FIRST FREE ENERGY DEVICE REACHES MARKET IN OCTOBER -- The Game Changer is Here

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thanks Chess.

Here's my first draft.  Please correct - amend - whatever.  I'd be sorry to send this on with wrong statements.  And I'd welcome your input.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

  COLD FUSION â€" OR A NEW FORCE UNFOLDING?

On the 8^th of August, an Italian company headed by a Mr Andrea Rossi, held a demonstration of a technology that, if it works as claimed, will produce more heat than the fuel that is used to generate that heat.   In effect Rossi is able to generate robust levels of energy measured in the 10’s and even 100’s of Kilowatts â€" at the cost of a small initialising input measured at a little over 1 Kilowatt.  What was shown is that heat was applied to the reactor for about half an hour to reach a temperature of about 170 degrees centigrade.  Thereafter some operating process ‘kicked in’ and the system ran itself.

This extraordinary claim flies in the face of Thermodynamic Laws unless it can somehow be attributed to the nuclear force.  For those of us who remember the event â€" it is similar to the claims of Cold Fusion that were advanced by Fleischmann and Pons.  They too repeatedly demonstrated experiments that measured this same extraordinary heat signature in an interaction of heavy water (a water molecule comprising deuterium) and palladium.  Rossi uses the more accessible materials of nickel and hydrogen and some catalyst that has not yet been disclosed.  The only way, within our standard model, that this amount of energy surplus can be explained is in terms of nuclear processes.  But to prove that some kind of fusion was occurring there was also the required proof of ‘emissions’ â€" those radioactive waste materials that are the signature proof of a nuclear interaction.  This was sorely lacking and it was precisely this lack that buried both the claims of Cold Fusion and the good names of both Professor Fleischmann and Dr Pons.  Ironically, it is also precisely this lack of a toxic waste product that makes this energy technology so desirable.

The difference between Fleishmann and Pons and Andrea Rossi is that Rossi has taken this to the level of a working, saleable and patented product in units that can be ‘containerised’ and shipped anywhere in the world.   And these units are designed to deliver 10’s and even 100’s of Kilowatts. The other glaring difference is that Rossi took the precaution of inviting only that public that was qualified to evaluate the measured energy surplus.  It included Professors Sergio Focardi, Emilio Del Giudice, Francesco Celeni, Christos Stremmenos and Dr Guiliano Preparata, all of whom are experts in the field.   They have all publicly accredited these results that support the claims of efficiency but none of them are able to explain the process, as the measured emissions do not fall in line with what is expected in a nuclear process.  It is interesting to see that some highly reputable scientists, including Nobel Laureate Emeritus Professor Brian Josephsson, are speaking out in support of the ‘cold fusion’ results â€" regardless of the theoretical constructs required for this. 

All of which means that, yet again, our theory may lag the experimental evidence. Perhaps there are new forces that are emerging â€" a new science in the making.  But whatever the explanation, this certainly promises a potential and welcome freedom to all energy users from the gridlocked relationship with our utility monopolists.  Nor are there the toxic waste products associated with nuclear energy production.  And most significantly, it will also resolve the escalating problems associated with global pollution resulting from our use of fossil fuels.  As it’s described in the official link to Rossi’s work - this may be a revolution in the making.
http://ecat.com/inventor-andrea-rossi

[chessnyt]

Thanks Chess.

Here's my first draft.  Please correct - amend - whatever.  I'd be sorry to send this on with wrong statements.  And I'd welcome your input.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

  COLD FUSION â€" OR A NEW FORCE UNFOLDING?

On the 8^th of August, an Italian company headed by a Mr Andrea Rossi, held a demonstration of a technology that, if it works as claimed, will produce more heat than the fuel that is used to generate that heat.   In effect Rossi is able to generate robust levels of energy measured in the 10’s and even 100’s of Kilowatts â€" at the cost of a small initialising input measured at a little over 1 Kilowatt.  What was shown is that heat was applied to the reactor for about half an hour to reach a temperature of about 170 degrees centigrade.  Thereafter some operating process ‘kicked in’ and the system ran itself.

This extraordinary claim flies in the face of Thermodynamic Laws unless it can somehow be attributed to the nuclear force.  For those of us who remember the event â€" it is similar to the claims of Cold Fusion that were advanced by Fleischmann and Pons.  They too repeatedly demonstrated experiments that measured this same extraordinary heat signature in an interaction of heavy water (a water molecule comprising deuterium) and palladium.  Rossi uses the more accessible materials of nickel and hydrogen and some catalyst that has not yet been disclosed.  The only way, within our standard model, that this amount of energy surplus can be explained is in terms of nuclear processes.  But to prove that some kind of fusion was occurring there was also the required proof of ‘emissions’ â€" those radioactive waste materials that are the signature proof of a nuclear interaction.  This was sorely lacking and it was precisely this lack that buried both the claims of Cold Fusion and the good names of both Professor Fleischmann and Dr Pons.  Ironically, it is also precisely this lack of a toxic waste product that makes this energy technology so desirable.

The difference between Fleishmann and Pons and Andrea Rossi is that Rossi has taken this to the level of a working, saleable and patented product in units that can be ‘containerised’ and shipped anywhere in the world.   And these units are designed to deliver 10’s and even 100’s of Kilowatts. The other glaring difference is that Rossi took the precaution of inviting only that public that was qualified to evaluate the measured energy surplus.  It included Professors Sergio Focardi, Emilio Del Giudice, Francesco Celeni, Christos Stremmenos and Dr Guiliano Preparata, all of whom are experts in the field.   They have all publicly accredited these results that support the claims of efficiency but none of them are able to explain the process, as the measured emissions do not fall in line with what is expected in a nuclear process.  It is interesting to see that some highly reputable scientists, including Nobel Laureate Emeritus Professor Brian Josephsson, are speaking out in support of the ‘cold fusion’ results â€" regardless of the theoretical constructs required for this. 

All of which means that, yet again, our theory may lag the experimental evidence. Perhaps there are new forces that are emerging â€" a new science in the making.  But whatever the explanation, this certainly promises a potential and welcome freedom to all energy users from the gridlocked relationship with our utility monopolists.  Nor are there the toxic waste products associated with nuclear energy production.  And most significantly, it will also resolve the escalating problems associated with global pollution resulting from our use of fossil fuels.  As it’s described in the official link to Rossi’s work - this may be a revolution in the making.
http://ecat.com/inventor-andrea-rossi

Splendid article, Rosemary.  Your journalistic talents really shine through on this one.  That is what we need headlined across every major newspaper around the globe.

Kudos,

Chess

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thanks Chess.  But Guys, everyone - if there are incorrect facts that you see - PLEASE ADVISE. 

If I don't hear anything I'll send this along - in about five hours from now.  Fingers crossed that our editor doesn't 'edit' this out of mind.

What fun.
Rosemary

[chessnyt]

Thanks Chess.  But Guys, everyone - if there are incorrect facts that you see - PLEASE ADVISE. 

If I don't hear anything I'll send this along - in about five hours from now.  Fingers crossed that our editor doesn't 'edit' this out of mind.

What fun.
Rosemary

@Rosemary:

The only thing I saw that I could not confirm was the August 8th testing date.  I remember test dates in October but not all the way back to August.


Regards,

Chess

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary:

The only thing I saw that I could not confirm was the August 8th testing date.  I remember test dates in October but not all the way back to August.


Regards,

Chess

Was it November the 8th?  I can't access that link at the moment.

Thanks Chess
R