The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: 2.5 Million Watt-hours from a Nickel?

Thomas Blakeslee
March 31, 2011  |  40 Comments

All existing nuclear plants, and the planned $13 billion ITER hot fusion project, are based on the "atoms for peace" idea of adapting military bomb technology to civilian use. The tens of billions in research dollars that have been spent have clouded the judgment of leaders in the nuclear science community causing irrational denial of the work being done at low energy levels.

The disasters in Japan prove that these grandiose attempts to generate power from bomb technology are misguided.

The scientists that perform peer reviews and make up government advisory panels are all recipients of government largess. As a result, promising low energy nuclear work has been driven underground and forced to create its own journals and finance its own research.

Now, from Italy, comes the stunning news that Low Energy Nuclear Reactors (LENR) are, suddenly, a practical reality consistently generating significant power.

Focardi and Rossi recently had a public demonstration of a desktop-sized reactor that produces 11 kW of net power for extended periods of time. Both the fuel and residues are clean and free of radioactivity. The fuel is nickel powder and a tiny amount of hydrogen. A gram of nickel generates 2000 kilowatt-hours in this prototype.

On January 14, 2011 a public demonstration was held at the University of Bologna with about 50 attendees.

The U.S. press totally ignored this momentous event. It had been burned before by the “cold fusion” announcement in Utah an 1998. What most people don’t know is that the declaration that cold fusion was “junk science” was really “junk criticism,” encouraged by powerful interests. Much like the “climate skepticism” of today.

You may not have heard that the Fleischman-Pons experiment has been replicated thousands of times by many researchers and that Fleischman has greatly increased the power output in a lab supported by Toyota. In fact, in 2009, DARPA issued an analysis report reversing their previous negative position on cold fusion. Engineering has trumped science. We now know how to make low energy reactions generate power, but there are still many mysteries in the explanation.

I was originally very skeptical when I read this report on the demonstration. But, when I searched back in the literature, I found that Dr. Focardi has been publishing strong results with nickel-hydrogen fusion since 1994. A 1996 paper reported two cells that ran 300 days producing 250 and 167 kilowatt-hours of excess heat.

Andrea Rossi is an inventor and businessman who hired Dr. Focardi in 2007 as a consultant. He has been financing the entire development with his own money.

Rossi's design uses a nickel powder with catalysts instead of nickel sheets. It is therefore capable of producing much more power. In 2010 they jointly published a paper that reported six different experiments with durations of up to 52 days. The longest experiment used 19 kWh of energy input to produce 3768 kWh of output energy. Output/input power ratios as high as 415 were obtained but, in the interest of safety and stability, the device demonstrated on January 14th runs at a power gain ratio of only 15.

The blue box used in the demonstration is now being mass-produced in Florida for delivery to a Greek licensee in October 2011. One hundred such units will be connected in series/parallel arrangement to make a one-megawatt demonstration power plant. These are being produced at Rossi's expense under an agreement that the Greek customer, Defkalion, pays only if performance specifications are met.

Rossi is betting his own money on success and therefore has no incentive to mislead anyone to raise money.

Rossi has been very responsive to critics, answering questions freely on blogs. When skeptics suggested fraud, he even allowed a physicist at the University of Bologna to modify the test setup and examine the insides of the reactor. He reran the demo for 18 hours with a non-boiling output measurement setup. The 18 kW power output obtained for 18 hours neutralized the skeptics, who had suspected a hidden battery.

The University of Bologna is a top university with graduates like Copurnicus, Marconi and Galvani.

Of course, this all seems too good to be true because, if they really deliver, we will be on a path towards virtually free energy. While this will be a blessing to mankind, it is terrible news to many rich and powerful interests. To understand what I mean, please listen to this fascinating interview about the academic-government complex with Eugene Mallove, the PhD MIT graduate who blew the whistle on data manipulation in the MIT failure to replicate cold fusion. He can also be seen on this 60 Minutes show and this BBC show about cold fusion. 

Be prepared for a bloody battle as the vested interests fight to keep their lock on the federal funds, expert committees and journals. This may be the “black swan” event we have been waiting for that will rescue us from disaster and significantly change our world into a cleaner, safer place.

You can keep posted on new developments on this blog.

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

40 Comments

Register To Comment
Brad Arnold
Brad Arnold
June 4, 2011
When my wife and I visited Alaska, the tour guide described how the early explorers died from a vitamin deficiency, when they could have saved themselves by simply eating a local plant that proliferated in the area. If only the explorers had known.

Today, we have a similar situation. (Partial formula) Ni + H (heated under pressure) = Cu + lots of heat!! Unbelievable, but here we have been oxidizing carbon fuel for energy and polluting our air with carbon dioxide big time when all along nickel could be used in a low energy nuclear reaction.

To summarize, through history we've labeled different periods in history according to the metal that shapes it. Iron Age, Bronze Age, Steel Age, and now the Nickel Age is dawning. This will provide us the clean and cheap power to routinely escape the Earth's gravity well, and furthermore, to save the Earth's environment by allowing us to curb our carbon emissions.
Thomas Blakeslee
Thomas Blakeslee
May 31, 2011
Upali Your body also contains a natural radioactive isotope of potassium that is continually producing radiation as it decays. Here is a reference:
"The source of these gammas is K-40 which has a half-life of 1.26 billion years, and is the main source of radioactivity inside the body...
"There are 1.2 radioactive atoms of 40K for every 10,000 nonradioactive atoms of potassium. There is of the order of 140 g of potassium in an adult who weighs 70 kg, and 0.0169 g consists of the 40K isotope. This amount of 40K disintegrates at the rate of 266,000 atoms per minute. Of every 100 disintegrations, 89 result in the release of beta particles with maximum energy of 1.33 MeV, and 11 result in gamma photons with an energy of 1.46 MeV. All of the beta particles and about 50 percent of the gamma rays are absorbed in the body, giving annual doses of 16 mrad from the beta particles and 2 mrad from the gamma rays." 1 So about 14,600/min of the 1.46 MeV gammas exit the whole body, in all directions."
http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k16940&pageid=icb.page102829&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent270775&state=maximize&view=view.do&viewParam_name=indepth.html#a_icb_pagecontent270775
Upali Wickramasinghe
Upali Wickramasinghe
May 29, 2011
Mr.Blakeslee. This is off the current discussion, however it is based on your publication :Fuel Free.
I refer to page 12- "3: Nuclear Power Safe and easy way"
In the 5th paragraph you say " Geothermal power plants cleanly and safely harness the nuclear power of Uranium, Thorium and Potassium in the ground by using the heat they produce by natural decay...."

I am perplexed by your reference to potassium. Can you please clear that statement for me.

Upali Wickramasinghe
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 17, 2011
Well, sounds like we shouldn't have long to wait to see whether it all lives up to the expectations---or non expectations.

If nothing else comes of it all, it has been very interesting reading for me anyway.

Thanks for posting this Tom.
Thomas Blakeslee
Thomas Blakeslee
May 17, 2011
Here is an important late news flash. A solid company has signed to manufacture the E-Cat in America
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece
Paul Panza
Paul Panza
May 2, 2011
My concern over this form of electric generation has to do with whether it will have off grid decentralized uses or just be another form of commercial utility. With dirty nuclear the claims were made that it would be to cheap to meter. Also given the rate of the global spread of radioactive fallout from the Japanese accident this may will be a mute discovery. Who will be alive to enjoy the benefits? The nuclear fuel cycle has already done its damage.
ANONYMOUS
April 26, 2011
My lectures and radio talk on cold fusion are linked below.

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html


Frank Znidarsic
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
April 26, 2011
---------" On January 31st, 2011, Rossi wrote: "The cost to produce the catalyzer is 1 cent per MWh generated; the life expectancy is 20 years; the cost impact is between 1 and 1.5 cents per MWh."----------

He'd better stay well hidden. There is way too much money at stake for this to be a success.
Gary W Scott
Gary W Scott
April 26, 2011
By October we may refocused from just Sustainable Energy to replacing dirty energy asap.
If you want a starting point to learn more about Rossi's Energy Catalyzer, try this link:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator
fran roarty
fran roarty
April 10, 2011
Google translation of Focardi interview [ states]

There are no neutrons. Questa è una fortuna, perché essendo un fenomeno nucleare uno se li aspetta. This is fortunate, because it is a nuclear phenomenon if one is waiting for them. Per fortuna non ci sono perché il nucleo del nickel è una ?buca abbastanza profonda?; se fosse meno profonda cisarebbero anche i neutroni, perché negli esperimenti di Siena una volta abbiamo trovato i neutroni e li abbiamo misurati; ma erano materiali diversi dal nickel. Fortunately, there are the core of nickel because it is a "hole deep enough" if it was shallower there would also neutrons, because the
experiments of Siena once we found the neutron and we have measured, but were different materials from nickel . Insomma: l'esperimento è nickel più idrogeno; si tratta di cose molto semplici... In short, the experiment is
more nickel hydrogen, it is very simple things ... [/states]

--- When he says "hole deep enough" and "if it was shallower there would also neutrons"?is Focardi supporting the relativistic hydrogen model suggested by Naudts?
could a relativistic atom or molecule reduce the columb barrier? if the nucleus is displaced as shown http://www.garrityhvac.com/gwell.gif would the radiation coming from the nuclei be screened or translated to a lower frequency?
fran roarty
fran roarty
April 10, 2011
Still waiting for a human translation but it seems clear Focardi is saying
the resultant copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!

Google translation of Focardi radio interview on Apr 5
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&e
otf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fil-profe
ssor-focardi-spiega-la-fusione.html

[snip] So we have produced energy, we have produced copper. Copper has two isotopes, the ratio of these two isotopes is not in the natural
concentration, so there is no copper added, the product we have in this way.
So we have produced energy, we have produced copper.[/snip]
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
April 9, 2011
Neanderthal man could not have explained the empirical process of hydrocarbon combustion.

But that did not stop them from having grilled mammoth steaks and warming their backsides next to a wood fire.
Upali Wickramasinghe
Upali Wickramasinghe
April 9, 2011
Mr. T. Blakeslee,This is becoming more and more interesting.

With my rusted up knowledge of Chemistry, I studied / taught it last over 40 years ago I was under the impression that Uranium and Thorium were the base and Plutonium the end product.

I have a further question, can other metals in the series as Nickel be used as a base to produce nuclear energy?

I have been associated with the ethanol industry in various capacities in the production field since 1967.

I have nearly completed a study ( spent over eight years).

Conclusions are:
(i) Hydrous ethanol can be supplied at nearly 10% of the price of petrol ( gasoline) or E85 at the pump.- your prices
(ii) Hydrous ethanol can be used in place of Petrol or E85 with similar performance in start up and acceleration. This is based on published research.
(iii) Industrial scale trials have indicated that cost of distillation can be reduced by nearly 50% by structural alteration to the refinery.
(iv) Item (i) can be achieved by dedicated plantations with four types plants in the plantation.
(v) Such a dedicated plantation will self sufficient in water ( or nearly self sufficient) energy and agro inputs.

The hitch is that the plantations will be in the tropics and subtropics.In other words the center shifts to California from the Corn belt.
Robin van Spaandonk
Robin van Spaandonk
April 9, 2011
Indeed, if it is true that nickel has transmuted into copper.
However the severe lack of gamma rays would argue against that. Furthermore the lack of change in isotopic ratio in *both* the copper and the nickel also apparently argues against it.
However it doesn't make a great deal of difference, as either reaction means a new and essentially inexhaustible supply of clean energy.
Gary W Scott
Gary W Scott
April 9, 2011
to rvanspaa,
Whether Hydrino reaction exists or not is a red herring. If its true that nickel has transmuted to copper, then by definition a nuclear reaction has occurred. The missing gamma rays just makes the nuclear reaction a lot more interesting (and safer).
Robin van Spaandonk
Robin van Spaandonk
April 8, 2011
Thomas wrote:

"They reported: "Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.""

It isn't quite true that a nuclear reaction is the only alternative. The Hydrino formation process of Randell Mills MD is essentially chemical (though a completely new type of chemistry), and is more than capable of having supplied the measured energy output. Furthermore it depends upon Hydrogen atoms which are clearly present when Hydrogen gas is associated with Nickel powder.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
April 8, 2011
If you eliminate the impossible, all that is left is the truth, no matter how implausible.-------Sherlock Holmes(Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle)
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
April 8, 2011
Swedish Skeptics Society? Is Glenn Beck a member?
Thomas Blakeslee
Thomas Blakeslee
April 8, 2011
Here is some late-breaking news! Two Swedish scientists, one is chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and the other is chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' Energy Committee just reported on a demonstration of another, much smaller, reactor. They reported: "Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production."
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
April 8, 2011
I really like the link to the infinite-energy website by the MIT graduate, Eugene Malove provides in Thomas Blakeslee's article here.
This quote from that link puts into perspective the hot-fusion vs. cold fusion competition:

'Tantalizing as the prospect of infinite energy from the oceans
was, the hot fusion program had never generated even a single
watt of excess power in its huge plasma reactors, which cost
hundreds of millions of dollars per year to support. Success—
"break-even" or "more energy out than in"—with magnetically-
confined hot plasma fusion always seemed to be twenty
years away. This led to the perennial joke that hot fusion is "the
energy source of the future. . .and always will be."'

Thus, even if Fleischman and Pons were (and are) wrong (hell, even if they had committed fraud - not very likely!!), the fact that hot fusion has yet to produce ANY excess energy despite the largess of the European and US gov't massive financial support should give a thinking person pause. In addition, I've seen quotes in places like Scientific American by the scientists working on the hot fusion project in Europe who admit that any positive results from it are probably at best decades away.
Gary W Scott
Gary W Scott
April 7, 2011
I'm ready to rip the bandages off the cold-fusion scars and run through the streets n a k e d shouting "The energy crisis is over!". I hope I'm not over reacting this time.

After a 1000 years of alchemy, is it true that we can really transmute one element into another using only chemistry and some heat? My scientific mind says "probably not this time either" but the rest of me says "I hope so".

Actually , they had me at the discovery of copper where nickel used to be. Waiting for an independent verification. Someone else building a similar apparatus and getting Ni and H to become copper.

In the next few months, all discussions of energy may be divided into pre-NiH and post-NiH.
Thomas Blakeslee
Thomas Blakeslee
April 6, 2011
Thorium would have been a great choice 20 years ago but it doesn't produce plutonium for bombs. That was a very important advantage when today's nuclear plants were designed. They were, in fact, designed as plutonium factories for bomb production and later adapted into power plants.
The problem is that it will take till 2030 before they are ready. That is one big reason why the grandiose gigawatt power plants are a mistake. The other is disaster potential!
Rossi's design is modular and safe. It can be distributed to where the waste heat can be used in a combined heat and power system. Size can be determined by how many modules you use.
In the short term, old coal and gas plants can be retrofitted.
Robin van Spaandonk
Robin van Spaandonk
April 5, 2011
While Thorium reactors are preferable to conventional fission reactors, they still produce a plethora of radioactive daughter products such as Iodine and Cesium. The Rossi reactor is far superior in this regard. Nevertheless Thorium reactors might be a reasonable backup if this technology doesn't pan out.
Douglas Prince
Douglas Prince
April 5, 2011
I'd like to know why all talk has stopped in the last 6 months concerning Thorium reactors. The positives far outweigh the negatives and the theory has been proven, to my knowledge.
I even understand current and soon-to-be-decommissioned nuke facilities can be converted to thorium plants.
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
April 5, 2011
It is ridiculous that people are going to such extremes to discount (almost as a foregone conclusion) this possible boon when there has been so little effort by them either to confirm - or deny - its validity in a truly concrete way.

But on the other hand, it is not unusual that possible new discoveries or inventions have nearly always faced such extreme skepticism. Nor is it necessarily always a bad thing, even when the new discovery/invention turns out to be precisely the thing its inventor(s)/discoverer claimed it was originally.

Nonetheless, one would think that at least the more intelligent in the academic world would at least take a more "empirical" or "let's lets wait and see" attitude before coming to such negative conclusions.

It all comes back to the question, "Does humanity ever remember and learn from the past?" If it had learned, I think we'd be living in a much better world!
Brian Rosebrugh
Brian Rosebrugh
April 4, 2011
It matters not what anyone thinks about this method of generating power.
It only matters that they are commercially successful in generating a clean new energy source.
I am all for that.
I wish them every success.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
April 2, 2011
Well Tom---obviously you've done your research. I don't know exactly what to think of all this.

However, I will say that it all seems VERY reminiscent of the feud between Thomas Edison and Nikolai Tesla.

I think we should taste the cake, and then argue about the recipe.
Jim Williams
Jim Williams
April 2, 2011
The Nickle consumes, but the Hydrogen releases. The total reaction would be exothermic.
Tim Schroeder
Tim Schroeder
April 2, 2011
Changing Ni to Cu should be an endothermic reaction becuase the Ni nucleus has a lower binding energy. I think that it is far more likely that they are observing a chemical reaction. I don't really believe a paper that contains only energy blance graphs and no mass spectrometry analyses of thier reaction products.
Daniele Passerini
Daniele Passerini
April 2, 2011
Thanks Dr Blakeslee for your good article on this important issue (that has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media).
I want just stress that:
1) in this case they are not searching funds, because the inventor, Andrea Rossi, has put his money on the stakes;
2) the indipendent examination has been made by a University and also by customers;
3) right now, more and more, respected and esteemed scientists are taking seriously the invention of Rossi;
4) in october they will start up in Athens a 1 MW plant (ready for market): you cannot make a 1 MW plant, sell it to a customer that pays you only after successful testing and have a fake product: this should be a way to destroy yourself;
5) Rossi and Focardi published one year ago a scientific hypothesis of how the process works, now the experimental work is refining the theory, and Rossi has announced that the definite structure of the theory - which explains what happens inside the E-Cat - will be published at the presentation of the 1 MW plant (should be normal in science to make a theory based on experimental work - it is called Galilean method - but today it's almost a news!);
6) the inventors made a press conference after 1 year of publication, after 2 years of patent application, after indipendent tests, as correctly you say it has to be done;
7) the next press conference will be after the start up of the 1 MW plant: then I am very curious to know what critics and skeptics will have to say again...

Kind regards
Robin van Spaandonk
Robin van Spaandonk
April 1, 2011
Actually, two of the current devices in series probably could be used in a vehicle. The high pressure steam would drive a turbine/generator that would keep the batteries of an electric vehicle topped up. An adaptation of the Toyota Prius might work.
The devices weigh 30-50 kg each, which is not too much for a car.
Thomas Blakeslee
Thomas Blakeslee
April 1, 2011
Upali The spent fuel has no radioactivity. Some of the nickel fuel gets changed to copper and even zinc but lots of it ends up as other isotopes of nickel. The radiation during operation produces heat in the lead shielding but no radiation is left a short time after the unit is shut down. The decay during operation involves antineutrinos and other little-understood particles. Someday they will figure it out completely but, in the meantime, we can use it. We don't know how gravity and permanent magnets work atomically either but we go on using them.
It will be a long time before this technology is understood well enough to be used in cars. The nickel has to warmed up to about 400 degrees C using a heating resistor before the reaction can occur, so the best use now is running continuously in a power station with technicians in control. Be patient!
Upali Wickramasinghe
Upali Wickramasinghe
April 1, 2011
Dear Mr.Thomas Blakeslee If Nickel can be used to generate nuclear energy,will the spent fuel have the same problems as Uranium or Plutonium.
Secondly, what about powering vehicles with with nuclear energy other than with Uranium.
I eagerly await your reply.
Frank Znidarsic Website Contact
Frank Znidarsic Website Contact
April 1, 2011
My lecture on cold fusion at the University of Maryland USA in March of 2011 enjoy.

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html

Frank Znidarsic
Jim Williams
Jim Williams
April 1, 2011
Science depends upon reproducibility, not explanation. Explanations are only niceties which may lead to further discovery. Explanations are never even correct. I have not heard that the E-cat has yet been independently reproduced, but many other experiments in the field have been.

If Rossi delivers by October then the issue will be settled.
marcel pilatte
marcel pilatte
April 1, 2011
In your comment, you write :
question : do you known a plausible theory for gravitation???
NASA will be happy to known tnat theory
ANONYMOUS
March 31, 2011
The cold fusion crowd attends conferences and submits (with little success) papers to journals. What they don't actually do is offer any credible evidence or a remotely plausible explanation for how their claims could possibly be true--after 20+ years of study. The notion that they have--and are trying to keep--secrets is inconsistent with their actions and apparent cluelessness. If you hint publicly that a device causes fusion because you detect emission of copper atoms but cannot explain your detection mechanism or specify which isotope was observed, it suggests you are either clueless or interested in attracting clueless investors. The usual order of events for serious scientists is to patent (optionally), publish, and only then hold press conferences or other media events. Other "professions" follow different conventions....

Steven
William Fitch
William Fitch
March 31, 2011
Hi:

Interesting article...
Stephen writes of "independent" verification.
When the threat to profit and stakes are so high, as in a discovery of this nature, any organization or corporation of any size is really not independent. If they are big enough to be recognized, then they are big enough to bribe and threaten.
No matter who brings out the data and no matter how true, it will immediately be attacked and media discarded. This is just how the world works as we have created it. You stand a much better chance of success if you can "get it out" and disperse it, before you are even on anyone's radar.
Oh and BTW, its not conspiracy theory its simply business....
I wish the persons involved the best of luck...

.....Bill
Brian DeVito
Brian DeVito
March 31, 2011
Countless experiments have produced phenomena that was unexplainable by current theory, but led to very valuable and innovative technologies.

To understand and measure what takes place inside an atom that is unimaginably small and moving at unimaginable speeds must be kinda hard, eh?

Nobody will let him patten his invention, so why would he explain every technical aspect that he has developed over the past 15 years? He is making a commercial product, if it works, we are all going to be scrambling to pick up our jaws and catch the bandwagon.
ANONYMOUS
March 31, 2011
Tom writes: "What most people don't know is that the declaration that cold fusion was "junk science" was really "junk criticism", driven by powerful interests."

If an experimentalist cannot provide a plausible theory for a measurement and the measurement cannot be independently verified skepticism won't just come from "powerful interests". 20 years after the initial reports of cold fusion and after considerable research funding, we are still being treated to media spectacles rather than solid evidence independently verified. If the only evidence of a "black swan" is bird poo I'd say anyone who isn't a skeptic isn't rational.
Steven

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Thomas Blakeslee

Thomas Blakeslee

Thomas R Blakeslee’s books have been published in nine different languages. After serving for three years in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree from CalTech in Pasadena, California in 1962. After working for IT&T in Antwerp, Belgium, he...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Create a free account and start adding your blogs.

Create an Account

Most Commented

  • 32
    The Finnish Hydrogen Roadmap: Hydrogen to Join Electricity in Ending Traffic Pollution
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 12
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?
  • 10
    No Easy Fix for Broken Wind Turbine at US High School

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
  • Renewables Academy AG (RENAC)
  • Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative
  • AltE
  • Enecsys
  • HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C.
  • Intersolar
  • Karbone
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information