sbkrivit

LENR Path to Technology

May 032012
 

Following my post "LENR Science Versus Technology" on Tuesday, New Energy Times reader Ron Marshall asked an important follow-up question.

"I am puzzled about why you didn’t mention the Widom-Larsen theory," Marshall wrote. "If the theory is correct, then there is a clear path to technology."

I did not mention WLT because I was asked questions about the field in general, so my answers were about the field in general.

I have been writing favorably about WLT for half a decade now, and Larsen, in particular, seems to have a very clear understanding of how LENR works.

In 2007, as well as in 2012, I made extensive efforts to survey LENR theories. Larsen is the only one I found who can clearly and coherently explain what appears to be going on. WLT is also the only LENR theory that has favorable independent reviews.

LENR heavyweight Michael McKubre, an electrochemist at SRI International, said last year that his friend and colleague Peter Hagelstein, an MIT associate professor of electrical engineering, had the best LENR theory. From what I can tell, Hagelstein has hundreds of ideas but no theory. Despite his efforts, he has yet to come up with a simple explanation of the mechanics to explain LENR from start to finish.

On the other hand, if you look at the volume and depth of what Larsen has written and published through his Slideshare site, his grasp of LENR is obvious. He is probably the most likely person to be able to bring the science into a technology.

However, most of the the people in the field have done everything they can to impede the progress that Larsen has offered not only for his personal benefit but also for the field. Larsen’s idea was as disruptive as they come: "Cold fusion" is certainly nuclear, but it has almost nothing to do with fusion. At first, other people in the field tried to ignore his idea. Then they mocked it. Then they tried to discredit it. Then they tried to copy it.

John Fisher, an independent theorist who has proposed a non-fusion, neutron-based LENR explanation, wrote something profound four years ago. Although I do not have nearly as much confidence in Fisher’s theory as I do in WLT, I do think he had the integrity and wisdom to pinpoint the problem.

In 2008, Fisher wrote to New Energy Times.

“In my opinion, [LENR] has been crippled by wide acceptance of the belief that deuterium fusion of some sort is responsible for energy generation, and by rejection of alternative [proposed] mechanisms,” Fisher wrote. “Progress is stunted when we reject a mechanism, because we then fail to undertake the experiments it suggests.”

 

LENR Science Versus Technology

May 012012
 

People have recently asked me questions similar to this one:

“What is your current overall opinion of the reality of low-energy nuclear reactions and their prospects for commercially useful applications?”

My opinion of the reality of LENR has not wavered since 2003: It is important, it is real science and it could be a world-changing energy technology. But LENR has a long way to go before it is a practical technology. The science must be understood first, and, in general, it is not.

For 23 years, a variety of companies, most of them no longer in existence, have claimed to be very close to a practical technology.

If people are promoting a working technology, great. They should sell products. Otherwise, they are only attempting to lure investors or government bureaucrats to fund a technology they might develop into a practical reality. An example in the private sector: Blacklight Power. An example in the public sector: the entire thermonuclear fusion industry.

When I worked in the computer industry, we called perennially promised but undelivered products vaporware. We could use a similar term for that in the energy business.

Someone sent me another related question today:

“I have some contacts with a university that is investigating the possibility of being able to make experimental tests of various technologies in the context of low-energy nuclear reactions. They asked me to propose two or three technologies to work on. Do you have any other proposal in this regard?”

Until researchers learn how to control the LENR materials on an atomic level, using nanotechnology, and obtain access to the tools required to do so, spending time on poorly reproducible experiments in a search for excess heat will be ineffective.

Reproducible experiments include the co-deposition experiment developed by the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego and the transmutation experiments developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.  A well- equipped university laboratory can get started with the SPAWAR experiment for less than $1,000. The Mitsubishi experiment costs a few million.

Effective searches to gain scientific knowledge and understanding of LENR include searches for elemental transmutations, isotopic anomalies, surface anomalies and particle detection.

Rossi’s Steam Trick: Lewan Knew

Mar 292012
 

Mats Lewan

Mats Lewan, the technology journalist with Ny Teknik who was by far the biggest promoter of Andrea Rossi and his Energy Catalyzer, knew that the water Rossi fed into the E-Cat didn’t produce the extraordinary amount of steam it should have if Rossi’s claim was valid. Lewan also had a good idea about where the rest of the water went. He reported neither of these concerns to his readers.

According to Rossi’s claim, the E-Cat should have produced 11,200 liters of steam per hour. Steam should have blasted out through the black hose at 60 to 100 miles per hour. It didn’t even come close. Lewan has a master’s degree in engineering physics; he should have known how much steam to expect.

Article continues here

European Financial Editor Says No to Energy Catalyzer

Mar 272012
 

Dear Editor,

I run Macrotrends, a financial newsletter that’s doing quite well here in Belgium and the Netherlands, and I am always curious about the next big thing.

I discovered the story about Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalzyer about a year ago, and I thought this might just be the thing for the energy sector. I wrote a small article about it in August 2011, and I promised to give an update after the E-Cat tests that were to be announced in late October 2011. The tests weren’t convincing so I waited, all the while following the information published on ecatnews.com and some other sources.

Then, finally, last month I decided to do a follow-up because there seemed to have been some important developments: claims of the involvement of NASA, SIEMENS, National Instruments, production of the units, the Defkalion story, etc. It all made me very excited about the E-Cat.

Article continues here

 Older Entries  Newer Entries
© 2025 newenergytimes.net