It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
294
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FalselyFlagged
 


These guys claimed he produced 100KW in ten hours and the articles elsewhere say "Rossi's cold fusion reactor achieves 15 kW for 18 hours"
1


Not sure if this was the same test as in the articles.


The two guys in the video look nervous and they outright say that they don't think Rossi is a fraud. That isn't a good sign. Their body language is horrible also. Not to mention the video looks like marketing more than anything.




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Truth is your a curmudgeon whose mind is made up before you read anything. You have never debated any of the science. There is nothing wrong with hope. And while their are many scam artists in every sector that doesn't mean you don't read things with an open mind. You stated earlier you were on the fence. I haven't seen anything you stated that shows that. Only absolute cinicism. Which is the opposite of people who believe blindly.

The links I gave you are from accredited inventions by universities and dept of energy.

Asking for donations is something every single lab does. Every university, hospital, and start up business (through venture capital). It in itself is in no way a sign of anything unless MIT is a scam. They ask my dad as an alumni every year for money.

Your a curmudgeon and choose to not debate science. Your comment on the aviso motor having 131 percent efficiency is just wrong. It means its running past what is listed on the system at 100 percent.

Rossi has a deal with the Greek government.

We are not talking about magnet motors here but inventions the science community is taking interest in.

The hydroxy links I gave have been proven and approved by government agencies.

People like you don't help the debate by arguing just to argue or because of preconceived ideas.

The two seemed nervous? They are scientists not actors. It would be more telling if they hammed it up.

Oh and ZPE or zero point energy was developed by Einstein so I guess he is a quack too?

edit on 5-3-2011 by Movescamp because: Ps



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
This would certainly give a boost in the arm to improve the worlds economy. Doesn't CNN have a place on their website where you can submit an article that you feel should be reported on the news? I would be curious if they would run with this. It's worth a try.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by boncho
 


Truth is your a curmudgeon


Did you just learn that word? You use it quite often.




The links I gave you are from accredited inventions by universities and dept of energy.


I did not get any links that were from credible sources. I don't see any peer reviewed studies on the types of claims you are making. If you look at half the places you have linked me to and actually do some research on them there is a familiar theme. Fraud.




Every university, hospital, and start up business (through venture capital). It in itself is in no way a sign of anything unless MIT is a scam. They ask my dad as an alumni every year for money.


There is a major difference. The more I look into these places that offer 'free energy' the more I find fund-raising schemes. Fraud is a major business. Don't compare legitimate fund-raising to the illegitimate.




Your a curmudgeon and choose to not debate science. Your comment on the aviso motor having 131 percent efficiency is just wrong. It means its running past what is listed on the system at 100 percent.


That's because there is no science. Look, these people making these ridiculous claims are not making scientic claims. A majority of links are press releases. Rossi developed his own science journal. *fraud*

Anyone could do this. I'm tempted myself to do this (to see how much money I good bilk out of people like you). And the fact that he doesn't even know how his process works speaks volumes because when investors try to get their money back he can claim that neither he nor they knew what the hell was going on in the first place.

Seriously, take this argument to Physicsforums, there are people with real backgrounds in physics and they will laugh you off the forum with these crackpot claims you are making. The worst part is that it seems like you believe 100% of this 'free energy' garbage. While in reality 1% may have actual scientific application but no real scientist would make any bold statement about it because the science is not proven yet.




Rossi has a deal with the Greek government.


Yes, the mighty Greek government who are doing so well these days. That is not proof. This isn't even good justification, Airports, Police Agencies and Schools get scammed by the QuadroTracker. LMAO, now that was a good one!





We are not talking about magnet motors here but inventions the science community is taking interest in.


Taking interest in and proclaiming something are two different things.




The hydroxy links I gave have been proven and approved by government agencies.



Where? Link me to a peer reviewed journal. Link me to something credible. I don't think you realise how easy it is to fake certain things, and make it look credible. Because that is what is tied in to all these types of products.




People like you don't help the debate by arguing just to argue or because of preconceived ideas.


I didn't have preconceived ideas when I started looking into this. It all changed when I noticed the rampant fraud associated with it.




The two seemed nervous? They are scientists not actors. It would be more telling if they hammed it up.


They actually say "we don't think Rossi is a fraud" RED FLAG. And this is a media release, ADVERTISING. There are no blind studies being done on his process.




Oh and ZPE or zero point energy was developed by Einstein so I guess he is a quack too?


This is an asinine comment. Einstein and Otto Stern never claimed to harness unlimited energy off their theory. Einstein worked with theories, he didn't sell magic wands that have unlimited energy supplies. Holy crap, does putting the word science on something legitimize anything to you?
edit on 5-3-2011 by boncho because: + info



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
And please stop dragging Einstein's name through the mud. Zero Point Energy was a theory that helps explain certain things in quantum mechanics.

....the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; the energy of its ground state. All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state and have an associated zero-point energy, a consequence of their wave-like interaction....

The ZPE theory does not even allow for the energy described to be harnessed. Meaning that if you do harness some miraculous energy, it will not be Zero-Point Energy. So you will have to create your own theory and your own name for it. Good luck.

Like I said, real science, misrepresented.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Hydroxy masters thesis reply to post by boncho
 


The specifics of the compliance testing are as follows:  The SIC-POM meets or exceeds the standards set forth in: 

ANSI C63.4-2003, American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz, for Radiated and Conducted Emissions.
CAN\CSA-CEI/IEC CISPR 22:02, Information technology equipment – Radio disturbance characteristics – Limits and methods of measurements, for Radiated and Conducted Emissions.



TextInteresting .....to say the least. I think that in all 7 or so pages of cyber rambling. No one mentions the key component of this invention and that is the mentioning of the use of Super Capacitors in conjunction with the use of a coil ? "Another battery powered free energy device " ? It's been a while for me but Anyone who's studied basic physics recalls the right hand rule AND that inductors and capacitors work opposite of one another and are often used in parallel, hence charging and or energizing one another. Almost like like that of an ignition coil firing a spark plug in an engine. ( Another Tesla invention by the way) For starters, The 12 V battery is necessary to keep the coil generating it's magnetic field across the super capacitor as well as providing 12 volts for the controlling circuitry. He mentions the use of pulse width modulation. This synchs the pulses of DC energy to that of the timing or discharge rate of the super capacitors. Sorry I can't get into details at the moment. but is an intrinsic part of what the inventor is doing here. What the hell is a super capacitor you might ask ? The key difference between super capacitors vs traditional ones is the use of electric fields as a dielectric vs the traditional capacitors using dielectric material in which to store charge. Using electric fields which allows the super caps to store more energy longer. Almost like that of a quick charging battery. Though they cannot store as much energy as a battery for example. They can be stacked and wired in series to create the necessary desired voltage. Which is where those blue electrolytic capacitors come into play. In essence, Super capacitors are the akin to a really quick charging battery and were actually first used some time ago to replacing batteries necessary to start very large motors as in Tanks and Submarine Diesel engines. THis is where the magic occurs. The longer storage time allows more potential to build which is then shared with the standard blue electrolytic capacitors where he had his volt meter measuring. IN this case, The current from the Super Capacitors is wired in parallel with the traditional electrolytic capacitors wired in series allowing them to accumulate this voltage potential essentially creating a charger or power supply from the standpoint of the motor. So in a block diagram, the fore mentioned coil, super capacitors and standard capacitors would equate to a big battery. A very quick charging one. This is also why he was discharging the last capacitor in the row of series beer can like capacitors. Each capacitor in series was discharging it's charge in current, to charge the next capacitor in series.. But as far as the motor was concerned , due to being wired in parallel to this entire bank of capacitors, these capacitors look just like any DC battery source providing around 300volts of energy. (thats what the chart was comparing by the way this source vs a traditional power supply and hence the over unity numbers) Ultra capacitors are the future of battery technology. Due to the Ultra capacitors ability to store and generate charge used to charge the batteries it is already in use in Automotive regenerative braking systems used to store and charge the onboard batteries. Read up on super capacitors aka Ultra Capacitors and expand your mind. For those interested, here's an article from Popular Mechanics. www.popularmechanics.com... As well as an MIT based startup who has revolutionized the super capacitor and created the "Ultra Capacitor" using nano technology. www.fastcapsystems.com...
. From member nh_ee on aviso tech



TextAlthough zero-point energy is usually regarded as a quantum phenomenon and a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship, the existence of zero-point energy was inferred by Einstein, Planck, Nernst and others in the context of blackbody radiation prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics. Einstein and Otto Stern came close to deriving the blackbody function without assuming quantization but with the presence of zero-point energy. Nernst in particular claimed in 1916 that the universe was filled with zero-point energy. This line of investigation was abandoned with the advent of quantum mechanics, but the concept of zero-point energy soon reemerged with a quantum interpretation.






TextAs to whether zero-point energy may become a source of usable energy, this is considered extremely unlikely by most physicists, and none of the claimed devices are taken seriously by the mainstream science community. Nevertheless, SED interpretation of the Bohr orbit (above) does suggest a way whereby energy might be extracted. Based upon this a patent has been issued and experiments have been underway at the University of Colorado (U.S. Patent 7,379,286).



I realize you can google and plagiarize but those are not your quotes.

I am pointing out that "quacks" generally don't have research labs at universities.

Peswiki is a pretty credible site. You will never see claims of truth but rather " the inventor claims".

My entire point is A you don't understand what these men are talking about and rely on google to make your decisions rather than run through the theory.

And B just because it is in the development state does not mean it's a scam nor asking for money which all labs do and no there is no difference. Just that you judge one better than another.

Red flag? What a joke. In one statement you talk about business another marketing. You have set it up that there is no way to win. My father is an inventor. He makes bobin load detectors. A practical invention no controversy. But he didn't go around showing the world until he had a patent and worked out all the details for commercial use. Engineers generally test and test and test. Not until they get investment does it push them to sell. The phrase "sooner or later you have to shoot the engineer to get the product out" has been used to describe the research process.

Einstein worked on theories. Genius reply. Then engineers/physicists take those theories and make artifacts. There are very few Tesla s in history who just seem to come up with these things out of there minds.

I am pretty sure from the biographies I have read on Einstein he would be a lot less impressed with your skeptisms. He was told henwas a quack too in his day.

If these concepts are being developed in the private sector you can bet the military has applied them. Or are you going to contradict yourself again?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 





My entire point is A you don't understand what these men are talking about and rely on google to make your decisions rather than run through the theory.

You have some free energy designs you made yourself that you would like to share?



If these concepts are being developed in the private sector you can bet the military has applied them. Or are you going to contradict yourself again?


That is speculation. I agree that there is evidence suggesting the military is ahead of us 30 years. It does not mean that they are with absolutely every invention in every field.

And I never denied these technologies were not being developed, my position is that there is no reason for us to think they are widely known and working systems that are being hidden from us.

Also, the whole idea of suppression. If you look hard enough you can find legitimate work being done in these fields.

I'm reading the thesis now. The quote you posted is gibberish.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 





Red flag? What a joke. In one statement you talk about business another marketing. You have set it up that there is no way to win. My father is an inventor. He makes bobin load detectors. A practical invention no controversy. But he didn't go around showing the world until he had a patent and worked out all the details for commercial use. Engineers generally test and test and test. Not until they get investment does it push them to sell.


So why is Rossi telling the world about his invention now?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Right gibberish because you don't understand the content and can't refute the technology. I am done. I am sure you can google some info you dont understand. I am sure you will point out some nontechnical facts that don't agree with your world view.

There is no free energy. I never said there was. Overunity. Not the same. Exploiting the laws of physics to create extremely high yields. The energy comes from somewhere at some point.

Yes I do have cheap and efficient energy ideas. Mostly involving the exploitation of naturally occurring circumstances. The tech already exists but the integration in a stand alone system of many forms energy transference has not yet been made. My concept uses the integration of solar, photovotiac, solar sterling engine, solar passive heating, wind, and an open form of ambient/wave energy. Utilizing dc lighting/led, inert gas for cooling, and hydrogen.

It's all just theory though. My home automation business gave me the idea.

I feel like this conversation is a total waste of time as you have not discussed any technical reasons other than googled plagiarism. It's one thing to have knowledge. It's another to use google to "debunk" based on a cinical belief system.

You have been calling these people quacks and not recognizing the millions if not billions of dollars in research (like the biefeld brown effect). Secret research. They admit the research of the concept but give no technical data on how. I love how you called the biefeld brown effect a scam and debunked but several of the leading research firms in the world have worked on it's theory.

I don't know if here is any reason to be on this site. It seems full of skeptics and believers. The people in the middle are left at a loss.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Cause it works and other university professors are very interested. I am sure he spent years on it already.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 





My entire point is A you don't understand what these men are talking about and rely on google to make your decisions rather than run through the theory.


I have a question, did you even review the thesis?



Hydroxy masters thesis


I did this all on my own too, so correct me if I am wrong. Because I know I don't know anything about anything.

First thing that bothers me is that he claims HHO (but not another compound because he is using catalysts) is formed . However he makes this claim without showing his work (ie.2 NaCl + 2 H2O → Cl2 + H2 + 2 NaOH) So if you can point out to where I missed that it would be greatly appreciated.

What this person claims in his thesis, is that he can burn less fuel in his engine using 'HHO' gas, produce better efficiency in the gas combustion and also reduce carbon and other emissions.

Great! I could have told you that before reading it. Burning hydrogen creates less emissions than gas and diesel.

What you should note (and this is the most important part) is that he never claims that he is producing more energy overall, just better efficiency of the gas burning process.

What does this mean? Well, he claims a 17% gain in efficiency. What does that equal to? I imagine 17% less fuel being burned. However, forcing oxygen and hydrogen into a motor will clearly lower the amount of fuel needed to run the engine. That is not ground breaking science. However, the engine was running too lean and he experienced knocking, something that is not good for engines and something that I would not run in my car.

What is the best part about this thesis? The fact that he does not mention horsepower production. (Unless you can find it for me, I didn't see it)

Why is that important?

Because he claims:

His electrolysis used 12V and 14.1A during conversion of water to hydrogen. What does that mean? Anyone that knows thermodynamics knows exactly where I am headed with this.

Max = 12v - 14.1A

W=VxA (If I remember correctly)

Which translates into: 169.2W He gives us this number but in a rather overcomplicated expression.

Moving on, he doesn't give us horsepower gain. And if we had horsepower gain we could compare it to energy being used to create the hydrolysis reaction.

My point? He does not claim to produce excess energy, actually, he doesn't make any claim besides running a leaner burning engine. Kids were doing that by modifying ECU's in Honda's 15 years ago.

So there are no outlandish claims in this thesis. It's just completely irrelevant. It does not purport to create free energy, it does not even imply that you get better overall efficiency out of your energy use, only that the engine will burn its gas with better efficiency.

I'm glad you actually pointed out a real study finally (pointless as it may be).









edit on 5-3-2011 by boncho because: oopsy



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





Right gibberish because you don't understand the content and can't refute the technology. I am done. I am sure you can google some info you dont understand. I am sure you will point out some nontechnical facts that don't agree with your world view.


The first technical study you gave me contradicts everything you have been saying about this amazing technology. This stuff has been around forever, no one is suppressing it. Just misrepresenting it.



I don't know if here is any reason to be on this site. It seems full of skeptics and believers. The people in the middle are left at a loss.


You are not in the middle my friend. You need to stop taking random websites on the internet for messiahs. The truth is, most of these free energy sites are spouting utter crap. And they are doing it for a reason. This is dangerous and you should be more apt to heed the words of sceptics as opposed to believers. Because there is some major bologna going on.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Sure will do on the equation.

As far as the other rubbish you spout. You finally show an engineering backround or had time to talk to one. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

How did you miss the biefeld brown effect then? Have you ever read about the stealth bomber? There is a pretty obvious link. Can I give you the blueprints? Nope. Can you draw a conclusion on how it would be used. Seems the military did as they hired Thomas Brown.

I am guessing you are a student. Articulate and skeptical. Fine.

Don't close your mind off because of the quacks who try to rip people off. When you see hundreds of phd s and professors working on theories chances are it's a somewhat legitimate field.

Suppression does happen. I may only be a "social scientist". But I have 4 years of service and 30 + years of living under a brilliant engineer. You may be right that it is not an ultimate plan but rather a greed issue controlling business climate. It really doesn't matter. The outcome is the same.

The tech we have been discussing is already in use. I am not going to say I can't tell you it's classified. But...think about it. Think about when these concepts first started who took an interest in them. Then think about the brain pool, amount of money and equipment, and reason of interest.

Not saying its true, not saying it's not. Just warning you, you are setting yourself up to have egg on your face when the public is made aware.

I once had your skepticism.. Now I dont trust anything I am told by the establishment.










edit on 5-3-2011 by Movescamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Right. No thanks. Because people like you don't come up with anything new. They just regurgitate. I don't believe it to be truth never said so. I just don't discredit it until I know for a FACT it's bunk. You just take a glance and condemn it. Peswiki again. Is credible. Show me a circumstance they say it's a fact. They just bring up ideas. And treatthem as such.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Well said, coolhanddan. This is a classic example of people breaking the boundaries of energy sources. No one listens. MSM ignores it. No one is going to report on it and nothing is going to happen. What better example of the fact that sinister forces are actually in control of our world? Thanks for doing your part in giving these items attention. You do what you can. Seems there would come a point when the concepts become so common that they must finally relent and let it get pulled into the mainstream. One of the many wars going on in our word right now.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
This is where the free energy falls flat.

It would be simple to replace the oil industry with this technology, however this will mean one thing. It MUST be free.

If they want to make a "profit" from it, then we will never, EVER see it, its over before it begins, because it will go to the highest bidder (and we all know who that will be), if they truly care about the planet they should just post the info for free online for all the world to see, this way it cannot be suppressed EVER (which is why the people in charge are desperate to get full control of the net and "Intellectual property")

If someone took this technology, used it to create a small easily reproduced generator then released the plans on the net, we could kill off the oil companies in a matter of years OURSELVES! (which is really the only way it'll ever happen)

Unfortrunately people have been programmed to think that in order to succeed you must amass a mountain of wealth and we all know how they go about doing that dont we! Profit comes from scarcity, and they cannot profit as much if theres an endless supply of something!

edit on 7-3-2011 by S3ns1bl3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
After reading the pdf on how much energy was created I had a few questions.

The first was how are they burning the Hydrogen to create water when outgoing steam is around 100 C and ignition temperature of hydrogen is ~600 C and burns much hotter (exothermic reaction which is correct).

The second thing to think about this "free" source of energy is how would we get the amount of hydrogen needed to sustain this energy output. This is a big reason why we not have seen mass market hydrogen cars. Yes they burn cleaner and are efficient but the big drawback is the cost of capturing high quantities of hydrogen.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by killjak
After reading the pdf on how much energy was created I had a few questions.

The first was how are they burning the Hydrogen to create water when outgoing steam is around 100 C and ignition temperature of hydrogen is ~600 C and burns much hotter (exothermic reaction which is correct).

The second thing to think about this "free" source of energy is how would we get the amount of hydrogen needed to sustain this energy output. This is a big reason why we not have seen mass market hydrogen cars. Yes they burn cleaner and are efficient but the big drawback is the cost of capturing high quantities of hydrogen.


It's because that experiment was little more than forcing air into the combustion changer. They don't claim anything of use in that study. They don't claim to have found a way to harvest hydrogen with less energy input. And you can force H and O into an engine without igniting, you would still effect the how the gas burns.

All it describes it doing hydrogen electrolysis and forcing the components of the reaction into a combustion engine. They don't explain how they use more energy to produce the hydrogen than what can be generated in the engine.

It's just a fancy lean burning engine that serves no purpose. Unfortunately, the free lunch crowd thinks this is a breakthrough when the tech has been around a century.

I'm afraid there are a lot of people looking at the free energy idea without using critical thought.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
THIS IS NOT A FREE ENERGY DEVICE; PLEASE DO NOT SLANDER THIS THREAD WITH BUNK!!!!!

Zero pointers please look elsewhere and please for all the derailers of the thread re-read my opening post, again, thanks. Nickel + Hydrogen + unknown catalyst, so you have to buy nano nickel from Rossi (or E-bay) and supply hydrogen with something else that is cheap but is not being released by Rossi.

There are unknown things to the process to achieve the power and heat as I noted them originally, one being the secret catalyst which needs to be explained before the knowledge of what this reaction is, nuclear, chemical, or miracle like the cartoon above states. All we know for now it is a nickel-hydrogen + secret reaction and it produces radiation (a guess of mine since the E-CAT is lined with a lead shield), if Rossi is a liar or not is the question now. He is putting up his own money to build the Greece plant so I guess the guy could be a crazy liar and likes to lose money, or the guy found something special, either way, we will find out soon enough.


LENR-CANR has been proven by everyone, every country, you name it they have said the reaction exist, Rossi is just using very cheap elements to produce this reaction that people have done with platinum, deuterium and other metals, chemicals and gases.

For the extremely ADD, read one page if you cannot read the 5 page .pdf I originally posted:

www.kurzweilai.net...

I am posting some more information, I have been gone for 3 days for a wedding and come back to a couple of people just fighting here, please U2U each other and resolve the situation amongst yourselves like I have requested before………..

There were other great post that discussed what the process was, I listed a few, please post there if you want to hash out the reaction. If you still need help:

peswiki.com...:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator

Since some question are unanswered scientist are coming up with noble ideas of the unknown process: (Rossi’s own publication is the journal of nuclear physics)

www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com...

www.overunity.com...

www.talk-polywell.org...



A great article to read about Rossi and funding:

www.nyteknik.se...


I would like to add, thanks to the fans

www.escapetheillusion.com...

theendtimesarehere.com...

It is nice to see blogs reach for the same thing as we are seeing, spread the word please………

P.S. And for the all the rest, that really want answers and not fights, research:

Julian Schwinger who won the Nobel Prize in Physics (smart guy)

Julian is quoted:


"What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?" he wondered.


MU Vice Chancellor Rob Duncan is quoted:


"Temporarily misplaced" perhaps, Duncan said, urging that scientists leave peer pressure behind and return to their methodological roots. "Cold fusion, or low-energy nuclear science, has benefited from exciting innovations and outstanding minds, yet massive, destructive 'group think,' has given it a checkered past," Duncan explained. "Now, however, it is of paramount importance that science proceeds boldly, with a determined yet dispassionate focus, on the objective study of these fascinating phenomena."

www.ectnews.com...

Let’s see what Greece gets then call bunk or not since this isn’t being peer reviewed until after Rossi gets his check……

To keep an update on Rossi news from Rossi:

newenergytimes.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Check out Alien Scientist's perspective on Cold Fusion here www.youtube.com...

Also from Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...

In February 2002, the U.S. Navy revealed that researchers at their Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California had been quietly studying cold fusion continually since 1989, by releasing a two-volume report, entitled "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system," with a plea for funding.

And this article from 2009: Navy scientist announces possible cold fusion reactions
www.chron.com...



new topics

top topics



 
294
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join