How To Prove LENR?

There has been quite a lot of interesting news coming out recently regarding what seem to be success in efforts to demonstrate LENR effects from various parties who are sharing results more or less openly. I am hearing about other efforts to demonstrate other systems and replications, and all this has led me to feel quite optimistic about the prospects for LENR.

However, I feel that the bar is still set quite high when it comes to making a case to the wider public that a new and superior energy source is available to mankind. It’s one thing to convince someone who has been paying close attention to the topic in specialized forums and websites that people in the small LENR community frequent — but quite another when it comes to convincing the general public and those who shape the opinions of the public (leaders in media, scientific community, business, politics, education, etc.)

For the purpose of this post, let’s assume that someone has developed a LENR device that is measured to be putting out excess heat at a COP of 2 or higher reliably. And let’s say that ten other people, competent in putting together a such device, following the design of the first were able to get similar results.

Would we now have proof of LENR? I would say yes, but my guess would be in this case, even if a wide percentage of people following the topic were thoroughly convinced that LENR had been demonstrated, there would still be obstacles in getting those considered ‘authorities’ on things like this, to accept that as proof.

There would probably be the demand by the ‘authorities’ that a peer-reviewed journal with a sufficiently high impact factor publish an article validating the LENR effect, before it could be taken seriously.

But how do you get an academic team to take on the task of testing and publication in this top-flight journal when the ‘authorities’ they listen to say that LENR is a waste of time? Would ten apparently successful replication be enough to get academics to take the topic seriously?

If not, is there a way to do an end-run around the ‘authorities’ and take the case directly to the public, or media, via the many channels that are now available?

Or is it a losing battle at this point — and we need to wait for a commercial product to hit the market?

So I’d like to throw the question out to readers here. Assuming we have a working LENR device demonstrated, and ten replications of it — how would you go about the task of trying to demonstrate to the world that this phenomenon is real, and should be taken seriously?

  • a good reactor with good control with good turbine…

    Rossi maybe soon.
    Airbus maybe already, but who knows… their patent (dixit Rob Woudenberg) is much richer than what we imagined. and by design it is looped.

  • Obvious

    At least half of the species, and almost all lifeforms on this planet would kill and eat you, given the chance. Doubt it at your peril.

  • Stephen

    Although I like the science I can see that the engineering proof should not be dependant on that and should and will come first. The more I read the more I think the momentum is already there. Maybe once the work by MFMP and Parkhomov and the rest is tuned to the point they have a device that is stable and safe to distribute, someone can develope an engineering kit for distribution to as many university labs as possible. Ideally the kit should allow access to the fuel and ash for offline analysis and perhaps a test rig to monitor and modify parameters. Imagine no one knew about rabbits… putting one on everyones desks would convince them they exist. They may think you are illusionists and magicians but once they take its heart beat they would know it is real. May be timing would be good as well to coordinate with other LENR activities such as Rossi’s endeavour he certainly deserves his moment I think. Timing and coordination may also capture the media attention. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some kind of media frenzy when this is all finally proved to the world… So be prepared for that too.

  • Donk970

    There is no need to prove anything to the general public. All that is needed is to present sufficient evidence to convince an investor to fund the R&D process to get a product to market. This seems to be happening now and in due coarse the public at large will become aware of LENR because they can buy a LENR heater at Home Depot (for example).

  • GreenWin

    Phillip raises a reasonable point. However, his cave man example is flawed. Because cave men did not know “oxidation” from “trepidation.” What they did know was throw wood, dried dung, dead grass, plants or coal on a fire — it will burn. No theory required. Just plain and simple trial and error.

    Of course a successful theory is predictive. Prior to theory comes experiment, aka “trial and error.” The theorists are the innocuous class that have failed us in LENR. After all, it was their “theories” that predicted LENR impossible. John Huizenga, Bob Park, PPPL, CalTech and the MIT hot fusion clan are directly responsible for these failures of “theory.”

  • Jarea1

    Have a contract with a big partner in the state or private that have much money. Let your partner create thousand of ECAT devices and create with him a sale and distribution channel that flood the energy market for households and small bussiness. After the first months selling the wave of good reports and feedbacks in the media will convince everybody.
    Another more academic way would be to send devices to CERN, NASA and more official sites to test and report about that.
    That can be done with the duplication of the Parkhomov devices but Rossi would never do that because of the money and his strategy to earn money by flooding the market at once.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      “Parkhomov’s device” was based on what Parhomov learned from the Lugano report (Rossi’s device). Rossi did all the work and took all the risks. Rossi has every right to make a profit.

    • GreenWin

      CERN, NASA and most taxpayer funded “science” organizations have FAILED the human race with respect to alternative energy.

      • Chris Reid

        Take a look army other recent posts, The basic principle of LENR could be understood by a 5 year old child, once the encumbrance of our Scientific Gods have been swept aside. Tesla was right, lord Kelvin wrong – big time – Heavier than air flight possible, Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies only to a closed System !

        We’ve been using 3 phase electricity (good) generated by fossil fuels (very bad) for too long now, now is the time to light the new fire and clean up the environment…… NO THANKS TO THAT TRAITOR J P MORGAN. his ill gotten gains can be put to good use.

        We are in the 21st Century now…… TIME TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER !!!

        The meek shall inherit the Earth. ;))

  • Omega Z

    There is only one way.
    Build it and sell them as IH/Rossi have started already.

  • Omega Z

    “I really want to see this community collectively edit a few pages on Wikipedia”
    You will merely get banned from editing.

    Wiki isn’t to bad unless the topic is controversial. In which case they ban editing that doesn’t fit there beliefs.

  • Sanjeev

    You cannot do that as long as it is controlled by the corrupt and dishonest admins there. You can’t even add one word there and keep it for more than a second.

    Best strategy is to build your own wiki and spread the links everywhere. Those who can think will see the value of your wiki. Help build the E-Cat world wiki as much as you can.

  • Omega Z

    That’s backwards. A theory isn’t necessary in order for something to work.
    If that were the case, we’d all still be living in caves.
    Science has become fixated on theory. We need to get back to real science. Experiment, Experiment, Experiment.

    Theory has a good track record of describing how something works after the fact. Not so much on predicting.

  • Sanjeev

    You can not trust those narrow minded skeptics to tell the truth. Even if they see positive evidence there is no guarantee that they will not lie to the public. It is risky to ask a wolf to protect a sheep….
    Its much better that AP gives out the information to all to replicate and see for themselves.

  • Omega Z

    More like 4 years, but point taken.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Axil Axil

    Storms is correct to a degree. Hydrogen is one of a number of gases and liquids that produce nanoparticles when its temperature and pressure is in the proper range to produce supercritical behavior. This is where the 1D chain of hydrogen atoms come from. These chains are called Rydberg matter. Any other elements dissolved in this hydrogen supercritical liquid is also nucleated into nanoparticles(AKA secret sauce) if a pressure and/or temperature oscillation occurs. The cracks have little to do with the reaction. But cracks do serve the same function that the nickel particles do, they moderate the LENR reaction so that the LENR reaction does not precede too quickly and go bang. The nanoparticles attract each other as a result of dipole surface activity and large highly focused magnetic fields are produced between these particles. These magnetic beams disrupt nuclear material in their paths. The spaces between the aggregates of these nanoparticles are the locations of the Nuclear Active Environments.
    The fractional quantum hall effect has already demonstrated to science that a magnetic field can lower the coulomb barrier of electrons in fractional quantum stages based on the strength of the applied magnetic field. Given a strong enough magnetic field, the coulomb barrier is removed.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Will it be Coke or Pepsi?

  • Mats002

    Yes. What answer did you expect?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Guys, you need to see the latest Facebook update.

    • Mike Henderson

      “When a replacement heater was used, the reactor RESTARTED!! at 11:10 on March 21 and works still.”

      I hope this means that a “Parhomov reactor” could be pre-lit where it is produced and tested briefly. It could then be shut down, cooled, and shipped by UPS. It would no longer contain any LiAlH4. It would be cool and evacuated inside. Perfectly harmless. And anybody could warm it up and measure its COP.

      Replication anywhere.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Exactly, we have to replicate, everything is described now. I have samples of his exact powder and will send them out, hopefully Monday to team members (went to get sample bags from the bead shop across the road, but it was shut).

    • Dods

      Brilliant news Bob. I’m going to have to confess though this was the song that came to my mind soon as I read it.–HyjCsX8

      • Bob Greenyer


    • LuFong

      When the heater failed, was there any heat after death?

      • Bob Greenyer

        A1. I have asked that question.

        A2. Not as far as I know, and as I noted in the spreadsheet, this should not be required. How effective the long term yield is after shutdown(s) would need an extended study.

    • Hi all

      Congratulations to Parhomov on his great work, and perhaps a share of the Nobel prizes to come 😉

      If MFMP can get the tech for joe public replications out then Frank’s Question in this article is answered and MFMP would be looking at a share of the Nobel prizes too.

      Kind Regards walker

  • Mytakeis

    My thought would be every time there is an opportunity to comment on the subject of energy, be it oil, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, etc., bring up the ‘fact’ that LENR is going to replace that source of energy. Just say it, over and over, and the authoritative uppiddy-ups out there in academia will start having to deny something that could make them look really stupid.

  • Paul

    No military customer exist, for this reason Rossi does not reply, the military client should only attract the first investors.

  • ecatworld
  • ecatworld

    I have asked about the military unit and he says he can’t comment about it.

    • Ronzonni

      OK, then, is it possible to ask Dr. Rossi how many civilian customers bought the megawatt plant in the three years it has been offered for sale on his and officially associated web sites, with four months quoted as delivery time? And how many were delivered and in general terms, without revealing proprietary data, how well do they work? Thanks.

      If Dr. Rossi says none were sold, it would be fair to ask a followup question: why?! If he declines the question, same followup: why? What may induce skepticism in reasonable people is that there is often no apparent reason for not answering at least some part of innocuous questions!

      • ecatworld

        I’ve asked him this before — when he was making his plants in Italy. He said he had sold two. One to a military customer, and the other to a US customer. He talks about it in this interview:

  • radvar

    Answer: Scale up to 100 replications, which would attract public VC money, which would be the breakout.

    How? Broken Record:

    Right now, start building a wiki containing a high quality “best current” replication cookbook, backed up by all the experiment procedures, information and results data currently available. And keep it up to date.

    This would greatly increase the rate at which new replications emerge..

    This is totally do-able, in terms of economics, available skill sets and available discretionary time (apparently, from levels of participation here).

    It needs only two things:
    1) Insight into how powerful such a wiki could be, in terms of providing a single source of complete, well-structured information, compared to what is available now.
    2) A deep passion about the need to get LENR into the world’s energy mix

    @Admin, this site has had historic importance already. Such a wiki could increase that impact by orders of magnitude.

    tick, tick tick…

    • Eyedoc

      WIKI won’t happen/allow…….. use this site, that’s why Frank lives !:)

  • Gerrit

    we could work the social media, like we worked together to get Lenuco crowdvoted.

    we could all get an imgur account, make a nice cold fusion album, and just bomb upvote the thing to the front page. A couple of days later another one of us does it again. Boom front page. We’ll get a lot of believers of holy physics books angry, but more and more will start to look into the topic.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Have a model R/C turbine jet airplane show with LENR powered engines.
    I mentioned this before.
    But now maybe we could have Parkhomov get together with Russian R/C turbine jet airplane builders to retrofit a kerosene R/C jet engine with LENR and be THE FIRST IN FLIGHT with LENR.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      These model jet engines are really turbine jet engines. The retrofit might not be that difficult. Put Parhomov’s reactor in the combustion chamber. The concept is simple. You just need to heat the incoming air. Like the jet engine for the 1950s atomic bomber. I linked to this before. See the direct
      cycle engine.

      • Axil Axil

        You can bet that there is a Navy Drone with a hot cat in its belly flying overhead somewhere.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yeah Axil, it could stay up forever.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Fly them long enough to demonstrate that it
      couldn’t be a convention power source that’s keeping them aloft.

  • Gerrit

    The demand from the naysayers has always been to go and build a power plant and then they’ll listen. This is exactly what is happening now.

    When we’ll have easy replicable setups a small subset of scientists will work with it trying to figure out how and why it is working, that may take years. Some “outsiders” have already started to look at the subject.

    Once significant funding gets dedicated to LENR research, it will mean that the phenomenon is accepted as a reality and it has arrived in mainstream science.

    The general public might think that a paper in Nature of Science will be the turning point, but this is just a symptom of why the whole science system is failing. Who needs Nature or Science when these journals flat out refused to look at the topic for 25 years.

    • Mats002

      You and I – we – are the outsiders?

      • Gerrit

        no, we are the spectators. The outsiders are the physicists who never had anything to do with cold fusion, but are working on it now. For instance Hanno Essen and his collaborators

  • Axil Axil

    The US government. Nuclear plants mean uranium enrichment, plutonium and bomb potential.

  • LuFong

    And this is almost 70 years after the first bomb. And the safety of nuclear power is still a huge concern.

    I don’t think the question was looking at 70 years down the road.


  • Albert D. Kallal

    Actually, all that is required here are several more replications. So another 10 or so, and universities etc. will take notice.

    As noted, some already are taking notice. We have all kinds of announcements occurring, and heck there even a LENR course at MIT (not a audited course with credits, but never the less such courses are already creating a whole new generation of students who are now exposed to LENR and thinking about LENR).

    The announcement by Pons and Fleischmann was an absolute bomb shell for the press. The P&F device was front and center for every single major news outlet for several weeks. We all know the story here and issues of failed replications along with self interested parties hurt this cause.

    If the P&F device was EASY to replicate, then history would be different. The debate about the physics is really moot! And there are several theories that fit within the standard model anyway.

    However, the physics community right now will NOT make or break this issue. If replications occur and if they did in P&F’s time, then the physics community DOES NOT MATTER! Only the heat effect matters.

    The physics community will not and cannot make or break this issue now. It will be replications. Every day that passes does make the physics community look worse and worse. But so what!!! You mean we get to throw tomatoes and rotten food at them as they walk by? Big deal!! Feeling good or “smug” about some issue does NOTHING for LENR. That simply peoples ego and pride talking.

    The “door” of resistance to LENR is being kicked VERY hard right now. A few more blows and that door will fall in a spectacular and magic way. When this door falls down, it will fall VERY fast.

    Compared to 5 years ago, things are looking VERY good for LENR.

    As soon as a re-producible device arrives, then really, LENR is a slam dunk.

    What is most remarkable about Parkhomov is “seemly” how easy this replication was. I mean, it would have been MUCH harder to say replicate the first Apple II. In fact it was MUCH harder to replicating a flying airplane.

    We not talking about large funds or large amounts of capital required for these replications. This aspect of LENR makes it even MORE exciting. And this REASON ALONE will allow LENR to spread fast. If each LENR experiment took millions of dollars, then LENR would be VERY slow to catch on, and would be the domain of big government research and large industrial companies.

    So repeated replications of this effect will be the final blow in the interesting “saga” of LENR. And since replication is not expensive, then we have a winner on our hands!

    We have to wait until more replications occur. I don’t see why they will not occur, but if for some strange reason replications don’t occur, then whoever gets a product to “commercial” market will be the final straw that breaks the camel back. However, commercialization is a capital intensive process – replications at this point seem low cost.

    I often stated that a commercial product will be the magic key to acceptance of LENR, but now it seems replication is in fact more important.

    I don’t think much more needs be done in terms of LENR.

    A few more replications and we off to the LENR races. We are close!!!

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Axil Axil

      We are interested in LENR’s impact on the world…the more powerful that impark is, the better. If science accepts LENR lock, stock, and barrel, it will be at least 50 years before anything world changing would comes out of that interest. The LASER was patented in 1958, look how long it has taken for that technology to flower. We need an air tight product design to change the world right from the get-go…like the IPhone.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Absolute we are interested in the impact of LENR. The question being asked here is how can (or will) LENR spread?

        And because the technology seems rather easy to re-produce, then this technology will not be like the telephone or airplanes – it has an “inherent” ability to spread much faster. So I don’t see this as similar to LASERs or the phone system (which needed a critical mass before the telephone became really useful). In other words a country with 1 or 2 phones is not a big deal due to the “network” effect created by having many users. The “value” of the phone is only realized with many users. LENR does not fall into this category.

        Even computers to have a “huge effect” required networking (the internet). Prior to the internet, a computer was like a car without roads. LENR does not have this networking effect or requirement. It more like adoption of the refrigerators (occurred very fast).

        My main point here is that debating the acceptance by the physics community WILL NOT unleash and unlock LENR for the masses. It is certainly possible (likely) that when the physics community gets around to grasping how LENR works, then this understanding may well enhance the LENR effect, but then again, it may not.

        The spread and use of electricity really did not need acceptance by the physics community, but the basic means to harness and use electricity is what made the difference. The physics community over time may have helped the spread of electricity, but at the end of the day the physics community really was a side show to adoption of electricity.

        And same goes for LENR – the physics community is a side show right now.

        Replications will be the torch that carries and wins the acceptance of LENR.

        And yes a “ready” made commercial product like how the iPhone changed phones will certainly be a “major” step in acceptance of LENR.

        Replications are thus the winning formula. It is a given that the physics community is dragging their feet, but as noted that’s not going to make or break LENR.

        Replications followed by a commercial ready product will win the day here. It not quite known how close we are to a commercial product, but those “little” reactor boxes Rossi has now seem perfect for home use. I’ll take a nice like six pack reactor from Rossi!

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Mats002

          LENR is _not_ like refridgertors it is like LED and LED+

        • Axil Axil

          It won’t be long before all the world’s ice has melted, and we are all under 100 meters of ocean water. Two LENR reactors are not going to help. LENR must go viral. We need billions of units in every country far and wide. Bill Gates should be buying LENR power plants for needy African bushmen. 50 years is too long. We need LENR and we need it now.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Ice melting? We seen record ice growth of late. And we output in the last 18 years RECORD amounts of CO2 (same as previous 70+ years = that includes the post war industrial boom), and yes for the last 18 years we seen NO GLOBAL warming at all.

            You cannot even show a “simple” math correlation between the outputs of man’s CO2 and that of warming trends. Really, anyone with Google and 10 minutes of their time (and a function intellect) would see global warming for what it is = a scam to tax you.

            The effects of man’s the CO2 driving temperatures are VERY much overblown, and despite record amounts of CO2 in the last 18 years, we not seen any global warming for 18 years.
            We had higher temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period and all it did was enhance our ability to grow more food, and Europe prospered MUCH during this time. And those higher temperatures occurred without industrial CO2.

            Man’s output of CO2 is not a problem nor is it driving temperatures as claimed by the IPCC. The effects are minor.


            Really, anyone who buys into the CO2 and the catastrophic warming that will occur as a result of man’s output of CO2 has really missed the boat along the way.

            To quote the IPCC:
            Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:
            “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate
            policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy
            separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
            (co-chair of Working group III IPCC)

            But hey, the UN will take your money and redistribute the world’s wealth as long as fools like you exist and go along with the UN

            I perhaps in some mocking way wish that man’s output of CO2 was driving temperatures in some significant way, as then the push for LENR and more funding would be urgent and justified!

            Unfortunately promoting the CO2 scam to push for LENR funding is dishonest intellectually, and is promoting a lie to achieve needed funding for CO2. This is only acceptable for those who the truth does not matter.


            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

            • Axil Axil
              • Albert D. Kallal

                The melting has occurred up and down for 10,000+ years. The issue is this melting due to man’s CO2 output?

                Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

                The idea here that you going to make an appeal to authorities to support your position that man’s CO2 is a problem or issue is a VERY VERY bad way to do science right now.

                In other words, you make appeals to higher authorities, the SAME GROUP that dropped the ball on LENR!

                As a rule, science by consensus is a VERY bad idea. While the science community in Galileo’s time thought that planets revolved around the earth, such consensus was wrong.

                And today, same goes for LENR. That SAME appeal to those authorities is the WRONG way to go about science. The last 20+ years of climate models by the IPCC are ALL WRONG AND DO NOT reflect observed temperature changes. Anyone taking out a telescope at Galileo’s time would all EASY see the consensus was wrong. Same goes for global warming – just look at their claim’s and models vs observed temperatures. Our CO2 is barely noticeable above the error rate of measuring global temperatures.

                Dwight Eisenhower warned about this situation we see today.

                The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

                Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

                This is exactly the case with LENR and even that of global warming. Governments are pushing hard for new taxes, and any research that supports CO2 as being bad thus wins the day.

                Same goes for LENR. A university will not receive huge funding for LENR that some silly fellow in an apartment can replicate (Parkaomov). Why push cold fusion for $10,000 grant when you get MILLIONS for hot fusion? And LENR means freedom from government – hot fusion does not.

                And even the USA military spews out a endless supply of global warming documents. (because it restrict energy independence in North America, and justifies their need and existence to police the Middle East). With LENR we simply just ignore the Middle East.

                The simple issue is that the major science bodies have become politicized and self serving. EVERYONE here sees and knows that in regards to LENR – the same situation exists with Global warming.

                Albert D. Kallal
                Edmonton, Alberta Canada

                • Axil Axil

                  Be honest now. Do you work in the oil sands industry?

                  Upton Sinclair : “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

                • Albert D. Kallal

                  No I don’t work for the oil industry. But then then my response would be YOU be honest and tell me if your income comes from some government that ALSO happens to be pushing a CO2 tax?

                  If you saying that based on one’s funding that such people cannot be trusted, then you ARE PROVING my point that such appeals to authorities is a VERY bad thing to do now. So if a scientists is receiving government funding for global warming, are we to ignore that same government who is pushing a carbon tax? If source of funding eliminates one’s credibility, then I suggest you RE-READ the above quote from the IPCC about redistributing the world wealth via climate policy.

                  So now you saying that this issue is not about science, but the source of funding. If science is based on source of funding and not science, then you are doing a bang up job of HELPING to make my case here!

                  By your logic you are thus proving that the science community cannot be trusted because they change their mind based on their source of funding! (well done!!!).

                  The simple issue is that man’s CO2 is NOT driving temperatures as claimed by the IPCC. And that SAME community has not addressed the 18+ year pause. The issue of no global warming for 18 years is being IGNORED by the VERY same community you asking me to trust.

                  The fact that this community says our CO2 is driving temperatures at such rates and then IGNORING the 18 year pause is a POLITICAL CORRECT position and not one of good science.

                  And NONE (ZERO) of the IPCC models reflect the current warming rates (as I said, zero warming for 18 years now). So they produced models for 20+ years are that ALL WRONG!

                  You posting in a PERFECT forum, since EVERYONE HERE KNOWS the science community dropped the ball on LENR, and now you saying funding corrupts those scientists! (and hey, I agree!! – so do MOST here agree that funding and politics has corrupted the progress of LENR).

                  And that SAME science community continues to support garbage science like the hockey stick. The response should not be to dig their heals in and support crap science like the hockey stick, or ignore the 18+ year pause. To even MENTION this pause is political suicide right now.

                  Until that science community comes clean on above issues, then we simply have the SAME situation in regards to LENR.

                  A response from you to accept that the science community is doing the right thing in regards to LENR or global warming is a silly position to take. You not address the pause and these issues, but ONLY making faith based appeals to higher authorities on these matters. (in other words, don’t think for yourself).

                  The simple issue is funding and politics are being placed in FRONT of good honest science in regards to LENR, and clearly the same exists for global warming. I suggest some reading of the leaked climate gate emails to see how that community behaved (it is disgusting and morally reprehensible).

                  Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
                  Edmonton, Alberta Canada
                  [email protected]

                • Axil Axil


                  Eastern Canada to lose 70 percent of glaciers by 2100

                  Seventy per cent of glacier ice in British Columbia and Alberta could disappear by the end of the 21st century, creating major problems for local ecosystems, power supplies, and water quality, according to a new study by University of British Columbia researchers. The study is published online in Nature Geoscience.

                  There are over 17,000 glaciers in B.C. and Alberta and they play an important role in energy production through hydroelectric power. The glaciers also contribute to the water supply and are essential to mining and agriculture. Clarke says while these issues are a concern, increased precipitation due to climate change could help compensate for glacier loss. The greatest impact, he suspects, will be on freshwater ecosystems. During the late summer, glacier melt provides cool, plentiful water to many of the region’s headwaters.

                  “These glaciers act as a thermostat for freshwater ecosystems,” said Clarke. “Once the glaciers are gone, the streams will be a lot warmer and this will hugely change fresh water habitat. We could see some unpleasant surprises in terms of salmon productivity.”


                  Yes , I know, its a small price to pay for oil, and we all will be dead at that time so why worry.


        • Omega Z

          It wont spread nearly as fast as you think.
          The E-cat is just a reactor. It has little value by itself.
          Anything you would use it in has yet to be designed & built.
          This all takes time & lots of money.

  • clovis ray

    Hey, Gerrit, hi.
    i say we let, everybody have a pass, even Mary ugo , accent the positive, there is so, so, many good thing we could be thinking about, besides punishing some idiot, know it all.

  • Axil Axil

    The current LENR development scene is becoming an increasingly complex one and difficult to understand. I have written a number of recent posts that attempt to grapple with this Gordian knot even as this complex issue was percolating through the grounds of my subconscious. In this post, I attempt to bring this issue into sharper focus in my minds eye to apply the analysis that it deserves. Here in this post, let us attempt to make sense of these things.

    The fundamental issue is successful product development. Rossi set this stage when he declared in 2011 to prove LENR by bringing a successful LENR based product to the marketplace. Only by doing this would Rossi prove the viability of LENR as an important engineering and scientific topic.

    But conceiving and building a successful commercial product is most difficult. Take Microsoft as an example. That elite industry dominating company has been trying to get into the mobile marketplace with a competitive product to compete with Apple’s IPhone for a decade or more, but has yet to be successful. Even at this juncture, billions of dollars dedicated to new product R&D and acquisitions budget does not guaranteed success. Far from it, this most admired of companies, has endured nothing but well publicized embarrassment, and repeated failures.

    Drawing insight from recent LENR history, let us remember that in order to offload the product development task from his long and encyclopedic list of product development concerns, Rossi farmed product development out to DGT. From the very beginning, DGT had a very confident yet fatally flawed approach to product development because of the nature of LENR at that very early stage. Because they had always fiercely protected their independence and management prerogatives, DGT never deviated from this ill fated commercialization strategy.

    This strategy involved the development of dozens of dissimilar products that were to be based on a prototype that was configured by the engineers as a home heating unit.

    DGT was to license this basic LENR technology and reactor design to ship engine builders, and aircraft and car engine manufactures just to name a few of scores of applications, but where was the LENR product design engineers to come from to develop these very dissimilar products. Only Rossi had any expertise and he was secretive and paranoid. Rossi was not disposed to train the DGT personnel or DGT customer design engineers necessary to do this wide ranging product development.

    In those early times, Rossi’s reactors self destructed far to often to allow the development of any commercially viable product, so Rossi and DGT parted ways. After this breakup, DGT looked to duplicate Rossi’s technology and Rossi looked for a new product development partner.

    In the due course of time, both these now bitter rivals were successful, with Rossi teaming with Industrial Heat (IH) and DGT out on their own with a home grown LENR technology that was both controllable and responsive. IH had a commercial product concept in mind, a concept that they had warm feelings about, and Rossi was perceptive enough to change his reactor design sufficient to eventually meet most requirements of that concept save control as demonstrated by an acceptance test, and the one megawatt industrial LENR power plant was born.

    As IH shaped this product, the IH product concept became highly specialized to satisfy the functional requirements of their very limited American customer base. Being exclusively an industrial steam heat plant, IH reactor approach is ill suited as a generalized solution to any other segment of the energy market.

    Lack of any educated LENR workforce seriously limits LENR commercialization.

    DGT suffered great disadvantage because of an ill fated product plan from their very beginning. They were doomed to eventually fail. There were no legend of trained LENR engineers to build all the LENR products that were needed to satisfy the needs of their varied customer base. Having said that, their R5 reactor did function as a LENR product demonstration tool. DGT was far more forthcoming both publicly and privately in revealing engineering and R&D details than Rossi ever was so there was sufficient data to base a judgment that the LENR R5 reactor in fact worked. Failure of DGT as a business does not mean that their prototype reactor was not functional. That reactor served well the LENR marketing function that it was designed to serve.

    The world energy market is varied and requires an eclectic and vast ensemble of custom solutions. The key question that we as LENR product acceptance strategists must determine is what particular energy product is most likely to introduce LENR in the best light to the world.

    I have made my decision even if it was an unconscious one. As reflected in one of my recent posts, I believe that the self charging lithium ion fuel cell would be most impactful to convince the world that LENR is useful as a power source for transportation including cars, planes, trains, and ships.

    Each LENR company and LENR developer, has made their decision also. Black light power is developing a small scaled electric grid compatible generator. Brillouin is doing the same but on a larger scale. The Nanor of MIT is a designed to be a small electronic device power source.

    The Pd/D or the Ni/H open source community does not have a product plan. This fact is incompatible with Rossi’s wise strategy to produce a wizbang product to introduce LENR to the world. Like DGT, even if an open source reactor works, the open source community must educate lot of young and vigorous people to form a workforce that will make a sucessful product lunch possible and sustainable.

    • Mats002