Is a Bulletproof E-Cat Report Possible?

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics a reader told Andrea Rossi that in some ways he was his own worst enemy because he has left open the door where his harshest critics can criticize him. He mentioned specifically that the Levi et. al report left open a question about a hidden source of DC power because of the lack of control over input power. Rossi responded by explaining how the current testers have made modifications based on criticisms of the last report:

“The issue of the lack of control of the direct current arrived into the reactor’s resistances is true, as we have seen, but nobody has thought , when the report has been written, to check this point, that was totally out of the minds of all, when the test protocol has been made. As you surely know ( I can see that you have some source of information) new report is in preparation, for a long run test, and this time the Professors of the Third Independent Party have taken advantage of the experience of the last year test, and have considered all the observations made after the test of 2013 from all the Readers of the report that made comments about it and criticized it. The issue of the measurement of the direct current, for example, has beet taken in strong consideration, as well as many other particulars. Two factors have strongly improved the test made this year: the experience that the Professors made in 2013 and meditated upon for 1 year in the particulars, also studying all the critics they received, and the length of the test, that allowed a deep knowledge of the operation. Another important factor of difference is the fact that the test has been made in a neutral laboratory, not of our property, where the energy source ( PLUG) was not of ours and the Professors made the set up from the plug to the control box.”

It seems then that there have been important modifications made to the test setup in the current regimen, and one would expect the testers will have, as far is reasonably possible, eliminated the possibility for people to make accusations that the E-Cat is receiving some kind of hidden power source.

The last test was done on Rossi’s own premises — this one is apparently in a neutral location — and as Rossi has mentioned above, the testers have been involved in constructing the experimental setup. It all sounds very positive to me, and I am expecting this to be a much improved test compared to the first one.

But my question here is, regardless of how careful the testers are — is it possible to create a really bulletproof test that will silence the critics? I would like to think, yes — but my life experience tells me no. It seems that there is usually a segment of critics in all fields of life who will find one way or another to try to justify their position, and I suspect this will be the case with the E-Cat report.

I think it is great that the ‘professors’, have been taking the objections raised about last year’s test seriously. I think it will lead to a more convincing test — and my hope is that many people will find it convincing enough to start to take the E-Cat more seriously, and that many people will climb off the fence following the publication of this report (assuming it’s positive). But I won’t be surprised if the harshest critics find some other justification to carry on their opposition and raise objections. In the end I don’t think that matters very much — because eventually I expect that working E-Cats will be demonstrated to work well in the real world, but until them, I am not expecting that all the critics will be silenced.


  • Ivy Matt

    There are many different nuclear fusion reactions. The one that is the most easily achievable is the deuterium+tritium (D-T) reaction, which produces 14.1 MeV neutrons. The particular reaction this group is aiming for is the proton+boron-11 (p-B11) reaction, which produces no neutrons in the main reaction, and only a small amount (>0.2% of total energy) of low-energy neutrons in side reactions. Assuming the experiment and the subsequent engineering work out all right, neutron activation of the vacuum chamber will not be an issue.

  • Obvious

    I do agree that eating natural things is a better idea. For the most part, there is no real benefit to eating artificial things. Plants are usually much more efficient at making things to eat, for one thing. In general, we know what plants and animals are OK to eat, from a long history of at least some peoples and/or animals eating them, for a second point. The flavors of natural things are usually better, but they can be made tastier now that flavor technology is advancing. But flavor is subjective, and doesn’t confer goodness for the body based on that criteria alone. Adding fat to improve flavor the connection to receptors on the tongue makes things tastier, for example, but usually just means extra calories that aren’t needed are ingested.
    I don’t see how the energy of killing and eating a living thing would transfer better energy to me. It might be unhappy energy. Unhappy at being killed and eaten. That is more of a philosophical idea. I suppose one could suggest as long as the alive food item was apologized to, and explained why it was needed, then the negative energy might go away, if you think along those lines. I know some cultures do. I think most people eat first, and ponder these philosophical questions later, if ever, though.

    • bachcole

      It is part of the Weston A. Price movement (and I don’t limit myself to any one “movement”) that food source animals should be treated with the utmost kindness, not just for their sake but also for our sake, for the very reasons that you describe. That “energy” that you discount does transfer to us to some limited extent. Plus the whole issue of kindness towards all beings.

      Most of my animal sourced food is raw milk and eggs, so the killing of animals usually does not enter into my food much, although I won’t turn my nose up at it.

      • Obvious

        FWIW, I have an enormous vegetable garden (seems too big some days), use no pesticides other than BT (a bacteria for killing caterpillars that love my brassicas) and a sulphur-vegetable oil mix on the fruit trees in fall and spring (when dormant), and compost almost everything except meat scraps (due to bears in the area). I plant lots of marigolds to control some insects also.

        • bachcole

          Excellent, but you are still a grinch. (:->)

          Have you thought about getting some chickens.

          Roughly where do you live?

          You are a lucky guy to be able to do that.

  • Anon2012_2014

    IMHO Krivit has some kind of a weird axe to grind. I suspect he is paranoid, perhaps rightly so after someone murdered his mentor. He might be right to be skeptical of Rossi, but the way he does “journalism” makes him not someone that I would trust. Same reason I wouldn’t trust Gary Wright — he’s weird. Why does he hate Rossi so much?

  • Obvious

    By my first sentence, I meant I wasn’t trying to intentionally short-circuit someone’s effective placebo treatment. If the medicine, from wherever it comes from, works, I have no right or privilege to upset that.

  • Obvious

    We sort of discussed this way back. I posit that it doesn’t matter if a substance is “natural” or not. The body either deals with it or has a problem with it. There are millions of natural compounds that are bad for the human body. The artificial ones are a rather small in number in comparison to natural chemical diversity. How much we know about natural and artificial chemicals, “good” or “bad” is quite limited. In many cases the artificial substances are somewhat better understood, since there is at least some level of inquiry into the possible negative effects of novel chemical compounds before they are fed to people.
    As for medicine (above), I did mean both man-made and natural substances intended for healing.

  • Allan Shura

    Rossi ran an e-cat over a year to heat his shop. The claim would be irrefutable in a similar setting for public display. It would likely have resulted in a cavalcade of orders for the 1 MW had this been done.

    • bachcole

      There are many reasons why it might make perfect sense that Rossi did not do this. Do I have to list them all?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I see no reason to question this story, but nobody knows how the COP of this early E-Cat has been determined. A device with a connection to the mains that heats a room is no surprise, so far. See p. 238-39 of Lewan’s book.

  • GreenWin

    Ideas like this should be funded, at least to a feasibility stage. Another reason why Senator Feinstein should halt the escalating (now $3.5B) cost of ITER (3-5 years behind schedule, 300% over budget.) Question, what materials tolerate 1.6B degree temps??

    • atanguy

      “now $3.5B,300% over budget”
      It’s not a lost for everyone,do not worry…

    • Ivy Matt

      No materials tolerate 1.6 billion, or even 1.8 billion degree temperatures. Fortunately that’s just the temperature within a few cubic microns of volume within the vacuum chamber, rather than the average temperature within the chamber as a whole. Of course, heat is still an issue. The electrodes will be subject to temperatures in the thousands of degrees, and would need to be cooled in a continuously operating device.

      • Boerre

        This process is using deuterium boron which is an aneutronic process without the high energy neutrons that makes materials in the reaction chamber radio active. The temperature is confined within the plasma pinch region and only lasts a few nano seconds. In terms of macroscopical heat energy the effect is in fact not that large.

  • Freethinker

    Nothing is wrong with that.

    To the contrary, it would be wise of the testers to employ flow calorimetry, thermocouplers AND IR cam at the same time.

    With that said, if they can generate hot steam and push that through a turbine that generates substantially more electrical power than is going in, then the calorimetry discussion will be a secondary one.

    Naturally they (pathoskeps) will bend over backwards to find any fault in the heat and power measurements, I’m sure. Maybe the testers have a microwave emitter in the ceiling heating water in some section with a plastic pipe? Maybe they have obfuscated the ground wire in the mains connector somehow, pumping some kW of energy in some sly manner 😉 In this respect, there is nothing new under the Sun.

    Not to say, that we should not remain critical, as well…

    At any rate, we will soon know… The report cannot be far now …

    • good point.
      the previous report for Elforsk already used such a double test with a calibration by thermocouple and IRcam.

      as far as I know it was done on a blank, as calibration.
      Using TC to control IR cam on active reactor would be nice, but I’m afraid skeptics will say it is sending energy…

      this is why I propose since long an open experiment where skeptics moan and ask for cross checking, and the testers make yet another cross check for their hypothesis.

      the problem is that it is demanding much time, and give the risk of some IP leaks…
      Note that latest E-cat test if confirmed , during 6 month, show a good trust on the testers, and about e-cat.

  • Gerard McEk

    I am not so sure. I would not be surprised if Krivit is being paid by the ‘not-believers’ whoever they may be. If Krivit were trustworthy, then he should have tempered his criticism after the first test, but he continued attacking Rossi even more fiercely. To me he lost all credit.

    • I rather suspect he is sincere, and defending his beliefs.
      he is massively biased, defending Widom-Larsen theory, hating Rossi (who behaved badly in from of him , as Mats explain)…
      i suspect that like many deniers and scientists, he fall in love with his opinion.

      If paid, I would say by Larsen… But I think that sincerity better explain all, as usual, like for Parks,taubes,Huizenga,Morrison, Lewis, Hansen, Shanahan, and most scientific community.

  • BroKeeper

    What is failed to understand no single new energy source will have a lasting monopoly. The sooner an alternate energy source (not current inefficient ones) surfaces as a leading cost and pollution reducer with consistently improvements on its product will retain the big slice. There will always be new advances within energy generation whether LENR or another black box behind the paradigm curtain.
    More new energy discoveries have been emerging before and since 2011, not just LENR. What makes one think that LENR represents the only physics standard left to overcome? As Rossi already suggested LENR will be one of many complimentary and/or specialized low pollution energy technologies. This said I believe the E-Cat will be the initial leader of coming new energy for at least the near future – but hope no more delays in its commercialization.

  • Omega Z

    I don’t think it matters if it’s bullet proof from Our Perspective.
    What Matters is what the potential Investors Think.
    They will “NOT” take Advice or Opinions from the mary yogo’s of the world. Those people are of little consequence.

    They will look at who sponsored this Test. They will look at the Credentials of those who were selected to do the test.
    They will look at the Credibility of how the test was done.
    And then judge the Test Data Accordingly.

    • bachcole

      I can’t help but think that investor types will also be looking at what we say here. We are all over the E-Cat and LENR+ 24/7, 365 days a year, looking at it every which way. There are a lot of smart people here, and we have demonstrated repeatedly that we are not true believers. I also see a lot of “Guess” up-clicks.

      If I were an investor, I would be very interested in what is said here. Of course, burning one’s finger and looking at the credibility of those who did the testing would probably be foremost in my mind.

      Perhaps this is merely a conceit on my part.

      • atanguy

        Hey bachcole! How much you charge per hour?

        • bachcole

          It is all free. (:->)

    • bitplayer
      • atanguy

        GE ‘s goal, from the web site:
        “The goal is to enhance the performance and economics of oil and gas projects”
        Not exactly what we are after…

    • Anon2012_2014

      If potential investors cannot send their own people instead of having people like Levi et al do the test under conditions that are insufficient for confirmation, the investment will be limited. I believe that Industrial Heat sent their own people.

      Potential investors read Mary Yugo/Al Potenza and everything else here and on other blogs and need their own confirmation.

      A good test by the Industrial Heat team with good results will drive investors to confirm and invest what ever is needed to bring Rossi’s device to commercial success. I wish Rossi and Industrial Heat luck, but I remain skeptical without proof. I am waiting like everyone else for the June time frame report.

  • stefan

    I think that the report will be pretty bulletproof. What might happen is that if Levi is among the testers, the skeptics will focus on him being untrustworthy and somehow control the experiment to show false measurements. I think that the debate will go on for some time, but the consensus among people that matters will be that he could not have influenced the results to show a COP of 5 or whatever.

    • AB

      Even if the report is bullet proof, a single bullet proof report won’t be enough to convince a world that views LENR with considerable skepticism. More tests in other locations by other people would be needed. I hope it will change the discourse on LENR though

      I wonder what happened with the Hydrofusion pilot plant. Now that could be the ice breaker.

      • ecatworld

        Despite all the other information on this page, there is what appears to me to be an authentic fundraising document from Hydrofusion here:

        • Andrew

          I find it somewhat strange that you’d even link a page from Gary Wright …

        • Ivan

          That is nice one)

      • stefan

        This is an interesting question, maybe there is a blue container out there somewhere in Sweden, that outputs steam and heat up some building. Maybe not. I would bet there is, it can’t be that hard to get some interested party that would bet a head start in the global race that would result if cold fusion get’s out of the box. If you think about it all parties seams to wait for the report to come out, I expect the information dam will brake once the report is out.

      • Daniel Maris

        I think a publicised pilot installation is the only thing that’s going to work – and an installation somewhere that is independent of IH or Rossi e.g. a major electrical company.

        • winebuff

          Nothing will work until you and I can buy one over the counter from a box store.
          that will be the only way. bank on that.

      • Anon2012_2014

        If a patent were to be published that has sufficient detailed instructions to replicate the test in other labs, that would do the trick. Patents are suppose to have sufficient detail so that anyone skilled in the art can built one.

        If it is a magic test on the far side of velvet ropes or a paywall, without letting any and all legitimate scientists into the lab to do a thorough review, it is questionable.

    • ecatworld

      I may be wrong, but I’ve heard from a couple of different sources that Levi is not involved in this round of testing.

      • This is a VERY GOOD possibility, that will annoy the skeptics, especially ascoli65 for whom Levi is a Defkalion clone.

        I’m curious to find what they will invent to manipulate the masses of no-brained believers in Wikipravda Truth. No DC, no Levi, no HF, no IRCam but flow…
        thirsd-party socket and instruments…

        maybe they will moan on the flowmeter…

        • Daniel Maris

          I think IR cams are a good supplementary form of evidence, and in particular are good for detecting fraud.

          • Gerard McEk

            I would not use IR, but instead use some thermocouples of a different make and different instruments to read them. If the temperature is low enough then I would use PT100/1000, clearly all calibrated. I hope they use calometry.

            • Daniel Maris

              Wasn’t there loads of criticism directed at Rossi on his use of caliometry?

              It seems to me it’s one of those things you always criticise and query and is itself open to abuse. I’m not saying don’t use it, just that it also is subject to doubts.

              All you can do is rule out as many objections as possible and IR technology helps you do that in my view by showing which bits are hot and which are not, and by how much.

              Ultimately generating electrical power is a much better method of checking but as far as I know, that hasn’t been done yet.

              • Gerard McEk

                What Rossi was quite a primitive way of calorimetry. If you accurately want to measure heat energy than calorimetry is the way to do it. The best way to prove over-unity is a stand alone device producing heat, electricity or any other form of energy.
                IR measurement depends on emission and absorption factors of surfaces you measure and these factors are not easily to determine. Direct measurement is better. Energy calc’s based on temperatures alone like they did in the first test, is also difficult because it depends on surrounding air temperature and moisture, reflecting surfaces around etc. To account for that you need to include large inaccuracy margins.

            • bachcole

              I want them to use every heat measurement method known to the mind of man.

        • Andrew

          If they are doing flow calorimetry the only thing I could see being a problem is altitude. If when the math is done and it’s not normalized to sea level or no adjustments were made for altitude then people could call it sloppy and throw doubt on the report like “what other sloppy errors were made?”, maybe even the purity of the water might come into question? I have confidence in the team to make sure they have crossed all their Ts and dotted their lower case j’s.

    • Anon2012_2014

      I don’t think Levi is particularly untrustworthy. He is more like sloppy — he does not close the loop on his test protocol design so that his results are without question. I’d rather see newer blood running the test, and without any conflict of interest on the result.

  • AB

    You are describing the popular view of the placebo effect, where it is seen as some sort of healing (or harming) effect triggered by the mind.

    > You say “Psychological treatments did not affect the illness”, which is not true.

    Of course it is. Nowhere did the paper claim to have affected the illness. They are saying that patients felt “improvements in their sense of social support” and similar things. You’re making the exact mistake I’ve mentioned: conflating psychological improvements with improvement of the illness itself.

    > The Placebo Effect can affect a persons Heart Rate, Pain level,
    ,immunosupression, Parkinson disease and depression. Brain imaging
    techniques show that placebo can have real, measurable effect on
    physiological changes in the brain.

    A large review of placebo controlled studies failed to find evidence for powerful placebo effects.

    Perhaps you want to be more specific on which papers you think prove that the placebo effect can actually cure illness.

  • georgehants

    friendlyprogrammer thank you, Doctors are not usually put into the position of “scientists”, but I will take your point that you think that science and scientists embrace with enthusiasm the powerful effects of the Placebo, known and to be discovered.
    I can now happily retire from this page and leave you to argue with those scientists who are denying the Placebo Effect.
    Perhaps you may like to answer Mr. telecommuter below who is a highly qualified scientist.

  • georgehants

    telecommuter, I think you would do better on a science website where comments of your quality are the norm.

    • winebuff

      George, put your head back in the sand.

  • US_Citizen71

    Like I said above educated guesses, but no direct measurements. Tree ring data can be influenced by drought and disease both of which are local phenomenon. Ice cores can be influenced by strength and number of storms at the poles as well as by solar output. All of which adds up to the educated guesses not likely being 100% accurate.

    • stefan

      Actually what you suggest would increase the variability of the device and it is the lack of variability that scares me and emphasize the sharp rice of the calculated temperature. I think that if you read the wikipedia article about this curve, you will get the main critique against the curve. They are using a black box technique, I think they need to put some effort to actually produce a good grey box model, there is simple too many way’s you can fool yourself with a black box model. Then the wikipedia articles states that they produce, from what I understand 10 different black box models and get the same hookey curve, hillarious. The thing is that if you do data-mining and find bogus correlation, then you will find it in 10 other data mining techniques as well. One should do a proper grey box, there is no other way to produce this curve in a scientific way. On the other hand the null hypothesis should be that we by our modern living is affecting nature, the onus is on the skeptics to prove that we are not, but then we should support their work, else we don’t do science.

      • US_Citizen71

        There are other theories being suggested for the cause. Milankovitch’s cycles appear to match up with the ice cores as well. They suggest that we will heat at an increasing rate right up to the point that the next ice age begins. Alternative theories appear to be being suppressed by simple refusal of publication, this is not science but politics.

        • currently some interesting things happen, as many claims of the (not so numerous) serious skeptics are getting accepted by the less outspoken warmist…
          It seems the consensus of non outspoken activists is “lukewarmer”.

          I’ve seen an article on “CLOUD” CERN experiment, that long time after it was presented as a skeptic heresy, it is now proposed as the basic of something serious, to complete with new data on seed particles emitted by vegetals…

          Many non outspoken climatologist start to support a modetrate climate sensitivity about 1.3-1.7, like do the moderate skeptics.

          Importance of land usage on local teperature is also more and more supported.

          to answer to the recent fear on west antartica; some have found an underground volcanic activity growing.

          the IPCC 5th report is in fact admitting many lack of data, that models don’t work, that heat is lost without convincing arguments…

          the only alarmist content is the summary which despite the report, increse confidence and alarm.

          in fact the science of climatology is more and more lukewarm.
          but like you wee when a religion is losing believers, the remaining supporters are more and more vocal and extremists.

          note that for those who say that even if we are not sure we have to avoid the risk, I woudl answer that we can be victim of thousands of dangers, frrom ice-age, natural global warming, climate disruption of any sources, asteroid fall, vegetal disease, global war…

          as Taleb propose we shoul admit, that beside few things we can predict at short term, we have no idea of what extreme will happen, except that it will be bigger than any model we have today, and will concern something we did not anticipate at all…

          best solution is to improve the science , the technology, try many crazy and useless ideas like teraforming Venus, creating sea base, or learning penguin lifestyle, so that when the unthinkable happen, we have the technology to manage it, eventually losing 99% of the population, but not the species.

          LENR is among those technologies that finally will be more productive than starving the third world because of Malthusian vision.

    • Obvious

      I sometimes work in the arctic. One area I spent several summers in has a stranded piece of the boreal forest. Spruce, tamarack, and rare pine trees are found there. It is isolated from the present northern edge of the boreal forest by at least a couple hundred kilometres. (Which is to the south). In the intervening areas are remnants of the once continuous forest preserved in permafrost. Clearly the area was once significantly warmer than now, in the not so distant past. In addition, camel remains have been found much further north.

    • winebuff

      Alot better than anything youve come up with.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Is a bulletproof hot fusion report possible?

    • GreenWin

      “60+ years, $250B global tax dollars, and not ONE watt of useful energy. The end. “

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, it wouldn’t hold up to a pea shooter.

  • stefan

    Aouch, they use PCA. and data mining. This means that the analysis could pick up and correlate on e.g. CO2, but the reason for C02 and temperature rise might have another cause, in total causing the estimated temperature to be more flat that it is. If they can show hokey sticks graphs on raw data then I would be much more impressed. I though that they did a weighted mean of various temperature “sensors”. Agreed that one need to take the curve carefully.

  • georgehants


  • BroKeeper

    Fair points. Perhaps something in between. I feel something will evolve out of these discoveries that will give LENR a run for its money.

  • georgehants

    I am amazed at how many “scientists” are not reacting to my honest comments on the horrific state of science.
    Where they are so crazy that they seriously talk about lassoing of asteroids when we have ample supplies of all materials on the Earth.
    Where when I ask a scientist what is the maximum mass that can be captured or diverted with today’s technology he refuses to answer.
    Where they send toy trucks to Mars costing billions that keep sending back nothing but pretty pictures.
    When more danger comes from comets who’s insubstantial construction it is impossible to divert .
    Where when I ask how many lives could have been saved or improved with the NASA budget over the last 50 years, I get no reply.
    Cold Fusion is just the tip of the iceberg.

    • BroKeeper

      Yes, far too little revenue received from taxpayers is directed to the needs of the
      people it represents. Isn’t it always better to build a strong foundation before making a tall structure?

    • some scientist are moaning

      We need more scientific mavericks | @guardianletters | Science | The Guardian
      Research funding has become prone to bubble formation

      How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation: A Conversation with Sydney Brenner | King’s Review – Magazine

      How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science | Randy Schekman | Comment is free | The Guardian

      » Excessive regulations turning scientists into bureaucrats
      Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals | Science | The Guardian
      There is no such thing as consensus science

      CONVERSABLE ECONOMIST: How Academics Learn to Write Badly

    • Hope4dbest

      “I am amazed at how many “scientists” are not reacting to my honest comments on the horrific state of science.”

      Scientists have been banned from this Forum, George. Too skeptic.

      • no I don’t think any scientist, real one , ever been ther, or ever looked at LENr paper, or he will be a “believer”.

        the fact as predicted by beanbou on Groupthink

        is that believers in the consensus avoid dissenting data…

        they use ridicule when in power, and carefully refuse to read dissenting data, or research the badly written coma in the text to find a reason not to read the rest.

        theory also repeat bad arguments, bad epistemology, which despite they violate basic knowledge taught in college (like logic, popper, physics, electricity, history) they believe only for the purpose toi attack LENR.

        they don’t even use their own arguments in normal science because it would be absurd.

        Jed describe the Nobel anti-lenr supporter that way :

        “Taubes’ book was recommended in enthusiastic blurbs by four Nobel laureates and the chairman of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. These people could not have actually read the book, or if they did, their judgment was skewed by animosity. This shows how easy it is to spread false information, and how careless distinguished scientists can be. It takes only a small group of people to poison the well of public opinion. There may be a few other active critics in the mass media, but most attacks originate from these four: Morrison, Park, Huizenga, and Taubes. They are not famous or influential. They succeed because many scientists bear a grudge against cold fusion, and are willing to believe the worst about it. When Robert Park attacked it with inflammatory ad hominem rhetoric, a room packed with hundreds of members of the American Physical Society (APS) applauded and cheered.”

        this describe well how the “consensus” is build by terror and laziness.

        1- community hate an idea (because it mean they have to work to explain it)
        2- some incompetent guys write uninformed book against that hatred idea, based on fraud, selected data, basic science errors, lack of citation
        3-Nobel who read nothing for and even against support the book because they love the conclusion
        4- science journalist, science comics lords, repeat the BS
        5- most scientist support the consensus by trust in collegues and by pleasure to see a hatred idea bashed
        6-dissenters are insulted then demoted, papers deleted, budget are cut, young researcher avoid the domain, even critics are not published.
        7- observers thinks there is a consensus

        • GreenWin

          All these actions along with Morrison, Ballinger, Park, Huizenga, MIT & CalTech and Taubes — have delivered E-Cat technology to China. Remarkable!!

    • winebuff

      Sorry george that science is corupted. Welcome to the real world lets get back on topic please.the technical side of this is far more interesting than you and the others crying foul.

    • Billy Jackson

      George i wouldn’t mind taking a stab at some of your questions to at last give you a different perspective hopefully. while at the same time admitting i am woefully ignorant about many things

      Resources we have on the planet are getting harder to get at. and not just for accessibility but from politics and ownership. we cant just go onto someone’s land because a mineral is there and take it..and most land in the world is either owned by someone or a government entity. so its not so easy to walk up and start drilling.

      there are A LOT of profits to be made from mining asteroids if they can keep the cost finding potential candidates for mining them down. The more stuff we can make in space the less we have to haul out of the atmosphere which requires materials..

      Here is something i wrote in April 27 2012.

      say they get a small asteroid, one that weighs
      around 100,000 tons (this is very small probably the size of a
      apartment building or a 5 bedroom house a Nimitz class carrier weighs
      100,000 long tons)
      if they get even 1% rare metals out of this
      asteroid that’s 1000 tons of rare metals. ill use gold to calculate
      since its pretty much the rage now but remember you have other rare and
      just as valuable metals (the platinum groups)

      1000 tons x 2000 lbs = 2,000,000 pounds
      2,000,000 pounds x 16 oz’s = 32,000,000 ounces
      32,000,000 ounces x 1500.00 an once of gold = 48,000,000,000.00
      48 billion dollars for mining a 100,000 ton asteroid.
      now imagine if you would if that asteroid had 5-12% rare metals or higher.

      obviously prices would drop but not in the short term, in the short
      term who ever gets there first and is successful will be mega rich
      fairly fast. and dont kid yourself. while they say its for the
      advancement of humanity.. they also have no problem lining their own
      pockets as they go along (as they should since they are paying for it)

      this is to give you an idea of what type of money we are talking about.. (and gold is a lot higher than 1500.00 an oz)

      as for sending toy trucks to mars. this is a requirement of any advance exploration if we don’t want to send people to die intentionally. sure some of it is pure research those so called pretty pictures. before we can send people we have to know more specifics about temperature, wind conditions, basic survivability. can we tele-operate a construction zone to make the base that people will live in for a few years..all these are very important if we wish to expand beyond our planet we must learn to survive the conditions we find.

      I have no answer to your comet question as that is pure guess work. but i can say that as for an asteroid. no one can give you the specific answers because the variables are to wide to give a standard. how fast is the asteroid moving? how long do we have to move it? how big is it? whats its density? Rotation?… all these have to be answered before “how long will it take” can be.

      as for the NASA budget this is the only question of yours that i find disingenuous. we have 100’s of social programs that take up 100’s of billions of dollars combined. it is not even a single percentage point of the federal budget. and yet as a nation and a people we have benefited from the technologies and discoveries that our space program enabled.

      I can agree with you that our science needs to be improved. but the bigger statement would be that the POLITICS of science has caused more damage than any of the items we discussed above.