Rossi’s E-Cat Could Take us to the Stars (Guest Post)

The following guest post was submitted by Billy Jackson

Only a few times in history are we given the privilege of witnessing true greatness. Inventors, Scientist, and Engineers toil away developing and expounding on the technologies that improve the quality of our lives. These few but exceptional individuals are the engine that drives the foundation of our modern world.

For many their accomplishments will only be remembered in history. Their names all but forgotten we continue to benefit from their knowledge, and inventions. From the miniscule paperclip rescuing us from the clutter of an office desk, to the concrete used in nearly every modern building and roadway, the printing press which brings us word of events both near and far. These are but a few of the many inventions that touch our lives on a daily basis.

Yet among these faceless masses who have provided us with so much, there walk giants. Ben Franklin credited with the discovery of electricity, Along with the later work of Thomas Edison and Nicola Tesla brought us out of the darkness and set our world a light. The Wright brothers through sheer courage and undaunted will in the face of repeated discouragements gave us the skies.

Through the Manhattan Project: Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm. Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls, Felix Bloch, Niels Bohr, Emilio Segre, James Franck, Enrico Fermi , Klaus Fuchs and Edward Teller, ushered us into the Nuclear Age. Finally Albert Einstein changed how we view our universe, and Wernher von Braun showed us that we could leave the earthly bounds of our home.

This small, but powerful list of contributing individuals are here for a reason. We may soon add another name that potentially, might just surpass them all. Andrea Rossi, an Italian inventor has created a Low Energy Nuclear Device [LENR] that very well may crack the academic stigma that has repressed Cold Fusion research since the 1989 announcement by Pons and Fleischmann.

The last few years the e-cat has faced challenges from the established scientific community as to its validity. Despite repeated challenges to test results, objectivity, and repeated rejection of evidence, Andrea Rossi has submitted his device for peer review. For the last several months a number of scientist, engineers, and specialists in the industry have studied the device and its effects in an effort to dissect its inner workings. That review is now imminent, to be published i in the next few weeks.

With this level of energy gain we achieve boosts to efficiencies in: Vertical Farming, Desalinization. Manufacturing, Traveling, Construction and more. Yet the most excitable thing is yet to come. with a fuel source whose weight is negligible yet lasts 6 months or more (the limit of the current round of testing) utilizing an electric based propulsion we gain the ability to sustain constant acceleration via space travel.
Constant acceleration is notable for several reasons:

It is a fast form of travel. When ergonomics are considered, they are the fastest form of interplanetary and interstellar travel.
Constant acceleration creates its own artificial gravity to the benefit of passengers, who may thus be spared from having to deal with the effects of microgravity.

As an example using existing technology (short burn then coast) a trip to Mars would take 8+ months. Using constant acceleration and aiming at a point where Mars will be when we arrive. The time would be cut down to between 1.7 to 4.5 DAYS. As the humble opinion of this amateur writer, I submit that despite all of the above, Mr Rossi has potentially given us more than just greater efficiencies in energy. He very well may have given our children a pathway to the stars.

Neil Armstrong spoke with nearly half a billion people watching as he stepped from the lunar lander : “That’s one small step for man one giant leap for mankind.”  Mr. Rossi if your test results are positive as rumored. you may well have just taught us to fly.

Billy Jackson

[email protected]

  • Broncobet

    I think it’s unrealistic to think that we won’t be spreading out in space ,we are already in LEO and that’s the hardest part of most space travel.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    While the energy “density” of nuclear energy is amazing, the
    problem is electric drive engines are not powerful at this point in time.

    Assuming we could build such a spacecraft (and we
    cannot), then going back to basic high school physics (in fact grade 11!!), the
    time to travel a distance at a given accelaters, starting from rest is based on
    this:

    Distance = ½ at^2

    (a = gravity, t = time)

    Gravity is 32 ft per second, or 21.9 miles per hour in one second.
    Per hour that is 82440 miles per hour.

    If you accelerated all the way at the speed of gravity,
    you would travel the 33 MILLION miles to mars in 20 hours (less then a day!).

    However, we only going HALF way, and then going to
    reverse the engine.

    So to travel to half way (16,500,000 million miles), then
    it takes 14 hours, you then flip the ship around and then start to decelerate at
    the rate of earth gravity. This second part will take the SAME as the first
    part. When you reach mars you would be just grinding to a halt – so total time
    = 28 hours.

    Remember, if you jump off a building with earth gravity (and no air resistance),
    then in 1 second you going 22 miles per hour. In 10 seconds you going 220 miles
    per hour! In 100 seconds you going 2200 miles per hours. Remember, the speed of
    a bullet is about 900 miles per hour. So in about 40 seconds you falling FASTER
    then the speed of a bullet.

    So a full trip to mars with something that accelerates at
    earth gravity (32 feet per second) is only 20 hours if you accelerated all the
    way. And half way is 14 + we reverse the engine at half way point, then the
    whole trip takes 28 hours.

    We simply don’t have anything close to these kinds of technology, but basic high school physics at least gives some starting numbers here.

    Regards,
    Albert k

    • Broncobet

      Very well stated ,I knew it was an easy formula but you put it so well.So 28 hours but we also have to get off the earth and land on Mars but it’s very quick to cover the long distance if we can go that fast. I really don’t want them talking too long because of the health risk. Here’s another point; one G doesn’t sound like a lot but can humans survive 28 days at one G? Oh I get it that’s the load we are always under. I read a sci fy story long ago where they had to go way out past Saturn from Earth and with something like 3 g’s I think, they made real sure to not have any ridges in there clothes as the tiniest ridge in your underware would kill you. Everyone dies from the acceleration. LENR would be very unsuited for this task as it should be reliable and if thermal produce much higher temps than the hot cat or electricity for something like the VASMIR which is one strong candidate. You’d use solar cells or fission energy.When the VASMIR is ready we’ll use it to keep the space station up then if that works use it for more but the Mars trip would be such higher power it would take them years to scale up. A fission heat rocket heating H2 is a good choice and Elon Musk can get us there with his tech but it would take the 8 months I think.

      • Billy Jackson

        1 g is one gravity. that’s the same as standing on earth at sea level.. aka you do it everyday of your life 🙂 (remember in space your weightless 0 g so you float everywhere.. with 1 g of acceleration the force of acceleration would allow you to stand and move around as if you were earth normal. (not perfectly but you get the picture)

        i read a similar story about the ridges due to gravity acceleration.. every G of acceleration you have adds double your body weight. at one G you weigh normal and can move around.. at 2 g’s a 200 pound guy now weighs in at 400, at 3 g’s he weighs 600.

        we can hit high g’s temporarily before we black out. but extended duration even of just 2 g’s over a long period of time would not be healthy due the strain it puts on your body and heart.

        • Broncobet

          Yes thanks Billy, reread my post I said”oh I get it” ect I was just thinking out loud but I think you have it exactly, that we can’t take too many hours of 3 G.Great subject ,thanks.

  • orsobubu

    At very high speeds, probably needed if a spaceship is aiming for the stars instead of Mars, there is the huge problem of interstellar dust, that would impact the ship in destructive way. I remember I read that there is also the problem of even tinier particles, that would be assimilable to deadly cosmic rays, at interstellar speeds. Too massive shields would be required, and that’s a problem. I think that new technologies should be developed first. for example, instead of simple humans as crew, they could send syntethic robotic/human beings capable of selfrepair the DNA damage, coupling this with an unmanned drone ship sent in advance in the same exact pathway of the mothersip to catch dust and rocks

    • Billy Jackson

      i think that’s kind of expected as we are doing with mars. send the robotics first to assess danger and local conditions. then follow up if safe.

  • Omega Z

    Weaponizing is a given.
    Both lasers & particle beam weapons require large power input. Energy supply is the primary Achilles heel to both. With additional R&D, I can see Rossi’s technology being scaled to the size of a refrigerator with a 10Mw capacity.

    Note that if BLP/Mills device is half what he claims, It would be usable for such devices with a prototype ready within a year. Deployment to Ships, Aircraft, & Armored vehicles with in 5 years or less.

    I’m Curious as to whether Mills has already been approached(By MIB) & warned off. His sudden shift from MHD electrical conversion to using photovoltaic was a peculiar (& Sudden) shift. MHD had promise of 80/90 percent conversion efficiency.

    Side note: An Armored vehicle equipped with these weapons & existing automated tracking & targeting technology could take out an RPG & the person who fired it in milliseconds. Making such vehicles nearly impregnable.

    • bachcole

      I have no problem with weaponization of anything. I have a problem with the hearts and minds of people filled with anger and greed who generate like minded governments that direct young men to use said weapons.

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

    skunkwork is the way real science should be done… normal it is done by engineers 😉

    that they tested it mean nothing else it is not a proven error.

    the great problem of current bad academic science is that they value so highly their own ego, that they imagine that making an erreor in simply not rejecting a claim which is finally not proven true after long delays, is a catastrophe.

    just see how stephan pomp refused to participate to a test, just because he was afraid it give credibility to participate…

    just see the pathoskeptics on emdrive, cold fusion solarism, who simply state that we shoud not test a claim because it may be wrong, because it is not proven true according to a theory…
    the same who say evidence are wrong because they challenge a theory.

    yes, skunkwork is doing real science, like cavemen did.
    they see something intriguing, test it, note the result, and accept they can still be wrong finally.
    their ego is not in being always right, but in being right one time and making a revolution after many failures. they have the ego of an entrepreneur, not of a priest.

    • Broncobet

      Skunk Works is indeed great but they are engineers first and scientists second,they would have a hundred engineers to one scientist ,of course the two overlap. Skunk Works is my number one favorite to create fusion energy. I predict they will announce progress with hot fusion (maybe five years) before LENR is producing reliable power(maybe thirty years).

    • Broncobet

      I still have reservations I want to hear they(EmDrive) passed the next more difficult test.

  • Broncobet

    If some one could supply lots of heat we could heat a propellant ,or if they could make electricity a Hall effect or the VASMIR engine,I understand this is just dreaming, but it’s taking us further from the goal which is to heat a tea kettle.(What About Bob?) Baby steps.

  • Omega Z

    Computers only simulate intelligence by algorithms & brute force. Thus the designation AI. In Chess, They use brute force & speed. They are big & fast enough to process the finite number of moves to the winning move. With each move it reevaluates. This is a value based algorithmic system. The layman is forgiven if he thinks this is intelligence based. They don’t know what’s behind the curtain.

    Computers can do amazing things including extrapolating conclusions & even learn at a very fast pace with better then average accuracy provided enough data, but even this is based on values entered by a programer. It is not infallible.

    Beep: Illegal command. Computers have difficulty with the illogical choices. The Beep is the programers simplistic way of limiting this. Some things can be handled with algorithms, but illogical choices many times can have infinite possibilities. No computer will ever over come this, Because it’s creators can’t. There will always be a “He Did What? moment”

    Computers are & always will be data, switches of some sort & electrical impulses. The human brain is far more then that. It can be dissected & studied, but it’s more then just cells or a lump of flesh.

    Note, in about 30 years, Humans & Computers will be interfaced in some fashion. Just another extension. And Don’t fear the AI computer. But be very Leary of the human species.

    IF AI/Bots destroy the human species, It will be done by Human Intent. Not the former. It is just another tool.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Thank you clovis ray.
    Not so much brilliant as mixing chocolate and peanutbutter.
    With new abilities come new ways of approaching old ideas.
    It is the imponderable which makes predicting the future difficult.
    I am glad you like the idea. Maybe that means it is one of my rare practical notions.

  • GreenWin

    Well written Billy. Lovely vision. Space travel incarnate will always be difficult and risky. But then so is the SCAD Tower roller coaster. Keep dreaming brother. 🙂

  • Heath

    And to assist in the lightening of the launch, a new breakthrough of absorbing and storing oxygen in a minuscule amount of crystals.

    http://www.sdu.dk/en/Om_SDU/Fakulteterne/Naturvidenskab/Nyheder/2014_09_30_iltsluger

    Sorry if it’s a bit OT.

  • Billy Jackson

    Fortunately politics and regional disputes aside the premises of the article remain the possibilities enabled by the physics and science. Scientist, Engineers and Inventors can build, maintain, and dream up our future.. asking them to also make you love your fellow man is a tad bit unrealistic.

  • Billy Jackson

    http://www.space.com/26713-impossible-space-engine-nasa-test.html

    Researchers at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston have found that a microwave thruster system that requires no propellant does indeed
    generate a small amount of thrust, Wired UK reported
    Thursday (July 31). If the technology pans out, it could make
    spaceflight far cheaper and speedier, potentially opening up much of the
    cosmos to exploration, advocates say.

    This is but one of the recent innovations that we can explore for a reaction-less drive.

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

      this is one possible blackswan in the pipeline… the number of replication is not definitive but intriguing.

      I’ve followed that subject since few years after Chinese team hired Shawyer and replicated his work.
      See my scoop.it with many article and forums…
      http://www.scoop.it/t/emdrive

      It seems that another team, beside Nasa,Fetta, Shawyer, China, have replicated EmDrive, at Lockheed Martin in Skunkwork …

      • Billy Jackson

        Agreed. we know that challenges will exist some we know now, some we may not find until we start building and experimenting. thus my point that it may be our children that benefit from these possibilities instead of us in the here and now.

        concepts which were theorized as possibilities have been used in science fiction as a way to give validity to the authors story. yet before our eyes we are now watching science fiction give away to become reality.

    • Heath

      NASA should be presenting their findings on the EMDrive at the International Astronautical Congress this week in Toronto. In July they stated that they planned to test the EMDrive with much more power in and in a complete vacuum this past month, but there is no telling if they will include these results.

      • Broncobet

        Ohhh exciting. It would be great if emDrive worked this is the next step. I hope you all take note that the media and science are not skeptical in the least and are not responsible for the lack of success in 25 years for LENR.The emDrive is a far more unbelievable, sci fy, impossible invention than LENR and the world ,the media, science didn’t cry and not believe but accetpted and within a month had the next set of steps. That is how fast tech that is useful moves, a month ,not 25 years. That being said I think the emDrive is so far out there,so impossible that it might not pass this next test. But see? We only have to wait a few days to find out. Not these ridiculous waits that LENR imposes.

  • Jonnyb

    All very well but how do you slow down when you get there?

    • Billy Jackson

      They flip directions and decelerate at the same speed at the halfway point.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I think they would use retrorockets instead. Decelerating at the halfway point would unnecessarily extend the journey time.

        • Jonnyb

          Think of the G force though, great for cargo.

        • Warthog

          The calculations include the deceleration time. No need to subject people or objects to massive “G” forces.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The necessary acceleration depends on the time interval. If you would start with an initial velocity of 1000 km/s and run the engines for 10 minutes, 2.83 g would be sufficient to stop the ship. However, the fuel might be a problem. At least, if they find water on Mars they could produce oxygen and hydrogen and fill up their tanks.

            • Billy Jackson

              I may be wrong as my math has more rust on it than the titanic… but Distance is the variable portion which determines the time required where as the acceleration is a fixed rate of 1g.

              at 2.83g yes you could stop the ship given enough time and distance. but you would have to burn for longer than 10 minutes to stop. at 2.83g you would weigh near 3 times your body weight, which means you would be trapped and immobile for the duration of that burn.

              If you accelerated at 1g for most of the day without flipping and decelerating and waited till the last 10 minutes you would slam into your target as your cumulative speed built over time would be far greater than the 9.8 m/s you started with.

              this is the best way i know of explaining it, yet i feel i am missing something also in the explanation, i will leave it up to someone better at math to provide better numbers 🙂

              here is a link to the math..
              http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acons.html
              unfortunately its beyond my education so ill be in my blanket fort coloring till someone explains it to me 🙂

              • Andreas Moraitis

                Of course I may be wrong with my simple math. I’ve just taken delta v/delta t = 1000000m/36000s^2 = 27.77 m/s^2 = 2.83 g. However, it is indeed difficult to imagine that 10 minutes at 2.83 g would be enough. I agree that one should prefer the ‘modern’ way if possible. Conventional engines for navigation will anyway be required, and perhaps one could combine both technologies. The people at NASA should be able to find the optimal solution (although they have once crashed a mars probe due to a miscalculation…).

                • Billy Jackson

                  well you at least understand the math.. so ill bow out and let someone more knowledgeable debate that part with you :)… i broke my crayon.. 🙁

                • Andreas Moraitis

                  Come on Billy… My math is certainly not better than yours!

                • Andreas Moraitis

                  Oops, I see my mistake…36000s = 10h, not 10 min…

                • Andreas Moraitis

                  Spaceship destroyed…

              • Omega Z

                Blanket Forts were great. They could hide & protect you from almost anything. UNTIL-
                The MOMSTER arrived. Yielding great power it could command you to destroy & dismantle your Blanket Fort. Resistance was Futile. You soon became assimilated.

                • Ophelia Rump

                  No one can resist the power of snack time.

                • Omega Z

                  That is why I built my Blankey Fort. To hide from the Cookie Monster… He can’t eat just one.

              • Broncobet

                No, you’ve got it right we just figure the g at one. How much can humans stand of G’s? For a second maybe 7 but for any length of time I think 3 G’s kills you.

        • Ophelia Rump

          You need as much fuel as if you accelerated to that horrendous speed using heavy fuel. Now you are once again too heavy for speed.

        • Broncobet

          It’s the same thing,you flip around, retro usually means smaller rockets.

      • Omega Z

        Naw, Just drop out of warp when you get there.

  • BroKeeper

    Well said Billy. While collecting money as a boy on my paper route for the Kettering Times a neighbor of mine, Ivonette Wright Miller, invited me inside. She pointed towards the living room fireplace where a very large wooden propeller hung over the mantel. The propeller was from her
    uncle’s Orville and Wilbur’s Wright “B” Flyer when at the age of 15 she flew with her “Uncle Orv” at Huffman Prairie in 1911. I’ll never forget the delight she had telling her story with her uncle.

    I bring this up because of similar feelings I sense among you and the E-Cat World brothers here as if we are flying into the future with Andrea Rossi heading towards those stars.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The Internet is a mixed bag of nuts.

    I’m not sure I like the association.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Billy, The best numbers I have ever seen for round trip to mars were somewhere in the neighborhood of a month each way. It would be great if you provided a citation for your numbers. That alone would be exciting to those of us interested in this subject.

    I like your writing very much, and I dare say you are progressing at it. The choices you made in subject, structure and flow were impressively elegant. I am referring to the parts which have absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics of scribbling words onto paper in a presentable fashion. I am referring to the parts which constitute the art of writing.

    • Billy Jackson

      Thank you for your words of encouragement. I have Frank to thank for the editing, im pretty sure he was chasing comma’s and periods around with a hammer threatening violence toward the end.

      as for the citation.
      http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2012/08/30/flying-to-mars-in-three-days/

      To verify this figure, we’ll do a very rough calculation. Accelerating at 1 g for time t covers a distance is g t2/2. Let d be the distance to Mars in meters, T the total of the trip in seconds, and g = 9.8 m/s2. In half the trip you cover half the distance, so 9.8 (T/2)2/2 = d/2. So T = 0.64 √d.
      The hard part is picking a value for d. To keep things simple,
      assume you head straight to Mars, or rather straight toward where Mars
      will be by the time you get there. (In practice, you’d take more of a
      curved path.) Next, what do you want to use as your straight-line
      distance? The distance between Earth and Mars varies between about 55
      million km and 400 million km. That gives you a time T between 1.7 and 4.7 days.
      – John D Cook.

      • builditnow

        I came to a similar number of days based on 1g acceleration, after having achieved orbital velocity. To get into orbit one needs more than 1g. Cold Fusion has the potential of providing the kind of power required to maintain 1g for potentially an unlimited time, both from fuel on board, and, fuel collected from space in the form of collected solar wind and interstellar gas (mostly hydrogen) on the trip. On arrival to your destination, other means of providing 1g may be necessary, such as a large spinning wheel space ship.
        Time to start saving up for your first space voyage.

        You also may only have a short time to congratulate Mr. Rossi before he becomes so famous that our messages won’t get through to him personally.

        • Ophelia Rump

          To get into orbit one needs a space elevator.

          One could be built today with conventional materials if they built it as a series of 250 mile long elevator cable cars and transferred from one to the next. Each ride would be only 100 miles The series would then hoist one another back up to compensate for the drop during lift, and the top would pull itself up using a counterbalance extending past the escape point of gravity. This could be used as a scaffold for a more permanent solution.

          A permanent base using something like a Buckminster Fuller Cloud Nine design could be the first stage at 20 thousand feet.
          A cloud nine base would also make sense as a small rocket launch base, since it would overcome the absolutely worst portion of any launch, the portion with highest gravity and densest air.

          • GreenWin

            Does this elevator really need to be any taller than ~60 miles vertical? To reach near-zero g?

            • Ophelia Rump

              99 Miles is considered LEO, Low Earth Orbit.
              But LEO is maintained by orbiting at a very high speed. I think you would drop rapidly if you stood still at that elevation.
              Constant thrust might compensate as well. The space station is at 210 miles. So yes with constant thrust 210 miles would be enough.

              Much better than the traditional 6200 mile long space elevator concept.

              • Billy Jackson

                they said carbon nanotubes were not strong enough.. and now we have graphene.. which is 200x’s stronger than steel, and its light weight plus its flexible. as Lady O said with new technologies that were once impossible the improbable becomes ponderable about the possibilities of being possible.. (now say that fast 3 times!);)

                • Heath

                  There’s a story on futuristech.info about newly discovered diamond nano ribbons that are even stronger that might make a space elevator a reality. I would paste the link but discus and and iPad apparently aren’t playing well together today.

              • Broncobet

                See Omega Z answer above.Let’s say you spin a yoyo around your head.,same thing with space elevator, the centrifugal energy provides stability,so you put a weight on the end which keeps the ribbon straight.Many years away as material science doesn’t have anything that strong.

            • Omega Z

              What I have read about(Those involved with the research) indicates the ribbon would need to be about 50K miles out to the counter anchor.

              I suppose this takes into account, Gravity, Earths rotation speed etc..

          • Broncobet

            Or we could use rocket ships.

      • Ophelia Rump

        This theory of propulsion has been around since the 1970s, perhaps earlier, I personally remember it from the 70s. It was a staple of Science Fiction.

        It would make single generation interstellar travel possible if you had the engine and power source. As I understand it now the drives have been invented, and there are only two issues left. Scaling up the sufficient thrust, and the power source.
        We know someone who is working on a fuel with high power to weight ratio.
        That leaves scaling the engine and it’s thrust to suitable output.

      • Broncobet

        Your figures are way off.

        • Billy Jackson

          Need a bit more info than that broncobet, what particular figures are you saying are wrong and what figures are you using to compare them to?

          • Broncobet

            Sorry about the abrupt tone it was late and I was tired but I’m so glad to get your response. I don’t have the formula ,I know it’s quite easy,just my general knowledge when you were claiming a day or two that would be possible but not for humans,saying 1 g it would take as you have corrected yourself, a month or so.I think space would be the last place for an energy source that apparenetly no one has been able to be useful on earth for 25 years,but it might as if it were reliable it could be very expensive and be worth it. But I suppose it’s not reliable at all.The VASMIR technology is very efficient but it has to be demo’d on the ISS first. We would need an energy source which would be solar or fission to make electricity. Elon Musk can get us there as he is building bigger and bigger rockets and wants to stand on Mars himself.When one of his rockets to the ISS comes back down and lands itself you will know that a great hurdle has been jumped.

            • Broncobet

              So I was wrong you can do it in a little more than a day but that’s with a pretend energy and a month for something we could bulld like thermal fission or VASMIR. It’s a fun subject ,good job Billy.

              • Billy Jackson

                it truly is. hence my excitement about the possibilities but i also recognize that challenges still await us.. (we don’t have a working reaction less drive yet) hence it may be our children that benefit for the stars. but i think we will see people on mars if this technology provides a big enough energy boost.

    • Broncobet

      Thank you O, I read some of the entries to see if some one else would catch this, so yes a month or a little more with any force, you can’t go faster or you’d kill the crew.

      • Broncobet

        So we were wrong in theory you could do it in 2 days, but there’s nothing around with that much energy.BTW Space sails have a constant acceleration and with the sun or very powerful lasers you can get to half light speed(you need more power in the lasers than we use for the Earth in a year.When we get to massive energy use you have to use solar power as in all the power the sun puts out,a Dyson Sphere.