On Excessive Cold Fusion Safety Concerns

The following guest post was submitted by E-Cat World reader Rick Allen. The opinions expressed in guest posts are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of E-Cat World.

The E-Cat represents a breakthrough cold fusion technology. By combining specially processed nickel powder, hydrogen gas, and certain undisclosed catalysts, it can produce massive amounts of power without any of the typical drawbacks of conventional nuclear reactions. There is no other energy technology that has been disclosed to the public with so much potential. Solar power doesn’t even come close. Despite the stunning capabilities of this technology, there are some who even though they are proponents of the reality of cold fusion (LENR), believe that technologies such as the E-Cat should be forced to go through excessive safety testing which could last years before being commercialized.

All kinds of products go through safety testing: cars, stoves, microwave cookers, and even coffee pots — and of course, the E-Cat should be treated the same. Any product intended to be used in the marketplace that produces high temperatures, regardless of whether it runs on electricity, gasoline, or nickel powder should be checked for safety. What’s disturbing is the extent to which some want cold fusion devices to be tested.

Jed Rothwell wrote recently on vortex-l

I do not think any cold fusion device should be allowed on the market until production line models have been subjected to millions of hours of testing in hundreds of different labs and places like Underwriter’s Laboratory.

We do not allow automobiles to be sold until they have been crash tested. Those tests cost many millions of dollars for each model. It is a small price to pay for automobile safety.

The notion that cold fusion devices can be sold to corporations or individuals now, in this primitive state of development, is a reflection of the amateur status of the research. If Rossi and the people at Defkalion
seriously believe they might start sales in a year or two, even before they crank out a few thousand devices to be safety tested, they are either naive, ignorant of safety standards, or they are trying to sell investors a
bill of goods.

The amount of red tape Jed Rothwell suggests here could make a fully market ready product sit in a lab for several years.

What are the proposed “dangers” of cold fusion devices, other than the fact they generate high temperatures? A few concerns are the emission of radiation, production of nuclear waste, and the dreaded, “melt down.” All of these almost certainly non-issues when it comes to the E-Cat. However, common sense tells us these issues could be determined during a reasonable duration of testing in a handful of professional labs with modern equipment. As we speak, I would be almost certain Andrea Rossi and his partner company are addressing these issues than they already have in the past. By the time the E-Cat hits the market, testing will have already told us what has already been determined during previous tests.

We should also remember that prototype E-Cats have been made to self-sustain until the reactor was destroyed — sometimes through deliberate torture testing. The result was not a giant cloud of radiation sweeping through a building, there were also no rods of uranium or plutonium melting into the ground. Instead, there was melted nickel, steel, and ceramic but little else. The only real safety threat seems to be a conventional fire. Andrea Rossi, who has worked in close proximity to potentially thousands of E-Cat reactors for years (even during intentional failure testing) seems to be in fine health. If this technology was as dangerous as some people claim, he would at least have been seriously injured or sick by now. The worst injury Rossi has reported is a burnt finger when touching a hot reactor.

I think this track record is far better than that of steam technology a hundred or more years ago. The first boilers and steam engines were very dangerous and often exploded. People died from accidents. However, instead of being kept in a government lab for years, the technology was implemented broadly and rapidly. Because of this, the world quickly advanced technologically. In time, it became safer and now it is used everywhere.

I’m not saying that the E-Cat technology should be slapped on the market without any safety testing. However, by getting it into the marketplace as quickly as is reasonably possible, much more good than harm will be done. There will be an accident with a cold fusion product eventually and I’m sure that when that happens there will be detractors yelling and screaming to take them off the market. We must remember there are horrible accidents that take place with products you can buy today at Home Depot. People burn themselves; homes catch on fire; canisters of flammable gas explode. Are all of these devices yanked off the shelves? No. They are still used, because people have the common sense to know that almost anything can be dangerous if not used appropriately, not maintained, or not used safely.

With an adequate amount of safety testing the E-Cat technology can be re-confirmed as being safe enough for the marketplace, first probably, for industrial settings and then for home use. It’s not going to take a billion dollar government program and five thousand scientists to prove this. And it’s not going to require Rossi’s partner company sending experimental units to hundreds of universities around the world to be tested for years.

I think that when Rossi’s partner company is revealed, they will present more than enough evidence that the technology is safe enough to be sold in the market place. My hunch is that they will also present data from other parties confirming the safety of the E-Cat. If we are fortunate, the governments of the world will not place excess regulations on it just because “nuclear” phenomenon are taking place, and the solution to the energy crisis can start being utilized broadly.

What we need to be fearful of, more than anything, is this technology not being placed on the market as soon as possible. Our civilization is closer to death than most people think. We have billions of people, a fragile environment, limited resources, and no ideal source of energy. If cold fusion is used appropriately, it could transform a planet of scarcity from hell into a near heaven of plenty E-Cat technology could help fight such things as drought, poverty, pollution, hunger, economic depression and other major problems.

If overzealous safety police get their way when it comes to this technology, it may not see the light of day until it is too late to save our society from an eventual collapse. Once the technology is on the market, it won’t change the world overnight. But over a period of years, maybe a decade or two, a fundamental transformation of our world could take place. This shift must start immediately, while the opportunity remains.

Fear has been said to be the mind killer. In the case of the E-Cat, it could be a civilization stopper. We must use logical and reason to realize that the safety issues surrounding cold fusion are minimal compared to the enormous benefits. I don’t know about you, but I think saving the world is worth burning a finger.

Rick Allen

  • Chris I

    Well my weary eyes haven’t nearly read through the whole thing but I must say it is a very subtle matter, further to the great complexity of generalizing the issue. When is it that these concerns should be increased? When should they be reduced? By which criteria?

    In some ways, modern times are full of exaggerations, even in cases where (in past times, at least) common sense would suffice along with liability of whoever males something and deems it fit for the market. At the same time, we are now talking about something so lacking of clear understanding that most refuse to believe it is possible, it could be producing traces of radioisotopes and it is also early to guess how well Rossi is hitherto able to control it, against overheating and with what consequences.

    When I was a kid, in North America, there was a big scandal about “clackers”, a child’s toy that had been marketed without much judgement. Kids were getting hurt every day. One could not have expected those children to have been more responsible. In Britain, a cousin of mine told me about matchboxes that were a potential hazard, before the invention of safety matches. Those with plain sulfur would sometimes ignite each other in the box, or when a person’s fingers went to gather them out from it. Yet matches of the old, ordinary type had long been in use and it was common understanding that they were not for kids and that adults were expected to watch out with them, But adults can’t be expect to have responsibility without having been informed.

    Today, legislation treats adults like kids. Very often, they are. We see people leaving their babies in the car for quite a while, on hot summer days and it lucky enough if a sane passer by alerts police about it. Does the average dude understand what the hell is happening inside his shiny new ecat, any better than Rossi himself does?

    One could say everything and the opposite of everything, when it comes to safety.

  • bachcole

    So, here’s the deal: I am loosely connected with a group of people trying to defend and promote homeopathy. This is what we do. If I should find a comment section connected to a news article about homeopathy, I send the link to our organizing ladies. They, in turn, send the link to all of their contacts who like to support homeopathy. Then we individually go to the comment section and make comments that support homeopathy.

    We could do the very same thing with LENR. But we would not, of course, be limited to LENR sites, because there are very few of those. Any energy site would work. How about it, guys? Instead of head-tripping (read: mental masturbation) all day long, we could actually be doing something positive for LENR acceptance.

    • Bento

      homeopathy…I wouldn’t compare LENR with homeopathy, ever heard of Russell’s teapot?

      • bachcole

        Bento, you are missing my point. The point is that we could be doing something more than mental masturbation for LENR, and this is a way to do it. If you want to argue the merits of homeopathy, I would be delighted to do it, but please don’t miss my point.

        I and my family have benefited from homeopathy for the past 44 years. That is my teapot.

        • Bento

          the proof is in the cake, for LENR we have to be patient
          proof for homeopathy is like waiting for Godot
          greetings

          • bachcole

            You arrogant $hit, I already said that it has been working for me and my family for the past 44 years, so in the spirit of LENR epistomology research, you have to swallow that data and and stop being an arrogant $hit. I have two children thanks to homeopathy. I have seen depressions evaporate faster than a drop of water on a hot stove with homeopathy and flower remedies. So you can continue to be an arrogant $hit or you can trust other people and leave aside your theories about how things are, just EXACTLY like LENR.

          • bachcole

            I and my family have experienced 44 years of success with homeopathy solving very important and difficult problems. I don’t have to wait at all. I guess you do.

            The similarities philosophically speaking between homeopathy and LENR are profound. There are a bunch of arrogant people who say that it is impossible. And there are a bunch of people who say that it works.

            • Bento

              ok, so the harder you believe in LENR the faster your car drives…

              • bachcole

                Strawman alert. No, homeopathy and flower remedies work even when one actively DISBELIEVES that they are going to work. In fact, I recall clearly and distinctly thinking when I took my first flower remedy what a lot of bull it was. It worked anyway.

                • Bento

                  Flower remedies have nothing to do with homeopathy

                • bachcole

                  For the purposes of countering your objections to homeopathy, flower remedies most certainly do have lots to do with homeopathy. There is NO physical substance left in flower remedies. And they can be potentized/diluted like homeopathy and they work better. I am surprised that you make a distinction.

                • Bento

                  where in this universe can you find uninfected, clean, virgin H2O with no “memory”?
                  it doesn’t exist, al the water in this universe is infected with “memory”, you don’t have to prepare it, it’s already there.

                • bachcole

                  Dear Bento, I like your point and I will use it when arguing with those who talk water memory when trying to explain homeopathy. I think that the water memory idea is completely bogus. It is magic or vibe or vital force or prana or chi, just exactly like how this body doing this typing on this computer in Colorado has consciousness attached to it, but if you open up this body you will NEVER see consciousness no matter how strong of a microscope that you use.

                • Bento

                  where just cavemen, trying to explane lightening…
                  but it doesn’t mean there’s no explanation.

                • bachcole

                  I didn’t say that there was no explanation for homeopathy and flower remedies. I said that the explanation would NOT be physical. There are “rules” or a “physics” to metaphysical matters, but given the various levels, nomenclatures, and the confusion of wishful thinking, it can all be very confusing and complicated.

                  But the important thing is that homeopathy and flower remedies work. Explanation are not really necessary.

                • Bento

                  …it’s not working for me or my family.
                  now, you can ask yourself the question: why is it working for me and not for Bento?
                  well, the answer to the question: is homeopathy working? might lie in the question you are asking yourself.

                • bachcole

                  I have no idea what you are saying. Unless, hey, if you want it to work for you and your family, you have to try it.

                • US_Citizen71

                  I think what Bento is referring to is the Placebo Effect. Call it faith, willpower, spirt or say it comes from herbs, flowers, a magic rock or even a birthmark, if you believe it fully your body will comply to what ever degree it can.

                • bachcole

                  Homeopathy and flower remedies have worked numerous times for me and those I am intimate with when there was a sneer of contemptuous skepticism on our lips. Do I seem like a person that could be fooled by BS? Poor Rossi had to wait 19 months for a 3rd party test before I took him off my probation.

                • US_Citizen71

                  The Placebo Effect is real no one knows exactly how or why it works, but it does. Plenty of study but no answers just like LENR. One of the reason drug studies are done double blind is to make sure that the drug does better than the placebo effect.

                • bachcole

                  Yes, the placebo effect is real and must be taken into consideration whenever one is doing experiments on one’s self. Homeopathy and flower remedies go WAY beyond the placebo effect.

              • bachcole

                Bento, you are writing at me like I am stupid. Do you understand that that is insulting? I am fully aware of Avogadro’s number and that for any homeopathic remedy beyond 12C there is NO physical substance left. It still works. Your adhesion to materialism is no excuse to talk down to me. My personal reports and the reports of hundreds of millions of other people should make you question your love affair/fixation with materialism. If it doesn’t, then you have an emotional problem that causes you to desperately cling to materialism so badly that you are incapable of questioning it.

  • bachcole

    On a slow LENR news day like today, you might find this interesting, a study in practical epistemology, sort of practice for understanding anything new and strange and outside of the box of lamestream science.

    http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/4009/meteor_man.html

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    The Greenie Religionists, in the name of safety, hold back approval for the Keystone Pipeline, so 0bama can pay off his political crony, Warren Buffett, and use his railroad which is 30 times more hazardous than pipelines.

    • US_Citizen71

      Thing is the Keystone pipeline does about zero for the energy needs of the US. Its whole purpose is to bring the oil from Canada to the market. Most of it will sell to South America just like excess refined gasoline from the US already is. Delivery pipelines to Kansas and Colorado are being reversed right now to bring the excess to the coast for export. All the fracking is turning the US into a major producer. The theft of private lands to build the Keystone pipeline will only benefit Canada and a few greedy oil companies so I see no problem with it not being built.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Typical selfish argument. The street to your house doesn’t help me get to my house either.

        • Quiet Wine Guy

          Wow. You use the language of hate . . . and then you call someone else selfish.

          • bachcole

            All politics is hate and divisive, us against them.

            • US_Citizen71

              Generally but it doesn’t have to be. Statesmen use logic to keep their emotions in check. Politicians use their emotions to keep their logic in check.

              • bachcole

                Politicians use our emotions to keep our logic in check.

            • Quiet Wine Guy

              It is if that is the principle and virtue you place as the moral/ethical compass for a society.

              WWII was the result of a genius who used the power of hate and division for an extreme example.

              • bachcole

                Sure the middle during prosperity is going to be much more gentle than the extremes and during difficult times. But show me ONE instance when “us vs. them” is not part of political discourse. Just one.

                • Quiet Wine Guy

                  Your original position was ” all politics is hate and divisive”, base primal emotional irrational impulses. When held as “The Rule of the Game”, they limit how issues between individuals are discussed and resolved. There are no “Win Win” solutions when an individual or a society looks through that moral/ethical lens.

                  Abraham Lincoln pursued a principle that included inherent human dignity. He talked about the goal so well embodied in his Gettysburg Address. He is easily characterized as a man who did not communicate with the vitriol of hate and division as the goal of society.

                  All individuals and our culture are better off as a result of the end of slavery, a sure example of Humanity rising beyond hate and division as “The Rule of the Game”.

                • bachcole

                  Lincoln may have been a perfect gentlemen, but he was waging war against other people. And those other people were “waging” eternal war against black folk. Even if politicians are gentle, the end result is people against people. When you see NO ONE being harmed by political action, please let me know.

                • Quiet Wine Guy

                  Politics ruled by Hate and Division leads to very different consequences than when ruled by the equanimity of openness and inclusion.

                  The man lead by hate and division will respond very differently to the natural progression of life. They have no problem promulgating harm because hate precludes empathy and compassion.

                  It is entirely appropriate to stand up against hate even to the point of war. We are all better off when that sort of rule is followed.

                • bachcole

                  Just make sure that you understand that governmental action is almost ALWAYS coercive. Taxes are not voluntary. Conscription is not voluntary.

                  But, having said that, I think that it is very important to keep an eye on the feeling tone of a political movement. I just started a movie about Benito Mussolini; he started out a socialist. But the “feeling tone” is the real message. Hitler’s feeling tone was decided and stridently and unrepentantly (overtly so; they even said openly that they were not ashamed of their hatred). I am concerned about the hatred that I see coming from both sides of the political spectrum in our (USA) country. Both sides are calling each other the most venomous names with the most venomous venom encasing those words and ideas. It is scary. I see civil war coming.

                • Iggy Dalrymple

                  4 and counting

                • Iggy Dalrymple

                  3 in a row

              • Iggy Dalrymple

                The not-so-Quiet Wine Guy has used the “H” word twice in 2 consecutive posts. Typical.

                • Quiet Wine Guy

                  You remind me of my grandfather. He was definitely a character.

                • Iggy Dalrymple

                  I’m probably old enough to be your grandfather.

        • US_Citizen71

          Selfish? No, actually quite the opposite. If the Keystone pipeline was only going to be run on privately owned property and the owners were all in agreement the projects main obstacle would just be an EPA approval. But that is not what it will entail. In order to complete it sales or leases of government land are required. The government exercising its right to immanent domain on several land owners is also required. Many of the areas that are privately owned and against the project produce crops and live stock and do not want the threat of a spill ruining their livelihood. Since they currently own said property what is more selfish overturning their rights for the profits of a few large corporations and a foreign power or defending their rights to ownership.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            You’re worried about spills so you choose a mode of transportation that is 30 times more hazardous?

            The govt exercised IMMINENT domain to build roads and water mains to your house.

            It’s not the property owners that are complaining. It’s the Greenie Religionists.

            • US_Citizen71

              Actually I was referring to eminent domain, and you would be wrong that the landowners are not against it.

              http://www.google.com/search?q=land+owners+against+the+keystone+pipeline&oq=land+owners+against+the+keystone+pipeline

              Why doesn’t Canada build a pipeline to the coast through their own lands? Why does it have to cross the US? The oil will not be used in the US why should risk any type of spill either via trains or the pipeline be on the US? It is Canada’s oil let them deal with bringing it to market.

              • Warthog

                Maybe because they don’t HAVE a line to the Gulf of Mexico “through their own lands”. Last time I looked at a map, Canada had coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. And the oil (though not all of it) WILL be used in the US. Right now, the majority of the really large refineries are in Louisiana and Texas (I am from Louisiana), so the oil needs to get there so we can have gasoline. Until the EPA and the leftist states allow new refineries to be built closer to the sources of the oil/gas, that will continue to be the case.

    • Barry

      More of Iggy’s republican dogma.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        I’ve decided to join Roger in the Epistemology Party. Republicans call
        me constantly and I hang up on them. GimmeCrats don’t even bother.

        • US_Citizen71

          It is not the GimmeCrats demanding portions of peoples lands. It is the Fascisticans, you know the ones that want the government out of your life unless it makes them money or furthers a social issue they believe in.

        • Barry

          Maybe you would be more comfortable at a political site where you can express your views. This is a Cold Fusion site and I don’t come here to sift through to find your unrelated political dogma.

          • bachcole

            Barry, we get all kinds of political garbage here, but someone says something that you don’t like, all of a sudden you don’t like unrelated political dogma.

            • Barry

              That’s true, I don’t like the term “GimmeCrats.” It strikes a nerve when I’m working 27 out of 31 days this month and helping friends 2 out of the remaining days. So many of us are trying to stay ahead of foreclosure then Iggy makes these lopsided, unemphatic, demeaning statements which is simply insulting a lot of us on this site. I wish we would stick to the Cold Fusion topic an keep Rush Limbaugh statements out of it. It only divides.

  • Allan Shura

    Other than heat in comparison to other appliances and energy devices there does not seem to be a significant hazard. Nickle in a loose powder form was considered but it is of a realtively low toxicity compared to many domestic
    consumer prodcuct items. Nickel is not even used in the deuterium type
    reaction. The only other safety factor would be controls and general durability
    for the intended use of a product.

  • fritz194

    Well,
    Even the most useless crap might take years from invention to the markets.
    But a disruptive technology like lenr which could change the world in many ways – solving serious environment and dependancy problems should be promoted and financed by governments.
    If you think for example about the Apollo missions. How much money was spent to show technological leadership and the first footprint on the moon ?
    How much money is spent on surveillance ?
    The only conclusion might be that governments just try to protect their power.
    There is no problem with environment –
    There is no problem with oil –
    As long as LENR is not in the media – there is no need to deal with it.
    And if it comes to risk:
    There is an entire generation of cellphone-users which have been told that a cellphone is safe because it doesn´t warm up a pig-scull to certain degree.
    Of course – they found up that there is a problem – and changed the standards.
    But even if it´s true – these are realities “to big to be true”.

  • BroKeeper

    By definition the state of being “safe” is the condition of being protected against physical, social, spiritual, financial, emotional, occupational,
    psychological, educational and political harm.

    The question is not how safe LENR can be but what are the acceptable levels of risk. Certainly some risk exists in most categories at separate times; however IMO the greatest risk is not one of unintentional mishaps but that of intentional misuse that threatens all levels of “safety”.

    Like LENR other early discoveries in its infancy were not considered very dangerous. Prolonged exposure of radioactive materials was not realized as a potential health threat: Madame Curie was the first woman to be entombed on her own merits. Trinitrotoluene known as TNT was first used as a dye, yet later discovered to be the tool of choice for mass killings.

    So what is yet to be understood about LENR? Do we really believe we iscovered all its potential and its negative implications?

    Don’t get me wrong, I am among the few to champion its future physical
    salvation for the less fortunate masses. My concern is the unknown about LENR and its devices that present an astounding amount of energy in small packages. If not used as a chain reactive or dirty bomb what else can its concealed/undetectable energy negatively impact society? To be sure, if and when discovered, political terrorist will embrace those evil advantages.

    This leads to the next long obstacle that E-Cat and its competitive equivalents must hurdle. If such evil purposes can be devised you can be sure NSA/Homeland Security will provide regulation road blocks to its greatest development and energy distributed potential. Terrorist safe? Hmmmm…

    • fritz194

      In the end it´s a plain political decision – to support economic terrorism (disruptive technologies) or not. As long as there is not too disruptive progress – or COP – ignoring might be the best solution – (keeping in mind the streisand-effect)

      I see that like the transition from steam engines to combustion engines – might take a bit.
      I also think that the products invented and their promised COPs are somewhat designed to be competitive – but not too disruptive.

      • fritz194
        • BroKeeper

          Very interesting and informative paper. Thanks Fritz.

        • GreenWin

          It appears to be a rather outdated paper saddled with century old materialism science. While I did not read it all, I found reason to stop at this highlighted statement: “A system built on abundance and on the ignorance of adverse consequences is not a model for emulation.”

          One of course does not want to ignore adverse effects of radiation, air and ground pollution. LENR obviates both. The Pardee Center subscribes to century old scientism and material axioms based on one idea: there is not enough. LENR proves this utterly wrong.

  • LENR G

    So here’s something that could be huge or nothing:
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57608585-93/is-google-building-a-hulking-floating-data-center-in-sf-bay/

    The story talks about a highly secret project by Google, building *something* on a barge at Treasure Island. Thoughts:
    * Google was very loosely associated with the ECat early on when one of the e-cat related URLs redirected to Google Green. That was taken down eventually. However, we do know that Google has aggressive green/venture capital activities and it stands to reason that LENR is one of the technologies where they would have kicked the tires.
    * The level of secrecy and security involved for this project seems like overkill for the speculated purposes of (just) a floating data center or a showcase for Google Glass.
    * Treasure Island is a Navy facility and we know without doubt that they are wise to LENR.
    * A floating data center is one thing and a great idea. A floating data center *powered by LENR* is off the charts. A floating data center powered by LENR and unveiled at “Treasure Island” is poetic.
    * The barge construction is made *out of shipping containers*!

    This may just be some ultra-cool Google project that has nothing to do with LENR, but…

    Hmmm. Definitely keep an eye on this one.

  • HHiram

    Safety only matters in Western markets. Nobody in India, China, or Russia cares about product safety. Only Americans are fearful enough to think you must walk through life wearing a helmet.

    If the device works, millions will sell in non-western countries as long as there is no obvious immediate radiation hazard.

    A much bigger constraint is the possibility of weaponization. If you can turn an ECat into a bomb, then there will be serious restrictions everywhere, as with all explosives.

    • Mark

      You are right. Soon or later China, Russia or Korea… will figure out their own “E-Cats”. Nice thing about LENR is the start up cost, which is nowhere near that of a nuclear reactor.

    • bachcole

      Oh, dang, what is the world coming to? I am agreeing with HHiram again. Developers like Rossi tinkering for untold hours is certainly enough safety testing for most of the world that is not locked down by consumer lawyers and governmental agencies nanny-stating the country.

    • Anthony Richards

      “Only Americans are fearful enough to think you must walk through life wearing a helmet”

      Oh, c’mon – what about Europe ?

  • Dave Lawton

    P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }

    To me it seems a bit ridiculous it
    would take so long to bring a commercial LENR into public use
    considering in 1953 British engineers after a design study built and
    tested the worlds first commercial nuclear power station which went
    into operation in 1956.Sadly most of the engineering skills in this
    country have long gone along with most of the great engineering
    companies.

    • GreenWin

      LENR is a huge threat to the establishment – especially the fossil/fission cartels. They are throwing every blockade, and impediment they can conjure to inhibit its growth. Fortunately large commercial interests like Mitsubishi, Toyota, Doosan Heavy, STMicro all see the vast potential for product sales. Something of a battle of the titans now. Of course the UK is saddled with the retro Cameron guv…

  • Omega Z

    There have been At Least a half dozen Explosions. People hurt & in 1 incident, I believe a person was killed.

    All these Explosions had (1) thing in common.
    They all had Hydrogen tanks feeding them & to my knowledge was the cause of all of them.

    Early on, Rossi had said this was a major safety concern & a problematic roadblock to private home use to be overcome. Some posters on JONP suggested Rossi use a hydride for hydrogen release. Rossi went with it. A few months latter Rossi had done away with the Hydrogen tank. There is no longer a large enough quantity of hydrogen available for an explosion of this type to take place. Problem solved.

    Here is what some may have missed back then.
    I believe Rossi developed his Own Purpose Specific Hydride for the E-cat. WHY?
    1. It would have to be compatible with the Rossi Effect.
    Contamination would kill it.
    The quantity would have to be sufficient, Yet not to much.
    2. When the Hydride was discussed at the Pordenone,It. Convention, Several Entities were interested in it. One so much that Rossi gave him contact information.
    They could discuss a (Licensing Agreement.) This indicates Proprietary/Patent involved.

    To my knowledge, Everyone else is still using a hydrogen bottle feed.
    So, One could conclude that this puts Rossi ahead of the game.
    He has already worked out much of the problems that would arise from the elimination of external Hydrogen pressure control & quantities not to mention the Safety Factor.

    Rossi having already stress tested the E-cat is likely very aware of other safety issues, Most of which disappear when it melts down. A meltdown can be dealt with safely. I suspect the Safety list has already been mitigated for the most part- For Industrial Use.
    Safety is primarily a problem for residential use. This may actually take sometime to mitigate depending on what one expects to use it for. 900`C is an Issue. Low-temp heating much less so.

    I suspect the biggest issue would be dependability/reliability. This issue will determine whether it is Financially Viable. Doesn’t matter how safe or clean it is if you have to replace it long before it pays back what you invest in it. Otherwise, All other issues are engineering problems.

    • AlainCo

      from the report I remember I disagree that it was because of hydrogen tanks.

      Benabou have made a paper about such explosion.

      the one who killed someone was a sequence of mistake leading to hydrogen explosion.

      one experienced by biberian was anomalous heat, since the energy estimated was much above the hydrogen content of the tiny cell.

      http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPunexplaine.pdf

      for others you may be partially right

      I’ve try to find biberian review, but i could not find it… maybe a mistake…

      Krivit have a report

      http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2005/NET9.shtml#goesboom

      there is a broken link to a repor

      but I found

      http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2005MTExplosion/explosion-net.shtml

      • Omega Z

        AlainCo

        Sorry, I some times omit important parts of a post.
        The problem/accident is usually attributable to something else.
        The Hydrogen is secondary & if not present, Most accidents are of little consequence.

        I would also note that even water can flash when exposed to high enough temperatures, But Hydrogen is just much more sensitive/explosive the other sources.

    • US_Citizen71

      The explosions also occurred with liquid cells made from glass. Big difference when compared to gas cells made from steel.

  • AstralProjectee

    What I want to add here is that the e-cat is much more different than a car for instance. I mean humans are in a car when an accident usually happens. But if an E-cat blows up chances are nobody would be around it. It’s not like you can drive drunk with an E-cat. LOL At least for home use. Which will be the first place to commercialize it to.

    I must agree, that decorators will try to hamper it’s implementation by coming up with all kinds of reasons to slow or stop it from going to market.

  • tammons

    We might just want to know whether these reactions produce tritium or not, whether they are easily controllable, whether they can heat water with a COP high enough to be cheaper to use than natural gas. The LENR phenomena may be real but I’ll bet that no one has a version of it ready for comercialization and that no one yet ubderstands the basic science of it well enough to engineer a useful product.

    • bachcole

      Rossi, McKubre, et. al. are working on it.

  • Christina

    All these comments were really interesting!

    I am a non-scientist; my scientific information comes mainly from science fiction, mostly “Star Trek.” I am just an average Jane. So perhaps it’ll help knowing what convinced me.

    I am convinced that slow fusion exists because
    1) the cartoon representations of what is happening when slow fusion occurs helped me understand the process even though it doesn’t tell the whole of the phenomenon,

    2) the sincerity of Mr. Rossi
    3) the enthusiasm for slow fusion by bte Dan of http://www.buildtheenterprise.org

    4) the articles here by Mr. Acland about his belief in slow fusion

    5) the whirlwind discussions I’ve witnessed here for the last year and a quarter,
    6) the fact that the Rossi effect has been found in nature–even in our light bulbs–is amazing,
    7) trusting God the Father to care for us–this multi-universe or multi-dimension thing is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of because we’d have been impacted by it already by some kinds of accidents.

    If you say no because of this or that scientific reason, you’re still basing your reasoning on the fact that the universe seems planned/carried out for the likes of us.

    Now my faith in God does not make me believe anything. I have to have proof a claim is true also.

    Have a great day and may God bless you. :->

    • Babble

      Well Christina, its too bad your belief in a god doesn’t require any proof. Inconsistency is the bane of understanding. If the earth and physics were not made for life, we would not be here, just one of the empty multi verses. Have a great day without god.

      • bachcole

        Babble, you couldn’t leave it alone, could you? I am ashamed of you that you couldn’t leave her alone.

  • Donk970

    The fact that it works but we still have no proven theory about why it works means that we don’t know if there are conditions where the process could be dangerous. We just don’t know enough about why this works to put this out in the world without a lot of empirical data to show that it’s safe.

    • Rick Allen

      A few points.

      First, Rossi claims they have a theory and they are working to validate or disprove it. Secondly, there are conditions where almost any modern device can be dangerous. Ask the numerous people who have been harmed in fires or explosions from products purchased at common stores. Third, a theory is not needed to prove the E-cat is as reasonably safe as other devices on the market. All we need is an adequate amount of safety testing like is taking place right now. However, just like with lithium ion batteries there will be an occasion accident, but the technology will continue being sold.

      It seems to me that some people want cold fusion tech to be proven even safer than conventional technologies before being placed on the market. This is unrealistic. I would ask them why don’t they go after the conventional devices that are on the market right now that kill people each year.

      • Donk970

        Radium watch dials seemed perfectly safe until watch dial painters started dying decades later. History is full of inventions that seemed perfectly safe and then turned out not to be. I’m very much in favor of bringing LENR to market I just think a certain amount of caution is in order.

    • bachcole

      I agree. It is just exactly like pharmaceutical drugs versus herbs. Drug xyz has been around for like 5 years. They have NO idea how it works. Their testing only goes on for a few years. 10 years down the line it turns out that xyz drug causes abc dreadful disease. But the herbs have been used for hundreds of years; problems that were caused became part of the lore concerning how to use the herb. It takes a lot of testing and usage to ascertain what the problems might be if we don’t know how the heck it works.

  • Dods

    Off topic but a few months back I was thinking who as a person would make a champion to promote LENR to the masses. This man came to my mind and after his interview on Newsnight I think he would make a great messenger anyone else have a LENR champion?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGxFJ5nL9gg

    • AstralProjectee

      OMGosh I’ve never heard Russell Brand so passionate before. I’ve only heard him talk about transcendental meditation. LOL

    • GreenWin

      Russell may not have a picture of how the political and economic infrastructure will change but he certainly recognizes the need for it. It is my wish that he become intimately familiar with LENR technology which is already disrupting the global energy industry. Since this industry sits at the pinnacle of the economic pyramid – realigning it to the benefit of global society is the one (and perhaps only) vision needed.

      It is interesting that only a century ago, energy held little or no political power as agrarian culture provided its own heat and light. The end of deforestation due to wood burning cookstoves ALONE is reason for the green, conservationists and egalitarians to flock to LENR. In any case Russell is a brilliant, wonderfully eccentric breath of fresh air.

    • Daniel Maris

      Elon Musk, if available. Russell Brand has no credibility! LOL

    • HHiram

      Perfect. A comedian as the LENR spokesperson, as if most folks didn’t already think LENR is a joke…

      • bachcole

        I hate to think that I am agreeing publicly with HHiram, but if this dude is a comedian, we don’t need him. Mike McKubre has lots of gravitas; let him be our spokesman. He actually knows a thing or two.

        • GreenWin

          You both are seeing this only as a technology issue. Convincing scientists of something their whole community has declared a myth is rewardless. Russell is a character whose interview with Jeremy Paxman has been seen by 1.5M viewers in little more than two days.

          It is just this level of public exposure that is needed to make the general public aware of LENR and its enormous benefits. The one thing that moves politicians to action is masses of voters demanding action. Do not short sell the power of celebrity to carry important messages – the fossil/fission industry hasn’t.

  • david wright

    “Fear has been said to be the mind killer. In the case of the E-Cat, it
    could be a civilization stopper. We must use logical and reason to
    realize that the safety issues surrounding cold fusion are minimal
    compared to the enormous benefits. I don’t know about you, but I think
    saving the world is worth burning a finger”

    that actually made me put down my dinner and type this :), well said sir

    • Rick Allen

      Thank you. I simply hate the idea of over zealous safety testing holding back the only known technology with the potential to end the fossil fuel age. Basically, cold fusion is the only way to produce compact, portable, long lasting, and twenty four hour a day power — at dirt cheap prices. Pushing this technology to the market must be a top priority.

      Sincerely,

      Rick Allen

  • Asterix

    To a great degree, the military (at least that of the US) is exempt from most civilian safety testing. Consider, for example, how early fission reactors were employed on aircraft carriers and submarines.

    If safety testing is really the issue, one would expect to see LENR/CANR/CF already employed in military applications–there being no real barriers to its employment. But we don’t…

    Why?

  • Buck

    Rick,
    thank you for sharing a great piece.

    • Rick Allen

      You are welcome. I am very concerned about proponents of cold fusion tech pushing for excessive regulations, seizure by the govt, and over zealous safety testing. The psudo skeptics already give us enough problems. We don’t need calls for the commercialization of this tech to be held up from our allies.

      • Buck

        I appreciate your concern.

        For me, the regrettable truth is that LENR, once the full scope of benefits becomes ‘public knowledge’ due to the actual introduction of a functional commercial product, will be turning the $5T global energy industry upside down. There will be many with vested interests eagerly looking and finding ‘reasonable’ and ‘rational’ arguments of slowing/delaying the transition process. They will be their own economic force eager to bring the friends of LENR to their side of the fence.

        I really like the point about having multiple independent groups/agencies doing independent testing in a scientific fashion. It diminishes the available the ‘rational’ arguments before the public discussion begins. And, it will be a great boon if a reputable country like Sweden authorizes LENR early. Their
        Socialistic political structure, just like their Vovlo cars, says ‘Safety First’.

        Again, thank you for a great piece.

        • Billy Jackson

          buck i think your right in the long term but not the short term. plus its going to be energy companies that buy the bulk of the ECATS at first. simply to replace coal and gas. they will be buying them by the 100’s of thousands if not millions (when you consider all the energy companies) short term it will take a massive effort to launch something like this world wide. even if i company made a million a week.. it would still be years and years before their were enough to go around for everyone.

          • Buck

            Bill, I believe the following general statements: (1) that many/most of the vested interests in positions of power already know about LENR and the implications, (2) that the cost to delay the inevitable LENR trend only grows from this point in time, before it begins, and (3) that to some significant degree these interests are practiced at wielding political and economic influence.

            Therefore, for me, your statement that in the short term we are A’OK doesn’t reflect the current situation. Mind you, I will be glad if I’m wrong. But the current behavior of the Press, Government, and Industry indicates a resistance to any sort of EASY introduction.

            Many examples in support of this contention include the following areas: the lack of significant LENR funding, lack of MSM support, lack of significant Governmental support, current legal challenges supporting the continued use of fossil fuels, etc.

  • Gordon Docherty

    How to move quickly through testing? Replace all those old coal-fired boilers and nuclear piles. By eliminating these truly polluting / dangerous heat sources while government speakers prevaricate and government decision makers dilly-dally, both the short- and long-term risks to the public is actually reduced. By extension, and after the shortest time period, home gas-fired water boilers (for hot water / central heating) could also be replaced, again removing the REAL danger of gas explosions – and car, train and airplane engines, all using highly dangerous explosive fuel (just think 9/11), shortly thereafter – and all the while increasing industrial output across the world to meet demand without burning any more fossil fuels, so reducing suicide risks AND the yearly peak in “Winter Deaths” due to the scarcity of fuel and hence forcing more into fuel poverty and the decision as to whether to eat or heat on a day-by-day basis. Its rather like worrying about the safety of a parachute while sitting in a burning fighter plane…

    • Gordon Docherty

      airplane engines – use LENR to generate electricity for on-board systems and electric properllor engines AND split water into highly energized Hydrogen and Oxygen for recombination in a hydrogen / oxygen “jet” – without the need to “breathe air”, these electric planes will not only be safer, they will be able to fly higher – much higher and, in the event of a crash, no nasty kerosine to burn passengers to death in a most horrible way – as well as those on the ground.

      • bitplayer

        Sounds great. Just one question; is your middle name “Flash”? 🙂

      • US_Citizen71

        You can go even more efficient than that. Take a electric ducted fan jet like they use in radio-controlled jet planes and scale it up. Locate the reactor in the center of the air stream to both cool the reactor and the TEGs surrounding it, while heating the air stream and providing extra thrust.

    • bachcole

      Unfortunately many, er, most people don’t think holistically, as in looking at the context. Your points are excellent. I expect the news media to be the worst offender of looking partialistically and not noticing that what we have is already not safe.

  • Job001

    Credibility depends upon source. Jed Rothwell is owner of LENR-CANR.org, a library of papers on LENR topics and history.

    His bias or motivation to protect a LENR library resource from rapid depreciation in the event of rapid LENR commercialization is an issue. These motives/bias may raise a pathoskeptic concerns; why raise roadblocks, market hurdles, what bias would do this?

    Is a librarian a safety engineer or tort law or invention introduction expert? NOT hardly!

    • AlainCo

      I think it is unfair. Jed like many old LENR people, :
      – first knwos how complicated might be industrialization, what are stability problems…
      – and most of all he have been so many time expecting recognition and sucess around LENR, which were finally failed, that he is very very very careful and expect murphy laws apply as much as possible…

      we should hear his arguments, expect the murphism, but maybe we can propose to be less pessimistic, because we are less experienced with failures and tragedy than he is.

    • Omega Z

      1st.-Jed’s Library of all things LENR/CF will be of Much Value, In fact almost invaluable for decades to come.

      I don’t always agree with Jed. Sometimes he gets it wrong, Like we all do from time to time.
      And I don’t agree with his excessive Safety View,
      But I Respect his Opinions Always Even when I disagree..

      I don’t believe Jed would put himself ahead of LENR coming to market.
      I could never lump him into the Krivitz Camp.
      That’s just Not who he is.

      Jed has been Harsh towards Rossi in certain respects. How Rossi does things, His eccentric ways & So-forth, But Has also shown that he has a certain respect for Rossi & his abilities. In Fact he has praised him for the same things he has criticized. Many are the same qualities of great inventors. Rossi is Driven.

      From a sometimes Harsh critic comes this statement.
      Only a Fool would bet against Rossi succeeding.

      This says a lot about both of these men.

  • bachcole

    I’d like to see more on this: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/10/22/journal-publishes-toyotas-independent-replication-of-mitsubishi-lenr-transmutation/ than just from Krivit.

    And for you people who doubt, even what Krivit will allow you to read is helpful. There is a LOT of duplications, and now we have duplications with new Japanese companies.

    • GreenWin

      The Toyota replication of Iwamura’s transmutation experiments proves LENR minimally has huge value in materials science. To be able to transmute one element to another has vast implications for mitigating radioactive waste – there are 70,000 TONS in the USA alone.

  • bachcole

    Another thought I had is remember that nuclear skeptics disbelieve partly because there are no neutrons. When they see that LENR+ is for real, the nuclear skeptics are going to want to be convinced that there are no neutrons. That will require the kind of testing that will satisfy them. I doubt that the nuclear skeptics will have been dethroned by then by the news media, and since reporters don’t think too deeply, the reporters are going to ask the nuclear skeptics what they think of people selling nuclear power plants to the public without adequate safety testing.

  • Clive

    I don’t think you have to worry about excessive testing. If any government decides that they want to do excessive testing they will put themselves at a great disadvantage. A large number governments who have lax or no standards will start to use the technology and get a huge leap on any country that decides not to attempt to advance this technology quickly. A good example would be China who I am sure would have a very low priority on safety and would quickly adopt this new energy form. Then when Chinese industry and military suddenly have a large cost advantage on several fronts (transportation, manufacturing, heating etc,etc,etc) the other countries of the world will have a sudden rethink.

    This is not to say we shouldn’t have safety concerns, but that they will not stand in the way of this technology for long.

    • AlainCo

      today some country, like france, put stupid barriers based only on subitting to salemen of fear and preacher of apocalypse.

      even here on some subject people are subject to disinformation, that it is not practically possible to fight…. the same kind of groupthink that blocked LENR…

      I don’t believe that countries , expecially democracies, can be rational on that subject.

      it will be a religious battle between greed and fears. I hope greed will win.

      • bitplayer

        It’s always been a pretty close fight, but looking around at the civilization that’s resulted, I’d say greed has the edge.

  • Pedro

    Testing can be speeded up tremendestly by setting up stress tests. For example, if you want to know if a light switch can handle 10.000 on/off switchings over a period of 30 years, you just let a simple machine switch it on and off once per second over a few days and pronto! No 30 years testing needed. Similar stress tests can be done with the e-Cat, without the need for “millions” of hours testing. I’m pretty sure that’s one of the things that Rossi’s partner is doing… switch the eCat on and off thousands of times and similar tests.

    • AlainCo

      yes, you may test the reliability of e-cats over 1 million hours, with 250 e-cat over 6month.
      this is why extending the reload period is not so easy…

  • Billy Jackson

    while i await the confirmation of acceptance for LENR i do not believe we will see a product for public purchase anytime soon. safety is a concern. The regulations on a device running at 900c under how much pressure? is going to be steep. your looking at anything from a cracked container spraying hot steam into a house/car. to full on meltdown (molten metal/ceramic will catch a home on fire while a person is alseep.) to a child playing nearby (even if its just on the other side of a wall.. how fast will steam that hot cut through drywall and into a newborn?)

    don’t get me wrong im all for the E-Cat despite the dangers. (bury them outside the house if necessary) but safety regulations exist so that companies cant put out a product that has been designed with a bit of negligence toward you, your family or property. this is a good thing.

    • juvenility

      The assumption that LENR even exists is enough to claim false constructivist logic (otherwise known as wishful thinking). Otherwise the statement is correct for any and all new products. We shall see

      • bachcole

        NO ONE in this forum believes in LENR+ without having looked at the evidence and thought the matter through thoroughly. I suggest that you also look at the evidence and think it through

      • bitplayer

        “The assumption that LENR even exists is enough to claim false constructivist logic (otherwise known as wishful thinking).”

        Who makes such a claim? Who is “constructivist logic” being attributed to? Under what additional assumptions? Given what knowledge framework?

        “I” claim that “you” are playing rhetorical games, based on the content of your post, and your apparent lack of knowledge of the historical evidence around LENR.

  • Reboot

    The subyacent idea in all that bull$#!& is that they believe LENR does exist, it is ocurring and they knew it before. Don’t you think so?

  • bachcole

    The “excessive” testing is partly about credibility. So people will soon know that LENR+ works. Their next question will be, is it safe? And a convincing answer to that question cannot and will not come from people who stand to profit from the sale of LENR+. I would not buy a health product merely from the testimony of the guy trying to sell it to me. Of course the makers and sellers of LENR+ devices are going to say that they are safe. And with the word “nuclear” in the name “LENR”, it is going to require a lot of testing to assure the public and the government that there is not going to be any problems. Andrea Rossi or Defkalion or Brillouin saying that LENR+ is safe just ain’t going to cut it.

    And don’t trip over the words “millions of hours”. With enough parallel testing, that “millions of hours” can be whittled down to a short amount of time.

    Don’t let your desires for a roll-out cloud your thinking.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Until the theory behind the effect is understood, safety concerns will be there. I even remember Rossi saying that at COP 200 and higher dangerous radiation can occur. Not saying that this also occurs during a meltdown. Instead more than one process may be occurring in the e-cat and one of them, if out of control, may be harmful, but that most likely doesn’t happen often.

    That said, I find it unbelievable that not more is invested by opportunists in the free market. The first one to market may well become the world’s biggest energy provider.

    If safety really is a concern, e-cats should be installed as replacement reactor cores in existing powerplants. There safety requirements are much different from household regulations. Rossi is aiming at those powerplants with his Tiger e-cats I think, so that is were we may see the first commercial e-cats in use.

    Overall, this technology has the potential of changing the world, bringing us closer to a type I civilization. I blame corrupted science among others for not more agressively pursuing LENR.

    • GreenWin

      The science is corrupted by the fission/fossil cartels who lean on government funded scientists to pursue a very narrow portal of research. It has cost taxpayers in the West TRILLIONS of dollars and retarded humanitarian applications of new technology.

  • AlainCo

    As I say for long, that question, like many on safety today, is not based on risk analysis but on the encounter between :
    – vested interest by incumbent and rent owners, mixed with lack of self-confidence in their capacity to adapt of enterprises and workers.
    – power, influence and control of quasi-religious groups well installed today in media , politics and business
    – incompetence, weak education, absurd education, brain washing of the population and the elites on risk management

    risk itself is not a question… we accepted organic food in EU despite a hundred of people (perfectly predictable) already died of it (or will soon of induced organ failures) , and none of the opposite… forget rationality.
    it is influence, interest, power, integrism, corruption; beliefs, psychiatry…

    • E_man

      Like at the very begining of transistor, we can hardly imagine how many form of LENR peple will find. In case of LENR, market preasure will beso great, that it will be impossible to stop it by any goverment apparat.

    • atanguy

      “risk itself is not a question” On the contrary,it is the question. If oil/gas/coal had no environment risks why not continue to pollute with them? If nuke fission had no radioactivity or explosion risks why stop it? Fortunately wind/solar do not have similar risks and LENR hopefully will be the same.

  • Technic

    I think, the same testing we can await from ITER before then wil be produced for every home