Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why is there no Main Stream Media reporting the Rossi/Focardi E-Cat

page: 1
294
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+172 more 
posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Rossi/Focardi E-Cat has been documented before on ATS, below are some and even more to find in search...
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread651819/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread654717/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread654717/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread654993/pg1

Rossi/Focardi on February 10 and 11, 2011, at University of Bologna performed another test of the E-Cat device for 18 hours, putting to rest all the claims that have been put forth to dismiss this new energy source. Celani and others criticized phase-change calorimeters as too complicated so Rossi used a higher flow rate to keep the cooling water from vaporizing. Then there were critical about the enthalpy of wet steam versus dry steam, and the use of a relative humidity meter to determine how dry the steam was. These issues can now be put to rest.
Lenr-Canr.org has an excellent .pdf below, only 5 pages long and highlights what is known and needed to be known.

www.lenr-canr.org...

I would like to focus on now what question and where is MSM….

PESN did an article about the implications of this new technology and what is needed to start it.

pesn.com...



Basically, if this technology works as it is claimed to, and as recent testing by outside scientists indicates, it is a game-changing technology. It is revolutionary in the highest sense of that word Never before has there been a technology that could instantly address such a huge problem. The solution for the energy crisis could be here -- cheap, simple, and non-polluting.


Global Uses of Cold Fusion

What would this mean to the world? Well, it could potentially solve lots of problems and open up many new possibilities.

First of all, the energy crisis (once enough of these reactors were built and utilized) would be over. Energy would be cheap and clean. We would never run out of fuel. The fuels would be found everywhere so no nation would have an advantage over another. Over a period of time we could phase out fossil fuels all together. Oil could be saved to be used to produce fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, and plastics instead of being burnt.

Secondly, our environment could get a boost. Greenhouse gas emissions could go down significantly. Also, with less exhaust coming from power plants there would be a higher air quality in many areas. If we can get this technology into the poor areas of the world perhaps it could help prevent deforestation. With an unlimited source of energy, water desalinization would become much cheaper. Instead of using freshwater reserves for irrigation and industrial purposes, sea water could be used.

Third, there are many industries that could benefit from a source of cheap energy. For example, the recycling industry uses a huge amount of energy. If energy was "free" these industries could expand. Perhaps landfills could be dug up and the metals recycled. This would reduce the amount of land needed for mining.


My point is that this machine is as important as discovering fire to primitive man, an easy way to produce energy in your back yard so to speak, why are they not rockstar, King of the World types and on Oprah every day?


I have seen many MSM quick 1-2 minute reports on Rossi/Focardi E-Cat with always a question at the end of the report- is this real or just a ponzi scheme, then, even a longer report on something mundane like the celebrity of the week or a dog that can bark “I love you”. What I do not see is the Main Stream Media INFORMING the public. I understand media has changed in the last 20 years from reporting and informing to entertainment and commercials for products.

I do not accept that they can overlook this discovery since even our government says it’s possible.
I do not accept the blackout is due to conspiracy because that would mean every single news outlet is in on it.

Really we have to assume what is going on in the background since we do not see that side of the news world. I know assuming makes an ass out of you and me but how else are we to determine who is the man behind the curtain.

Fox News uses the word “Dubious” below:

www.foxnews.com...

Then all the 2nd tier news sources use the same line and bingo, no news…..
I even can find places like Zero Hedge at least writing an article on it. Then on the fifth page of Google it becomes apparent that only fringe websites are carrying this, why?

As PESN cited, the people who would gain from this the most:

Everyone not invested in oil producing companies and countries.

Who loses the most?

Oil producing countries and companies

Top 10 Oil producing companies in the world:
1. Royal Dutch Shell
2. BP
3. Gazprom
4. ExxonMobil
5. Petrobras
6. Total
7. PetroChina
8. Chevron
9. ENI
10. ConocoPhillips
11. Sinopec

www.arabianoilandgas.com...

Top 10 Oil producing countries in the world:
1. Saudi Arabia
2. Russia
3. United States
4. Iran
5. China
6. Canada
7. Mexico
8. United Arab Emirates
9. Kuwait
10. Venezuela

factoidz.com...

I know some say “Media” was burned back in the Pons/Fleischmann announcement but really that means no one can report on any LENR process again, or something more sinister?

Top 6 News Outlets United States:
1. Time Warner
2. Walt Disney
3. Viacom
4. News Corp
5. CBS Corp
6. NBC Universal
7. I would list more but the top 6 buy out the others

www.prisonplanet.com...

Top advertising budgets for US companies:
1. Procter & Gamble
2. Verizon Communication
3. AT&T
4. General Motors
5. Pfizer
6. Johnson & Johnson
7. Walt Disney
8. Time Warner
9. L’ Oreal
10. Kraft Foods

blog.kissmetrics.com...

Correct me if I am wrong but I cannot connect any of these dots, even though this article below supports my idea that the more you spend on advertising the more money you make theoretically. It is funny to see the top two news outlets are in the top ten of advertising. I knew of all the pharmacy companies doing the most advertising but this article is about how banks financially do when they spend advertising money.

adage.com...

Through this entire event, why is the news, here in Mexico and United States not picking up on this discovery, and I do not mean science journals and peer reviewer, I mean MSM.

Please help connect the dots on this one, because there is a reason for this to not be news but please what can it be if we cannot conclude the easy one, oil companies and countries putting the pinch on news?




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Flag this thread.

Do it now.

S+F



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CapnCaveman
Flag this thread.

Do it now.

S+F
I have followed your orders.

I also gave a star, I hope that was permissible.

Seriously, I hope that this is real, but I feel even if it is real, we will never see the benefit of it.

That makes me sad.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
You ask in the title why this isn't being reported..I believe the answer is simple. free energy means no more stranglehold by the oil companies. People will push for the conversion to free energy, the elite lose in a big way. Keep it quiet, keep ripping you off.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by StripedBandit
 


StripedBandit,

I thought the same thing at first, that is why I even looked at it. I started to follow the money and the media is totally in bed with different companies, it looks more like "take this pill, watch this tv show, eat this processed food, and buy this new phone" advertising dollars.

I am looking into what the few media moguls are supporting or talking about, interested in, whatever. This line of reasoning would support a theory along the lines of them ripping us off as you say, the likes of these folks below from wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...:American_mass_media_owners



A
 Barbara Cox Anthony
B
 Cy Bahakel
 Frank Batten
 Barry Bingham, Sr.
 Robert Worth Bingham
 Michael Bloomberg
 Edgar Bronfman, Jr.
C
 Anne Cox Chambers
 James M. Cox
 Ronald E. Crider
D
 Barry Diller
E
 Charlie Ergen
G
 Edward Gaylord
 Katharine Graham
H
 Haim Saban
 George Randolph Hearst, Jr.
H cont.
 Randolph Apperson Hearst
 William Randolph Hearst
 Walter E. Hussman, Jr.
K
 James C. Kennedy
 John Kluge
L
 Gerald M. Levin
 Henry Luce
M
 James B. McClatchy
 Red McCombs
 John C. Malone
 Rupert Murdoch
N
 Donald Newhouse
 Samuel Irving Newhouse, Jr.
 Samuel Irving Newhouse, Sr.
 James A. Noe
P
 Clyde E. Palmer
 Jay Penske
 Jerry Perenchio
 Livia Simpson Poffenbarger
 Generoso Pope, Jr.
R
 Shari Redstone
 Sumner Redstone
 Donald W. Reynolds
 Bernard J. Ridder
 James E. Rogers
S
 David Sarnoff
 Charles Scripps
 Oscar S. Stauffer
T
 Laurence Tisch
W
 Oprah Winfrey
 Charles Woods




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by coolhanddan
 



Awesome post, S&F for you.......

Like a previous poster, I believe, if this is true, and truly workable, we will never see it in our lifetimes, and that is so sad........................But, you never know enough people find out how it works, and just maybe it will see production, one can only hope...............Good work!!

Parker



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by coolhanddan
 


I saw the Fox News article. It completely peeved me that they had the audacity to use the world "dubious" in parenthesis in the article title. As if to insert a snarky comment full of obvious bias. The article then went on to denigrate them and use innuendo toward the varacity of their claims.

It is interesting you posted this thread. I have never been interested in cold fusion, though you would think I would being an environmentalist. But I suppose I was conditioned to see it as nonsense (even though I had no clue what made it nonsense, if it was!!). I JUST started looking into cold fusion just about an hour ago. Like I said, your timing is impeccable. What I did find interesting is that there is a "movement" of sorts in which they are calling out the government and the US Patent office as being part of what they have dubbed HeavyWaterGate". Cute, ain't it?

The reasons for a media black out are obvious. Not to mention that the Union strikes and Middle Eastern uprising are taking up everyone's attention. Amazing how EVERY single time there is a life changing news item going on, something "more important" hogs up all the attention.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Interesting video that you may find of value.

Sadly, it seems that "they" will do their best to suppress this revolutionary technology at any cost and once again use nefarious schemes discredit these great visionaries.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I'm going to remain sceptic on this mainly because of what I've been reading on physics forums and other rational areas of communication.

I also don't buy the "TPTB" argument, because while it would be great for the oil companies to continue profiting off their product, they would enjoy just as much to profit more off something that they bought out the patent of. Also, does the West really want to keep giving money to Saudis so they can continue buying five shades of Bentleys for their thousands of relatives? I personally don't think so.

Reading material.
Here and Here



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
A completely separate train of thought I had on this is: regarding the scientists I know, most of them have never cared about money. And it is actually quite hard to find many who make a decent wage in the first decade of their work, unless they are working on major projects or have a serious innovation under their belt which they got at being in the right place at right time.

That being said, I think the pride and renown from something like this would be equal to the monetary value for most scientists. As long as they maintained credit for their work, I don't see why they wouldn't release the plans for it to the scientific community. At least wait to make announcements until after the patent is out so you can have it reviewed. But sadly, because this didn't happen it smells like a scam.

If I am wrong I will gladly offer myself an idiot moniker.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
not to derail your thread but somewhat on-topic. I was watching that fat english/austrailian guy on fox during the peak of the ME uprisings.... well anyway, when somebody said it was gonna drive oil prices up, I swear his grin went ear to ear right there. you could see a happy shareholder for sure in his face, meanwhile not a word in regard to all the dead people.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
The true reason that free energy is suppressed is because of the intimate link between money and energy. Money is just an accounting of energy expended - e.g., a farmer in the "old" days was not paid for his vegetables. He was paid for his energy to till the land (free initially), plant the seed (free, initially), harvest the growth (free), and haul to market (free but for the energy).

If They allow free energy to be available to us, money would become effectively infinite - and this has no social application. They would lose Their control over us. We would have autonomous control over self. We would be free.

So the solution to ridding ourselves of the PTB is to obtain widespread free energy.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   


If They allow free energy to be available to us, money would become effectively infinite - and this has no social application. They would lose Their control over us. We would have autonomous control over self. We would be free.


This thought does not meld well with reality.

For example: Innovation in robotics and technology. There are millions of jobs that never existed 100 years ago. There are an equal amount that were made obsolete. The world still spun in circles.

To add: Look where lots of money is, say finance. What is financial industry? Nothing tangible. What is insurance? Nothing tangible. But both are an example of a mega-industry.

To conclude: The point is, is that free energy could be available but it could be easily turned into a bureaucratic nightmare with regulation and Legalese. Look at how many ridiculous things there are to pay for in this world that shouldn't really cost anything. EX. Canada pays up the wazoo for internet. Companies charge dollars for overused GB of data that cost 15 cents to transmit.

Case rested.

I don't buy that there are "free energy" systems out there. Not yet anyway.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

This thought does not meld well with reality.

For example: Innovation in robotics and technology. There are millions of jobs that never existed 100 years ago. There are an equal amount that were made obsolete. The world still spun in circles.


Yes... But all you describe has happened in energy scarcity. In a finite energy system. I am unsure why you see what I suggest will happen with an influx of effectively infinite energy is related to jobs... Jobs are a different animal than money.


To add: Look where lots of money is, say finance. What is financial industry? Nothing tangible. What is insurance? Nothing tangible. But both are an example of a mega-industry.


And only can exist in a scarcity paradigm. In a world of finite usable energy. These areas of endeavor will no longer exists after free energy is widespread.


To conclude: The point is, is that free energy could be available but it could be easily turned into a bureaucratic nightmare with regulation and Legalese. Look at how many ridiculous things there are to pay for in this world that shouldn't really cost anything. EX. Canada pays up the wazoo for internet. Companies charge dollars for overused GB of data that cost 15 cents to transmit.


Only if it is not available to the masses. And nothing will cost anything once free energy is widespread. Please read my thread here for a deeper understanding:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I don't buy that there are "free energy" systems out there. Not yet anyway.


Oh, they're out there, I assure you. Rather than type out my knowledge of the existence of electrogravitics in black ops, I offer you another of my threads to read:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you may understand why I am certain.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


It's late but I will give your links a read.

I don't expect I will comment on them tonight though.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


[smile] No rush. I do look forward to your comments.

Sleep well.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I did a quick once over. I saw you referencing clean nuclear energy in one of your threads. I'm sorry but that sums it up for me right there. I don't think I can continue this debate.

Clean nukes = free energy = not a reality.

The Tsar was supposedly a rather 'clean' nuke and the pilots that dropped the payload died of radiation.

And if you factor in mining methods of nuke material than no matter how 'clean' the end result is, you still lose.

With just a quick look through of your material I can see you are running some ideological crusade and that's not my kind of thing. Each to their own.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





And only can exist in a scarcity paradigm. In a world of finite usable energy. These areas of endeavor will no longer exists after free energy is widespread.


I guarantee people felt this way about other innovations. If you can find some old "letters to the editor" books from old newspapers you will get some pretty wild theories back in the day.

Some how telephones were going to destroy the world, some on how people shouldn't say blasphemous things in the smoking car on the train, I remember reading one that said if girls keep wearing unfastened galoshes that the moral fibre of society would deteriorate so bad that we would go extinct within a few generations.

But maybe that is what's happening. Damn, it was all the galoshes fault.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I did a quick once over. I saw you referencing clean nuclear energy in one of your threads. I'm sorry but that sums it up for me right there. I don't think I can continue this debate.

Clean nukes = free energy = not a reality.


Wha??? I doubt I brought up any nukes as a solution - though I may have discussed them with someone who thought they were a solution.

Electrogravitics is more on the mark.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





And only can exist in a scarcity paradigm. In a world of finite usable energy. These areas of endeavor will no longer exists after free energy is widespread.


I guarantee people felt this way about other innovations. If you can find some old "letters to the editor" books from old newspapers you will get some pretty wild theories back in the day.

Some how telephones were going to destroy the world, some on how people shouldn't say blasphemous things in the smoking car on the train, I remember reading one that said if girls keep wearing unfastened galoshes that the moral fibre of society would deteriorate so bad that we would go extinct within a few generations.

But maybe that is what's happening. Damn, it was all the galoshes fault.


I'm guessing you're missing something here. You're talking about technology, inventions that use energy. I'm talking energy production itself. Vast difference in expectations between the two.





new topics

top topics



 
294
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join