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.

 

NASA Admits Blacklight and E-CAT Are Real Deal !!!

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Read these articles and watch the links… this is big folks…I’ve been following the Rossi story as have many of you, and here are some fairly recent articles and videos from January of this year… a final parting thought…remember how, back in the 1950s, everyone raced to denounce the German scientist, Dr. Ronald Richter…for making, essentially, “cold” fusion claims? Sort of makes you go….hmmmm…..


This presentation is basically an open admission by NASA scientists that the E-CAT system by Andrea Rossi and the Blacklight Power rectors by Randal Mills are the real deal. While NASA doesn’t seem quite ready to throw Einstein under the bus just yet, they have been forced to concede that the reactions first postulated by Mills are indeed real and that they have no known source within the current framework of Einsteinian relativity.

Both Mills and Rossi’s reactors use nickel as the catalyst for a special kind of hydrogen reaction to produce heat energy.

NASA Tech Presentation

Both the Blacklight system and the E-Cat system are proprietary systems that are veiled in trade secrets and patent laws, but Mills has been quite explicit about his proposed theory of how atomic structures work, and it is radically different than Einstein’s.


Keep in mind that Mills pursued this technology based on his own interpretation of relativity that is grounded in closed form classical physics. If Mills’ theory is wrong, I have to ask why he’s the one who created an invention that is on par with the wheel in terms of improving humanity’s condition.

As a side note, these inventions will obviously undermine the dollar’s oil backing, which reigns today because of violent US foreign policies that overthrow any regime that dares to sell oil outside of the dollar system. If we couple the undermining of the US dollar by these new energy systems with the emergence of crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin, a future of peace and prosperity for mankind seems assured.

Of course, the American empire will crumble and Americans themselves will experience the pain and deprivations they have heaped upon the world until they can rebuild their consumer goods industrial base, but in the end, the condition for humanity overall has never looked better.

Watch the Blacklight Power presentation on their system here:


edit on 6-3-2012 by wilburn because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
This is what was really said:


First the disclaimers: While I do work for NASA, I do not speak for them. They employ me for my professional capabilities and on occasion my professional opinion. Nothing I say should ever be construed as anything other than my personal opinion. As a NASA employee I am allowed and often times encouraged to say what I think. This and the exceptional people I get to work with every day are what make NASA great and a great place to work.


This is the opinion on Rossi:


There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works. Many extraordinary claims have been made in 2010. In my scientific opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy.


This is NASA's stance on LENR, no matter how much their people like to throw "what if" scenarios among themselves.


There has been a lot of work done in the past 20+ years. When considered in aggregate I believe excess power has been demonstrated. I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable. If any of those other terms were applicable I would have used them instead. If anything, it is the lack of a single clear demonstration of reliable, useful, and controllable production of excess power that has held LENR research back


SOURCE

Oh and Mills.... What is he at now?

60 million invested with no viable product that he promised nearly two decades ago.




By 2009 BLP had raised about $60 million in venture capital,[7][8] and claims to have seven commercial agreements to license BLP energy technology for the production of thermal or electric power to utilities and private corporations.[11] By 2011 no known power generation has occurred. Mills envisions that CIHT (Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition) cell stacks can provide power for long-range electric vehicles, a claim described as "scientific nonsense—there is no state of hydrogen lower than the ground state" by Wolfgang Ketterle.[7][8]


Wiki

I need to get in on that business....
edit on 6-3-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I've believed in the e-cat since they did a few public presentations allowing scientists check it out first hand.. he even explains how it works but he keeps the catalyst a secret.. which he said will only remain secret until he's obtained all of the international patents required to protect the invention.

The fact he also has apparently a "large client" in the united states, which many have thought could in fact be a government agency ( perhaps NASA? ) .. this client bought the 1MW plant configuration..

Very much seems like the real deal it was even able to run off of it's own generated power, though it's less efficient that way.. the output of electricity was much higher than the input

Rossi has already sold some of his products.. I am far more likely to believe this product than the blacklight product
edit on 3/6/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
If anyone does do it, they can collect a million bucks.

Of course they have to prove it first.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
If anyone does do it, they can collect a million bucks.

Of course they have to prove it first.


Rossi wouldn't take that challenge without first obtaining all of the international patents he's trying to get .. it would require he divulge the catalyst he's using.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Rossi wouldn't even come to terms to have the ecat tested by NASA, which this OP is trying to say supports him.


On July 14, 2011, Rossi asked staff members at NASA Marshall to test and evaluate his device. Marshall staff accepted Rossi's offer. The two parties began negotiating details of the test protocol. NASA asked for a test that avoided phase change of water into steam because steam would introduce unnecessary confusion to the test. A few days later, Rossi withdrew his offer.


More on Rossi + NASA

Rossi is begging for money hand over fist. He had a customer, but the unit is back in his possession (According to 'broken valves'. If he has a customer, he can let someone test it. If he is selling it to people, he can have it tested. Simple as that.
edit on 6-3-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Art Bell did a show on cold fusion.

One of the things that came out is the hot fusion guys fudged the data so that it looked like the cold fusion experiment did not work,

so they would not lose funding for hot fusion.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Why do I always find you posting on these threads and trying to dismiss this technology as a bogus scam when all the evidence is clearly adding up to suggest the exact opposite. From the blog you quoted:


There has been a lot of work done in the past 20+ years. When considered in aggregate I believe excess power has been demonstrated. I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable.


Oh, so this technology is "out of control", therefore it is not "useful" and should be ignored?


edit: NASA has applied for a patent on the triggering mechanism for the Rossi and Defkalion LENR nickel and hydrogen reactors.

Seems like NASA is taking this much more seriously than you are.
edit on 6-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by boncho
 


Why do I always find you posting on these threads and trying to dismiss this technology as a bogus scam when all the evidence is clearly adding up to suggest the exact opposite. From the blog you quoted:


There has been a lot of work done in the past 20+ years. When considered in aggregate I believe excess power has been demonstrated. I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable.


Oh, so this technology is "out of control", therefore it is not "useful" and should be ignored?


edit: NASA has applied for a patent on the triggering mechanism for the Rossi and Defkalion LENR nickel and hydrogen reactors.

Seems like NASA is taking this much more seriously than you are.
edit on 6-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable


How is it out of control?

NASA referenced Larsen in their patent, are you saying Rossi built his device off the WL theory?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
There is no such thing as "free energy" or getting something more for less. Does anyone understand the laws of thermodynamics these days ? It takes work to produce energy and energy is lost from the work so that you always have to do more work to increase the energy output.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
There is no such thing as "free energy" or getting something more for less. Does anyone understand the laws of thermodynamics these days ? It takes work to produce energy and energy is lost from the work so that you always have to do more work to increase the energy output.


Because LENR is a nuclear reaction, theoretically you are not getting something for free. Just as a nuclear power plant doesn't get anything for free.

But so far, they have barely been able to prove LENR exists, let alone make something commercially viable from it.

Except for the Italian convicted fraud artist who sold two bunk energy devices in the past, who also had a dead person on his board of directors of his blog (which was named as a scientific "journal") who earned his engineering degree from a diploma mill.

Yeah, he did it.

And NASA is copying him now too.

Those bastards.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Fromabove
There is no such thing as "free energy" or getting something more for less. Does anyone understand the laws of thermodynamics these days ? It takes work to produce energy and energy is lost from the work so that you always have to do more work to increase the energy output.


Because LENR is a nuclear reaction, theoretically you are not getting something for free. Just as a nuclear power plant doesn't get anything for free.


The kind of nuclear reaction where you put in less energy than you need to overcome the potential barrier in the nucleus. In other words the kind where you get something for free.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


He claims it is not controllable, thus implying the reactions get out of control. But I obviously should have phrased it in a better way, and avoided using quotation marks as if that's exactly what he said. But it may as well have been what he said. I am no expert on this technology, but clearly that's a pathetic excuse for claiming this is not commercially viable, the first nuclear reactors were dangerous as all hell and even the newest ones can melt down under the right circumstances. And I am not saying anything other than the fact that NASA is attempting to patent certain mechanisms used in LENR reactors. I actually found that link in another thread and thought it was worth sharing here. I hardly know anything about the origins of this technology, but I do know you are very quick to dismiss it based on half-assed claims that it's a scam.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I hardly know anything about the origins of this technology, but I do know you are very quick to dismiss it based on half-assed claims that it's a scam.

 


Which half assed claims exactly? I was one of the first ones to make them.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli


The kind of nuclear reaction where you put in less energy than you need to overcome the potential barrier in the nucleus. In other words the kind where you get something for free.

 


touché



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Fromabove
There is no such thing as "free energy" or getting something more for less. Does anyone understand the laws of thermodynamics these days ? It takes work to produce energy and energy is lost from the work so that you always have to do more work to increase the energy output.


Because LENR is a nuclear reaction, theoretically you are not getting something for free. Just as a nuclear power plant doesn't get anything for free.


The kind of nuclear reaction where you put in less energy than you need to overcome the potential barrier in the nucleus. In other words the kind where you get something for free.

Your logic is flawed. I can use a tiny flame to light a fire which outputs an enormous amount of power. They seem to be using a small amount of energy to trigger nuclear reactions which output a large amount of energy compared to what they put in. Normal nuclear reactions do the same thing, but they are much more dangerous. Clump enough uranium 235 together until you reach a critical mass and you'll get a nuclear explosion.
edit on 6-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Your logic is flawed. I can use a tiny flame to light a fire which outputs an enormous amount of power. They seem to be using a small amount of energy to trigger nuclear reactions which output a large amount of energy compared to what they put in. Normal nuclear reactions do the same thing, but they are much more dangerous. Clump enough uranium 235 together until you reach a critical mass and you'll get a nuclear explosion.
edit on 6-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


You don't understand the words I'm using. In your example the 'tiny flame' supplies enough energy (in the form of kinetic energy) to move over the potential energy barrier required to release enough energy in some molecules which can be used to push other molecules over their potential barriers, etc, etc, providing a self-sustaining reaction.

The "LE" in "LENR" / the "cold" in "cold fusion" is the claim that a self-sustaining reaction is obtained without ever supplying this initial energy.

LENR is like claiming you can light a match with cold by sticking it in a freezer.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Which half assed claims exactly? I was one of the first ones to make them.
It doesn't matter who originally started making those claims, most of them are still half-assed attempts to discredit this technology by attacking the credibility of people developing it. I don't like Rossi because obviously he cares more about money than creating a better and cleaner world, but that doesn't mean the technology is not real.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 




The "LE" in "LENR" / the "cold" in "cold fusion" is the claim that a self-sustaining reaction is obtained without ever supplying this initial energy.
The "LE" means "low energy", it is describing a low energy nuclear reaction rather than the typical high energy nuclear reactions that need to be carefully sustained via the use of control rods and the such. I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of "cold" in cold fusion to meet your own idea of what it is. They do indeed supply an initial input of energy to induce the reaction, did you even watch the NASA video?


This other form of nuclear power releases energy by adding neutrons. Eventually they gain a sufficient number of neutrons that they spontaneously decay into something of the same mass but a different element.

edit on 7-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join