New Year’s Eve Party Thread! What Will be the Big Reveal from Rossi at Midnight (US Eastern Time)?

Andrea Rossi wrote this intriguing comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today:

Andrea Rossi
December 30th, 2015 at 1:36 PM
Domenico Canino:
Thank you for your trust.
As a matter of fact, the perspective of the E-Cat X is huge. We’ll return soon on this issue: the last night I had a dream: at midnight tomorrow, when the New Year will be born, which means at 00.00 a.m. of Jan 1st 2016, I will be in the plant and I will uncork the bottle of the Korbel ( a very good US champenois) to celebrate: I will be alone inside the plant in that moment, with the security guards only; immediately after that I will write here what is the E-Cat X and what I want to do of it. F9.
God bless you and all our Readers too.
A.R.

Andrea Rossi has since confirmed that he will be writing something at midnight on December 31st, so I think it’s appropriate to have a dedicated New Year’s Eve ECW PARTY THREAD! Happy New Year to everyone who visits here, and let’s hope that 2016 meets our hopes and expectations for some special happenings in the world of advanced energy technology.

It will be interesting to hear from Dr. Rossi at midnight on the E-Cat X, but I can’t imagine he’ll be giving away any key secrets on the JONP at this time.

UPDATE: Here is Rossi’s post:

Dear Readers of the JoNP:
It’s 00.00.01″ of January 1st 2016.
Update: the 1 MW E-Cat is stable and in ssm, the E-Cat X is very promising and still operating and making heat, electricity.
The E-Cat X is very close to the design of the core of the apparatus described in the US Patent, I mean the wafer. It has been engineered to resist to very high temperatures. The electricity exits directly from the wafer.
As I said , several nights ago I had a dream. The E-Cat X had been produced in billions pieces, each of them assembled with others in various combinations to make public lamps: a town was totally illuminated by the E-Cat X and from every lamp a network of pipes and of wires was able to distribute heat and electricity to the houses.
In that town there were about 1 million lamps each of them of 500 watts, consuming about 50 watts; consequently, there were 450 MWh/h produced, of which about half were turned into heat distributed to the houses through a network of well insulated pipes, running inderground, like optic fibers, the other half was used to enlight the town and to distribute electricity to the households. The cost of the E-Cat X was around 50 $/kW of power, due to the production of billions of pieces per year in all the world, with tens of thousands of jobs. Less taxes were paid by the people, due to the saves derived from low pollution and low energy cost for public services. Millions of persons were also earning money selling E-Cats and every owner of E-Cats was saving money in utilities ( electricity, heat, light).
Then I heard the alarm clock: it was time to return to the factory, to make true the dream. F9.
Happy new year, I love you all.
I am drinking my cup of Korbel champagne, then i have to return to the gauges of the plant. She is good, tonight.
Again, Happy 2016, May God bless you all,
Andrea

  • Warthog

    Not sure what you mean by a “partial right”?? Wyoming as a territory established “equal suffrage” for both men and women. What happened when Wyoming became a US state, I don’t recall, as it has been years since I studied the issue.

  • Warthog

    Not quite. The Greek approach was “direct democracy” (although your point about only slave-owners voting is correct). More akin to the “town-hall meetings” of the northeast US colonies. Not a parliament.

    “The first to establish a democratic system where every man and every
    woman had the right to vote, was Lenin after the bolschevik revolution.”

    Uh no. That honor belongs to the state of Wyoming in the good old US of A.
    which pre-dated Lenin and Trotsky by quite a few years.

  • LarryJ

    With the age of exponentially rising technology now in full swing, chronological age will soon become a meaningless concept. By around 2040 I will probably be able to trade in my Mark I body for a Mark II and there will be many bridging technologies between now and then to help me make it that far (a la Jimmy Carter). Immortality gives a great new incentive to looking after yourself and a sexually active partner is currently the best known natural hormone therapy and age retardant in the world. CF is just the start. You ain’t seen nuthin yet. What do you imagine will happen when self improving AI shows up within the next decade or two. Because AI will be electrical and we are electro chemical a self aware AI modeled on our brains (a proven prototype) will be capable of as many thoughts in 1 minute as you and I have in 1 year. All of our current problems will be quickly resolved and an entirely new set hatched. Scary but inevitable so be nice to your computer.

  • Warthog

    “As far as an economic theory is concerned, you are right.”

    Well, this “is” the direction I am coming at the subject from…

    But from an emotional context, you are quite correct. The ONLY way communism can be established is by fomenting irrational hatred of the “bourgeoisie” (i.e. pretty much anyone who has gumption and initiative and is willing to work hard as hell to start and/or run a business). The progenitor of it all (Marx) was consumed by hatred, because he had an ego lightyears tall AND wide and thought that with his so-called “genius” he should have been in charge, or at least able to make a living. The reality is that Marx was a lazy leech who would have starved to death if he had not been financially supported by Engels. And yet socialists and communists think that his “thought” should be the basis for how the entire world should be organized and have built up a fantasy of economic theory to justify supporting it. It galls them no end that keeps failing on actually being applied.

    The Norse countries are a special case, as they have a long, long tradition of representative democratic governance, having actually invented it (the first real parliament was, as I recall, established in Iceland), which they just can’t bring themselves to give up, so their attempts at socialism are always diluted by democracy, and never reach the degree of “purity” necessary to carry out the actions actually get to “full” socialism, with all the despotism needed for that.

  • orsobubu

    Hi Bachcole, those gulags were filled with communists, so don’t worry about them because you’re not a communist. Also, first gulags were invented by british imperialists during the capitalist boer wars in africa. Lieutenant General Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, OM GCMG GCVO KCB, the Scout Movement starter, was the genius.

  • Mats002

    10CC I presume.

  • LarryJ

    Thanks Bachole. The full catastrophe I’m afraid. I scored a girlfriend.

  • Warthog

    Communism is just another flavor of socialism. Communism was an attempt to implement socialism on an international scale, while socialism organizes at the nation-state level. The confusion is on your part…..I would hardly call North Korea “state capitalism”. China is a communist state becoming capitalist (which is now at the stage of state capitalism). And I use words as they are defined….not the redefinitions of murderous nutcases like Marx and Lenin. Imperialism is “empire”, which implies rule of other states by powerful nations, and which included the Soviet Union (which was both communist and imperialist).

    The “bourgeoisie win over feudalism” was an evolutionary process, not a “revolution”, and that is precisely how the next stage beyond capitalism will evolve (unless derailed by a top-down solution imposed by well-meaning promoters of socialism).

    “In capitalism a tiny fraction of the people owns everything….”. Really?? I know lots of businesses not so owned. OTOH, in the Soviet Union, a “tiny fraction of the people” really DID own everything (see “nomenklatura”).

    “The last part on the internet businesses has not value, because the
    servers are owned by bourgeoisie, which will close them when they will
    perceive a peril of revolution, like already did recently in Libia, etc.”

    LOL…..you compare a backward, basically dictatorial regime like Libya, in which the servers were probably owned by the state in the first place to the complexity of a small-c “capitalist” economy? Ludicrous.

    In the evolutionary process that is happening in advanced economies, there will never “be” an overt revolution to sound an alarm that would result in a “shutdown”. There are thousands upon thousands of server farms, owned by entities both large and small. Just as there are thousands and thousands of businesses, both large and small.

    And I did NOT say that “the internet economy realizes democracy”, and certainly not of the political sort. That it offers the possibility of a mechanism that “might” result on a direct overall sort of democratic political process is a (dangerous) fact (due to hacking and fraud possibilities).

    And in fact, I never said anything about economic “democratization”. I simply pointed out that the internet is allowing new forms of organization of both business AND capital, which are “organizing themselves” in many different ways. What is happening right now is the formation of an economic ecology, which will include both large entities and small entities.

    You and George suffer from the idea that a simplistic top down solution (socialism) is possible in an ecological economy. It is not. There is simply too much complexity for such an approach to succeed.

    “…in capitalistic conditions, globalization, automation and robotization
    of production processes lead necessarily to proletarization, monopolism
    and overproduction.”

    Communist/socialist bafflegab continues. “Necessarily” is a fantasy of socialist economic theory.

    What is currently happening is “economic evolution” into more and more diverse forms and mechanisms. Previously, only the organization of businesses into huge entities allowed “globalization”, as those were the only things that could organize and communicate successfully on a global scale. This has, “necessarily” concentrated ownership in a relatively small group. With the advent of the internet, ANY size company can “globalize”, and large numbers are doing so, successfully.

    But this is not the place to have this conversation. If you can suggest a different spot to discuss it, reply with a URL.

    • orsobubu

      Warthog, I have to decline your interesting invitation for lack of time; we could confront ourselves on the subject in this forum occasionally, if Frank does permit, since this is the only place where I post today, together with JONP, I’m sorry because you made a long answer for me. Since I’m communist, I have to make my political action with real people, not on the forums. I’m also sorry because I would have so much things to reply. My only contribution here is to specify that our positions differs on a very important starting point: you refer to communism using the bourgeoisie, ideological interpretation: communism is the production system used in ex-soviet block states. I use the scientific interpretation by Marx and Engels: communism is the doctrine about the conditions for proletariat freedom; a state with money, banks, market and wage work, like the countries you refer to, cannot be communist by scientific definition, they are flatly capitalist. You are confusing communism with fascism and yes, those states were flatly fascist; Stalin killed all the bolshevicks, one by one by design. Your definition of communist regimes is just ideological like it would be to say that in USA today there is a free market. Instead, in USA there is a liberal economic cycle inside a state capitalism in a frame of social-imperialist conditions.

      • Warthog

        Neither Marx nor Engels were even remotely “scientific”. Nor was their “economics”. Pure fantasy. And communism (including your entire post above) is totally ideological, containing more misconceptions than I have ever seen in a single post before.

        My position is based on the facts on the ground, not ideological fantasy.

  • hempenearth

    I suppose the remaining licensees will need to do some renegotiating if there is a two year wait for products.

  • Agaricus

    Link also posted later by US_Citizen71 above – he got more upticks I’m afraid!

    Thanks for the information that Carl is Larry Page’s brother. That is very interesting.

  • US_Citizen71

    Fortuitous is the word for it. It might seem to be to good to be true, if transmutations are happening it shouldn’t be unexpected. Extra electrons being generated is not a rare phenomenon in science. With a lemon and the right two coins you can make a battery. Heat and electricity tend to be found together, Seebeck effect for one. Very easy thing to demonstrate from the sounds of it. Rossi has backing right now so credibility can wait and like they say he who laughs last laughs longest.

  • Brent Buckner

    I don’t think it much matters whether or not we doubt Rossi – he has enough investment backing to commercialize the Hot Cat (if it is indeed can be commercialized), and he’s not looking to us for any funding. Sure, don’t be excited, but perhaps be careful in your investment choices (including investing in your human capital – e.g. deciding to study petroleum engineering).

  • Axil Axil

    LENR produces subatomic particles. Lief Holmlid has shown that mesons are generated by LENR. Mesons will decay into electrons. Electrons are coming out of the LENR reaction in the same way as neutrons are generated by a nuclear reaction.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Could the electrons formed just be delta rays? “A delta ray is characterized by very fast electrons produced in quantity by alpha particles or other fast energetic charged particles knocking orbiting electrons out of atoms.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_ray

      From the 8.7 MeV alphas, He(4) from the following reaction.

      Li (7) + H(1) > 2He(4) 17.4 MeV

      • Axil Axil

        It seem to me, the reaction product cannot involve the production of gas in any great quantity because the very small volume of the fuel compartments in the wafer. This gas pressure limit imposed by the wafer undercuts the alpha particle idea. Alpha particles will also require 2 electrons to stabilize. This works against the excess electron idea.

  • http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

    From people involved in experiments with the Hotcat I heard long time ago about something that sounded like signs of electrostatic charge being built up in the reactor body. From that I draw the conclusion that gaining electricity from the process is being made directly, without adding any external technology such as thermogenerators etc.

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

      Hi Mats, nice to hear that.

      What do you mean by “from people involved in experiments”? Rossi or real independent researchers?

      • http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

        Not from Rossi himself. But whether anyone in the E-Cat story could be considered independent is, as you know, infinitely discussed.

    • Axil Axil

      It could be a matter of degree. The old style reactor was not powerful enough to expose useful electron production. But the X Cat has a marked increase in power density. Now with the X Cat, far more electrons are produced. If Rossi could move away from heat as the stimulator to electrons or visible light, then the next Rossi invention will be really special.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Any idea if that charge was positive or negative (similarities are purely coincidental…)?

      • http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

        No.

      • Axil Axil

        The Edison Effect only works for negative charge. So the charge coming off the wafer must be negative.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I would be careful with the „must be“, although a negative charge appears most likely.

          • Axil Axil

            The phenomenon was initially reported in 1873 by Frederick Guthrie in Britain.[1] While doing work on charged objects, Guthrie discovered that a red-hot iron sphere with a negative charge would lose its charge (by somehow discharging it into air). He also found that this did not happen if the sphere had a positive charge.[2]

            See:

            1- Guthrie, Frederick(October 1873). “On a relation between heat and static electricity”. The London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. 4th 46: 257–266.

            Guthrie, Frederick(February 13, 1873). “On a new relation between heat and electricity”.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 21: 168–169.doi:10.1098/rspl.1872.0037.

            2 – Richardson, O. W. (2003).Thermionic Emission from Hot Bodies. Wexford College Press. p. 196. ISBN 978-1-929148-10-3.

            • Andreas Moraitis

              At the moment, it is only a conjecture that the observed charge is produced by the Edison effect. It might be so, but I would prefer to see data before I take it for granted.

              • Axil Axil

                Rossi has removed all the alternative possibilities. The chances are good that the conjecture is firm. You will not see data from Rossi, you never have and you never will.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      I wonder if the wafers might be behaving like Thomas Townsend Brown’s capacitors.
      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/imagenes/brown.jpg

      Could there be gravity hills and gravity wells within the wafer that reduce the coulomb
      barrier by increasing the weight (not the mass) of the cations (Li and H+) and allowing

      (not forcing) them to react, as we’ve proposed before. Li(7) + H(1) > 2He(4)? http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/Thomas%20Townsend%20Brown%20Scientific%20Notebooks,%20Vol%202.htm

      • Alan DeAngelis

        VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED:
        Those suffering from Reputation Trap Anxiety Disorder (RTAD) should wait a quarter of a century before viewing this video about Thomas Townsend Brown.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEgGMFK-VU

      • Axil Axil

        The coulomb barrier may not have any impact on the LENR reaction. The appearance of subatomic particles such as mesons, pions and muons point to LENR being a strong force reaction.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          “No, I research not about cold fusion, I research on laser-induced hot fusion.”
          -Leif Holmlid
          Are we talking about different mechanisms for what is all being call LENR?

          • Axil Axil

            I don’t agree with Holmlid for a number of reasons. He is suffering from the hot fusion syndrome that has undercut LENR for these 26 year now.

            The reaction is produced using a laser power level as low as 33 milliwatts. In comparison, a laser pointer powered by a battery produces 100 to 150 milliwatts. Hot fusion is hard to justify as such low power levels. Even room light can cause the reaction to trigger.

            The fuel needs to be hot. The fuel does not fire off right from the getgo and the fuel has a shelf life of a day or two. All this says that there is something else needed to trigger the reaction besides a small rydberg hydrogen matter particle dimension.

  • US_Citizen71

    Post by Carl Page on edge.org

    2016 : WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE MOST INTERESTING RECENT [SCIENTIFIC] NEWS? WHAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT?

    Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Work And Could Supplant Fossil Fuels… http://edge.org/response-detail/26753

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      This is just so much awesome.

    • John Littlemist

      For a moment, I thought it was Carl Sagan who said that. Little confusion.

    • GreenWin

      Fascinating. There is a deep kindred spirit in this edge. Thanks US_Citizen for the link. A great way to begin the New Year!

    • Agaricus

      Carl Page’s article seems worthy of a permanent link from this site, as an introduction and overview for newcomers to the topic.

  • Oystein Lande

    Rossi just said no Seebeck effect is used….

    so he have stated
    – power is harvested directly from the wafer (?)
    – the wafer is generating DC current ( WTF ?)
    – the currents are collected “externaly”

    well I’m confused. And Rossi is a master confusor 😉

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Where did Rossi say the Seebeck effect is not used?

      I mean, I have a car, and you have a car. I ask you what is the difference is?

      And you state:

      My machine runs on diesel.

      Are you no going to conclude that you don’t have a car?

      Rossi answered this to the question of SeeBeck and plutonium powered devices:

      ==== START QUOTE ===

      the devices you cite use plutonium as a
      heat source to make the Seebeck effect.

      The E-Cat does not use or produce
      radioactive materials.

      === END QUOTE ===

      So Rossi stated his device does not use or produce radioactive materials.

      Exactly where did he state the Seebeck effect is not being used?

      So the DIFFERENCE here is plutonium and radiation – NOT the SeeBeck effect.

      So because your car uses gasoline or uses plutonium, you by logic conclude you don’t have a car?

      Rossi flat out stated that the difference in his case he does not use plutonium and radiation. He did not point out in any way that the Seebeck effect is not being used here.

      I certainly accept that the possibility remains that the SeeBeck is NOT being used here, but Rossi certainly NEVER pointed that out in his answer.

      The ONLY difference Rossi stated was the Plutonium/radiation. And the question WAS in the context of the Seeback effect of such NASA devices.

      If there is some additional follow answer by Rossi that flat out states the Seebeck effect is not being used here, then I would most graciously accept and welcome such a quote/statement by Rossi.

      So far, the stated difference from Rossi was no plutonium and no radioactive materials are used to create the electricity – not that the Seebeck effect is not being used here.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • artefact

        On JONP:

        “Andrea Rossi January 2nd, 2016 at 3:51 PM
        Oystein Lande:
        No, we do not use the Seebeck effect.
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.”

        • Oystein Lande

          Excactly 🙂

          His answer on my short and consise question:


          Øystein Lande
          January 2nd, 2016 at 12:59 PM
          Dear mr. Rossi,

          You say you collect current externaly from ecat-x as DC current.

          Do you mean by Seebeck effect?

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Excellent – I much appreciate the follow up.

          Golly, the only thing left I can figure out is if the “fluid” that removes heat from the fins is now laced with some type of iron/steel particles that due to their “flow” will produce a electric current. It is not clear if some type of water or oil is used as the means to pull the heat out of the system, but such flows can produce a current if the fluid in question has some type of ferrous type of material suspended in that working fluid.
          (anyone know what fluid is used to pull heat out of the ecat and ecat-x?

          Most interesting that Sebeck (a thermo-couple) effect is not used. There not a lot of other possible means to convert heat into electric (solid state wise in this context) .
          I am hesitant to think that some “field” exists that allows one to capture electricity from such a field, but if this turns out to the be case, then this certainly suggests some rather genius thinking by Rossi.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • GreenWin

            Al, if we better understood magnetism and permutations thereof – we might have a better idea of where the current flow originates from. Brian Ahern suggested as much last year.

    • US_Citizen71
  • Pekka Janhunen

    “Indeed, some of the Wrights’ most vicious skeptics were supporters (believers) of other aviation pioneers.” This has a strong parallel with Rossi’s case.

  • GreenWin

    Re: Obama’s knowledge of E-Cat.

    Having just read McCullough’s “Wright Brothers” biography (thanks Buck) there is an instructive parallel to Cold (E-Cat) vs Hot fusion. While the Wright’s were designing their first manned aircraft, Professor Samuel Pierpont Langley, astrophysicist, professor U.S. Naval Academy / University Pittsburgh, Secretary Smithsonian Institution, Director Allegheny Observatory, President American Assoc. Advancement of Science, etc. – was doing the same.

    But Langley had been given tax payer funding by both the War Department and the Smithsonian Inst. equaling $83.5 million in today’s dollars. The Wright Brothers self-financed their aircraft with profits from their bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio. As this link points out, Langley flew his manned “Aerodrome” on December 9, 1903 from a catapult on the Potomac River.

    The aircraft crashed on launch nearly drowning the Professor in the icy Potomac. Eight days later the Wrights flew at Kitty Hawk. Today, the irony is one of LENR’s early proponents Dr. Dennis Bushnell is Chief Scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center – named after Samuel P.

    CORRECTION: The last sentence in this article should read:

    “In spite of 18 years of well-funded and concerted effort by [Prof] Langley to achieve immortality, his singular contribution to the invention of the airplane was the pair of 30-mph aerodromes that flew in 1896. He died in 1906 after a series of strokes, a broken and disappointed man.”

    http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Langley/Langley.html

  • Anon2012_2014

    Any reason to think that this is anything more than a Seebeck generator using the LENR metallic interface (i.e. Nickel) as one of the two different materials? Seeback generators have a 5 to 8% max efficiency. Any other ideas?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Reason to think otherwise is that AR says that efficiency is some 50%. An idea that might give this efficiency would be thermophotovoltaics. It might be rather simple to implement, but it would require an additional layer in the sandwich or wafer. I don’t know of any “known” solution which would give 50% efficiency and which Rossi could have implemented in 5 minutes in his lab after getting the idea.

      • US_Citizen71

        My thoughts initially was some type of TEG but I thought it would have just been stuck to the outside with its own heatsink or placed where the current heatsink is.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Rossi has a long professional experience with Seebeck (also called TEG) and if I recall right he got some 20% efficiency with it by a handmade device, but wasn’t able to industrialise its production process. If he now has 50% Seebeck, it surpasses his earlier efforts by a large margin. From this history and from Rossi’s remarks I’m inclined to guess that what Rossi has now in E-cat X is something else than Seebeck.

          • US_Citizen71

            Me too! Hard to adjust the output of a Seebeck generator other than reducing heat to it,

            • Albert D. Kallal

              Unless you are pulling the heat away with some working fluid – you send that fluid out as useable heat energy, or you send the fluid though some type of device that converts the heat energy into electricity.

              I dare say without additional info from Rossi, it difficult to “guess” how the electrical energy is being created, but regardless, Rossi has ruled out a thermo-couple.

              Regards,
              Albert D. Kallal
              Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Albert D. Kallal

        I did not see the 50% number. Can direct me to this?

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Rossi’s long newyear’s posting http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=38#comment-1144325 ,
          “…of which about half were turned into heat … the other half was used to enlight the town and to distribute electricity to the households.”

          • Albert D. Kallal

            But that’s in the context of half of the devices (lampposts) being used for heat, and half of the devices being used for electricity- not that some 50% conversion rate of heat into electricity exists.
            So half the devices are being used to generate electricity – not that some 50% conversion rate of heat into electricity exists. I don’t see that statement centering on some conversion % rate into electricity, but only that half the units are being used as such – a significantly different statement.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • US_Citizen71

      Depends on your interpretation of this exchange I suppose:

      Hugh DeVries

      January 1st, 2016 at 1:00 PM

      Andrea Rossi:
      Happy New Year!!

      There are nuclear powered sources today which generate electricity and heat directly for use in space mission applications. These power sources use radioactive decay of elements to provide heat and direct generation of electricity. Some are referred to as Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs).
      How does the E-Cat X using LENR differ from these sources?

      Hugh

      Andrea Rossi

      January 1st, 2016 at 4:50 PM

      Hugh De Vries:
      the devices you citeuse plutonium as a heat source to make the Seebeck effect.
      The E-Cat does not use or produce radioactive materials.
      Warm Regards
      A.R.

      Does A.R. mean that he doesn’t use plutonium, radioactive materials or the Seebeck effect or does he mean he doesn’t use any plutonium or radioactive materials and silent F9 on the Seebeck effect?

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Interesting, but Rossi DIRECTLY dances around the issue of thermal-couple.

        In other words, Rossi states the difference is “only” the plutonium and radioactive materials.

        I mean the difference here is radioactive materials, not the Seebeck effect.

        This again much suggests that the electricity being produced here is indeed the Seebeck effect (a simple thermal-couple).

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Buck

    Rossi has given an estimate of how long to gain regulatory approval and certification for use by consumers . . . 2 Years.

    Italo R.
    January 2nd, 2016 at 5:13 AM

    Dear Dr. Rossi, the E-Cat-X has certainly now great difficulty to be used among the common people. Not for capabilities that are close to real using, but for the enormous restrictions that regulations oblige to apply.

    I imagine that you are working on both fronts – technology and regulations. Can you predict the timing? Thank you

    Kind Regards,
    Italo R.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Andrea Rossi
    January 2nd, 2016 at 8:29 AM

    Italo R.:

    I hope 2 years. But, while tech depends on us, regulations and certifications don’t. Applications managed by a public service could be easier to certify, though, since the operation would be controlled by certified professionals. Therefore the “dream” could be eased.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Axil Axil

      Deployment will be easier in China. Since competition is always good, China will lite a fire under the regulators in the wast.

      • Buck

        Axil,
        I agree. I’ve thought for a while that Darden’s balancing of different nations with competing interests as a brilliant recognition of political/economic reality.

        • Omega Z

          Maybe Darden just realizes that China is 25% of the World market.

          • Buck

            OZ,

            that is possible.

            However, this uni-dimensional view ignores Darden’s experience of how Environmental Remediation is treated by consumers, industry, and maybe most importantly governments. And, how Cold Fusion has been treated on the world’s stage.

            With this in mind, it seems reasonable to speculate that Darden views the introduction of LENR/Cold Fusion in a more complicated fashion. I’m thinking of a complex strategic that starts at the least with a Porter Five Force analysis. And might include a Technology Adoption Lifecycle analysis.

            Link>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_five_forces_analysis
            LINK>. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_lifecycle

            • GreenWin

              Buck, history is cautionary. The Wright brothers offered their technology (with help from local Congress) to the War Department after hundreds of hours of successful flight in their third gen aircraft. The response was a form letter (from the Pentagon) stating their invention ‘unworthy of financing.’

              The Wright’s offered their tech with ‘a loud knock of opportunity’ to DOD. The response was negative, so they went to France.

    • deleo77

      If deployment is in 2 years then I would hope to see a demonstration with validation tests much sooner. If Rossi has the patents filed he should demonstrate the device so others can see it. I know Rossi views secrecy as a high priority but he has shown the E-Cat to people over the years. He even left one with the Lugano testers for months. So why not a basic E-Cat X demo for us all to see this year?

      • Buck

        Since it was just as recent as Christmas day that Rossi discovered what the E-Cat X is capable of, I can only imagine that Rossi, Darden, and the other managers/executives involved with the R&D and commercial rollout have been discussing and developing the “best ideas”.

        In light of the mantra “only a commercial product will win the debate over Cold Fusion”, this could mean a 6-12 month pilot plant demonstration. It certainly fits their history and it recognizes that the E-Cat X is a “revolutionary” improvement over the E-Cat.

        Personally, I would hope for a very nice public demonstration, one to four weeks long. Maybe with the Lugano team for scientific validation and possible explanation.

      • Agaricus

        I think the question that needs to be asked when suggestions like yours are made is what Rossi would gain from such a further demonstration. On the negative side, it would probably be ignored by mainstream ‘journalists’, would provide a target for the trolls, and might even alert potential opposition. On the positive side…?

        • US_Citizen71

          The only positive I can see for another demonstration is for publicity when they are ready to launch a product to the world.

          • Omega Z

            Once production starts, it will take a while to ramp things up.
            From the start, they have more customers then they can provide for.
            After they ramp up, they still have more customers then they can provide for.
            There is no need for publicity. It will all take care of itself…

            • US_Citizen71

              Publicity would help sell licensing for other products and help with the business plan/model presented to banks to get loans to setup/expand production.

        • deleo77

          I don’t know if it would be ignored by mainstream journalists if Darden were leading the demonstration. I could easily see 60 Minutes picking up that story. The reason for doing this in my opinion is because revealing the E-Cat X is much different than Apple revealing a new iPhone. If the E-Cat X operates the way that Rossi says it does then it would be a fundamental breakthrough in science and technology. It’s a product, but it is not just a product. I actually think that people (scientists and non-scientists) simply have a right to see a major discovery along these lines, even if how the reaction itself works is not revealed.

          Who knows what stage of development the E-Cat X is currently at, perhaps it’s not even in demo form, but I do think that a discovery along these lines would go beyond business and IH being a private company. It would be a demonstration showing that cold fusion (or whatever is going on inside) does exist. If Rossi has something along these lines then I think he should show it to the world to at least prepare people for what is coming. I don’t think he needs to show it tomorrow, but it would be nice to see a demo at some point over the next year.

          • GreenWin

            “I actually think that people (scientists and non-scientists) simply have
            a right to see a major discovery along these lines, even if how the
            reaction itself works is not revealed.”

            Ah, if only DOE, DOD, NASA, NSF, APS, etc etc. had the courage and vision to openly finance Dr. Rossi and the E-Cat. But they did not. And so deleo77 – you will have to wait until Dottore/IH/and others deem it timely to do so.

            With a modicum of vision (e.g. global fossil divestment) people are “…being prepared for what is coming.”

  • Agaricus

    I’m too busy trying to remember how socks work.

    • GreenWin

      Reason I go barefoot.

  • Mats002

    This is post #359 which make this thread longer than previous record of 358 (the one about electricity from the X-Cat 🙂

    Happy 2016 from the Canary Islands, 27 C at aqualand with happy kids running around.

    • Jarea

      Lucky you!

  • artefact

    On JONP: (Pekka / Rossi)

    1- Does the E-cat X tolerate vibrations when running hot? This property would be relevant in all car applications.
    2- In the US. patent, it is mentioned (page 9, left column, line 20) that mica layers are covered by “a protective polymer coating”. I think that most or all polymers decompose or melt already at relatively low temperature. Is the idea that the polymer coating purposefully outgasses and carbonises itself when first run, like what happens in the production process of carbon fibres?
    AR:
    1- yes
    2- we have on course a new patent related to this issue: I prefer not to risk a pre-disclosure

    • artefact

      It will take a while but at some point in the future there will be lots and lots of patents published.

    • US_Citizen71

      It depends what the polymer is, Sulfur can be easily turned into a polymer by melting it for example.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Interesting, I didn’t know that. But sulfur has boiling point 444 C, which means I think that it evaporates easily, is volatile.

        • US_Citizen71

          Oh don’t think it is sulfur but when we think of polymers we automatically think of plastics they are not all encompassing of what a polymer is.

      • Agaricus

        Silicon also forms polymers (polysiloxanes), but like sulphur these aren’t stable beyond about 400C. When polysiloxanes break down completely at higher temperatures, they leave a silica residue that might still have some structural integrity.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Edwin January 2nd, 2016 at 6:54 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    What is the expected life of an E.Cat X?
    Thak you, Edwin

    Andrea Rossi January 2nd, 2016 at 8:24 AM
    Edwin:
    130,000 hours ( projections)
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    130,000 hours -> ~15 years

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Wow

    • Axil Axil

      Does this assume that the fuel will also last for 15 years? It looks like the wafer is welded together. A reactor that has run out of fuel could last 1,000,000 years, but would be of no use.

      • Jonnyb

        Useful for space travel.

        • mcloki

          Coupled with a Hall Ion Thruster. Space asteroid mining becomes very feasible.

          • Axil Axil

            This is why science needs to get on board with LENR. LENR is the doorway to the stars.

            • GreenWin

              Does G Clooney know that?

    • US_Citizen71

      That makes the light pole analogy used in his New Year’s post a bit more clear.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    After reading the Rossi patent and his statement to fulfil the patent requirements for E-catX, I think that it is very likely he is using thermoelectric effect and he replaced the two thermally conducted layers (steel) 50 and 52 with layers of other materials (which he was looking for to withstand high temperature) to have thermoelectric effect from these two layers. At least, I would try this definitely.

  • Warthog

    Capitalism and the free market are alive and well in small businesses around the world. Imperialism died after WWII (see “British Empire” and the rest of colonialism). Communism (the other “real” imperialism) is dying as we speak. China is “de facto” capitalist…they just don’t/won’t use the “C-word” to describe their system.

    The social experiments have all been done with respect to capitalism vs socialism, and socialism loses in every case. We have seen the political transition of nations (or parts of nations) from imperialism to socialism (Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela), and from socialism to capitalism (Chile, China, Vietnam),and “twin studies” (North and South Korea, West and East Germany). The data is in…..socialism fails….even when it has all the resource advantages in its favor (Venezuela/oil).

    The problem you and George have is that you want some or other “top-down” solution imposed, which has already proven not to work, while the “real” solution is growing organically with things like the Internet, and economic institutions like Kickstarter and other “bottum-up” changes it makes possible. The whole “communist/bourgeosie” meme is a dead end. See:

    http://deirdremccloskey.org/docs/pdf/McCloskey_IdeasEnrichedTheWorld.pdf

    The Internet was the “real” revolution. LENR can and will accelerate things hugely, but the fundamental changes are already happening without it. Crony capitalist businesses will, I think, prove to be “dinosaurs” in the long run, unable to compete with faster/smarter “mammals”.

  • Agaricus

    Further down the thread, US_Citizen71 asks, “why would you have the necessary hardware to tap induced currents already installed on a test reactor…”

    There is a possible configuration that might answer this. This is that the ‘ceramic heater’ component may consist of spiral-wound flat coils embedded within a ceramic matrix and driven at radio frequencies to heat the wafer by means of eddy currents induced in the steel plates, and that Rossi is also using such coils to produce the ‘frequencies’ that actually drive the CF reactions.

    The patent below describes some interesting effects that arise between multiple Tesla (flat spiral) coils when the RF input is tuned to the coils, the main item of interest being the production of intense EM fields in the spaces between the coils, when RF input is correctly tuned.

    http://www.google.com/patents/

    This raises the possibility that Rossi may be using non-resonant RF driver frequencies to heat the wafers, and resonant RF (matched to coils) to produce the EM fields that drive the CF reactions. Pulsing the RF input could maintain resonance but match oscillation frequency to the requirements of the wafer fuel.

    It seems possible that as I suggested in an earlier post, Rossi’s inspiration was to look for current induced back into the flat coils while the wafers are in SSM and requiring no power input.

    The above would of course depend on the idea that some kind of self-driven oscillating field is directly created by the fuel layers when CF reactions are occurring.

    Does anyone who actually knows what they are talking about (unlike myself) see any merit in the suggestions above?

    • GreenWin

      FYI, your patent link was truncated. Any idea of what temps this RF configuration can achieve?

      • Agaricus

        Sorry ’bout that – link now repaired. AFAIK the couple RF coils will generate a powerful EM field in free air, presumably sufficient for induction heating, but I’m not certain whether the interposing of steel plates will destroy the EM resonant coupling effect. I’m guessing the only limit on achievable temperature would be the melting point of the coil material.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Interesting concept, but perhaps the source of energy is directly related to alpha particle capture. I attended a presentation by a graduate student on the use of nuclear materials for producing long-life, high energy density batteries. In fact, the student won a prize at a competition for his idea. Here is a link:

      http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~blanchar/res/BlanchardKorea.pdf

      Could this be the power production method?

    • Axil Axil

      Rossi says that the current produced is DC. coils produce AC. The wafer is producing the DC current. Rossi must be using a grid to pick up negatively charged particles coming from the wafer. He can add controls by also adding additional grids between the wafer and the collection grid where DC voltage is supplied. This is how a vacuum tube works.

      • Agaricus

        Do’t forget tha Rossi modified a reactor very quickly. The solution you suggest sounds like a rebuild job. Perhaps Rossi’s modification was just to put a diode bridge across the plates or Tesla coil?

        • Axil Axil

          The diode bridge would mess up the input power waveform.

          All Rossi needed to do was put the wafer in a metal box that was connected to a wire. The DC current would flow down that wire into a load and then into the ground.

          • US_Citizen71

            You may have nailed it!

            Gherardo

            January 2nd, 2016 at 7:09 AM

            Dott.Rossi,
            1) is the e-cat X generating DC or AC ?
            2) What ranges of V-A per unit as is today?
            3) If is AC, is what is the frequency?
            4) is that frequency stable as needed to be on te grid?
            5) how do you gather the current ? Inside the vessel or outside?
            Thanks, happy new year, Gherardo

            Translate

            Andrea Rossi

            January 2nd, 2016 at 8:22 AM

            Gherardo:
            1- DC
            2- n.a.
            3- n.a.
            4- outside
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Would that mean that the supposed mechanism violates conservation of charge? Or is there an alternative explanation?

            • Axil Axil

              Like Holmlid, Rossi is producing mesons from the breakdown of protons and neutrons. This is a CPT violation.

              Google monopoles catalyze proton decay

          • Jonnyb

            Say we have a large static magnetic field, an alternating magnetic field would be easy to get useful voltages out of, just a coil within this alternating field. With a static magnetic field it is tricky, I was wondering if you could switch the field by electrically reversing a static coil, so in effect making it seem alternating even though it was static. This would be simple to do electronically. Anyone any ideas on how to generate efficient and usable voltages from a static magnetic field?

            • Agaricus

              Turn it on and off in a rapid cycle. Current induced into a coil would then be pulsed DC.

              • Jonnyb

                Yeh a possibility but stresses on e-cat maybe high, assuming you can switch it that fast.

              • Axil Axil

                The method that gathers the electric power must be passive and therefore cannot interfere with the input waveform that stimulates the LENR reaction.

                • Agaricus

                  I’m not saying that is the method used – I was just answering JonnyB’s question about how a fixed polarity field might generate current by induction. That said, it seems conceivable that the quantum level operation (phonon generation) of the wafer might be altered via the driver signal to produce a series of half waves of the same amplitude of a full sinusoidal cycle, which might generate a pulsating monopolar field.

                  There seems to no shortage of ‘speculation power’ here but we are desperately in need of more information I think.

              • Andreas Moraitis

                Someone on JoNP recently made a similar proposal, and Rossi considered it to be a „good idea“. Imagine you had a permanent magnet that you could switch on and off with negligible input: That would be a ‘disruptive’ invention in the best sense.

            • Jonnyb

              The only other idea I came up with that Andrea could have done fairly quickly was to have something between two of the units, each unit being a of different magnetic polarity, however not so neat. Also if heat or electricity makes you wonder if the heat is a function of the magnetic field heating up some ferrous material, hence one or the other or mixture of.

            • Axil Axil

              Like any permanent magnet, spin the X cat on an rotor.

              • Jonnyb

                Yeh a bit like the solution below, not neat. Switched polarity coil simple and neat with non polarised capacitor, couple of IGBTs for switching and some simple control electronics. Then improvements from then on, could be done in a few days.

              • Jonnyb

                The other obvious mechanical route is to have everything fixed on Ferromagnetic material as a magnetic loop then have a solenoid acting on a Ferromagnetic switch or some other kind of Ferromagnetic Switch (liquid ferrous?) completing and breaking the loop. This output from the coil in this circuit loop would need to be rectified as would have current flowing one way on making the circuit and the other on Breaking it. Not that neat but better than swinging the e-cat around and much more efficient.

          • artefact

            What would Rossi need to control the electricity flow for the control of the reaction? A transistor?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        But wouldn’t that require a vacuum? Electrons don’t fly far in air. Your proposal sounds the same as thermionic emission power source or perhaps I didn’t understand it. Is there a difference?

        • Axil Axil

          Yes, a vacuum is best. It would also keep the wafer hot maximizing electric production. Rossi could have detected power production in air but latter uses a vacuum to optimize power production.

          Background:
          The phenomenon was initially reported in 1873 by Frederick Guthrie in Britain. While doing work on charged objects, Guthrie discovered that a red-hot iron sphere with a negative charge would lose its charge (by somehow discharging it into air). He also found that this did not happen if the sphere had a positive charge. Other early contributors included Johann Wilhelm Hittorf (1869–1883),Eugen Goldstein (1885), and Julius Elster and Hans Friedrich Geitel (1882–1889).

          The effect was rediscovered by Thomas Edison on February 13, 1880, while trying to discover the reason for breakage of lamp filaments and uneven blackening (darkest near the positive terminal of the filament) of the bulbs in his incandescent lamps.

          Edison built several experimental lamp bulbs with an extra wire, metal plate, or foil inside the bulb that was separate from the filament and thus could serve as an electrode. He connected a galvanometer, a device used to measure current (the flow of charge), to the output of the extra metal electrode. If the foil was put at a negative potential relative to the filament, there was no measurable current between the filament and the foil. When the foil was raised to a positive potential relative to the filament, there could be a significant current between the filament through the vacuum to the foil if the filament was heated sufficiently (by its own external power source).

  • georgehants

    Wonderful to see all those on page aware that a new economic system is needed and the great benefits it could bring to the World combined with the hopefully promise of Cold Fusion.
    The next few years will be very interesting, to see how and if this progress will proceed or will everything just stay the same, a small group of rich and powerful people dictating our lives purely for their own benefit?
    Cold Fusion has shown that the media are completely under their control, will the Internet be next?
    Also much talk on page of how science education has for many years produced a mass of scientists, completely unable to accept anything new and against the prevailing Dogma.
    Maybe Cold Fusion will help to change that education system but I doubt it.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Remember George. The internet won’t be censored. It will be “managed”. After all, we wouldn’t want people to be misled by conspiracy theorists like that Isaac Newton guy. Would we?

      • Agaricus

        It already is. The number of disinformation sites has multiplied massively in recent times, as has the speed with which disinfo trolls hit comment sections where anything controversial is being discussed.

      • georgehants

        Alan, Peter, GreenWin the Facts are undeniable, now how can this deterioration of democracy be halted and reversed.
        Can it be halted or reversed, or is this Oligarchy that has over many years infiltrated and taken over all areas of life, become so powerful that it is permanently entrenched?

        • Agaricus

          For what it’s worth George, I think that the point of no return was reached decades ago, since when consolidation and extraction of wealth from the masses have been the main activities of the ‘elite’ kleptocracy (geopolitics, control of the media, geoengineering, population reduction etc. are just tools for them).

          I can only see two paths to some degree of liberation, either internecine war between internal factions of the power structure that destroys both (fought by proxy of course), or total worldwide economic meltdown resulting from the wiping of all computer data by a massive EMP event (the elites would have no record of their trillions, and so no more power than you or I).

          I’m not sure either would be much better than the current status quo, although this seems set to get a lot worse if the NWO people have their way.

          • georgehants

            All True Peter, sad that us old buggers have to go out knowing what our generation is leaving behind.
            The young seem, as with the cover-up of Cold Fusion etc. to have no motivation or awareness of the situation and just blindly take their place in the crowd applauding the masters.
            I have placed a link above on the sad news of the demise of one of the few caring Rebels.
            It is sensible to think of the possibility of a conspiracy regarding his death.

            • US_Citizen71

              Due to my work I have contact with members of Generation Y quite a bit, in my observation of them I think they are quite capable of thinking for themselves, probably as good as if not better than the radicals of the 1960’s. Our biggest failings of them is teaching them to read and write in a manner coherent with others outside their age group as well as how to do math without a calculator. Reading and writing cursive is beyond most of them which may limit their access and knowledge of historical documents.

              • georgehants

                Good so they are concerned with the censorship and threats to scientists, the media etc, on many subjects where they are forced to keep quite by threats to their jobs and by extension their children and family’s.
                It will be good to see them stand-up and start to change things.
                When do you think this will begin?

                • US_Citizen71

                  They already do! They tend to use tools of communication that we don’t use often, Twitter is waning with them and they view FaceBook as way keeping up with Mom and Grandma. Their are literally hundreds of social media sites and tools we just don’t use them like they do.

                • georgehants

                  Many thanks that certainly gives heart that all may not be lost, unless Facebook etc. becomes censored of course.

                • GreenWin

                  I have the good fortune to volunteer with Y gens. They tune me in to communication apps like SnapChat… I have a lotta faith in these kids.

        • Axil Axil

          The X Cat is not yet independent of the grid so it cannot be used as an instriment of social change. Poor people will be under the control of the people who control the grid. When the X Cat can run in standalone mode, then the poor will be independent of the Oligarchy.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            There are many other things besides the grid that make people dependent on each other and the government. Water, sewage, internet line, land where you live, roads, school, healthcare, ..

            On the other hand, I can’t imagine any technical reason why the E-cat X, accompanied by battery and inverter, couldn’t be run in standalone mode. This I say with the full confidence of a person who doesn’t understand how the machine works.

            • Axil Axil

              Rossi seems to think that a self powered X Cat is dangerous. He may have a point. Richard Feynman kill a person when the engine flue apart after he disabled the controls of the Papp engine which then exploded during a demo Feynman attended given by Jo Papp.

              • Andreas Moraitis

                Then a grid-powered reactor should be dangerous as well, due to the possibility of power outages. But Rossi just said it is not….(?)

              • Pekka Janhunen

                Maybe cutting E-cat’s electric power would be dangerous, perhaps or perhaps not, but I don’t see why a battery would be less reliable than the grid. I would in fact guess the opposite. Airplanes and launch vehicles rely on batteries, for example.

                • GreenWin

                  This raises question of how stable is an E-CatX in countries where grid power fluctuates significantly? Emergent nations suffer regular blackouts and poor peaking and frequency control of AC power. Battery DC and inversion correct that issue.

                • Pekka Janhunen

                  To be frank, I consider it likely that the device is not dangerous even if power is cut and that Rossi’s reluctance for off-grid is entirely business-political, like he admitted earlier (in I think Italian language interview in Zurich or Pordenone, I don’t recall which) for his phrase “all energy sources must be integrated”.

                • US_Citizen71

                  For off grid uses I think Dan C. on JONP probably has stated it best so far:

                  Dan C.

                  January 2nd, 2016 at 7:28 AM

                  Dear Andrea,

                  1. Many want an off the grid system.
                  2. They want it to meet all their energy needs “conveniently”.
                  3. And they want it to be very economical. Cheap???

                  Want #1 can be Achieved.
                  A standalone system for minimum safety would require 3 X-cat units, each with it’s own electronics, each linked to supply power to each other. A battery capacity to start just 1 X-cat is all that would be need as the 1 X-cat could provide the power to start the other 2 X-cat units. You have a mini micro-grid.

                  Want #3 is already in question because of the 3x factor in hardware cost.

                  Want #2 can be Achieved.
                  Each of the 3 X-cat’s being 10KWh each provides power even at peak periods.
                  Convenience however, has a cost. 90% of the time you do not need peak energy production. If the real value of the energy you are producing is 2 cents a kilowatt hour, and your discarding 90% of that, the kilowatt hours you’re making use of is costing you 20 cents each as you must include the cost of the energy you discard.

                  This situation could be alleviated by separating convenience from #2, but I don’t think most people would like waiting 10 or 20 minutes for the system to ramp up every time they want to turn on an appliance. And battery energy storage cost would result in a net zero savings. You’ve merely shifted the cost. Also, powering down 1 or 2 of the X-cats likely voids the minimum safety factor.

                  Want #3 can not be achieved in conjunction with Wants #1 and #2 at an individual residential scale. I’m sure someone will point out an exception, but in general it can’t be accomplished.

                  So, you can achieve #1 & #2 uneconomically, or you can achieve #2 and #3 if #3 includes connection to a localized micro-grid. Localized being a neighborhood or city micro-grid.

                  Happy New Year,
                  Dan C.

                • TomR

                  I agree with you, Pekka.

              • Agaricus

                If the loop back goes through a battery or other electrical discontinuity, surely that would be exactly the same as using external grid power.

        • Axil Axil

          I believe that LENR enables the control of the strong force. With that power, you can live anywhere you want behind an impenetrable shield. You can live inside the earth, or inside Jupiter’s core, or in a bubble inside the Sun or for the more adventurous, surf the shockwave of a supernova. LENR will provide the ultimate defensive weapon and a independent lifestyle. Such a shield will be developed before the end of this century.

          • georgehants

            Axil, Wonderful but I think most people would be happy living in an open, honest, fair democratic society, where all have equal access to the necessities and available luxuries etc.
            Your controlling force would be great for that 1 in a million asteroid strike that is NASA’s latest begging bowl for their entertainments fund, when they could not divert a body with a mass greater then about half an ounce.

          • Agaricus

            Like James Blish’s ‘spindizzy’ field in the flying cities sagas.

        • GreenWin

          Condolences to Ian’s family. George, as we have both studied spiritual masters you will understand some of my approach to the problem. That is, knowing what we don’t want – to focus on what we DO want.

          This is precisely what the Wright brothers did following their first flight. They were indefatigable in their pursuit of a better airframe, control surfaces, lighter, more efficient engines, and take-off assist mechanisms.

          This is essentially what Doc Rossi is doing. Staying focused on evolving the E-Cat. If we look at the quiet but significant activity in LENR since the 2011 E-Cat demos – we have reason for optimism. There is regular, growing development of Cold Fusion in major countries like India, China, Russia, Sweden, Italy, Japan. We have CF patents issued by the stodgy old Oligarchs at the USPTO – one even to the renegade leader of our most heinous ‘pseudoscience…’ Dottore Andrea Rossi.

          Faith and focus on the world you want my friend. You’re not done yet!

          • georgehants

            GreenWin always come in at the right time with the right words.
            Many thanks.

        • Agaricus

          Ian Murdock is a great loss. Linux operating systems had (have?) the potential to displace the spyware-filled Windows OS. I have some difficulties with the official version of the circumstances of his death. Perhaps these will become clearer with time.

  • LilyLover

    The street lamps have always been historically important, be it for the light, or for reclining upon and now the evolution of purpose of the street lamp seems befitting the spiritual maturation. The lamp has had dispelled the physical darkness, now it shall dispel the intellectual darkness. Every street could have beautiful colourful lighting and every mood and creativity can be pleasantly illuminated. Every home and every parking spot will have the electricity available from this very lamp-post. I guess, farming in the snowy-country greenhouse or warmth radiating walkways could lead to redefined sense of fashion in Alaska and Serbia.
    Good times ahead.
    Dear all, Happy New Year!!!

  • GreenWin

    On January 13, 1905 that paragon of consensus wisdom, Scientific American forever embarrassed itself with its fussy Yugoism titled: “The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance.” http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html

    A year later the magazine was forced to print an about-face.

  • Jonnyb

    Hopefully the drive for all these units will be from an E-Cat or did I miss that bit?