NASA LENR Aircraft Presentation Published [Updated: Rossi Comments and Hints]

The NASA Aeronautics Research Institute (NARI) held a ‘Seedling Seminar’ during the last week of February to consider ‘potentially revolutionary’ innovative ideas in aviation. One presentation was by Doug Wells, a systems analyst at the Aeronautics Systems Analysis Branch, NASA Langley Research Center, and on February 25th he gave a presentation on ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft’.

The presentation was recorded and can now be viewed at this link: https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

The presentation deals with what kinds of aircraft could be feasible if LENR became available, and what the technology’s impact might be on aviation. The presentation deals with possibilities such as planes with almost infinite range and vertical takeoff capabilities, and the possibility of LENR powering micro UAVs.

Wells also discusses some of the technical issues that would need to be addressed if LENR was used as a power source for aircraft. He talks about the possibility of using heat exchange engines, sterling engines, and using jet engines using nickel powder as a fuel.

At the beginning of the presentation, Doug Wells cites the Levi et al. study on the E-Cat (even showing pictures of the glowing hot cat) and said that the big takeaway from the study was that they were claiming to get more energy out than in.

At the end of the presentation the those evaluating the presentation brought up the topic of whether LENR is indeed a real effect. The answer was that they weren’t really sure yet, but the consensus among them seems to be that it is a good idea that NASA should start thinking about ‘what if’ scenarios, and prepare for future technologies. It’s interesting, and I think encouraging, that the people discussing the topic here are not dismissive, and seem have some interest in the possibility of LENR having an important impact at some future point.

UPDATE (March 1): I put a comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, informing Andrea Rossi that the NASA presentation above cited the Levi study, and included an image of the hot cat.

Rossi responded:

Frank Acland:
Extremely interesting. Soon we will learn from NASA something important.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Soon after making this comment, however, Rossi edited it, and it now reads only: “Extremely interesting.” The orginal comment can be seen at www.rossilivecat.com

  • Gerard McEk

    Please look to the reference below. Larsen of Lattice Energy LLC gives a much better and enhanced overview of what is possible with LENR than NASA has provided. It includes some of the NASA slides.

    http://on-the-rag.com/2014/03/03/lewis-larsen-slide-show-future-travel-with-lenr/

    I like the bravery of Lewis Larsen, although he knows his W-L theory is not really accepted.

  • Chris I

    Does it mean Rossi & cherokee now have some NDA with NASA?

  • Obvious

    I am curious to know whether those that have older versions of Power Point are seeing the simultaneous video, inter-presentation personnel chats, and presentation slides by NASA at the same time. Or just the slide presentation, or nothing at all?
    As for some of the other wide-ranging topics below, it is hard to discuss anything when we are not in agreement about what “is” is.

  • AB

    georgehants

    I wanted to briefly revisit one of your favorite topics: placebos. The way you have talked about the topic makes me think that you attribute special curative power to placebos. I don’t believe this, I think they merely change perception of an illness. I have now found a study which supports my point of view. In this study, people with asthma were either given active albuterol inhaler, a placebo inhaler, sham acupuncture, or nothing at all.

    Patients were then asked whether they felt their asthma had improved. All except the group which had received nothing at all reported significant improvement (see link 1).

    Then patient lung function was measured. The albuterol group had significantly better lung function, whereas the other three groups did not (they all had the same degree of minor improvement, see link 2).

    http://www.nejm.org/action/showImage?doi=10.1056%2FNEJMoa1103319&iid=f04
    http://www.nejm.org/action/showImage?doi=10.1056%2FNEJMoa1103319&iid=f03

    • Obvious

      To modify the old adage: Perception is 9/10ths of the law.

      • US_Citizen71

        Isn’t that a part of quantum mechanics? Perceiving the event, also changes it?

    • georgehants

      AB, This is not the place to debate the Placebo Effect Per se, I simply state that science in many areas debunks and denies rather than do full open-minded competent research in areas forbidden by their religious doctrine.
      This includes Placebo, Telepathy UFO’s Cold Fusion etc. etc.
      To combat your selective links in this case, there are a million links attesting to the reality of the Placebo but I think the most convincing is that every drug tested has to take the Placebo into account.
      The mind and body are Holistic and every thought or action has a proven effect on the metabolism and frame of mind.
      Your opinion of, you do or do not believe in the effect is of course irrelevant.

      • AB

        I see this is a waste of time. Happy dreaming.

        • georgehants

          Sorry you failed in your debunking you may try again another time.

          • AB

            Apologies for trying to confront you with reality.

            • georgehants

              How Stuff Works.
              Basic but could help you.
              ———–
              Although we’ve long known that placebos can work, we’ve only recently started to figure out how and why.
              http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/placebo-effect.htm

              • Obvious

                Taken to an extreme…. What is more dangerous, a vampire or someone who thinks they are a vampire? Certainly to a victim of said vampire it makes no difference.

                • georgehants

                  Hi Obvious, are you referring to Voodoo, just another side of the Placebo of course and very effective against those who believe.

                • Obvious

                  The above discussion is an extension of the classic George Berkeley argument “esse est percipi” (to be is to be perceived). But does that necessarily mean “percipi est esse”?

                • georgehants

                  Ha, either way makes good sense, I will work on the basis that even of I am talking to my-self in my own personal reality, I might as well waste my time playing the game than lying in bed.

        • clovis ray

          guys stick to the subject of the main post,,, please

          • georgehants

            clovis, please put up something you find interesting to add to the post and we will all be answering you in a flash

      • guga

        Georghants, you admit that drugs are tested against placebo, but still you are telling that medical science would deny the place effect. That makes no sense.

        Aside from the placebo effect, I don’t know if you ever did scientific work yourself. If you believe the topics you mentioned are worth investigating, please do so. Scientists are humans just like everybody else. When you choose your topic of interst, you are going to choose something where you believe you might get results. In science, you always risk wasting your time, but you at least try to improve your chances of not doing so by choosing a promising topic.

        About cold fusion, I’m not surprised that many scientists from this field still don’t really want to believe in it. Cold fusion seems to be in contrast to principles that have been proven to be true over and over again. It’s like somebody told you he could make ice that is hotter than boiling water. It is something that sounds absurd according to everything you know and probably is absurd, you would not believe it if you would want a lot of proof until you believe it.

        • georgehants

          Morning guga, Your reply lays out clearly the poor thinking and faults of most of science.
          If at least ten other commenters on these pages do not find it important enough to correct your comment with common-sense and logical replys then I am wasting my time here.
          Best

    • hornster

      What a fascinating presentation of LENR…
      Not only has a reputable outfit like NASA conveniently bypassed the physics of LENR, or even making steam out of it…..they are considering ramjet aircraft engines of it OMG.
      There was no mention of the players in this industry but there was a picture of Rossi’s glowing e-cat core in the intro which we have all seen before. It is amazing that Mr. Rossi seemed to have only learned of this presentation thru a comment from a blogger on his JONR website. It must be nice to be a mad scientist.

  • ecatworld

    When we get into religious debates, we are getting a long way off-topic. I’m not slamming religion by any means, but ECW is not the place to argue over religion.

    • BroKeeper

      Thanks, Frank. I always like to turn to what I believe is the ultimate source of TRUTH – IMHO.
      I’ll try to moderate myself better. :-)

      • Obvious

        I always thought that Ptolemy’s epicycles were a brilliant solution to the data. That his explanation stood on its own for nearly 1500 years, and predicted the orbits of the known planets accurately enough for most purposes is testament to its effectiveness, if not its factual basis.

        • BroKeeper

          Yes, agreed. The brilliant minds discover the physical harmonies but can not discern the human spirit. The physical knowledge has been misapplied to force opinions on others for millennia.

  • kdk

    The additional interest of Lockheed in this is intriguing to me.

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

      I don’t know who in Lockeed Marting is testing LENr and what they do,

      but their Skunkwork team already work on aneutronic fusion

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/02/lockheed-martins-skunk-works-shooting-for-100-mw-fusion-prototype-by-2017/

      Imagine that you are one of the top company on a given technology (planes, cars, weapon, boiler, lawn mower, clothe iron).
      You make 50 billion sales…

      now imagine that there is 1% chance that an italian technology make your client stop buying your cool device that last 20 years and cost 20/unitofwork, and instead they prefer to buy the toy that last 5 years and cost 5$/unitofwork, waiting from the LENR-yettobeinvented-device. and take that you win 1% on every thing you sell.

      what is your losses on average ? every year ?

      50billion*3/4*1%*1%=3.75million

      how many researchers you can buy with that budget?

      now take it that the probability that E-cat is real is 10%…
      37million
      now take it for nearly sure
      375million…
      say you make 10% margin
      3.75billion…
      now what are your losses if your competitor can deliver a LENR-cool-devices unlike you ?
      5billion losses, beside no more any sales.

      I translate it :
      if someone say you that for 500k$ you can just make a study so you can lose one less year before providing a LENR-cool-device at 10$/unit that last 20years…
      You sign!
      and you look who is competent in LENR, to propose him 500k$/y for a cool lab, and a big garage for his skunkwork.

      if someone propose you to fund a hostel for homeless, retired, ridiculed, ruined LENR researchers, against 500k$, provided you sign a agreement to give contracts to the researchers, you sign, pay, and play the clown down the hotel waiting for the searchers to install.

      guess what… it is happening. Boeing, Lockeed Martin, STM, NI, Toyota, Mitsubishi are just amateur in that business.

      • GreenWin

        Don’t quite get this Alain… OT, would you check my registration on LENR-Forum?? It has lost my GreenWin login. Thanks!!

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

          yes, accounts have not been imported on the new software.
          some people have problem to receive the registration.

          you can also login/register with twitter, google,facebook, for the lazy guy (like me)

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

          about the business idea, I have been surprised that the business lords don’t consider the RISK of LENR being true and killing their business.
          The good news is that some of them understand that.
          As I explain, even with low probability of LENR being real, funding LENR research (I know the real cost of such funding, very small, few 100k$/y) is an evident choice.
          With today’s evidence, the question is not is LENR may exist, but is LENR can be nonexistent despite evidences. Putting more than 10% for LENR in general to be a fraud is below common sense… who will refuse to pay a cheap insurance to avoid a risk above 90%…

          That is the way to sell LENR today : you can be in or out. What is your choice?

    • clovis ray

      thanks for putting us back on subject,

  • friendlyprogrammer

    “In early 2013, The Aeronautical Systems Analysis Branch of NASA Langley
    Research Center received $150.000 in funding for research on the concept
    project of a Low energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft. The focus of this
    project is on a cold fusion fueled propulsion device to be integrated
    into an aircraft. NASA is said to be in a partnership with a private
    group in developing this device and more information is not available
    due to a non-disclosure agreement signed by the 2 parts. Doug Wells, a
    2007 Western Michigan University graduate in the field of Aeronautical
    Engineering was named Principal Investigator. He is expected to graduate
    with a Masters Degree this year from Georgia Institute of Science. He
    is also a member of the team involved in the NASA Langley project called
    “Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research”

    I had quoted this before to point out Wells is an Aeronautical Engineer and not part of the Fralic,Bushnell,Gustav,Zawodny LENR physicists.. His expertise is flight.

    However..

    Upon re-reading this I began to wonder who the undisclosed Private Group is that is Helping NASA.

    Speculations. They seem enthralled with Lewis Larsen and Rossi, so I’d guess either of those two.

    Rossi does have a successful career negotiating Government R&D contracts though..

    hmmm…

  • LENR G

    They are not nothing. But they are also not enough.

    What is their purpose? To get more investment money? Seriously? Blacklight is partially owned by PEPCO. If Blacklight’s technology is real, then PEPCO would be salivating. Are we to believe that Blacklight is unable to get an audience with or persuade PEPCO of the veracity of their findings?

  • SiriusMan

    I’m not sure if this has already been posted on ECW, but there is an interesting event coming up on March 26th:

    2014 EDGE Forum: Cleantech in China: Energy, Environment, and Innovation

    http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/edge/news_and_events/edgeforum/edge_forum_speakers/

    ….with Tom Darden as an invited speaker!

    Tom, please begin your talk with the following:

    “Cherokee Investment Partners are in the final stages of developing a commercial LENR energy generator. The technology will be released in 2014 and will quickly render all existing energy sources obsolete. Our manufacturing partners in China are currently leading the way in this field. Manufacturing the devices in USA was impossible because LENR was deemed too politically sensitive to the existing energy monopolies…..”

    …we can only wish!

    • LENR G

      Well, IH has issued a press release already. I don’t see why he wouldn’t talk about potential E-Cat impact in China. At least a little bit, obliquely.

  • Obvious

    I thought the Weinberg report actually had independent thoughts, compared to the other two.

  • kasom

    If Tom Darden looks at the discussion here……….

    I believe, that a press conference with a clear statement about the achievments and a timetable for roll-out of e-cat technology could show Vladimir Putin how weak his position based on oil and gas will be within the next years.

    And it may prevent an unnessesary danger in the short view.

    Just whishful thinking Tom??????????

    • Omega Z

      This is a situation where conflict is about Power.
      Oil, Gas, LENR makes little difference.

      As some of us have pointed out, LENR technology will reduce conflicts.
      It Will Not End Them In Entirely.

      Some say the Lack of income from Oil will prevent these situations.
      It Never has before.

      • Gerard McEk

        Putin’s power base is oil and gas. He uses it now to blackmail Europe. Let Obama quickly develop LENR!

    • LENR G

      I second this. If LENR is real and you know it then you have an obligation to make our leaders aware. Important decisions involving billions of dollars and perhaps many lives are at stake.

      Time to come out of the shadows.

  • GreenWin

    Wow! Talk about unbridled gloss and pap. The New Yorker ITER article, perfectly reflects the run-amok hubris of big science. That the New Yorker prints outright lies about P&F within this long winded puff piece devoid of contrarian facts – underscores an infection of journalistic cowardice. Could author Khatchadourian honestly not talk to any of the hundreds of CF scientists who unequivocally state LENR is science? Is it out of the New Yorker’s mandate to assign a fact checker to their writers’ work??

    Khatchadourian is an apologist for human folly. He exploits foolish and immoral behavior with the dispassionate eye of an alien invader. His previous New Yorker piece about Colonel James S. Ketchum’s chemical warfare program, attempts to paint a twisted, immoral scientist as a complex, forgivable man. The facts reveal Ketchum and his Army chem-war program to be little better than that of Josef Mengele (German Schutzstaffel SS officer and physician at Auschwitz.) This is journalistic cowardice disguised as literature.

    In his effort to appease the New Yorker’s highest brows, Khatchadourian dismisses his own research: “ITER is being designed to run its highest-performing plasmas for up to five hundred seconds; but a real reactor would need to work continuously—something that no one has figured out how to do.”

    He could have begun and ended his article with this. ITER is arguably the greatest scientific con perpetrated on the human race since Ptolemy and geocentrism.

    • bachcole

      I was so ready to agree with you, GreenWin, in so many ways, until I got to the last paragraph. This is how we alienate people, when we use words with a very strong charge when said charge is simply not appropriate to the point of being a psychotic lie.. It makes us look like a bunch of whack-job morons. Geocentrism wasn’t some kind of conspiracy to fool the human race for some absurd reason. It is a perfectly understandable mistake; I wake up every morning wondering whether the Sun has risen or not; I don’t wake up every morning wondering if the Earth has spun sufficiently to allow the Sun’s rays to shine upon me. But your use of the word “con” makes us look deeply ill. Your comment might have even influenced a New Yorker reader until they got to the last paragraph, and then NOT.

      • georgehants

        Roger a little more knowledge of scientific history and religious and political dictation would show you that most of scientific knowledge and much else has been and is, based on a “con” by a few elite determining what is and what is not to be believed.
        Have you ever heard of a guy called Aristotle the god of authority for more than a millennium, now look up Aristarchus.
        The geocentric belief was not excepted through Research and Proof but by forcing a Dogma onto the population.
        That is why many scientists were and are persecuted or murdered for speaking the Truth, from Galileo to our Mr. Rossi.
        The elite con us all into believing what they consider is best for them, that is why billions are wasted on medicine, when the Placebo Effect and possibly Homoeopathy and many other Truth’s are debunked and denied today.
        Why we retain capitalism in this World, where current production can supply everything anybody could NEED and many luxuries for all.
        Your disbelief in the possibility of manipulation by authority, helps them to keep a World where many suffer unnecessarily for their own ends.
        May I suggest you do a little more reading and thinking and stop worrying about “alienating” such people who attack Cold Fusion etc. for their own ignorance or gain and spend a little time helping to clear the World of these parasites.

        • bachcole

          That is utter crapola. It is perfectly natural to believe in a geocentric (in fact, a self-centric) universe. No one forces me to believe in a geocentric universe when I wake up and wonder if the sun has risen. And I resent your patronizing presentation. You also wake up and wonder if the sun as risen. You don’t wake up and wonder if the Earth has spun far enough around so that the Sun is now shining on your house. The farmer’s wife wants to get out to the chicken coup before the Sun rises so that she can toss the grains out for the chickens before the rooster does his thing. The farmer’s wife does NOT want to get out to the chicken coup before the Earth has spun far enough around so that Sun is shining on the chicken coup so that she can toss the grains out for the chickens before the rooster does his thing.
          Authorities suppressed Copernicus and the like not because there was anything for them to gain but because they couldn’t wrap their minds around a new idea and they loved their power and were used to telling people what to think.
          You want to make everything into a good vs. bad thing, but it is just about the natural way that people are and think. You like to exercise your hatred for people who do not accept the new just as much as the defenders of the status quo like to exercise their hatred for people with new ideas.
          Your attitude does not help our cause. It does not help our cause to have people like you saying that our opponents are evil, EVEN IF THEY ARE. Peter Hegelstein should be our example. He can preach our cause in the very belly of the beast and get away with it because he is gentle and does not impute bad motives and say that our opponents are evil.
          Subject: Re: New comment posted on NASA LENR Aircraft Presentation Published [Updated: Rossi Comments and Hints]

          • georgehants

            Roger, it can be as you say “It is perfectly natural to believe in a geocentric (in fact, a self-centric) universe.” as it can be very natural to believe in anything when one’s knowledge is not advanced enough to be more aware.
            But once a Truth can be ascertained then one looks for other “reasons” for the distortion.
            Other than that you have answered none of the fair points made to you ( except in places entirely agreeing with what was said, such as) —–“and they loved their power and were used to telling people what to think.” —- other than that your reply is nothing but aggressive and naive.

            • Bernie777

              “As it can be very natural to believe in anything when one’s knowledge is not advanced enough to be more aware.” Ouch! (:

            • bachcole

              You used the word “con”. You are incapable of being honest with yourself. That is not my fault. I am sick and tired of you (and a couple of other people here) being mean spirited towards people trapped in their own perspectives. Mainstream physicists are not evil, which the word “con” clearly and distinctly implies. They are just trapped, which apparently you are. So perhaps I shouldn’t give you a hard time, because you are always right and never wrong.

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

            The religious arguments against Copernicus were based not on astronomical question, but about place of humans relative to god, and god attention to humans… today we would say ethical, political…

            The argument against heliocentrism, beside what the supporters were trying to make use of it (to fight church), was also that “it was working well”.

            Thomas Kuhn decided to write about the structure of scientific revolution when he realized that the “ancient” ans their “preposterous beliefs” were not the stupid and blind people we imagine today from our established belief system that works well (too). after some historical studies he realized that they were very good at observation, and that their system was very well tuned to the need of the time… They were just refusing to admit some “anomalies” when they could not add a new epicycle.
            see that introduction to his work.
            http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

      • GreenWin

        bachole – the continuation of the geocentric myth in the face of heliocentric evidence WAS the con.

        “The Polish astronomer Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) never
        liked the Earth-based view of the universe, yet he never publicly announced his
        views until he was old. This was due to the Church — anyone who opposed Church
        doctrine was branded a heretic, and that would destroy your reputation, put you
        in prison, or even sentence you to death.

        As we discuss often here, it is the evidence that matters. Not long held theory. Yet the evidence for heliocentrism was made illegal by the scientific authority of the day – the Church. Dismissal (or tampering) of evidence due to orthodox belief and dogma is legally a “con.” The Church outlawed and suppressed all publishing and discussion of heliocentrism for a hundred years or more before the end of Galileo’s life.

        • bachcole

          No. “con” implies that the church knew better. They did not know better. They believed with every fiber of their being that the Sun went around the Earth, just as the mainstream physicists believe with every fiber of their being that cold fusion is impossible. To use the word “con” hurts our cause and merely exercises your resentment and hatred of their stubbornness and disrespect for our observations and integrity. But the man in the street does not know about their stubbornness and disrespect for our observations, and when we impute evil intentions, we hurt our cause by alienating the man in the street.

          • georgehants

            You actually believe that the church did not censor and edit every inch of the bible for their own ends.
            It was a complete “con” then, as most things are a complete “con” now and it is amazing how many slow-thinking people fall for it.

          • GreenWin

            Seriously Roger you need to quit trying to defend the actions of an orthodoxy that labeled good scientists heretics, or witches or blasphemers. Evidence of heliocentrism was convincing in Copernicus’ time, more so in Galileo’s time. – A century of Church scientists that knew full well, the evidence against geocentrism contradicted their dogmatic scripture – and so they threatened anyone who brought it forward. READ THE HISTORY. Not on Wikirubbish, but from non-orthodox scholars.

            Accept this, people who hide evidence are accessories to crime. People who suppress evidence are little different. People who intimidate or threaten those who would present such evidence commit crimes. It is rather generous to simply call them con artists. Perhaps the more appropriate expression is “The suppression of evidence supporting the Copernican view of the solar system – was criminal.”

            This is reason why the Pope finally apologized for the treatment of Galileo – 400 years too late.

  • Bernie777

    Ok, we now know Lockheed and NASA both have LENR research projects ongoing apparently cloaked in National Security muzzling and at least one advanced “open” project Rossi’s E-cat, with Rossi “says” being edited. Things are getting interesting, the muzzle is getting hard to control. Did anyone else notice that National Security adviser sitting on the left shoulder of the presenter? (: It seems to me NASA is deliberately skirting the National Security muzzle by making a presentation like this. PS….. Isn’t it interesting that Mark Gibbs has disappeared, or maybe I am not looking in the right places?

  • david55

    New blacklightpower validation reports of SF-CIHT plasma-producing cell

    K.V. Ramanujachary
    Professor Department of Chemistry and BiochemistryRowan University,
    http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RamanujacharyReport2.pdf

    Nick Glumac, Ph.D
    http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf

    • LENR G

      These have been up for awhile. What all of Blacklight’s latest validations seem to have in common is that the validators were primarily observers on Blacklight’s premises of experiments conducted by Blacklight personnel. That doesn’t address the fraud aspect sufficiently.

      The growing number of folks who are confirming excess energy is certainly reason to take notice. But until Blacklight gets serious about commercialization or franchises out the science, very few people are going to take them seriously.

      Their previous claims of amazing technologies that were going to be released imminently is legendary. How can we take them seriously now?

      • Obvious

        Nobody wanted to talk about it before when I mentioned it, but maybe now. Notice all the word-for-word identical sentences, and word-for-word long portions of sentences shared by these two reports? Ramaujachary page 5 and Glumac page 4 are good examples.

        • Fortyniner

          “Thank you for coming… and here is your press handout and some suggested copy. Feel free to use whatever you want…”

          • Obvious

            I was thinking maybe they both worked together on a report, and made two, because two reports look better than one. That for me ruins the appearance of independence. Worse yet would be a case of a “script” supplied by Blacklight that both authors used portions of, independently of each other.

        • LENR G

          That doesn’t bother me so much. It’s reasonable that Blacklight would have provided some takeaways and it’s reasonable that the validators would feel free to borrow freely in order to get the validations out with minimal effort.

          But that kind of speaks to the quality of the whole affair. Demos. On site spur of the moment experiments and validations. Not careful science.

          The game for Blacklight at this point is commercialization or bust. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… there is no reason on Earth that any R&D delay is justified given what they claim. Commercialize what you have or spare us your grandiose claims. Validations are interesting but ultimately meaningless.

          Just convince partial-owner PEPCO what you have is real and go from there. Stop trawling for Angels.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi apparently Edited his Answer

    Andrea Rossi
    March 1st, 2014 at 2:33 PM
    Frank Acland:
    Extremely interesting. Soon we will learn from NASA something important.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Doesn’t say that ANYMORE—

    Frank Acland:
    Extremely interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Omega Z

      Also noted that Rossi still makes another claim-

      Andrea Rossi

      March 2nd, 2014 at 3:21 AM

      James Bowery:

      Industrial E-Cats are already available.

      • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

        And where? What’s with HydroFusions announcement about the ShowCase Plant at a swedish industrial customer in Fall of 2013?

        The Industrial E-Cat is “available” since October 2011, according to Rossi.

        • Omega Z

          Maybe Frank could check with “Hydro Fusion” to see if there is any news here.

          It’s been a while…

        • Fortyniner

          Neither hydrofusion.com nor ecat.com seem to have been updated since June 10, 2013 (pilot customer wanted), despite a number of significant developments after that date. It looks rather like the websites have been abandoned to me. Perhaps they are just keeping the domains active in case they can get in on the new game at some point.

          • bachcole

            I saw the same thing and left.

          • Omega Z

            “Industrial E-Cats are already available.”

            Having given it some thought, I Actually find it very peculiar that Rossi posted this at this late date-

            Very Strange….

      • Andreas Moraitis

        The statement seems to have disappeared.

        • Fortyniner

          Looks like you need to be pretty quick to catch the uncensored versions. Did he speak out of turn? – or perhaps he realised that this particular claim just irritates people.

          • BroKeeper

            While AR attempts to cross the invisible fence he gets zapped.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi monitors ECW… :-)
            The Place to Go for E-cat News.

            Oh, And to catch any slips.

  • Gerard McEk

    Ahh…. I think I am slowly getting the grips from you guys: They are the Trackies of Langley. They explore the unseen and impossible. Thanks guys!

  • malkom700

    Input NASA in LENR research is highly desirable. Potential significance of LENR is increasing. For example in the case of substantial progress the Ukrainian crisis should not occur because has been originated from energy purposes.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    ITER would be centralized. LENR would take us off the grid. Was it John Pierpont Morgan who asked Tesla “Where do we put the meter?”?

    That’s why we’ll never hear anything good about LENR in the mainstream press.
    With LENR we could tell them where to put their meter.

  • Daniel Maris

    Any comments on this –

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140227164532.htm

    No claim of energy overunity but is it interesting they are getting better results with nickel?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I think piston engines require more maintenance than jet engines do but a Papp engine might be suitable for subsonic flight.

  • Sanjeev

    Something important ? hmm
    The most important thing that can happen is an announcement of a positive result of some lenr experiment being done at NASA. But the chances of that are very low. They are surely interested in the subject and we heard of nasa guys visiting DGT (and perhaps Rossi), SUGAR and now this aircraft brainstorming session.
    Perhaps they will announce a new project to study lenr or to appoint a committee to look into it etc, that’s what a gov org does mostly.

    • Ged

      Actually, they’ve been doing experimental research on LENR for at least the past two years. Can’t remember the investigators name, starts with a Z. But yes, NASA has been researching this for a while, but have yet to yield the results of the research. Perhaps Rossi knows what’s in the pipe in regards to that.

      • Sanjeev

        Zawodny, Michael A. Nelson and Dennis Bushnell (all from nasa) have done “studies” and presentations on the matter which were positive and enouraging, but I never heard of any experiments being done. Except the GRC’s small experiment with D2.

        • Sanjeev

          This doc shows their result, a small excess heat is shown.

          http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/IPAG12_Presentation.pdf

        • Ged

          Zawodny’s video talks of direct experiments by him, on going and yet to be carried out. A testing device of his was even shown, which is very interesting, having massive parallel material testing capability for detecting the LENR effect. But since then, and the related NASA statements at the time, no new news has come out that I know of directly related to those advanced experiments. That’s something I very much am looking forward to getting news on; and perhaps that is coming.

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

        NASA since 1989, but mostly from 2008 have done experiments

        http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?426-NASA-GRC-Gas-permeation-amp-Mills-cell-experiments

        they are replicated in others labs, and they discretely say it on their web site (nasa grc)

      • jousterusa

        Dr. Joseph Zawodney is who you are thinking of…

  • barty

    As ajb pointed out here:
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/69-Full-NASA-Seedling-Seminar-LENR-Aircraft-is-online/?postID=171#post171

    Lockheed Martin seems to be in the game, silent behind the scenes!!

  • bachcole

    Frank, you didn’t respond to this one that posted many hours ago, so I am reposting it:

    http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07

    Or am I confused and someone already posted it. In any case, I think that it is very big. Remember that mining is #1 in Africa, and African mining is #1 in the world.

    • GreenWin

      This IS interesting bachole. The reason mainstream will dismiss this article is because it hails from South Africa. Skeptopaths refer to these types as “nobodys.” Mainstream only likes stuff from ZA they approve and edit to meet “consensus” thought. Slowly we gather evidence of honest editors and courageous writers who defy “mainstream.” They are our future heroes and leaders.

  • LENR G

    Rossi hinting about a NASA connection… imminent news?

    ______________

    Andrea Rossi

    March 1st, 2014 at 2:33 PM

    Frank Acland:
    Extremely interesting. Soon we will learn from NASA something important.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Frank Acland

    March 1st, 2014 at 6:56 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    You might be interested to know that a presentation was recently given at NASA about the possibility of LENR use in aviation. The Levi study was cited in this presentation, as well as a picture of your hot cat.

    The presentation can be viewed here:https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

    • Gerard McEk

      So LENR G, you are quicker than Mr Admin himself to put the good news on his site?

      • LENR G

        I’m sure Frank will write it up. I just got a little excited.

    • ecatworld

      It’s kind of funny — the JONP comment from AR now only says “Extremely Interesting”. But http://www.rossilivecat.com has the original comment that you cite above. Someone may have asked him edit.

      • LENR G

        Interesting indeed.

        On Edit: I imagine JT Vaughn having a Rossi RSS feed — straight to his email… phone buzzes… sigh… not again… “Hi Andrea it’s me again… I think maybe you shouldn’t say anything about NASA yet, thanks, bye.”

      • Gerard McEk

        Maybe Andrea frequents this site also?

      • C. Kirk

        Rossi is probably just being sarcastic saying “soon we will learn from nasa something important When Nasa was mentioned previously Rossi responded something like “at last we have a real competitor”

        • LENR G

          Maybe. Rossi doesn’t usually use sarcasm so I doubt it. But as usual there are multiple ways to interpret what he says.

      • BroKeeper

        Frank, touch a Cherokee/IH nerve? :-)

        • Daniel Maris

          Maybe IH slapped him down…”No more of those old games Andrea! – strictly verifiable from now on!!”

      • BroKeeper

        It appears now that is edited as well.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        NASA could be involved in the third party test. Or they have some connection to the mysterious “military customer”, who bought the first 1 MW reactor.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          By the way, Lockheed Martin collaborates intensively with the U.S. military. They are even present at Area 51. However, I don’t know if there is a connection between NASA and them. In any case, it would be interesting to know what happened with that first plant.

        • Gerrit

          very interesting idea !

          NASA was interested to test the ecat from the very start, they even visited Rossi and discussed the possibilities. But Rossi pulled out.

          New Energy Times writes: “On July 14, 2011, Rossi asked staff members at NASA Marshall to test and
          evaluate his device. Marshall staff accepted Rossi’s offer. The two
          parties began negotiating details of the test protocol. NASA asked for a
          test that avoided phase change of water into steam because steam would
          introduce unnecessary confusion to the test. A few days later, Rossi
          withdrew his offer. ”

          So maybe, with the hot cat, NASA is indeed part of the test team.

  • Alain Samoun

    So. to me, the future is an LENR aircraft with two LENR reactors: One for flying,the other one to beam energy back to earth where and when it’s needed, with wireless power pCells from Artemis.
    No bull bachcole…

  • GreenWin

    Curious how Wells etc. seem flummoxed as to LENR veracity. Can Doug not quote his own Chief Scientist Dennis Bushnell? SRI? SPAWAR? ENEA? DARPA? Has Doug not heard of the NASA GRC thermoacoustic Stirling – an issued and now publicly licensed PATENT?? Is this an awkwardly performed charade by amateur actors purporting to be scientists??? Talk about, “Is this real?” Of course there is peer-reviewed publication – ArXiv is open peer review and no one has “realistically” or honestly challenged the Elforsk-Levi E-Cat analysis.

    Why design winged airframes in a era of MHD technology that would obviate thrust propulsion? I guess I’m just feeling grumpy. :(

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Even with LENR, it’s a nontrivial problem how to make a lot of electric power (which MHD drive needs) with low mass. To create the strong field, MHD might also need room-temp superconductors or at least something better than copper, maybe nanotubes. The field must also be kept out from the passenger and cargo compartments. The thermal LENR jet engines he was discussing are free of those issues. Just basically Hotcats put inside jet engines and cooled by airflow.

      • GreenWin

        Good points. Room temp superconductors are becoming another breakthrough milestone. Soon to be met, I would imagine.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yeas, if cheap room-temp superconductor would become available, it would be almost as disruptive as the E-cat. Lossless power transmission and vacuum maglev trains are well-known cases, but also one could use enclosed magnetic fields to “inflate” structures, much as we use pressurised gas nowadays, but much higher pressure and without the risk of failure due to puncture. Such vacuum core structures could be very lightweight, very strong and thermally very well insulating. They could be used to make houses, tall skyscrapers, cars, airships, balloons, airplanes, space vehicles. Magnetic field has zero weight yet it carries positive pressure, e.g. 400 bar at 10 tesla and growing with the field strength squared. A thin superconducting wall with some tensile pull strength can enclose the field and turn it into a potentially large rigid object.

          • GreenWin

            Pekka, not quite grasping this. Is there a link that might help? If such a structure’s mag field is interrupted, does it deflate??

            • Pekka Janhunen

              Yes, I guess in Wikipedia what I wrote would be called “original research” and be removed …But Earth’s magnetosphere is an analogue: it’s a magnetic bubble pushing against the solar wind. Inside the bubble there is magnetic pressure and vacuum (i.e. no thermal pressure), outside there is plasma ram flow pressure (dynamic pressure). Across the boundary, there is pressure balance. But at the boundary the must be the magnetopause current sheet, because whenever magnetic field has a jump, there must be current. In a technical application the problem is just how to carry that large amperage current with low mass, but the superconductor solves the issue.
              So, I can’t give a link, maybe there is one or maybe isn’t… to anyone familiar with MHD the idea is rather obvious, but perhaps not spelled out because scifi until RTSC.

              • Pekka Janhunen

                Another perhaps simpler way to describe it without referring to MHD: a superconducting current loop is well known to have hoop tension. If the current is strong enough, the hoop tension makes the loop rigid. The effect also exists for e.g. cylindrical or toroidal surfaces and in the latter case the magnetic field may be entirely enclosed by the surface (guaranteed by the Meissner effect i.e. exclusion of magnetic field from the interior of the SC). Toroidal surfaces can be used as building blocks of rigid structures.

    • Gerard McEk

      The way the slides were presented gave me the feeling that it was done at a very junior level, a lot of speculation and not very knowledgable with regards to LENR. Both Brillouin and Defkalion claim a controllable LENR. Even in case of the Hot Cat you could think of independent Mini-Cats being switched on and off, depending on the demand.
      Feeding a turbine with Nickel nano particles without knowing how LENR exactly works is absurd. I do also not see the need to combine LENR with all kind of futuristic planes. In other words: I am not impressed.

  • Gerard McEk

    I wonder why NASA does this. It can’t be just day-dreaming. Are they trying to raise money for LENR research? Who attended this seminar? Who did they mail to invite for this seminar?

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

      their job is to go where no man have been before… ;-)

      • GreenWin

        Except Capt Kirk has been there a thousand times already.

        • Fortyniner

          The writers of Star Truck were way ahead of the current NASA visionaries.

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

        and before the place is crowded.
        (it seems the hybrid LENR-electric is not so innovative).

    • Frechette

      They operate in The Twilight Zone in case you didn’t know.

  • BroKeeper

    The photo is Rossi’s E-Cat during the November 2012 3rd Party test. This opens the questions, is most of NASA’s LENR data from the May 2013 released Levi, G report? Does the Langley team have their own LENR tests? Or does a bigger NASA/Rossi connection exist over what we originally believed?

  • bitplayer

    off topic, the New Yorker article on ITER, which refers to Fleischmann and Pons’ work as “fraud”.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/03/140303fa_fact_khatchadourian

    comments can be added here:

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/how-to-fix-iter.html#entry-more

    • GreenWin

      And the electric light bulb is the work of the devil! Mainstream puppeteers becoming desperate.

      • Fortyniner

        Thank goodness our wise politicians have almost got rid of the devil’s work, and replaced simple, cheap, bright, non-toxic light bulbs with expensive, dim, ugly, oversized mercury-filled gadgets that expire almost as quickly as their predecessors and then need to be disposed of as hazardous waste.

        • Omega Z

          Peter

          They last Much longer then incandescent bulbs.
          I Know. They tell us so. :-)

          I’m still looking for 1 that just lasts as long. Ha..

          • US_Citizen71

            I have one that is 8 years old and still going strong, while I have had others that die about as fast as the old tungsten bulbs. What I have learned from experimentation is don’t buy the Chinese cheapies and a fixture with good airflow for cooling is very important. : )

    • SteveW

      RAFFI KHATCHADOURIAN says…. “In the eighties, two chemists announced that they had produced “cold fusion”: thermonuclear reactions, at room temperatures, in what looked like an ordinary test tube. The claims were quickly exposed as a fraud, adding a patina of credulousness to genuine research that was already struggling with credibility.”

      The claims quickly exposed as a fraud?

      Definition of fraud (n), Bing Dictionary

      crime of cheating somebody: the crime of obtaining money or some other benefit by deliberate deception
      somebody who deceives: somebody who deliberately deceives somebody else, usually for financial gain
      something intended to deceive: something that is intended to deceive people

      Definition of libel (n), Bing Dictionary

      defamation: a false and malicious published statement that damages somebody’s reputation.
      attacking of somebody’s reputation: the making of false and damaging statements about somebody
      written statement: the plaintiff’s written statement in a case under admiralty law or in an ecclesiastical court

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Come on Raffi, give us a real story. Something people might actually want to read. Perhaps you could tell us more about this.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOca_wTZ5BQ
        It’s REAL elephant in the room fraud that changed the course of history.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      “ITER, will stand a hundred feet tall, and it will weigh twenty-three thousand tons—more than twice the weight of the Eiffel Tower.”

      I don’t think it will fit in an airplane.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      “the technology could solve the world’s energy problems for the next thirty million years.”

      Yeah and when we run out of lithium in thirty million years LENR could supply us with energy in deep space long after the sun burns out.

  • LENR4you

    page 13 ->I think Stirling engines are a good choice.
    to improve the power to weight ratio: look at my patent: Highly efficient method of converting LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) energy into mechanical energy in decentralized CHP or mobile small systems as range extender for EV
    the embedded LENR NiH Stirling engine
    https://www.google.com/patents/DE102011103832A1?cl=en&hl=de

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I was positively surprised by the slides and presentation. I got the impression that the guy knows how to design aircraft. Rationales of the cluster wing and skytrain concepts were left unclear to me, though.

  • Kim

    I would just like to thank Frank Akland.
    Your efforts are recognized and appreciated.

    Respect
    Kim

  • Curbina

    I took a look at the presentation slides, and I’m a bit concerned that no metion of the work of Dr. Zawodny is made. Xould Wells be completely unaware that NASA already was researching LENR?

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

      he did not refers to NASA/Boeing SUGAR project either, not even to their ideas…

      • Curbina

        Yes Alain, no mention of anything prior within NASA, that’s what intrigues me, could Well not be aware of it?

        • Owen Geiger

          This seems strange to me. Who would give a presentation to high level scientists without doing at least a quick Internet search for terms such as NASA LENR aircraft? And then they ask if the effect is real. I don’t buy it.

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

            sure he is aware.
            maybe he does notw ant to mix his name with zawodny.
            and Boeing don’t want his name repeated…

            LENR is both an opportunities that big guys knows about for sure, and an awful taboo name that bring shame and ruin.

            • GreenWin

              Compartmentalized programs work this way. One group has no idea what the other is doing. This results in duplication, stagnation, excessive costs, fragmented team work. It does keep things quiet.

            • friendlyprogrammer

              “In early 2013, The Aeronautical Systems Analysis Branch of NASA Langley
              Research Center received $150.000 in funding for research on the concept
              project of a Low energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft. The focus of this
              project is on a cold fusion fueled propulsion device to be integrated
              into an aircraft. NASA is said to be in a partnership with a private
              group in developing this device and more information is not available
              due to a non-disclosure agreement signed by the 2 parts. Doug Wells, a
              2007 Western Michigan University graduate in the field of Aeronautical
              Engineering was named Principal Investigator. He is expected to graduate
              with a Masters Degree this year from Georgia Institute of Science. He
              is also a member of the team involved in the NASA Langley project called
              “Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research”

              Doug Wells is associated with the Nasa LENR team: Gustav Fralick, Dennis Bushnell, Joe Zawodny, and Michael Nelson, but his role is to look at and evaluate all Green Tech for aircraft. He is an Aeronautical Engineer and not a physicist. He obviously feels LENR has potential or would not have been involved in this presentation.

              Some members of the LENR team were mentioned in the presentation on the slides.

              This is not new news as we have seen Wells name before, but it does show the LENR team have been convincing in their individual slideshows to attract attention from a Propulsion research division of NASA. We also have seen Zawodny videos and the slideshows of team where they specifically discuss propulsion. Nasa might (must?) have a requirement to their research that it must aid flight or space flight, as I can see much more real world applications than air travel which should be greatly reduced with almost free car/boat/truck/blimp fuel. If you could drive to Mexico from Canada for free, would you really buy a plane ticket? I understand time is a factor, but I predict a lot more road trip vacations.

              It is just plain obvious Wells is very familiar with the LENR teams work. You would also think most NASA scientists working at Langley would know the Chief Research Officer, Dennis Bushnell. I think anybody thinking they are unaware of each other is uninformed of the above facts.

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

                thanks for restoring facts. I’m too much used with backstabbing.
                Good things Wells does not hide the works of others. maybe he simply present new work…

    • LENRgoyl

      Joe Zawodny is listed under Nasa Langley Research Center on a slide at about the 1:50 mark

    • Pekka Janhunen

      See page 3 of the slides: Zawodny is part of the team(!!) [what slides? http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/seedling2014, search Doug Wells, and download pdf]

      • Sanjeev

        Ya, good to see him actively contributing. Perhaps he is not afraid anymore.

  • Curbina

    Is always encouraging to see NASA talking of LENR as a potential real thing.

    • GreenWin

      The question is not so much “is it real?” any longer. The question is how can we control and scale the reactions to be useful beyond weaponization.

  • barty

    For pictures of the presentation, you can also look here where Rends posted an Image of each slide:

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/69-Full-NASA-Seedling-Seminar-LENR-Aircraft-is-online/