It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


NASA Officially confirms: Cold Fusion(LENR) is REAL

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by Xeven

I don't think our "leaders" would actually let this cat out of the bag. Too many of them would instantly lose out on billions of dollars.

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:23 AM
In all reality, who really cares if he discovered cold fusion or not? I just care if his product will eventuall lower the cost of electricitiy in my home or not, thats all. And if so, when will it be on the market?

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:25 AM
My dad worked in the auto trade a long time ago, and tells me the story of a mad cap type boffin here in my home town in West Yorks, England who had invented a car that ran on water. Even saw it running.

The old dude was "convinced" to sell the invention to some company or other, and no one heard of the old guy or his invention ever again.

The end.

I'm sure it happens a lot more than you might think.

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by dizzie56

In all reality, who really cares if he discovered cold fusion or not? I just care if his product will eventuall lower the cost of electricitiy in my home or not, thats all. And if so, when will it be on the market?

Not if it involves industrial quantities of deuterium.

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:43 AM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by consciousgod

We are being desensitized to accept the fact that the law of conservation of energy may appear to be violated. I say appear because energy appears to come from nothing, so they get around this by calling it nuclear and providing no real explanation.

No, it's not coming from nothing. If I understand the supposed process properly, neutrons are being freed from deuterium nuclei at low temperature through electrolysis. (Okay, maybe, why not? Lowest binding energy,)* These neutrons then glom onto more massive nuclei, forming isotopes that eventually decay, releasing energy. Distilling deuterium is an extremely energy intensive process. To fill the 50 ml beaker they perform the experiment in with "heavy water", they need to start with 150 liters of water. In effect, you are storing all the energy you put into the reaction's matrix in the form of exotic isotopes. Not only is no energy being created, the process is not scalable. The Navy and NASA are interested in the possibility because, despite it not being very cost effective, it might produce a smaller, lighter weight source of power compared to conventional fuel cells; useful on satellites and submarines, but don't expect one in your home.


Sidney Harris

Nice to hear from you again DJW.

Didn't see any reference to the cold fusion experiment that you state above. The experiment you are referring to could never be confirmed. I was thinking this is a new form of cold fusion, but maybe you are right. But we don't know, do we?

But lets assume you are correct.

Think about what happens when an atom decays. Where does the energy come from?

When an unstable atom decays, where do the gamma rays come from? We know its there. We measure it, but do we know where it comes from and how?

The root cause is not well understood or understood at all.

Quantum energy must come from somewhere. Recent studies indicate that energy comes from the space between the quarks and the gluons act as the door that releases the energy. A scientist, I can't remember his name, won the Nobel prize for modeling the space between quarks in a proton. The space between the quarks contains the energy, not the particle.

Physicist Lawerence Kraus discusses this in his lecture.

So even if you are right about how they conduct the experiment and about the heat that is generated by radioactive decay, you still have work to do to get to the root cause.

I am saying that the evidence suggest to me that the gluons tear a hole in the fabric of space-time during the decay process, and the energy leaks into our universe from another dimension.

Can I prove it. No, that is what CERN may do soon enough.

If I am wrong. So What. Back to the drawing board, but if I am right, WOW, are we in for a ride.

And if we open a big enough door to the energetic 5th dimension, what will we get?

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:55 AM
Didn't Tesla have something like this?

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:02 AM
A brief bit of research here is that this is NOT Cold Fusion.
LENR stands for Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.

Cold Fusion was electrochemical -- the LENR research makes the point that Ponds-Fleishmann accidentally ran into something interesting, but there was no FUSION going on. What was producing the extra heat energy, were interactions that caused Nuclear reactions to take place in the material.

So is it kind of like a low-heat, fast-breeder nuclear power plant without so much radiation? Perhaps.

>> LENR I think is real -- but this "branch" of study has nothing to do with Cold Fusion other than capitalizing on the techniques. It's based on a totally different theory.

>> I can come up with another THEORY for why the LENR and the Cold Fusion show extra energy not possible with mere fuel usage -- but we still would not have limitless cheap energy yet.

However I can't get to the video from this link.

... we have progress that is for sure, and it seems that LENR is onto something useful. They probably could couple what they have with a "heat to energy converter" and perhaps scale it up and it would be viable. Now all we need is a viable heat to energy converter.

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by VforVendettea
And it is coming to Home Depot Next year.

Since it was bought by Home Depot it will be made in China No doubt so with China's Stellar quality control standards Fukashima will look like one of the lighter moments of global contamination.
edit on 12-1-2012 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)

WTF are you talking about? You turn this device off and there is no radiation. Thats the beauty of fusion over fission. No messy radioactive waste to deal with.

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:31 AM
This is really fantastic news, and I can't wait to see it applied commercially. I was wondering when we were finally going to start crawling out from under the thumb of Big Oil, and it looks like 2012 might be the year! I look forward to updates on this technology as its made available.

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:35 AM

Originally posted by ntzeret
this is my final post...
Nibiru is nearer than you know,

I guess we will never know?

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:35 AM

Originally posted by AaronWilson
Rossi was like a crazy mad scientist. He knew bare minimum in physics and very little in chemistry. Yet he created cold fusion.

Go figure.

Isn't it funny how the less you know about the physical principles behind something, the more you can get around the limitations? I think that shows we're training for the wrong things. Our educational systems (wherever you happen to be) is based on knowing what we already know, and not so much on circumventing or disputing what we already know.

Even knowing what I do about Physics (High-school physics, plus the reading of a few books of theories) I have thoughts of ways to break the speed of light, or escape from a black hole, or... whatever. There are limitations placed on those who know the rules. Anyone who does not know is more likely to get past those limitations. (In my opinion.)

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
I hope something does come of this in whatever form. I'm easy, I know absolutely nothing of the physics involved so it will need to be a Plug and Play model for me. They might to retool the phrase though to Plug and levied on all machines?

In any case
*crosses fingers*
Good Luck Guys!

And er...when can we expect to see the DeLorean model...?

Does that also come with the flux capacitor?

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:44 AM

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by flexy123

Erm maybe you should voice that to the people writing those articles referenced.

Or maybe just bother to do some research on the matter yourself.

This is hardly the place to vent your doubts on other certified peoples and journalists findings and statements.

There are TONS of info about this, just use Google.
edit on 12-1-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)


i am following Rossi and this "invention" for several months now, no worries..i am not as uninformed as you might think

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:46 AM
Not that anyone will go with my qualifications or physics theories -- but I'm here because people at Slashdot seem to be a little TOO FULL of the ideas of others, so occasionally, I have to blurt out my own theories somewhere.

>> I have three ways of FREE ENERGY that I can think of;

I do think some kind of Fusion can be done -- but not with any of these methods. I predict that the bose-einstein condensate will be enhanced by what I would call a "matter laser" -- basically, you cool not by removing all energy from the mass, but my synchronizing frequencies -- the same near absolute zero temperatures can be reached because "uniform motion" does not produce heat like random motion -- but you can convert residual energy into pattern energy.

Matter can be fused this way but it would kind of fly in the face of current theories.

Matter Lasers would bleed off any non-harmonic frequencies (heat for normal matter) likely as larger packets of energy, either soliton em fields or "hot pockets" -- as I visualize the interactions in this strange state would cause "random states" to pool up like oil on water. Much like when we see non-newtonian fluid experiments typically form stable "globs" whenever their frequencies are disrupted.

>> SECOND, I predict a kind of sub plank length energy source. It's my rejection of Quantum Physics - not that I don't think the math is sound, and Quantum Physics has years of a proven track record at being able to explain observed phenomena -- but the visualization of how things actually work is off track. It's a particle model, and I believe everything can be explained with fields and soliton vacuums (like a tiny black hole -- they just don't have a billion stars of energy to expand them -- a black hole is merely in essence, an accelerated proton -- this does not mean that it would have a super powerful net positive charge, for those who buy into that "electric universe" stuff).

Anywho, the REASON I think Quantum Mechanics LOOKS real, is because these fields (that appear as 3D particles in our 4D universe because they are interactions in 12 dimensions), only interact at synchronous peaks. For example; Quantum theory states you cannot both know a particles location and speed a the same time and that "observation" collapses probabilistic states. Also, that electrons are either in one orbital around an atom's nucleus or another -- they can quickly change position but never be found in an intermediate state.

If you ever vibrate a glass of water such that it's frequency MATCHES the radius of the glass container, you can create a stable waveform much like the orbitals I imagine around an atom. The Electron "shell" is one of those stable waves. Since all our test equipment is made up of photos and other atoms -- any interaction with an atom, is only going to occur at these wave peaks. The "packet" nature of Quantum Physics can be entirely explained by energy levels -- anything that DOESN'T have both the correct frequency and enough energy is NOT transmitted nor does it interact.

This predicts the behavior of Neutrinos and Tachyons -- since they can pass through whole stars and planets and their chances of "interaction" are very, very rare. It has to do with the energy level and frequency being too high for the normal matter. They may have mass, but only with other "particles" like Neutrinos and Tachyons -- which I would explain with an alternative theory of gravity.

I'm not saying there aren't particles -- these fields "might as well be" -- but that's only because we SEE in 4 dimensions and are made up of 12.

>> The point of this alternative theory is that I predict you can "bleed off" all the energy you want from what is now misnomeredVacuum Energy or Zero Point Energy.

The key difference is; I think that any energy exchanged below a Planck length "cheats" the accounting system. Our Newtonian perspective is that you burn some oil, and the chemical reactions in it release stored energy as oxygen is bonded with the hydrocarbons -- it too energy to create that, and all you can do is burn things and get more complex substances and harness the energy released. You don't get to "decomplexify matter" or put it in a higher potential energy state without energy used.

The trick is creating some "form" of structure that can harness atomic motion without interacting with the "peaks" -- which turns out to be shorter than a Planck. Which is, impossible for "normal" matter. The solution goes back to one of the thought problems that sent me on this track; Why are things solid? Based purely on the space occupied by matter, they shouldn't be.

Atoms that form bonds, are also creating stable fluctuations in "space-time". If you can fluctuate space time-- you can create solids without atoms (force fields)... anyway, I've droned on long enough.

Someone else a 100 years from now, might do something with this, as I'm not going to have a lab to do it.

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by NeoVain

A couple of questions:

Where's the peer reviewed paper on this? Scientific discoveries are published in papers.

Also I watched the video. I never saw the word fusion once, and the graphics don't show fusion, they show fission, do you know the difference? Moreover the whole video speaks in vague generalities and doesn't give any specifics.

And I noticed you added a second source, which I just read. I'm not reading that as confirmation, far from it.

I don't understand all the scientific jargon when it comes to subatomic particles but I was feeling the same thing. They kept saying nuclear. However, the moment water was mentioned in the vid as being a power source, I thought of the e-cat. Couldn't it be possible the two technologies are doing pretty much the same thing and achieving the same result with a slight modification?

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:51 AM
If NASA has a patent similar to the E-cat, I think there would be litigation delaying its release for YEARS. Also, the terminlolgy difference between LENR and cold fusion could be a point of contention where lobbying efforts can be applied to advance NASA's LENR technology and supress the E-cat technology (assuming its genuine)

But there's no way that a home energy generator like an E-cat gets approved and allowed into the country without a UL listing for all major components and FCC approval of its electronics, plus Laws and codes will have to be on the books so that the various cities and municipalities will have their bases covered in case of unforseen consequences of use of the devices.

If China is the place where E-cats get produced, you can expect a Chinese clone, the C-cat, to hit the market soon after. The Chinese have been notorious for piracy of intellectual property theft and industrial espionage. But they're not gonna steal a product that doesn't work or hasn't been proven....

I genuinely hope LENR or the E-cat can provide for our energy needs in the very near future, upsetting and destroying the energy oligarchies and changing the face of our global community in a positive way. But with economies based around Oil and energy production, and it's tie-in to our monetary system (dolllar), the transition to localised energy production could ruin our economy in a jif, I think this energy solution has been known of for a while, just kept under the radar and locked away secret, until the resources are inplace to make for a smoother transition to the Amero. Seriously......why design a new form of currency if its not planed for use. I see a strong link between the availability of a new energy source, localised energy production disrupting the old-fashioned distributed energy scheme, and the strong relationship between energy industry and monetary policies and global politics. In short, affordable energy production would PROBABLY destroy the global economy as we know it....

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:53 AM
I do apologise for being cynical, but I don't believe anything will come of this.
Time and time again history is littered with things being buried in the interests of big corporations.

It would be nice if it did come out into the open. A cleaner earth sounds like a dream.
Does anyone know which materials this generator consumes, how long they last in the device,
and how much earth has in reserve?

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:54 AM

and they will go up for sale this Fall

How can you even REMOTELY believe this?

I remember reading that, while BASICALLY a harmless (claimed!) device, inside the device there is (allegedly) some nuclear reaction taking place. The device has to be shielded with lead because of this radiation.

You cannot simply "invent" something like that and make the RIDICULOUS claim it will be "on sale in Home Depot" a few months later - without EXTENSIVE tests for security and safety FROM ALL ANGLES and not only a "select few" people where no one even know WHO they are.

There is no fricking way that a potential nuclear reactor (as "safe" as it might be claimed it is) is on the shelves without MONTHS if not YEARS of testing, let alone the exact understanding of the process and underlying mechanism.

Here in Europe (for example) you could not manufacture a light bulb or even the simplest device and get it on the market without testing from CE, VDE and countless other organizations.

But go ahead and think it will be "on the shelves" in a few months while the rest of the world does not even UNDERSTAND the process, let alone its safety, risks etc. ITS NOT POSSIBLE, ITS ABSURD to think otherwise.
edit on 13-1-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:00 PM
In regards to this, just added:

Let's assume all kinds of rumors be true and the device does indeed produce the claimed energy.

You CAN NOT ignore physical laws (unless you choose to ignore them because you are a fool)...and then you can see how the device is actually producing HEAT. CORRECT?!

Now...tell me how much energy/heat has to be produced to make it 1000kw or whatever kW/MW amount...where IS that heat? Where and how is it confined?

So..wait..we are possible dealing with some form of nuclear reaction or plasma..which might be 100.000s of degrees if not millions of degrees hot (Because how ELSE can a tiny "reactor" produce this energy?)

And you don't think this is some reason to be concerned?

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by mossme89
I just had a thought: couldn't this technology eventually make it's way into cars? I mean maybe I'm wrong, but it could work very simply. If the device requires a small amount of energy to turn on, a small gasoline engine or electric battery could be used to charge it. Then the device could run the vehicle indefinitely. What do you all think?

This technology would change more than you could ever imagine. It would mark the beginning of a corporate revolution. It would cause an economic surge, trades employment, home owners, business owners, automobile industry, foreign policies, UN resolutions, the way we conduct business overseas, better standard of living for third-world nations, north-west territories, Canadian aboriginal development, natural resources, mining, ship building, and on and on. It would change everything!

I sure hope.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in