Method for Enhancement of Surface Plasmon Polarities to Initiate & Sustain LENR (NASA)

Youtube ^ | Jan 11, 2012 | NASA

[Normandy]

This is a video produced by NASA explaining that NASA is doing research in LENR/Cold Fusion -- In the video, Dr. Joseph Zawodny sees a future where LENR devices could power homes and the modern world. Competition to Rossi's E-Cat?

[WayneS]

That's all well and good, but how does it support NASA’a primary mission: That is, “reaching out” to muslim nations and making them feel better about themselves?

[muawiyah]

Moslem nations ~ once we don't need so much oil from them they will be allowed to return to their former lifestyles

herding animals in the desert,

smoking strong smoke on hookahs under a tent cover,

making sure of wiping only with their left hands,

buying new sandals on their occasional forays into the few towns still left, and

sword chopping each other over doctrinal disputes regarding the Koran and the Hadiths.

They will be quite happy.

So will we.

[bhl]

Tantalizing and from a trusted source. More details would be good.

How far are along is NASA in test/development/efficiency?
Are they in talks with Rossi to buy a 1MW plant?
How big is their budget for LENR and what is the timeline for a home unit....

[Wordkraft]

This all sounds like something out of Dr. Who.

[dynachrome]

Cold fusion ping. NASA investigating?

[aruanan]

That's all well and good, but how does it support NASA’a primary mission: That is, “reaching out” to muslim nations and making them feel better about themselves?

By leaving them with a lot more petroleum for lubrication when they have to pound sand? That's got to make them feel better.

[Johnny B.]

Are they in talks with Rossi to buy a 1MW plant?

NASA already looked at Rossi's E-Cat. They weren't impressed.

LINK

[Wonder Warthog]

"NASA already looked at Rossi's E-Cat. They weren't impressed."

Sorry, but their criteria seemed to be a bit slippery. Their only complaint was not that the E-cat didn't work, just that the experiment "wasn't run long enough". In none of the writeups on that visit that I have read was "long enough" ever defined.

[Johnny B.]

In none of the writeups on that visit that I have read was "long enough" ever defined.

From the NASA PowerPoint slide I linked to:

Self Sustained mode

• Would need to run for 8 hours or more with a small ECAT and much longer for an Ottoman

Long enough duration to rule out chemical reaction

• 3 or more days for a small ECAT
• 2 or more weeks for an Ottoman ECAT
• Several months for a 1 MW plant

[Johnny B.]

Here are some additional comments from NASA regarding Rossi:

One of the eye-witnesses, a former NASA staff member, saw problems from the moment they arrived there.

“Rossi changed the game totally.” the witness said. “From the test plan, the device, everything. There was nothing there that we had agreed on. He had a 30 liter reservoir in there and he wouldn’t even let us see what was in the box or weigh the box.”

The Sept. 5 demonstration was inconclusive; Rossi’s device sprang a leak. The Sept. 6 demonstration was inconclusive; there was no outflow of steam or water.

On the second day, when the former NASA staff member asked Rossi if his device had an internal reservoir, Rossi became enraged. Quantum’s engineers left but NASA engineers offered to come back in a few days to give Rossi time to fix the flow. Rossi declined their offer. He said he was “too busy.”

LINK

As I said, NASA did look at Rossi's E-Cat, and they weren't impressed.

[Moonman62]

Their only complaint was not that the E-cat didn't work, just that the experiment "wasn't run long enough". In none of the writeups on that visit that I have read was "long enough" ever defined.

[Kevmo]

thanks for the ping

The Cold Fusion Ping List

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles

Keywords: ColdFusion; LENR; E-CAT; CMNS

---

http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144

[PapaBear3625]

NASA already looked at Rossi's E-Cat. They weren't impressed.

Obviously their egos led them to believe they could do better.

But here we have NASA pursuing the same line of research, validating the same theoretical basis for it (eg Widom/Larson, from a year and a half ago), talking about Ni/H reactions, and making similar claims about the potential and applications as Rossi.

NASA from the youtube: "It has the DEMONSTRATED ability to produce excess amounts of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation."

You can't have it both ways. NASA can't be making independent claims validating Rossi's approach if Rossi was a complete fraud. NASA is now confirming that there is something there.

[Johnny B.]

You can't have it both ways. NASA can't be making independent claims validating Rossi's approach if Rossi was a complete fraud. NASA is now confirming that there is something there.

Actually, you can.

Even if there is something to LENR, that doesn't prove that Rossi is legitimate.

Just because electric cars are real doesn't mean that con men like Carl Tilley are legitimate.

[Johnny B.]

I'm reminded of a scene from The Music Man, where the con man "Professor" Harold Hill is discussing his previous scams with his old partner, Marcellus Washburn:

Marcellus Washburn: I heard you was in steam automobiles.
Harold Hill: I was.
Marcellus Washburn: What happened?
Harold Hill: Somebody actually *invented* one-!

[PapaBear3625]

Problem is, here we have Rossi talking about Ni/H reactions, and now we have NASA talking about LENR Ni/H reactions. A bit too much of a coincidence if Rossi was completely pulling stuff out of his butt, IMHO. I'm especially disturbed over NASA having sent observers to Rossi's demos, and now claiming similar results without giving Rossi any mention.

What I suspect is that Rossi HAS BEEN getting results, but not as reliably as he claimed, and has been feverishly working at getting his device to operate reliably over long durations, meanwhile dancing as fast as he can with the public.

[Johnny B.]

I'm especially disturbed over NASA having sent observers to Rossi's demos, and now claiming similar results without giving Rossi any mention.

It might be disturbing if Rossi had actually shown the NASA representatives anything. However, he didn't show them a working E-Cat (it conveniently failed to work on the days NASA was there to see it), and he didn't show them anything that would allow them to draw any conclusions about how it might work.

All they saw was a tinfoil-wrapped box that didn't do anything interesting.

[Johnny B.]

Problem is, here we have Rossi talking about Ni/H reactions, and now we have NASA talking about LENR Ni/H reactions. A bit too much of a coincidence if Rossi was completely pulling stuff out of his butt, IMHO. I'm especially disturbed over NASA having sent observers to Rossi's demos, and now claiming similar results without giving Rossi any mention.

Note that NASA filed this patent back in March 2011 (LINK) , which means they were working on it well before that; presumably before Rossi "went public".

[PapaBear3625]

NASA's representative saw a device which was claimed to produce excess energy using a Nickel/Hydrogen LENR reaction, something not previously discussed in any cold fusion literature, AFAIK.

NASA then, months later, makes an announcement that implies ("It has the DEMONSTRATED ability to produce excess amounts of energy") that they have a working prototype of a Ni/H reactor. I would be fascinated to hear NASA's statement about exactly how they decided to pursue that particular avenue of research when they did. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence that they were already involved in Ni/H LENR before hearing about Rossi, then I would start making noises about NASA committing scientific plagiarism.

[Johnny B.]

NASA then, months later, makes an announcement that implies...

Please see the post just above yours. Based on the Patent application date, you have the timeline reversed.

[Johnny B.]

using a Nickel/Hydrogen LENR reaction, something not previously discussed in any cold fusion literature, AFAIK.

This is not true. H-Ni research has been in the literature for at least the last few years. Rossi did not "invent" it.

[PapaBear3625]

Note that NASA filed this patent back in March 2011 (LINK) , which means they were working on it well before that; presumably before Rossi "went public".

Note that in Rossi's blog archives from Feb 2010 he makes note of his international patent application filed in August 2008

[Johnny B.]

Note that in Rossi's blog archives from Feb 2010 he makes note of his international patent application filed in August 2008

HERE is an article from 2001 that describes Nickel/H₂O cold fusion, which sounds substantially the same.

Also, Rossi's patent application doesn't contain any details of how his process is supposed to work. NASA certainly didn't get any "secrets" from it, because it doesn't contain any.

[PapaBear3625]

HERE is an article from 2001 that describes Nickel/H2O cold fusion, which sounds substantially the same.

You're right. Ni/H cold fusion was being worked on earlier. Guess what, though? One of the earliest researchers on Ni/H fusion was Rossi's associate, Sergio Focardi, whose paper on the subject was published in 1994: "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems".

[Johnny B.]

One of the earliest researchers on Ni/H fusion was Rossi's associate, Sergio Focardi, whose paper on the subject was published in 1994: "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems".

True, and Focardi was getting small and inconsistent results throughout the last 15 years.

Then, Rossi shows up and suddenly they are (allegedly) getting large and reliable results (except when NASA is there to watch).

There are some inconstancies in this story, however. According to THIS video interview, Focardi's primary contribution was "safety issues" (8:00). At (11:00), Rossi mentions that Focardi doesn't know how the reactor is built.

I also documented earlier how much of his support from other LENR researchers is based on personal friendships and 2nd- or 3rd-hand stories. LINK and LINK

There's also the fact that the predictions from the Rossi/Focardi paper (LINK) fails to match the results of the analysis of the "ash" supposedly produced in a Rossi E-Cat (LINK). Although Kullander conditionally suggests that the copper in the sample could be the result of nuclear fusion, he notes (on "page 2") that:

Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural.

Note the "confusion" about the results. He finds it "remarkable" and "strange" to find that the Copper that was supposedly produced in a nuclear reaction has identical isotope ratios to naturally-occuring Copper. This is inconsistent with the theory from the Rossi/Focardi paper and it is inconsistent with every other LENR experiment that has actually produced transmuted isotopes. But it is consistent with Rossi "spiking" the sample with common Copper powder.

Also note that Kullander claimed that there would be a full analysis of the "ash" from a Rossi E-Cat, which would confirm or deny that Rossi's E-Cat is actually undergoing some sort of LENR process, available by Christmas (LINK).

We're still waiting.