never call you a bad name. I am very happy that you are here.

        If your first name is Dawn, I might call you, but never a bad name. (:->)

      • Stefan

        The problem is the mix of well funded institutes like SRI and ENEA and combine that with equal weight with other experiments done with perhaps people with no less potential, but with much less resources. I would like to see something like 4 institutes
        trying to match say 25-50 successful runs in a 1 out of 20 success rate, with a as lenrdawn suggest well defined notion of what a success means. Maybe the EU quadrojka could qualify for
        this don’t know. So this will decide that there is an effect. Added to this could be some experiments deciding for example Helium, just take what SRI got and replicate 4 times and get some good statistics of when this effect is noticable.

        My 2c

      • Warthog

        So, we should say it is “not proven” in spite of the fact that, having examined the experimental evidence, we believe that it is?

        You appear to be of that school which purports to believe that experiments must be 100% reproducible to be accepted.

        According to the accepted rules of real science, LENR “is” proven. Experiments have been done and the same experiments replicated successfully, by different researchers, in different labs, and often in different countries. That is all that is necessary for scientific proof.

        That different researchers look at different aspects and get different results merely proves that LENR is a very broad phenomenon, not that it doesn’t exist.

        And in fact your insistence that it is “not proven” is actually detrimental to your cause of getting more funding. “Proven but not fully understood” is a better incentive than “not proven”.

  • Fibb

    so while I’m excited about lenr providing cheap energy for the masses I am well aware that cheap energy alone does not a utopia make. resource extraction run amuck (made possible by cheap energy) has a definite and profound downside when it comes to the ecology. we should make sure to guard against this with responsible regulation.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      cheap energy alone does not a utopia make

      True, socialists can mess up a wet dream. Venezuela has 20¢/gal gasoline but no eggs, butter, or meat. But Venezuelans that live next to Colombia can swap gasoline for butter and eggs.

    • GreenWin

      Fib, aside from the obvious elimination of man made CO2, and the lack of need to drill or mine (significantly) for fuel; LENR could replace the majority of wood burning cookstoves around the world. Heat for cooking is a major destroyer of forest.

      Additionally, desalination can bloom deserts and replace dirty, water borne disease with fresh, clean water – a major health improvement. With abundant low cost energy, access to information networks and education rises – minimizing some tribal conflict and eco-damaging behavior.

      • Roger Bird

        I awoke this morning realizing that desalinization even with (almost) free energy is no easy matter. And maintaining a massive desalinization plant would be a massive undertaking. And the brine left over from such a plant would be ecologically problematic. I am not saying that such a thing could not be done; I am saying that it will not suddenly become easy. I may become easier, but not easy.

        • Fibb

          Roger… I was wondering about that myself. But then I thought… why not dump the salty solids back into the ocean? It should be able to take all of it without hurting anything. I think….

          • fortyniner

            All the water extracted (minute anyway, in terms of the total) would simply return to the oceans, one way or another, and restore the normal salt concentration. A bit hard on whatever is living where the salt is dumped though.

            Instead, it could probably be exported as a resource, and like the water, would (mostly) eventually find its way back to the sea.

          • fortyniner

            A better way to use energy to create a water supply is probably the use of atmospheric water generators, which are in effect modified air conditioners which collect and purify the condensate.

            People living in hot areas could enjoy cool spaces where such machines operate (water from breath would also be recovered), and there would be no need for vulnerable water pipelines from a coast that could be hundreds of miles away. All a bit ‘Dune’-like, but entirely feasible, given cheap, locally generated electricity from CF plants.

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

            • GreenWin

              I have seen these are getting some use in the desert nations and, as you note, avoiding vulnerable pipelines is a plus.

              Michio Kaku suggests the step from a Type One to Type Two planet is weather control. With abundant energy and HAARP technology, this may be next.

        • Warthog

          Why would it be “problematic”?? If you take the saline feed from the ocean, and put the spent brine back into the ocean you, you change the overall balance of the ocean not at all. If you get your feed from (say) underground brackish water, then you will need to re-inject the spent brine back into the aquifer from which it came. Still not “problematic”.

          • Roger Bird

            Any place in the ocean close to the outlet of the brine would be negatively impacted. For the rest of the ocean, the impact would be equivalent to more evaporation and rain that week.

            • Warthog

              I very seriously doubt that it would even be possible to measure the increase, much less “have a negative impact” unless the outlet were put at the head of a very small bay. Which most design engineers are already smart enough not to do.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Sorry, GreenWin, but the CO2 has already beat desalination to the punch, in the greening of the desert.

        One suspected side effect of global warming is lusher vegetation, and a new study shows that leaf cover on plants rose by 11 percent in arid areas between 1982 and 2010.

        During photosynthesis — the process by which plants make food — plants pull carbon dioxide from the air. More carbon dioxide should mean more plant food, and studies in recent decades have confirmed increased plant life, but did not control for increased rainfall or changing temperatures.

        Researchers in Australia looked at desert plants and adjusted for precipitation and temperature to weed out other effects. They first created a computer model to estimate the global “fertilization effect” of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

        The model estimated that during the study period foliage would increase by 5 to 10 percent, affected by a 14 percent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the same period. The team then used satellite imagery to view the greening from 1982 to 2010.

        Arid regions including the southwestern United States, Australia’s Outback, the Middle East and parts of Africa experienced an 11 percent increase in leaf cover on plants, according to results published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

        But lead study author Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra warns that rising carbon dioxide won’t impact all vegetation the same, and new species could dominate in dry areas.

        “Trees are reinvading grasslands, and this could quite possibly be related to the carbon dioxide effect,” Donohue said in a statement. “Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in carbon dioxide.”
        Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/06/03/Carbon-dioxide-fertilization-is-greening-deserts/3081370268043/#ixzz2VmCPJZr7

        • GreenWin

          Iggy, yes, I read this. Fascinating problem for warmists to spin greening into some kind of negative. As for ease, nothing at large scale is easy – but the technology is well known. Israel and many OPEC countries use massive desal to grow their economy.

          In thermal desal (multi stage flash) the brine/salt is trucked offsite either for burial or to be leached back into the ocean. What makes this very attractive is the LENR process heat required can cost as little as 10% of fossil fuel-fired heat.

        • Fibb

          Oh good… there is nothing to worry about… the deserts are not expanding and the land is becoming lush and fertile all over the place….. oh wait…

          Desertification crisis affecting 168 countries worldwide, study shows http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/17/desertification

          Oh and this is where you say the UN is in on the conspiracy to make harmeless CO2 (plant food) into a pollutant so they can take away your freedom.

          • Roger Bird

            Fibb and Iggy, go to your corners and answer me this question: Do you believe that LENR is real.

            If so, please stifle your AGW debate.

            • Fibb

              I would be very happy to never again see the word “climate” used on this site. Roger, I’ve been the one repeatedly asking for people to stay on topic, i.e. on LENR/Rossi. But I find it hard to let AGW deniers go unchallenged. And I know LENR is real.

              • Roger Bird

                I feel exactly the same way. I have difficulty letting AGW advocates go unchallenged. Imagine my exercise of self-control when I try to post my LENR-boosting missives at a pro-AGW site. But it has NO purpose except to make us feel good. It is mental masturbation. Perhaps today I should look for “AGW hoax” sites; I won’t feel any urge to correct them.

      • Fibb

        Those all sound plausible.

  • daniel maris

    Russians, Qataris, Saudis…that will do for starters. They all have strong influence in Western media through outlets that have bought and control.

  • Stefan

    A little off topic,

    I was trying to find out if McKubre’s correlation plot between He measurements and generated heat have been published in a peer reviewed
    paper. It is not the old M4 correlation but a pure correlation plot
    with around 50-100 datapoints that was showed in the EU meeting. It’s probably a unique dataset in that it is a very good statistical base to draw conclusions from.

    Cheers

    • Stefan

      Heh, I debugged this, I just looked at the presentations in high res
      and the swarm turned to error bar structures. Also finding the article
      behind this was now simpler and it is evident that this is what you get from basically taking the derivative from a curve of heat generation and a curve of He detection.

      Comments
      1) Looks better because one does not need to do 50 successful cases
      to find this structure.

      2) Not clear how often one can see this behavior.

      3) A common reason behind systematic errors in random models are that they are a consequence of a non-linear random model e.g. val = f(x + error), It is wrong to then take as the estimate f(x) especially in the case of a significant sized error. A little better is to use,

      E[f(x + error)] = E[f(x) + f'(x)error + f”(x)/2 error * error + …]
      ~ f(x) + f”(x)/2 Var(error)

      I do not know if this apply to the He graphs shown, but it is a good question to state to the researchers.

      Have fun

  • kwhilborn

    Who could be against LENR/

    Anybody running a New Energy Website that Co-Authors books on outdated LENR might feel a pinch. (AKA – The Snake) Who could this be?

    I think Oil money is now diversified and these people want a clean planet as they now own as much APPLE and PEPSI.

    -Any small investor in clean energy might be hurt. A farmer who drops 2 Million USD on a windmill to sell electricity from his farm might be hurt along with those that sold it to him.

    Power companies will shrink to 1/100th of their sizes if power goes off grid, with no need for heavy infrastructure.

    Corner gas stations will vanish once cars start coming with a lifetime worth of fuel built in. Only for bathroom breaks, but who will have a car without a bathroom with fuel prices so low?

    Researchers or anyone involved in green energy will not be needed once a real green energy like this arrives.

    The rest of the world will rejoice.

    • Roger Bird

      There will be ghost towns, literally and figuratively. But people will be able to afford to move into the literal ghost towns and live off of their gardens and such.

      • kwhilborn

        Yes.

        – We should add any property owner in cities to this list.
        Once trucks can deliver products cheap and far there is less need to run businesses in a city. Cottage country might start seeing major industry.

        Property values will fall in the city and increase somewhat in the country.