sbkrivit

Rossi’s Responses to “Preliminary Report”

Jun 192011
 

Source: Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Energy Blog
Thread: JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS CONFERENCE

Craig
June 16th, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Dear Mr Rossi,

Can you respond to the recent assertions by Steven B Krivit that the method in which the steam may have been measured previously is potentially giving incorrect measurements of the power capability of the e-cat.

Krivit says in his blog post, “I discussed the crucial difference in steam enthalpy calculations by mass versus by volume with Levi on Wednesday afternoon. Based on his initial response, I could not be sure if he had previously understood the potential impact.”

I am hoping you can assure us that his concerns are invalid.

Best regards,
Craig

*************
Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2011 at 4:38 AM
Dear Craig:

Mr Krivit has understood nothing of what he saw, from what I have read in his ridiculous report… This guy has seen for half an hour an E-Cat in the factory where we make many tests, made some questions to Prof. Levi, Prof. Focardi and me. Evidently has understood nothing, perhaps for the short time we gave him, also because we have to work: maybe he is angry because we had to send him away from the closed boxes and because we had to say him good bye shortly because we have to make our work. Prof. Levi has explained very well to him how the measures have been made and the importance of the issue. He has explained very well that the percentage of uncondensed water in the steam has been measured in weight (in volume is impossible, for various reasons), and he also got confirmation of this from a specialist from whom he has taken indipendent counsel. Nevertheless, he has understood nothing, or wanted not to understand, for reasons he better knows.

Our tests have been performed by Physics Professors, who know how to make measures , and I am measuring the performance every day on 300 reactors.

In any case we will start our 1 MW plant in october and we will see how it works. Of course I assure his considerations are invalid, but I want to say more: our products on the market will confirm this. Probably this journalist has been sent by someone that wants to dwarf our work. He also tried to blackmail prof. Levi, and Levi already has given to his attorney due information .

Warm Regards,
A.R.

*************
Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2011 at 4:54 AM
Dear Roger Barker:
Please read the answer I gave to Craig:
AGAIN : WE MADE THE MEASUREMENT OF THE WATER IN WEIGHT !!!!!!
AND WE EXPLAINED THIS TO KRIVIT VERY WELL!!!!! AND HE GOT CONFIRMATION OF THIS FROM AN INDIPENDENT PROFESSOR HE CONTACTED !!!!! NOBODY MAKES THIS KIND OF MEASUREMENT IN VOLUME, BECAUSE IT IS A NONSENSE !!!!! KRIVIT SAID ” I HAVE UNDERSTOOD” WHEN I TOLD THIS DURING THE INTERVIEW.

I HAVE MANY WITNESSES OF WHAT ABOVE ENCLOSED THE PROF. HE CONTACTED TO GET INDIPENDENT COUNSEL !!!!! BUT HE REPORTED THAT WE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM: WE. PHYSICS PROFESSORS OF CERN, UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, UNIVERSITY OF UPPSALA, UNIVARSITY OF STOCKOLM, WHO MADE THE TESTS!!!!! AND HE COMES HERE TO TESCH TO US PHYSICS!!!!!!

HE CAME TO US SMILING, VERY FRIENDLY, ACCEPTED TO BE INVITED TO GET LUNCH, ACCEPTED TAXI REMBOURSEMENT, MADE FAIR QUESTIONS, GOT PRECISE ANSWERS, AND NOW HE WRITES TOTALLY FALSE THINGS:
THIS IS A SNAKE, NOT A JOURNALIST, AND I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO KNOW WHO SENT HIM (I HAVE A PRETTY IDEA, THOUGH, SINCE HE UNADVERTEDLY GAVE US A CLUE).

Warm Regards,
A.R.

*************
maryyugo
June 17th, 2011 at 1:08 PM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

I can understand your upset. But you could put the whole issue of testing to rest by allowing just one E-cat to be given to University of Upsala or any other major research center. They could test it as a “black box” using whatever method they thought best but protecting its secrets. An important part of the test would be that they have full control of both the input power and the output power measurement methods and that they provide the electrical power and water coolant. The test should be done in their lab (not yours). They should use only liquid water eliminating issues about what portion of the steam was dry vapor and what portion was liquid. If you could allow this independent testing, it would make it impossible for anyone to claim that the tests already done are in error.
Best regards,
M. Y.

*************
Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2011 at 3:10 PM
Dear Maryyugo:

We have already made enough public tests, either heating the water ( please go to read all our reports and papers on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, or making steam. In this last case we always made the measurement of unvaporized water residue giving the result in mass. Our tests have been made with Professors of Physics working with the Universities of Bologna, Uppsala, Stockolm, with CERN, with INFN, andI think that only an imbecile can think that such Persons are not able to weight water in steam. We are receiving suggestions how to measure the water in steam, and this is like teach to a cat how to miew. By the way: the steam from the reactors which we are testing now, and that will compound the 1 MW plant, is dry.

The steam during the interview of the clown of yesterday was totally dry. Of course, should be this not true, our Customers will be very angry: in that case, that will be an opinion which will be very important for us, while the opinion of our competitors and of their friends, for obvious reasons, have not much importance for us, if any.

Now I have to make my 1 MW plant, then we will make other 1 MW plants for our Customers. That’s all we will do. Our Customers tests are the sole tests that count, for us. Therefore, I have absolutely not time for competitors anxious to test my Cat to make their “validation”.

About the work that we will make with the University of Bologna and Uppsala, this will not be a public demo, but a work of Research and Development, made closed doors.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

*************
Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Dear Dave Stone:
1- I do not care of minutiae.
2- Yes, the operation without energy input is possible, we make it many times during stress tests, but is dangerous. We guarantee anyway to our Customers an output of energy 6 times the input.
3- In October we will start up a 1 MW plant and our Customer will be the sole validator we will care of.

Warm Regards,
A.R.
*************

Dan
June 17th, 2011 at 8:12 PM

If you have confidence in your invention. Then you should remember that you will go down in history and your every word will be recorded for posterity. Being skeptical is pretty understandable but I’m sure everyone is praying your findings are correct even those who challenge you.

*************

Roger Barker
June 17th, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Dear Andrea Rossi,
I can understand why you are angry but please try to understand our position as well. Yes, you are right, in October when you do reveal your 1MW reactor all skeptics can go f..k themselves. However till that day comes people will question the E-CAT. Why? Because it just sounds to good to be true.

So please forgive me for asking the question regarding Krivit. I saw it in his blog and simply decided to ask you about it.

If you truly have the answer to all the worlds energy problems then I wish you all the success in the world.

Regards
Roger Barker Phd

*************
Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Dear Roger Barker:

I am not angry, I just was disappointed that, after we published repeatedly that we made the measure of steam indicating the percentage of water residue in the steam IN MASS, Mr Steve Krivit wrote that we measured it in volume, which not only is a stupidity, but is the contrary of what we explained to him. Also he, who lacks of elementary bases in Physics, has not to offend (and blackmail) a Prof. of Physics of the University of Bologna. Like the rat who teaches to the cat how to miew.

Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

*************
Rossi Responds to Scrutiny of his Claims » E-Cat World
June 18th, 2011 at 1:31 AM

[…] Asked on his website about Krivit’s report, Rossi has had strong words. He believes that they have indeed thoroughly reported on the water-in-steam issue and that Krivit has been unfair in his reporting and questioning.

In the larger picture, Rossi reiterates that he is not interested in getting into any validation in the public arena: “Now I have to make my 1 MW plant, then we will make other 1 MW plants for our Customers. That’s all we will do. Our Customers tests are the sole tests that count, for us. Therefore, I have absolutely not time for
competitors anxious to test my Cat to make their “validation”. Tweet […]

*************

Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 2011 at 4:02 AM
“Rossi Responds to Scrutiny of his Claims”:
The content of water in steam is always measured in mass, not in volume, because psychrometers work is based on the heat necessary to the evaporation ow residual water, and the heat is given in Joule/g, wherein g means grams. Krivit is not convinced only because has not the elementary knowledge of the physics involved.

He had all the necessary explications from us, just did not (or wanted not) to understand. By the way: in a statement he released further, he said that while Prof. Levi told him there was a report about this issue, I said in the interview that there was not a report about this issue. This is a translation problem: with the term “report”
I mean an extensive paper, while Prof. Levi referred to the simple communication that we received from the specialist who made the measurement, in which there were just the results. This is a misunderstanding, not a contradiction.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

*************

Frank A. DiBianca
June 18th, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Dear Ing Rossi,

In my opinion, your power generator is the most interesting device I have ever heard of.  I wish you every success in the future.

However, there seems to be a continuing debate over whether or not the eCAT actually works, so I have been thinking about the possibility of a simple and indisputable test that overcomes all your concerns such as runaway reactions, etc.
As I understand it, there are two basic issues:

1) There are input power and output power, and people continue to argue if output is truly greater than input for a sufficiently long time to preclude the possibility of hidden stored energy (batteries, etc.). This issue would be irrevelevant if the input power were zero and the output power were any significant, positive amount.

2) Since the device apparently produces much more energy than it consumes, it is not difficult to provide the necessary ignition heating from the device itself rather than from an external power source. However, this can be dangerous since there is then no easy control of the input power, and the device may (and has been observed to) go into a runaway condition.

So, here is my suggestion. You operate two eCATs together (maybe this can be done with just one device, but two seem to allow more separation of input and output). Each device is connected to an electrical generator (steam turbine, thermoelectric cell, etc.). Some of the electricity from each electrical generator is fed back to the heating resistor of the OTHER device. Hence, you now have full control over the input power, exactly as you do in the normal eCAT, however, there is NO outside power source. So, you can now channel the remaining electricity from the two generators to power an electric motor, boil water, whatever you wish. Could such electrical regeneration actually be used in your commercial power station?

In summary, a well-controlled machine with no input power could produce observable output powere for many months. Hence, the energy must be coming from the Nickel-Hydrogen (presumably nuclear) reaction. To answer the few remaining skeptics who might assert that energy is secretly being pumped in electromagnetically (microwaves, etc.), that should be easy to rule out by letting them monitor emag radiation,
or apply electromagnetic shielding, or simply show that such emag power would be unrealistic, etc. As I said, maybe you could do this with one eCAT instead of two.
Have I overlooked something in making this suggestion?

I wish you and your colleagues the best success.
Frank DiBianca (bioengineer and particle physicist)

*************

Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 2011 at 3:25 PM
Dear Frank Di Bianca:

People that really understands our work and knows it and our Customers have no doubt that my reactors work pretty well.

About all the others, honestly, I do not care too much, they are either competitors, sometimes disguised as Research Laboratories anxious to validate, fake journalists sent by the same, or just honest sceptic who are not important for our market. Our universal credibility will come from our working plants that we will sell to our
Customers. I leave to others, more supplied of free time, the burden to chatter of LENR, I have to make them, and I have not time to confront chatters.For example, we had recently a “fake” journalist here who wrote stupidities about the water in the steam: very good, my 300 reactors actually under stress tests are making
steam without water, I mean perfectly dry steam, and they will go in operation not in my factory, but in the factory of our Customer: once my Customer has dry steam produced by a 1 MW plant do you think that the stupidities of a snake are worth something? In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my
Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really , really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That’s enough.

Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank A. D

*************
Andrea Rossi
June 19th, 2011 at 4:12 AM

Dear Italo A. Albanese:
Thank you for your insight: as you know, I cannot give information about what happens inside the reactor.
To work without a drive is very dangerous, anyway, in my lab I am making with a reactor 14 kWh/h without energu input, but, again it is very dangerous. When I make this I have to be alone on the reactor, even if on the 14th of june in Bologna I did this for about 1 hour at the presence of Dr Bianchini, of the University of Bologna, asking him to check the radiations outside the reactor: the Gieger I always work with had an increase of emission, but it turned out that we were inside the acceptable limits. Bu it is out of question that I can accept to use the reactors this way in public or for the Customers. To be safe, totally safe, we must have a drive and we must not exceed the factor of 6 (I mean producing 6 rimes the energy consumed by the drive). Which is what we guarantee to our Customers.

Warm Regards,
A.R.
*************

Source: Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Energy Blog
Thread: Patent WO/2009/125444

Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Dear Paolo:

The 1 MW plant which we will start up in Greece in October will generate heat. For power we are not yet ready, but we made a very important step forward in this week, because our reactors now produce a totally dry steam (no more traces of water in the steam) and this is a step forward to couple the turbines. We have 300 reactors in operation now in our factory, and we are making exponential progress day by day.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

*************

Source: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497&cpage=8#comment-47160
Thread: A detailed Qualitative Approach to the Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions of H/Ni

Andrea Rossi
June 19th, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Dear Staffan:
Your comment opens the space to an intriguing consideration. Many Scientists have taken the correct approach: wait for the 1 MW plant in operation, then make due considerations. This is what smart People did.
About pseudo-Scientists and their reaction to my Effect: probably you have read of the “Snake” report after an interview he made in Bologna. Now, as probably most of you have understood, we have very good , (VERY GOOD), intelligence working with us; after the “snake” (disguised as a journalist) who has this week penetrated our organization and made a report based on a fake steam diagram, we asked to our intellicence organization to probe what was behind, and we discovered that:
1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the “snake” from an Italian competitor that is afraid to lose the funds due to the fact that the taxpayers are tired to give him money while we have reached results without any funding
2- this Italian clown has been given the fake diagram fro an American Laboratory, competing with us, which gave it to him for the same reason
3- the snake has been sent to us to try to dwarf us to allow them to get funding
All this is very funny. The names and the particulars of this paper tigers will be explained from me as an anecdote after the start up of the 1 MW plant in Greece: after the start up, after the explication of the theory, this will be the dessert. Something to laugh with.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

*************

Preliminary Report of Interviews with E-Cat Trio Rossi, Focardi and Levi

Jun 162011
 

Click here to return to the Andrea Rossi Index

Bologna, Italia — Here is a quick status report of my visit to Andrea Rossi’s showroom on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday to look at his invention which he calls the Energy Catalyzer.

In addition to Rossi, I also came to speak with Sergio Focardi, professor emeritus from the University of Bologna, and Giuseppe Levi, a current member of the University of Bologna department of physics. All three have been actively involved in the experiments and promotion of the E-Cat.

I arrived at the address Dell’Elettricista 6-C, Zona Industriale Roveri on Tuesday at noon. 6-C is one of the suites in a single story building that houses a variety of light industrial companies. The name shown for suite 6-C is Filli Rossi Pneumatica, which translates to Rossi Brothers Tires.

In March, Swedish professors Hanno Essen and Sven Kullander, who came to see the E-Cat, wrote in their travel report that this was a “Leonardo Corporation” building, but there was nothing visible to indicate that.

The large bay door of suite 6-C was open and I saw lots of equipment and a few men inside working. I asked a man for Andrea Rossi and he brought me back outside and around to the back of the building.

I entered a large room, approximately 7,500 square feet in size. Nothing was installed in it and electrical power came into the room from an extension cable. Except for a few dozen folding chairs, a few tables, and a small portable coffee machine (essential in Italy,) the room was barren.

Adjacent to this large room were two smaller rooms. One was a bathroom and next to that, in a room about 80 square feet in size, Rossi’s E-Cat sat on a small table. Two large tanks of hydrogen stood next to it.

I observed and filmed the E-Cat in operation though there was not that much to see. I also recorded several hours of videotaped interviews of Rossi, Focardi and Levi. Details of my investigation, travel report and production of my videos will take a few weeks to complete.

The primary validity of the E-Cat trio’s dramatic energy claim is highly contingent on and derived from the heat output which they calculate indirectly from a claimed full or near-full vaporization of 100-degree water to steam. Complete vaporization of 100-degree water into steam requires the complete absence of suspended water droplets in steam.

The water droplets suspended in the steam may be measured on a volumetric, or possibly, on a mass basis. The difference is crucial, because a measurement by mass has a linear effect on the output enthalpy, and a measurement by volume has more of an exponential effect.

Volumetrically, a mere five percent of water in steam reduces the vaporization enthalpy to a trivial level. Even one percent of water in the steam will make a major reduction in the Rossi-Focardi-Levi claims.

My full report will include a detailed assessment of their methodology, and, as much as they will provide, their data.

The steam and/or water that comes immediately out of the E-Cat is hidden from sight because the outlet from the E-Cat goes directly to a three-meter black rubber hose, which then feeds into a drain in the plumbing system.

On my request Tuesday, Rossi removed the hose from the drain. Before doing so, he carefully lifted the last meter of the hose above the height of the drain, allowed the water in it to flow down the drain for a few seconds, and then removed the hose from the drain, keeping the open end pointed up. I could see some white steam slowly exiting from the hose. He said he had to put it back in the drain quickly, after a few seconds, otherwise it could be dangerous.

Thus far, the scientific details provided by the E-Cat trio have been highly deficient and have not enabled the public to make an objective evaluation. The Essen-Kullander report, while written with confident-sounding language, has significant weakness in its presentation of data and calculations and is highly constrained by the methodology dictated and instrumentation provided by the E-Cat trio.

I discussed the crucial difference in steam enthalpy calculations by mass versus by volume with Levi on Wednesday afternoon. Based on his initial response, I could not be sure if he had previously understood the potential impact.

By the end of our conversation, after I showed him my calculations which displayed one to two orders of magnitude less enthalpy if the measurements had been made volumetrically, he assured me that the measurements had been measured by mass.

I requested and strongly encouraged him to be absolutely sure, and if necessary, get back to me in a week with a correction to his Jan. 21 report. I also asked him if he would be willing to provide me with a copy of Galantini’s steam humidity report from the Jan. 14 experiment by next Wednesday. Levi agreed to my request.

On Wednesday afternoon, I also spoke with Simona Storchi, an officer in the University of Bologna press office and informed her of the general nature of my question about the group’s claim. Storchi also helped arrange a meeting for me Wednesday afternoon with a professor at the university who is an expert on steam.

Levi’s Jan. 21 report stated that Galantini used a device to check that the steam was “completely dry,” however, Levi did not say if, in fact, that Galantini measured completely dry steam. Levi also did not provide clear details about Galantini’s method.

The Essen/Kullander April 3 report of the March 29 E-Cat experiment does provide some details about how the steam was measured for its liquid content. I am in the process of evaluating this information to assess if it reflects a mass or volumetric basis for the measurements. If any readers believe that the given information provides clarity on the method used during the Essen/Kullander experiment, please send me an e-mail right away.

The uncertainty about vaporization enthalpy would be moot if the experiments were run with a higher flow rate to keep the output temperature below boiling. Levi apparently did this on Feb. 10-11 and he provided information about his final results to reporter Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik.

Levi has not however, provided Lewan, or anybody for that matter, any information about his data. On Wednesday, I asked Levi for this data, for the second time. This time, he agreed. Levi promised to send me either raw or formatted data from the Feb. 10-11 experiment by next Wednesday.

After I completed my interviews, Rossi left and I packed up my gear and waited outside for my ride. Before I left, two men came over from suite 6-C and took the coffee machine away.

Solving the Mystery of the Energy Catalyzer

Jun 142011
 

Several months ago Andrea Rossi, inventor of the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) agreed to grant me an interview and to show me his invention. He agreed to show the E-Cat to me in operation, to take video footage of it and interview him on camera.

I am now in Milan and will be in Bologna in a few hours. Today I am to see the E-Cat, interview Rossi’s collaborator Sergio Focardi, professor emeritus from the University of Bologna department of physics. Giuseppe Levi, a researcher with the University of Bologna department of physics, who has claimed to be the first outside investigator to confirm the E-Cat, has also agreed to an interview. Tomorrow I will interview Rossi.

NASA’s Bushnell: LENR Most Promising Energy Alternative, and It’s Not Fusion

Jun 012011
 

(Italian Translation)

Source: EV World
EV World Podcast
Broadcast Date: April 23, 2011
Interview of: Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley
Host: J. William Moore
Transcribed by: Steven B. Krivit

[Partial Transcript of Podcast, Excerpts on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions]

[This transcript is Copyleft 2011 New Energy Times. Permission is granted to reproduce this text as long as the text, this notice and the publication information are included in their entirety and no changes are made to this text.]

J. William Moore: I’d like to [look at] some of the [energy alternatives] that you think look most promising from your perspective.

Dennis Bushnell: The most interesting, and promising, at this point, in the farther term, but maybe not so far, is low-energy nuclear reactions. This has come out of [22] years of people producing energy but not knowing what it is — and we think we have a theory on it. It’s producing beta decay and heat without radiation. The research on this is very promising and it alone, if it comes to pass, would literally solve both [the] climate and energy [problems.]

MOORE: I find it extremely exciting that there might be something here, so what is it that you think is going on at the atomic level here?

BUSHNELL: Let me back up a little. [Stanley] Pons and [Martin] Fleischmann came out with an experiment that they labeled “cold fusion” about 22 years ago which had replication issues at the time. Also, all of the fusion theorists came out and said absolutely “This is not fusion.” And, of course, they were exactly correct, this is not fusion.

They’ve gone through 20 years of massive experimentation worldwide, in almost every country, where they’ve been able to produce this effect. But all of the energy produced by these “cold fusion” experiments over the last 22 years didn’t produce enough heat to boil water for tea. So people didn’t get too interested in it and nobody knew what it was.

Back in 2005, 2006, [Allen] Widom [and Lewis] Larsen came out with a theory that said, no it’s not “cold fusion,” it’s weak interactions using the Standard Model of quantum mechanics, only the weak interaction part. It says that if you set up one of the cells, and you don’t have to use deuterium, hydrogen works fine, nickel works fine and you don’t need palladium.

If you set this up you produce an electron – proton connection producing ultra-weak neutrons and if you have the right targets out there you produce beta-decay which produces heat.

At that point, in 2006, 2007 we became interested and started setting up a set of experiments that we’re just about ready to start finally, where we’re trying to experimentally validate this Widom-Larsen theory to find out whether or not it explains what’s going on. And in the process, we used quantum theory to optimize the particular surface morphologies to do this.

Then, as you mentioned, in January of this year [Andrea] Rossi, backed by [Sergio] Focardi, who had been working on this for many years, and in fact doing some of the best work worldwide, came out and did a demonstration first in January, they re-did it in February, re-did it in March, where for days they had one of these cells, a small cell, producing in the 10 to 15 kW range which is far more than enough to boil water for tea. And they say this is weak interaction, it’s not fusion.

So I think were almost over the “We don’t understanding it” problem. I think we’re almost over the “This doesn’t produce anything useful” problem. And so I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now. And if it does, this is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geopolitics of solving quite a bit of [the] energy [problem.]

MOORE: I think this was either last week or the week before last, I ran a story on this. I went and took a look at it – they were using hydrogen and nickel, I believe, using hydrogen gas and putting that into this device. In looking at the video and photographs, it looks to be about the size of a fist and that thing was running from about 10:45 in the morning till about 4:30 when they finally turned it off — and generating, I forget exactly what it was — but it was a significant amount of energy in the form of steam.

BUSHNELL: It produces heat and did so for days and was in the 12 or 14 kW range and they [will be] producing, with a large number of these devices, a 1 MW power plant.

MOORE: That’s a pretty exciting thing. Do you think that this theory that was developed — are these NASA scientists that were working on that theory?

BUSHNELL: No, the theory was developed by Widom and Larsen. Widom is a faculty member and teacher at Northeastern and Larsen has a company in Chicago.

MOORE: So that looks promising and so you can take and generate steam, and of course, that’s what a nuclear reactor or coal-fired power plant is all about. They’re just there to produce steam and turn a turbine and produce power.

BUSHNELL: Once you’ve got heat, you can do everything. We looked at using LENR to power a space-access rocket and it had better performance conceptually than a conventional nuclear thermal rocket.

MOORE: Wow! Exciting.

Recommended Reading: Distinction Between LENR and “Cold Fusion”

“On the Reality of LENR and the Mythology of Cold Fusion”
New Energy Times, March 10, 2010
“On the Reality of LENR and the Mythology of Cold Fusion” (Video)
New Energy Times, March 10, 2010
“On the Reality of LENR and the Mythology of Cold Fusion” (PDF)
New Energy Times, March 10, 2010
“Cold Fusion is Neither” 
New Energy Times #35, July 30, 2010
“Cold Fusion Versus LENR: Competing Ideologies”
New Energy Times #36, January 31, 2011

Krivit, S.B., “Development of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Research,” Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia, Steven B. Krivit, Editor-in-Chief, Jay H. Lehr, Series Editor, John Wiley & Sons, 978-0-470-89439-2 (Aug. 2011)

Krivit, S.B, “Cold Fusion – Precursor to Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions,” Elsevier Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, Vol. 2, Juergen Garche, Chris Dyer, Patrick Moseley, Zempachi Ogumi, David Rand and Bruno Scrosati, eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier; Dec. 2009. p. 255–270, ISBN 9780444520937

Recommended Reading: Widom-Larsen Theory of LENRs

“Widom-Larsen Theory Simplified”
New Energy Times #35, July 30, 2010
The Widom-Larsen Theory Portal

Zawodny, Joseph. M. and Krivit, S.B., “Widom-Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENR,” Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia, Steven B. Krivit, Editor-in-Chief, Jay H. Lehr, Series Editor, John Wiley & Sons, 978-0-470-89439-2 (Aug. 2011)

Speculative Renderings of Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer

May 242011
 

Giacomo Guidi originally published an article in Italian, on the 22 Passi blog, depicting speculative renderings of Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catlayzer on May 9, 2011 and later in a revised publication on May 15, 2011. Guidi and Alex Passi have translated the text and his drawings into English. New Energy Times has edited and expanded the new English version.

Click here to go to the article

 Older Entries  Newer Entries
© 2025 newenergytimes.net