Twenty-five Wonders of the E-Cat

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

Bold adjectives are often used to create hype for all sorts of new technologies and breakthroughs, but often the hyperbole is unjustified. In the case of Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer, however, the advantages, benefits, and capabilities of nickel-hydrogen E-Cat fusion are so significant that simply put, the technology is astounding.

The following is a list of only some of the positive aspects of the E-Cat technology. By the time you finish reading it, I hope you will agree that this technology is perhaps the most significant discovery in modern times.

  1. Unlike conventional power plants that produce large amounts of highly toxic waste, no nuclear waste is produced by the E-Cat – only stable transmutation products.
  2. No significant radiation is produced that is not shielded by the reactor core.
  3. No nuclear fuels are used. The hydrogen and nickel powder used are stable. This means no special handling or transport of the fuel is required, unlike Uranium or Plutonium.
  4. Only “light” hydrogen is used as opposed to “heavy” hydrogen (deuterium) that would be more expensive.
  5. Both nickel and hydrogen are plentiful and inexpensive.
  6. Tiny amounts of nickel and hydrogen (grams of each) can produce kilowatts of power for months or longer.
  7. When an E-Cat needs to be refueled, the remaining nickel can be recycled and re-used.
  8. If the whole world switched to nickel hydrogen fusion technology, only one percent of the annual production of nickel would be consumed. There would be no need for additional mining.
  9. The energy density of the E-Cat fuel is extremely high because nuclear energy is being produced instead of chemical energy. One truckload of nickel powder could produce more power than an entire mega-tanker of oil.
  10. The E-Cat can produce temperatures in excess of 1,000C. This means that the heat can be used for both industrial purposes that require high temperatures and efficient production of electricity.
  11. The E-Cat produces a large amount of power from a small volume. A reactor core the size of a container can produce ten kilowatts or more of power.
  12. The E-Cat does not have to be continually re-fueled. One charge of nickel and hydrogen can last several months or longer.
  13. The E-Cat is portable. Unlike conventional nuclear power sources that require huge plants and support staff, this technology could eventually be utilized in vehicles.
  14. Unlike solar and wind, the E-Cat technology can produce consistent levels of power 24 hours a day regardless of weather conditions.
  15. Unlike conventional nuclear power the E-Cat cannot be made into a nuclear bomb. In a worst case situation, the reactor simply melts and stops functioning. There is no nuclear explosion.
  16. The technology cannot melt down like a traditional nuclear power plant. In torture tests of E-Cats in which the reactor core melts, the reactions stop and no radioactivity pollutes the environment.
  17. No greenhouse gases are released by an E-Cat. This technology is the solution to global warming. Once broadly implemented, CO2 emissions will drop dramatically.
  18. Vehicles utilizing the E-Cat technology would not require conventional liquid fuel tanks. This allows for weight reductions and more design choices.
  19. The basic design of an E-Cat is simple. Unlike hot fusion that requires billion dollar reactors, nickel-hydrogen systems are basically nothing but a few tubes for a reactor core, heating elements, and control electronics.
  20. Research to improve the E-Cat technology will be affordable. These devices can fit on a table top. A university might be able to spend several thousand dollars on a nickel-hydrogen research lab instead of millions or billions on a “hot” fusion lab.
  21. The COP of the E-Cat technology can be enormous. In self sustain mode, the technology can continually produce power with no input. This is one aspect of the technology that is still being worked on. However, even without self-sustain mode, the COP can reach ten or higher.
  22. The E-Cat technology would make an ideal energy source for spacecraft. Even if a probe or satellite with an E-Cat crashed into the Earth, no radioactivity would be spread. As soon as the reactor core was breached, all nuclear reactions would stop.
  23. E-Cat devices will be cheap to produce. In addition to the cheap, ordinary fuels, the construction materials are available and affordable: steel, ceramic, copper, etc.
  24. E-Cat devices will be fast to produce. Because of their simple components, robotic assembly lines in factories will be able to manufacture large numbers of them.
  25. The E-Cat has been revealed as having the capable of producing electricity directly.

As you can see, the benefits of the E-Cat technology are wide ranging and plentiful. I do not know of any other technology, except maybe graphene, that has so many positive aspects. Let’s spread the word about the E-Cat.

Rick Allen.

  • Z.Niedzialek

    Wszystko wspaniale- tylko gdzie jest ten E-Cat, jak możn go kupić i przestac gadać o czyms co jest jak opowieści o legendarnych smokach.

    • bachcole

      A co powiesz, gdy E-Cat staje się realne i nie zauważył? Czy przyznać otwarcie do wszystkich, że wizja i spojrzenie nie ciebie?

  • marcsimus

    If it were only real.

    • bachcole

      I doubt if marcsimus is going to stay around long enough to read

      • marcsimus


        I am one of the supporters since Rossi’s first January announcement, I forget how many years ago now. I thought that paper you cite would finally dispel doubts. It did not even cause a ripple in the news stream. I and many others have come to believe that it is impossible that so many intelligent people, if in fact they are intelligent, would allow themselves to be subjected continually to defeat. I would not. Especially, with something so obviously important. It is impossible that a substantive account could not survive the naysayers who obviously have biased and incoherent arguments against the technology. Just look to all the premature and potential techs stories that have regularly been reported in PopSci, MechIllust, and Discover. Junk in comparison, but all well publicized. But LENR nothing… It can only be that there is nothing, no teacup brewing phenomena, when all is said and done. For example, Rossi still uses words like “we will report test results, good or bad” like such a possibility exists. I so regret all the embarrassment and sleep loss I have caused myself over these past few years witnessing, hoping, praying, always a news worthy break through – tomorrow, next week, next month. I am not alone, feeling that this quiet time marks the end, it prepares us for what nearly always comes of these grand world changing technologies — Nothing.

        • bachcole

          marcsimus, a lot more calm steady faith and a lot less hopeful emotionality will serve you very well. You know that the 2013 Levi et. al. report is true. You know that people like money and service and to guarantee a good world for their grandchildren. This is a formula for LENR taking over the world. You are letting the dark prove to you that there is no light. 2013 Levi et. al. is true. Greed and a desire to serve is true. Therefore, LENR will succeed. Stop being so fretful, take a deep breath, once every minute, and know that this will work.

          • GreenWin

            Roger, the trolls are growing ever more desperate as their little fiefdom collapses around them. Enjoy their misery but try not to feed em.

  • Bruno

    Considering that Randall Mills has been playing this game for 10+ years with NOTHING other than PR hype to show for it, how can anyone tale Blacklight Power seriously? If I were a journalist, I’d “smirk or curl my lip, roll my eye” etc… too

    • GreenWin

      Bruno, you assume human belief in separatism applies here. Consider, perhaps Mills’ work manifests in the hands of others in the LENR community. And that the community is networked in neural way. Like the Elforsk-Levi validation, I see no scientist retracting their findings in the CIHT process. Dr. Terry Copeland, Dr. James Pugh, Dr. Henry Weinberg, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary – all with substantial credentials have confirmed the CIHT effect/process.

      Assumption that commercialization of such process will appear directly from its inventors is linear thinking. A neural network enables multiple synapses, probably in multiple dimensions. A smirk from one, produces a smile from the other.

    • Job001

      Actually, if you were a journalist now, you would be very likely be instructed to be skeptical or to totally ignore LENR by monopolistic media owners. The USA used to have over 50 separate news major media owners, now consolidated down to 5 primary owners.

      One theory is that with slander new good ideas and companies can be purchased or privatized at a much cheaper cost, or in other words, the inventors are thereby defrauded of honest market value. A common practice is that the best ideas are either privatized to exploit or shelved to protect existing business lines. Note, it is not a conspiracy theory if these practices are routine.

      Consider BLP which had been putting out new CIHT research scale-up progress reports every few months until they had some terrific results going. Then a cash infusion with strings attached happened in mid May, 2012, perhaps from a battery or military related source but the details are murky. The last press release was 5-22-2012, so they are WAY overdue.

      Since then no more press releases. An educated guess is that the IP has been bought out or military secrecy is in effect and public disclosure has been shut down.

      Consequently, let us outline it, many possible motives or biases exist and big money plays a tough game including demonstrated agnotology(i.e. the promotion of ignorance including NDA’s, trade and military secrets, patent obstruction, media blackout or misdirection, etc can be highly lucrative).

      We have found most peoples skepticism of LENR is largely uninformed because they have not read or researched even LENR proof at additionally hundreds of reports, many excellent science, are available.

      • tlp

        I found this:

        Randell Mills Nov 4 5:02 PM

        We are on course making steady progress on developing the materials
        necessary to produce a commercial device. We have intentionally kept
        our results private as we work with other companies and groups. We plan
        to reintroduce the “What’s New” section of our web-page to provide
        updates. We will be releasing public information in the future
        including media releases. A notable near term event is the receipt of a
        business award from the New Jersey Technology Council:

        • tlp

          And another event in the “near” future:

          Sunday, February 2, 2014

          Join us for an afternoon with HCOP member Dr. Randell Mills, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Blacklight Power, a technology company which believes it has developed a process to form a previously undiscovered form of hydrogen which will result in a transformational, nonpolluting, and unlimited new primary source of energy.

          “To realize how transformational this technology will be, imagine that an electric car can travel over 5,000 miles on the hydrogen energy from a gallon of water without any pollution whatsoever. Then the power source can be lifted out and plugged into your electrical panel to power your home with enough power to spare to also power your entire neighborhood.” – Dr. Mills

          • Job001

            Thanks for the tip, tip. I hadn’t seen the first but the Harvard Speaker Club announcement I had. Perhaps Dr. Mills is redefining himself somewhat more as a speaker and continuing author.

  • Omega Z

    To SiriusMan & Friends

    Actually, There have been Mainstream reports. Black-Light, E-cat among other similar topics have been reported. At- CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, MSN, Etc, Etc…

    Many start out on a Serious note of hope & such. Usually at some point, after a pause or segmented in some way, There are smirks or curled lip, eye roll, innuendo to the effect leaving one with the impression, When Pigs Fly.

    What do you want to bet, it is done in this Manor on purpose. So that if, at sometime in the future, One of these come to light as the real Deal. With a Little Editing of these segments, they have their backside covered. you heard it here 1st. In the Following I use Rossi. Randell Mills or any other could be inserted.

    Breaking News, As we Reported back in 2011, An Engineer by the name of Andrea Rossi was developing a product called the E-Cat. Hoping to attain the level of producing more energy then it consumed. With the hope of providing cheap, clean home Heating & Hot Water.

    With the Help of the DOE & NASA and several Major Universities, It has come to fruition. With their help & expertise it has come so far as to even be capable of Producing Cheap, Clean Electricity.

    Stay tuned, After the Commercial Break we will provide additional details as this story unfolds. And in other news, In the Middle East, Oil Prices Collapse & unrest has gone rampant. The Stock Market has been closed to stop a free fall… No Opinion from the Prez on when the Market will reopen…

    And there you have it. They have the News Clips. Can’t hold them responsible & most Detractors have similar strategies of plausible deniabilty. Anything else brought to light will be explained away as just being pragmatic.

    • Fortyniner

      Your scenario has a depressing ring of truth, OZ. I suppose it beats (by a narrow margin) the utter and complete silence about LENR in the UK MSM, with the honourable exception of Wired UK’s occasional articles.

  • Udi

    This is a good list, but the order of the points Rick Allen makes is random.

    I believe that the important points should come first:

    1. LENR will lower the cost of energy production by 90% of more (provided a COP of 10 or more)

    2. LENR will reduce all green-house gas emissions from energy production and transportation

    (probably more then 50% of total green-house gas emissions?)

    3. LENR will eliminate all pollution from transportation and energy production, thus improving air quality in cities by 90% or more

    (I currently live in Bangkok, trust me, we need this)

    4. LENR will make off-the-grid energy production both easy and cheap

    • bachcole

      Bangkok, Viet Nam, Finland, Italy, France, etc. WoW! what an international group we have! Let’s everyone comment with their location, just for fun. Or Frank the admin could run a survey about locations. I am in Colorado and grateful for it.

      2. I think that all green-house gas emission (except water vapour, of course) will be reduced by about 99+%, give or take a percent. (:->)

      • Udi

        Green house gas emissions not only come from transportation and energy production.

        For example:
        Livestock account to a few % of total green house gas emissions (apparently they fart methane which has a very strong green house effect)

        There are other sources such as industrial processes which emit gasses.

        • GreenWin

          “The primary source of carbon/CO2 is
          outgassing from the Earth’s interior at midocean ridges, hotspot
          volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs.”

          • Buck

            “The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes”


            In the days leading up to the Sandy anniversary, climate systems research scientist Radley Horton of the Earth Institute explained why such extensive coastal flooding events are likely to become more frequent. “Sea levels are rising primarily because of greenhouse gases,” he said. “Even if storms stay the same, the higher sea level rise alone is going to mean more frequent coastal flooding and more destructive coastal flooding when it happens.”


            • GreenWin

              Hi Buck. I think it best that we agree to disagree on climate. I am concerned that places like Columbia’s Earth Institute appear to avoid the issue of alternate fusion resources. There is enough evidence from international teams to confirm LENR an excellent candidate for green institutional support. Unhappily, Earth Inst. has a reputation for taking money from resources they support. This may be typical in the climate game:

              Happily there are advocates such as yourself and Bernie who support the obvious potentials of LENR and its variations.

              • Buck

                GW, I think we both agree that the good company of this site is driven by the goal of LENR implementation. We are an argumentative bunch who would at least agree on this point.

                Regarding your point about LENR denial on both sides of the fence, we both believe it to be a very strange truth. The perfect example is hot in the news regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A very simplistic analysis says that if the world puts LENR on the table, the only justification for a nuclear plant is a bomb and the aggressive power it bestows. Iran’s argument for a power station would go away and they are then stuck defending a position which will result in someone attacking/bombing their nuclear facilities.

                Explain the above bizarre scenario if you can. Why is the truth of LENR being kept off the table?

                • GreenWin

                  Buck, I don’t follow foreign policy enough to have facts on hand. However, it seems plausible that any State can purchase and build weapons (didn’t Soviets “lose” suitcase weapons?) underground at will. LENR is a far greater threat to Babcock, Bechtel, GE, – all of whom build nuke power in emergent States like India, China, TVA (emerged). Following the money suggests these guys will need extra-convincing before writing down their commercial nuke losses and getting on the LENR abundance train. Fortunately, extra-convincing awaits in the wings. 🙂

                  Meanwhile, talk to your green friends and ask why they would oppose LENR. I have yet to hear a cogent response.

                • Buck

                  I hear you about the threats to the Nuclear Construction Club’s income and assets on the books. However, they are just divisions of a monolith.

                  There are other companies and States who are not firmly wedded to a Big Oil/Gas/Nuclear perspective. Their decision to build and implement the LENR business is cleaner and, IMO, will force the hand of the hesitant who are mindful of LENR. 😉

                  Regarding my green friends, none oppose LENR. But, they are not in the corridors of power for Green Organizations like Sierra Club, which is what you are driving at. Like you, I can only make educated guesses about their motivations. 🙂

                • bachcole

                  There is no monolith. There is a multi-lith, which means that there are a bunch of selfish blockheads running around trying to maximize their profits. A monolith would be one blockhead trying to maximize it’s profits. That might describe the government, except it would be job security and power that they would be interested in.

                • Buck

                  I made a poor choice of words. You are correct. However, I am happy you caught the gist of my meaning.

                • GreenWin

                  Yes, there is increasing courage from the “un-wedded” and it is delightful. Big Green appears to have made poor choices and may suffer the fate of fossils without plausible explanation and turnaround. Back on Madison Ave this is called “Damage control.”

                • Buck

                  $hit happens, especially when policy/decision makers are ignorant of LENR and therefore can’t work behind the scenes.

  • GreenWin

    It seems likely that the LENR blackout issued back in November of 2011 was done in part under a rogue claim of “national security.” These claims have been routinely invoked to hide the intrusion of sovereign airspace by foreign or unidentified aircraft. Problem with secret keeping in the face of public inquiry is as Oppenheimer said:

    “We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” – J. Robert Oppenheimer.

    • SiriusMan

      The mainstream media blackout of LENR coverage is one of the aspects of the story I find most fascinating. In effect, in proves true a disturbing ‘conspiracy theory’, which is that there is no independent media in the USA anymore, and the mainstream outlets are under the control of the industrial complex. I would even be happy to see a ‘skeptical’ story about the e-cat to appear in the New York Times or similar outlet. If a journalist believes it is all a hoax – that would still make for an interesting story, right?

      • Fortyniner

        Likewise the truth about Fukushima – the downplaying or ‘management’ began almost immediately and has continued since. Now even the Japanese internet has been effectively closed down to prevent ‘alternative’ reporting. The misinformation and half truths are so consistant across the world’s MSM that a high degree of co-ordination designed to prevent widespread knowledge of the real threat and to minimise damage to the nuclear industry seems to be the only possible explanation. There are many other examples.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    21. Even in non-selfsustaining mode, a COP of much more than 10 can
    be achieved, up to 200 may be possible making the process incredibly
    efficient. In selfsustaining mode the COP should be infinite.
    26. Ships could easily be fitted with an e-cat MegaWatt reactor and steam or electric engine. The shipping industry is one of the most polluting in the world:
    27. Desalting seawater could be done very cheap with a LENR reactor, turning large parts of Africa into habitable areas. Africa could become a prosperous continent with all the water they need.
    28. As cliff already said, you could go on for a while because an energy source would have an impact on almost everything a modern human does.

    • Omega Z

      Infinite COP. Even Rossi has made this statement.
      It’s a POV that I disagree with. I find it in the realm of Free Energy.
      Extremely Cheap Energy or Extremely High COP wood be the proper wording.
      There will always be cost, And Even in self-sustain mode, The E-cat requires energy to operate. Whether RF or what ever & the Control modules.
      Even if the Cat produces the energy that runs these things, it still needs figured into COP.
      We should all be careful of using these 2 terms. Bad Karma. They Invites attacks. Even if sometimes it’s just semantics.

      Desalinizing will bring affordable water to the masses for drinking & sanitation, but irrigating large land masses is much more problematic. Note the guy who grew a record size pumpkin used 300 gallons a day to do that. An Extreme, but even growing a single Tomato requires 4 gallons. This is one of those topics that many of us have trouble wrapping our heads around. The Magnitude is beyond comprehension. Else it would already be done. Likely we will see an Israeli type drip irrigation system incorporated in to the land masses. They are the Leaders in this technology out of necessity.

      Flash desalinizing even with LENR isn’t the Ideal use. Filtration will be much cheaper. LENR just makes it cheaper in other respects. Even desalinized water needs sterilizing for potable water(UV). But it will be a major contributor to making all this cheaper & reasonably attainable.. In Time.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Yes, the word “infinite” is tricky. It suggests infinite efficiency, but in this case it should mean extremely high efficiency. There is still power going in even if just to control things. So I stand corrected and agree with you.

        Also, infinite COP would mean free energy. If there is a free energy system wouldn’t that be a system witout enthalpy? And is that even possible?

        Thanks for your explanation of the difficulties of desalinizing. I had no idea of the enormous amounts of water needed for irrigating large land masses. But enough water for sanitation alone should already bring about a massive improvement for the African continent. Add cheap energy and it may be on its way to a much higher living standard.

        Anyway, cheap energy will open up possibilities that otherwise would never be available. It will be one of many blessings of LENR.

      • bachcole

        Please everyone try to remember that COP is a mathematical construct and that a COP = infinity implies something that just ain’t so. It is nice for proof; it is GREAT for proof. But it does not mean any temperature or energy output that we damn well please. So, other than for debunking debunking and debunkers, a COP = infinity doesn’t mean much.

  • Manuel Cruz

    “IF”, and I mean “IF” global warming was a real issue an not a political scam, then E-Cat wouldn’t be the solution to it for the sole reason that the main greenhouse gas is water vapor and not CO2 (which is just a scapegoat, probably chosen because it’s very low proportion on the atmosphere heavily skews any statistics based on correlation and extrapolation, like the one that happens when we use the standard statistics to calculate the crime rate on a tiny state like the Vatican).

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The relative importance of CO2 is however larger at high latitudes where the atmosphere is colder and therefore more dry. Here in Finland one can see climate change in nature. There are many more butterfly species than before. Oak and maple grow in places where they didn’t earlier. Lakes lose their ice cover about 2 weeks earlier nowadays than 30 years ago. Even though the mean temperature still fluctuates from year to year more than it has increased during 30 years, nature reacts to the long term trend.
      I guess it’s sort of good news that the magnitude of the climate change is strongest at high latitudes (because CO2 is relatively more important there) i.e. in places where humans and biodiversity benefit from warming.

      • US_Citizen71

        One should never lose sight of the fact that the planet recently had an ice age, many things attributed to AGW may simply be the planet returning to a more median temperature after it. I personally would be more inclined to believe in the AGW cause if the promoted fix didn’t shake out to be just a complicated method of transferring wealth. It should be Cap and Fine where the fine is used to do things such as buy solar panels, install insulation, etc., instead of Cap and Trade where money is transferred from a polluter to a non-polluter with a tiny margin collected by the exchange on each transaction.

        • Omega Z

          Yes, And they use that differential from little Ice Age & now as part of their argument. Using a False basis provides False Data Facts. They also use computer models which don’t fit real world measurements. Not even close which is why they argue among themselves.

          Such as Satellite Sea Level measurements in tenths of an inch which Satellites are no where near that accurate. NASA Opinion, not mine. According to Real fixed Sea Level measuring devices, No measurable amount of sea level rise in over 60 years.

          If we could measure things nearly as well as they claim, We wouldn’t even be discussing the accuracy whether LENR devices produce excess heat. Even at the ten fold point.

      • MikeP

        Hi Pekka, Finland is affected by the state of the AMO which is currently positive. The length of the quasi-cycle (I hate the word cycle for something that may not be purely cyclical but don’t have a better word for it) is about 60 years, so your comparison to thirty years ago has some similarity to creating a trend from the bottom of a sine wave to the top. If you still have the butterfly species and etc. when the AMO has gone negative for awhile then you’ve got a point. In the meantime you’re attributing changes to CO2 when there is a more direct alternate explanation.

        Also don’t forget all the soot, SO2, etc. being produced in China nowadays. We’re responsible for shifting production from parts of the world with reasonable pollution controls to places where there are essentially none. If you want to see what happens over time when output is more important than process, just look at places in the former Soviet Union. Meeting quotas was the only objective, not impact on human life.

        • Pipmon

          It is difficult to convince anyone who does not believe it of the reality of AGW since the web is ‘polluted’ with all kinds of extraneous arguments (both pro and con) that support whatever position you may like.
          My personal observations (for example) may seem determinant to me, but they will never convince anyone who doesn’t want to believe. As I’ve noted before, the problem with this attitude (denial) is that it justifies doing nothing! An intelligent approach, in the face of such a potential calamity, should surely be to do everything within our means, and then some, to reduce our impact “just in case” (for the deniers) and “most definitely” for the supporters. An analogy would be the case of someone careening down the road at ever increasing speed, disregarding all warning signs that there is peril on the road up ahead. Not a rational attitude.

          • GreenWin

            Pipmon – curious, why is it the climate gang has not taken positive notice of the rather encouraging results from 23 years of cold fusion experiments. Especially the Vattenfall-Elforsk support for the Rossi E-Cat, verified by the team of 15 scientists and engineers in May of this year? This indicates a clear path to ending the climate “crisis.”

            And do warmists really think anyone buys the rather comic claim that the dramatic expansion of Antarctic sea ice – 19.47 million square kilometers, the most since satellite measurements began 30 years ago – is due to “warming oceans??”


            • bachcole

              The problem that you are having GreenWin is that you are spelling AGW advocates wrong. It is spelled h – y – s – t – e – r – i – a – n – s. It is so much fun getting hysterical about things, like I did yesterday about the typhoon in the Philippines. I understand climate hysterians because I have that tendency inside me and I am an honest person.

              • Job001

                Chicken Littles, hysterians, apocaltypticians, Malthusians, and pros promoting “last fling” all have something in common.

                “Follow the money” is good advice, greed bias disguised;

                Save the planet

                Cause X


                Save your soul

                Good times


                Last chance marketing

                Greed is an odoriferous bias i.e. doesn’t smell right.

                • Bernie Koppenhofer

                  I have followed the money and found, this from Pro/Con “Nearly all climate change studies show humans as the main cause, and studies which contradict this claim are often funded by petroleum companies, making their conclusions suspect given the obvious conflict of interest. From 2004-2005, ExxonMobil gave $2.2 million[55] in grants for climate change research to organizations that deny human caused climate change. In 2006 US Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) chastised ExxonMobil [56] for providing more than $19 million in funding to over 29 “climate change denial front groups.”

                • Job001

                  Thanks for the references. To think evil anti-society promotional lies, government bribes and lobbies are written off at 50% cost to taxpayers is disgusting. Flat tax with no deductions.

                • bachcole

                  Fair Tax with no deductions or loopholes.

              • AlainCo

                never seen since…
                that year… ROTL

                in france whe had a flooding never seen since 10year…

                later a flood never seen since… 120y…
                for the same reason… forgot to clean the river …

                same for xinthia, just bad luck and modern loss of memory of what people where aware of during napoleaon time.

                moreover real climatologic, and IPCC; say clearly that we cannot see the increase of extreme event until few more degrees… and by the way since the temperature was stable, there is no reason to increase…


                Academic are more dangerous than corps, because the fight for survival with no link to reality… they battle to please each others, to please funders…

                unlike corps they have no incentive to avoid error, provided all academic do the same.
                corps dies if the follow the common stupidity, except in finance… and subprime show what happen when people success depend on pleasing the colleagues, and not the reality.

                note that unlike what says the myth, the oild corp try to adapt to what the IPCC says, and at most they pay some alternative scientists and panels, not to manipulate truth, but to avoid manipulation of truth.
                Notice how in business newspaper they allow dissenters expression, because they want to be informed not pleased.

                because they will pay the bill.

                LENR will be mainstream first in business newspapers, not in science or opinion journals.

                I was optimistic for forbes, but maybe Gibbs was too early there.

            • Bernie Koppenhofer

              I have posted this IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT 2013 on this site before and no one provides me with a scientific alternative to refute the report.


              Quote from the above report: “Previous assessments have already shown through multiple lines of evidence that the climate is changing across our planet, largely as a result of human activities.”

              And then I read this from Pro/

              “Nearly all climate change studies show humans as the main cause, and studies which contradict this claim are often funded by petroleum companies, making their conclusions suspect given the obvious conflict of interest. From 2004-2005, ExxonMobil gave $2.2 million[55] in grants for climate change research to organizations that deny human caused climate change. In 2006 US Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) chastised ExxonMobil [56] for providing more than $19 million in funding to over 29 “climate change denial front groups.”

              • Buck

                I think you are right to post the IPCC reports. Good Man.

                For many, it is easier to deny the consequential reality of climate change than carry the responsibility for the results. Many shut down and lash out, saying that the described consequences in the IPCC reports are scare tactics or just simple delusions by 95% of the climate scientists.

                To have to symbolically look at the children of the world and say “yes, this is what we knowingly and purposefully left for you through our refusal to act” is a crushing responsibility which is compounded when we ‘let’ the leaders of Big Oil/Gas protect their $137B in annual profits by spending ‘pennies’ for all the disinformation to cloud the political landscape.

                • GreenWin

                  Buck, I see you are fully enthralled with the AGW disaster scenario. However step outside the fiefdom of climate “scientist” alarm and consider the hard economics:

                  “Even full implementation of Kyoto would, by the end of the century, have reduced temperatures by an immeasurable 0.004°C, despite costing about $200bn annually… By the end of the century (after a total cost of more than $20
                  ), it will reduce the temperature increase by a tiny 0.05°C.”


                  The nuclear Village cabal has been forced to reckon with these hard economic facts. Which is why investment in nukes has disappeared. Lots of money for little or zero return.

                  “We need to look at a different approach instead of backing the wrong horse over and over again. The economics show that the smartest long-term solution is to focus on innovating green energy.”

                  That solution IS LENR and all its potentials. On this I think we agree.

                • Bernie Koppenhofer

                  Does this mean you agree with the IPCC report but we should disregard it because there is nothing we can do about it?

                • GreenWin

                  No Bernie. I no longer pay attention to IPCC like most of the world because they have proved themselves to be a political, rather than pragmatic organization. Politics corrupt. Believers and skeptics of AGW gather here to support real action by advocating for innovative green energy. As Roger often says, climate is moot, once people embrace the LENR solution.

                  I agree with you and Buck that environmental awareness demonstrates compassion for those who now and in future may suffer. Compassion for people who are poor and have little access to energy is necessary and at the center of human evolution. IMO, the defining question is, why has the climate alarmist not fully openly, generously embraced the LENR solution?

                • Buck

                  GW, enthralled . . . no. Nor will I buy into the argument that suggests humanity should do nothing to change the trajectory of our fossil fuel economy.

                  I do agree that LENR is the solution which brings this disparate argumentative crew together. The sooner a commercial device is introduced the better.

                • bachcole

                  Ooh, boo woo. I misplaced my violin and can’t play a tear jerking melody for all of those poor children. Oh, my goodness.

                • Buck

                  Roger, your world is very small to actually offer this as a response.

                  I hope your mother-in-law fared well, as well as her extended family, children included. Apparently Typhoon Haiyan is the most powerful in recorded history with death tolls feared to reach 10,000. Even insurance companies are seeing the need to adjust to the increase in severity and apparent frequency of 100-year storms.

                • AlainCo

                  Ok what I heard from the news were bad. it seems a huge unseen typhoon.

                  many point. first as usual news says it is unseen and like for sandy, sendai/fukushima or draguignan you realise after som research that it have been seen 100 years ago, if not at the same place, not far. too many times fooled by exaggeration I start to be cautious with the “unseen”.

                  anyway the question is not there. unlike what you hear in the media, the IPCC science it self recognize :

                  – that there is no trend observed in any extreme event

                  – only models seems to propose with much uncertainty (and some tweaking and bias) that it may increase extreme event of some kind in some places….- anyway those model claim that it will be observable only when temperature will have reached.

                  – anyway the IPCC recognize that it will be observable only when teperature have incresed few more degrees

                  – anyway temperature have not increased at all

                  note that since AGW only started around the 1950s (IPCC said) you see that recent warming is not at all unprecedented.

                  I won’t be surprised if the super typhoon is found similar to the same 60 or 120 years ago when the stadium wave piloting our climate was in the same state.

                  AGW is maybe real, but as IPCC hided it in their report, it is half of the less frightening prediction they made. ask judith curry why climate sensitivity disappeared from AR5

                  this is all fraud, to get bucks and glory. Like was LENr denial.

                  the insurer use it to increase they primes, and also to obey the consensual fears… anyway their cost increase because population and wealth increase, increasing the death toll, the money toll… it is more expensive to repair a house and indemnify a dead in california than in bangladesh…
                  and even in Bangladesh, it is more expensive today than before.

                • Buck

                  “How the Insurance Industry Is Dealing With Climate Change”

                  When it comes to the calculating the likelihood of catastrophic weather, one group has an obvious and immediate financial stake in the game: the insurance industry. And in recent years, the industry researchers who attempt to determine the annual odds of catastrophic weather-related disasters—including floods and wind storms—say they’re
                  seeing something new.

                  “Our business depends on us being neutral. We simply try to make the
                  best possible assessment of risk today, with no vested interest,” says
                  Robert Muir-Wood, the chief scientist of Risk Management Solutions
                  (RMS), a company that creates software models to allow insurance
                  companies to calculate risk. “In the past, when making these
                  assessments, we looked to history. But in fact, we’ve now realized that
                  that’s no longer a safe assumption—we can see, with certain phenomena in certain parts of the world, that the activity today is not simply the average of history.”

                  This pronounced shift can be seen in extreme rainfall events, heat
                  waves and wind storms. The underlying reason, he says, is climate
                  change, driven by rising greenhouse gas emissions. Muir-Wood’s company is responsible for figuring out just how much more risk the world’s insurance companies face as a result of climate change when homeowners buy policies to protect their property.


                • AlainCo

                  It is confirmed, that the size of hayan have been exaggerated.

                  speed exgaretated (270kph in fact)

                  biggest since 2006

                  death toll reduced (>2500p)

                  I’m tired


                  it is sad, but exaggeration may block help.

                  for AGW question, see temp si stable


                  and (confirmed in france by warmist Science2) IPCC never claimed AGW caused tempest today


                  all stink.

              • AlainCo

                The group of Greenpeace, WWF, friend of earth, is funded beyong a billion (by oild corp, buke, partly), and unlike oild corp it is pure communication budget.

                Th commited money in german energy policy is above a trillion over the life of the installed power.

                Warmist theory is linked to big buck, and oild corps are quite small compared to that. moreover if you see their strateguy, they participate .

                anyway the hard point is thar warmist science have been proven to use manipulation method (that we found in LENR denialist), like terrorizing scientific journal, trying to force institutions to fire dissenters, firing dissenters…
                they all behave like in groupthink.
                they have previously insulted people claiming things that now they are forced to admit, without admitting they were wrong…

                they admit many errors, yet maintain they are sure, without any argument…

                this is clear blatant pathological science.
                Skeptic are of many kind, and some are crackpot science, but some like Judith curry (ex-IPCC, dissenting) are simply normal scientist reminding the basic of science.

                If warmit are right, it will be by mistake.

                today the stadium wave theory with moderate AGW is much more validated by facts that IPCC fairy tale.

                sadly there is much more budget and Nobel prize in IPCC theory than in realist agnostic theory.

                We in LENR domain know that.

                • Bernie Koppenhofer

                  I respect many of your posts here but please do not give me more babel on this subject, give me scientific evidence to refute the many lines of evidence of the IPCC report .

            • Pipmon

              I read this article and I find it baffling that the perfectly logical and to my mind inevitable consequence of melting thousand metres thick ice that is on land, will result in runoff that will necessarily cool the waters around the Antarctic island.
              Its on a par with putting an ice cube in your drink. Think about it a second. Even though the specific heat of ice is only about half that of water, if the ice in the glacier is at a temperature that is far colder than the seawater then under the extreme pressure of kilometers of ice, it will produce water that can actually be at -20C. This water running off into the ocean will of course revert to… guessed it, ice!
              Admittedly I spent all of ten minutes thinking about this and it may need further elaboration (eg account for salinity of ocean water etc…), but it does seem quite plausible to me. So let’s look up what’s happening to the ‘old ice’ that’s on the land. That might be telling.

              • GreenWin

                For example Fimbul Ice Shelf in eastern Antarctica?

                “Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time – and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all…Previous ocean models… have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place…The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted.”


              • Buck

                “Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing”

                “Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet’s massive size and complexity. However, since the 1990s satellites have been launched that allow us to measure those changes. There are three entirely different approaches, and they all agree within their measurement uncertainties. The most recent estimate of land ice change that combines estimates from these three approaches reported (Shepherd and others, 2012) that between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr, or 1.9 mm per decade. Together with the land ice loss from Greenland, this represents about 30% of the observed global-average sea level rise over this period.”


          • Buck

            Pipmon, your’s is a philosophy and perspective which takes responsibility and accountability for one’s actions as well as recognizes the imperfect nature of humanity’s knowledge at any given time which can lead to negative consequences up to and including the demise of oneself and others.

            IMO, it also speaks to a sense of ethics/morals looking to prevent the harm and death of those living in areas especially impacted by the extremes of climate change. For example, rising sea levels due to ice melt for Arctic, Antarctic, Glacier, and Greenland ice melt where the consequences are so extreme it causes some to shut down rather than face the logic.

            Arctic Ice Melt

            Antarctic Ice Melt:

            Glacier Ice Melt:

            Greenland Ice Melt:

          • Fortyniner

            Lack of belief in significant ‘AGW’ effects doesn not justify doing nothing. As Bachole pointed out, pollution (particulates) is a massive health problem wherever oil or coal are burned, and in any case, oil in particular will become more and more expensive as producers are forced to exploit increasingly inaccessible deposits and heavier crudes.

            In addition the political instabilities caused by the location of many fossil fuel deposits are causing massive tensions and widespread loss of life in areas linked to extraction and transport of oil, as powerful nations use proxies to jockey for control of such resources.

            The whole fake AGW scare (which might in fact mask smaller but real effects of human-created CO2) is actually unneccesary to force a move to ‘sustainable’ energy resourses – other factors would require it in the near future anyway.

            We live in an epoch of unusually low atmospheric CO2 levels, and as others have pointed out, an increase in CO2 may actually be beneficial.


            It is interesting to note the mass of sometimes convoluted counter-claims seeking to disprove that more CO2 – *the* essential plant food, that many growers inject into their greehouses to enhance growth – could be beneficial, that have appeared since the original studies were published.

            But whether or not this is the case, there is precious little hard evidence of any accelerating trend towards ‘runaway’ warming. Therefore mitigation efforts such as increased use of nuclear power (of very doubtful utility anyway when full energy audits are applied), fanciful and unrealistic schemes such as carbon capture, or dangerous ones such as geoengineering, are not justified. However, even as a ‘denier’ (to use that unpleasant psyops terminology) I would not argue with the precautionary principle – at least not until the fog created by the IPCC cadre of warmists has been cleared, and we gain a better understanding of climate drivers, without all the political spin.

            • bachcole

              bachcole I prefer the correct spelling since I sometimes search for my handle and because I like J.S. Bach and Thomas Cole.

              Other than that, what he said.

              • Fortyniner

                Apologies, Roger!

            • Pipmon

              Yours is not the typical attitude of the “dissenters” (if you prefer) to the ‘warmit’ contingent. (I had never heard that expression, it brings to mind Kermit the frog!) in that you would agree to decreasing our reliance on conventional energy sources.

              The usual rant is: “leave well enough alone and full steam ahead with the drilling, fracking, et al “. That is what I mean by ‘full speed ahead’, not necessarily that the perceptible, to humans, signs of global warming are accelerating. (Though it would be a hard sell to tell this to the Inuit where I worked, (making me a fifty-four-er), when for the first time in the memory of any of them, including the elders, and never hinted at in any of their genesis mythologies (Kiviuk), the main river in that area did not freeze over in the winter!!! Total disaster for their usual hunting patterns and probably for the caribou migrations as well.) So my fears are from what I have seen, not just what I have read.

              • Fortyniner


                ‘Warmist’ (not ‘warmit’) is the politer of several ripostes to the deliberately offensive term ‘denier’, with its ‘holocaust denier’ overtones, frequently levelled at people who don’t buy into the Hansen/Mann/Gore scam, or simply express doubts about the severity of the problem.

                The attitude you refer to – “leave well enough alone…” etc. might be the kind of thing that could be expected from paid disinfo shills working for ‘big coal’ etc. (they do of course exist) but is not one I have ever seen expressed by any commenter on this blog. I think you’ll find that the many people who express their disbelief about the IPCC AGW story do so because they *have* looked at and understood the evidence, rather than simply accepted the package without question as politicians pretend to do, and have decided that the evidence simply does not support the various apocalyptic projections of the alarmists. Added to that of course is the conclusive evidence of collusion with the intent to mislead, data manipulation, outright falsehoods, career assassination of dissenters and so on associated with the AGW lobby, as revealed by the ‘climategate’ hacks.

                On the other hand, few ‘deniers’ seem to think that the climate is somehow in stasis, and totally immune to human influences. Of course climate changes take place on a continual basis, driven by a range of factors of which (in general) human influence seems to be a weak signal at most. Exceptions to this are mass deforestation and ocean poisoning, both of which (IMO) are likely to have profound long term effects – unlike slightly increased CO2. Even worse (and you will probably reject even the possibility) the widespread and ongoing injection of aluminium and barium salts into the stratosphere from jet tankers (per David Keth and Kenneth Caldeira – is almost certainly altering the climate in unpredicatable ways.

                I too saw early springs and late autumns here in the UK through the ’90s, and resulting changes in both plant and animal populations. At the time I accepted that this apparently continual warming was due to human-generated CO2. It is pretty clear to me now though that this was simply a part of a natural cycle which the warmists exploited in order to magnify their influence. Of course, a regime of heavily pro-AGW biased research funding then followed, as politicans sought to establish this convenient paradigm as justification for ‘green’ taxation and in response to lobbying from interests such as the nuclear industry.

                This collusive edifice has now become self-perpetuating, even after a cooling period began in about 1999 which falsifies the various extreme scenaros painted by Gore et al., and seeks its own continued existance on the back of weak and skewed ‘evidence’ provided by its membership – primarily a relatively small group of very shrill ‘climate scientists’ funded by the many politicians who support the scam for their own ends, and are in turn ‘supported’ by the nuclar industry.

                • GreenWin

                  Indeed, the evidence not manufactured under AGW license convinces that cooling is the factual trend. The 2013 Antarctic sea ice record expansion confirms. Climate gang have invented ice mass loss using faulty (manipulated ?) data contradicted by hands-on evidence from scientists ON the ICE. Gang appears to want to spend trillion$ more, simply to save face.

    • bachcole

      But pollution IS a problem, a big problem, and LENR will put a stop to that.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      You are right and 95% of climate scientists are wrong?

      • Fortyniner

        Bernie, you are repeating a tired old IPCC propaganda claim that has long since been debunked. There is simply no such concensus – just a gaggle of compromised people who seek to misrepresent the extent of agreement within the science community in order to generate fake soft support for their ideas as a substitute for any hard evidence.

        “…although the survey was sent to over 10,000 scientists, there were actually only 79 responses from climatologists, so the 97% figure represented just 75 individuals.”

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          More babel, give me scientific evidence to refute the many lines of evidence of the IPCC report .

          • Manuel Cruz

            The scientific evidence is that the report has been recently changed to make the evidence and observations agree with the conclusion, instead of the other way around.

          • Fortyniner

            I’ve skimmed the report and find it very long on opinion, unfounded claims and ‘estimates’, but very short on data that isn’t selective or misrepresented. Speaking personally, I’m afraid I don’t have the time or inclination to attempt a line-by-line analysis and refutation, especially as the whole things seems (as you might expect) to be an exercise in attempting to justify a predetermined conclusion using suspect data, contorted logic and pseudoscientific verbiage. I’m sure someone more qualified than myself will undertake that task in the near future.

            You might take a moment to look through the comments section at – many of the commenters seem to be intelligent and very well informed.

            Btw, I think the word is spelled ‘babble’.

            • Bernie Koppenhofer

              Your statement “I don’t have time to read the report” is not an acceptable response.

              • Fortyniner

                It seems you either didn’t read my response, or are attempting to set up a straw dog. What I actually said was “I don’t have the time or inclination to attempt a line-by-line analysis and refutation”.

        • US_Citizen71

          That same data could be spun to say that less than one percent of scientists think that AGW is a big enough problem to even warrant answering questions about it.

          • Fortyniner

            That seems to me to be a very reasonable interpretation.

      • bachcole

        Yes. Consensus science is an oxymoron.

  • Buck

    Rick, fantastic summary.

    As a suggestion, #11 should make clear that the container is a standard shipping container filled with multiple cores.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    More wonders: a nuclear lightbulb/tribute to Edison:-)

    Herb Gillis November 8th, 2013 at 11:27 AM
    Dr. Rossi:
    Do you think is would be possible to construct an LENR device such as an
    Ecat with an optically transparent reactor housing (such as a glass, or
    transparent ceramic material)? If so; this might facilitate use of the
    device for the direct production of electromagnetic radiation (for
    example, by use of a phosphor inside the reactor). If “light” could be
    produced directly it might be useful in a number of ways: For example:
    1) Electricity production via photovoltaic conversion, possibly at low temperatures;
    2) To conduct photochemical reactions;
    3) Illumination; and
    4) To pump a laser.
    It would be interesting to hear your thinking on the potential for such applications.
    Kind Regards; HRG.

    Andrea Rossi November 8th, 2013 at 11:42 AM

    Herb Gills:
    We are working on all these items.
    I can’t give specific answers now.
    Warm Regards,

    • Omega Z

      Some things don’t need to be.
      A LENR Light. One in which needs a recharge every year or so. The Cost would seem to me a little extravagant even compared to LED Lights.

      Best to produce electricity and using a more conventional light.
      Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should.
      Would be better to have a small power pack that multiple devices can plug into then to individualize them.

      • bachcole

        Yeah, but we don’t know where this is going yet. Give it 200 years.

        • Fortyniner

          Call me impatient, but I was hoping to see a bit of movement before then…

      • Pekka Janhunen

        But maybe Rossi thinks that just because we can’t do something doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.

  • Facepalm

    1. Rossi wrote: 3- the amount of Copper, after more than 2 years now of tests and
    measurements, analysis, etc, is very low, so we know now it is a side
    effect. The energy comes from other nuclear effects that we have
    understood. We have a precise theory now.

    The isotopic distribution will also be disclosed with the theory.

    Warm Regards,


    4. There is some deuterium gas in ordinary hydrogen gas. “The power output is said to be gained through supplying D2 gas” page 11.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      I wonder if Nickel hydride absorbs a proton to become
      cuprous hydride in an excited state. Cuprous hydride absorbs its proton to
      become zinc in an excited state. Zinc in an excited state fissions into nickel
      and helium.
      NiH2 >CuH*>Zn*> Ni + He

      2 H(1) + Ni(N) > Ni(N-2) + He(4)

      For example:
      2 H(1) + Ni(64) > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV

  • GreenWin

    There are an increasing number of ex- government officials spelling out the future for energy on planet Earth. For example the former Chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gregory Jaczko says of nuclear fission:

    “This is not a future technology. It’s an old technology, and it serves a useful purpose. But that purpose is running its course.” That course is in Jaczko’s words, “The industry is going away.”

    And the former Prime Minister of Japan Naoto Kan, a long time nuclear power advocate has also changed course dramatically: “I realized that [the way] to ensure that an accident does not happen like this is not to have nuclear power plants.”

    The former NRC Chairman goes on to suggest a new direction for Earth’s energy needs: “…part of the answer is to localize power generation, perhaps by making homes capable of creating their own power — through solar, mini wind turbines, and other alternative energy technologies.”

    LENR is the ideal distributed energy resource. These ex-government officials are helping introduce the new agenda that will transition from the fossil and nuclear fission “industry” to clean, abundant cold fusion.

  • cliff

    I think I could easily come up with 25 more. If this is everything that Rossi says it is, the applications for this tech are beyond our imagination. It will change the way we live our lives. It will eliminate high tension power lines. It will allow us to work and live for long times in places that have never been accessible except for short periods of time, like the ocean floor. It will make clean water available anywhere in the world. It will make manufacturing available in distributed locations.

    Well, I could go on and on and on, but you get the picture. This is a game changer like steam power in the industrial revolution.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Maybe AR would still consider items 10, 21 and 25 as speculative. Although more than 1000 C heat was produced, the test was not long. Although high COP was seen in some tests, it was also linked to unstable behaviour according to AR. About direct-produced electricity, we have only been told that such feature has been seen in some lab tests and is under study.

  • tammons

    Stupendous, tremendous, too good to be true.

    • Job001

      Substantially correct but not too good to be true. Huge quantities of energy are available, consider 1E22 stars, our sun included, and counting, spectacular and due to fusion energy-with mysteries.

      The biggest hurdles are human “don’t know”. Humanity thought we had 3000 stars out there for a million or 6000 years, choose your metaphorical crutch. So, whoops, we have 3 billion billion times more than we could see.

      Old physics likewise ignored what we couldn’t see(Lattice effects, shielding, phase change, tunneling, coupling, Hamiltonians, human motives and bias).

      How fun to find out we still don’t “Know it all”.

      • bachcole

        I love to burst your bubble about stars, and so I will. The sun for example generates in its core only 17 new watts for every cubic meter. Of course, the number of cubic meters in the core of the sun is roughly 1.61103 X 10^25. So that compensates for a very wimpy energy source. I personally, even when I am asleep, generate far more watts per cubic meter. So, hot fusionist’s efforts to duplicate what is going on in the Sun is sort of laughable.

        • Job001

          Pop! No star bubble. Agree ITER is a bubble. LPP (focus fusion) has better promise due to lower capital facility projections and research progress.
          Power density of the sun has little significance since it’s a highly exponential rather than a uniform thing, IMHO. Example, a brain generates 20% of body heat, if used, even though it might be only a percent of body weight, and bones don’t generate heat.