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

[chessnyt]

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

Thanks Chess
R

@Rosemary:

The first public demonstration of the technology was on January 14th, 2011, according to PESN.COM.  The following is a partial quote from their website followed by the link to their page:

"Last Friday, January 14, we reported about a press conference held in Bologna, Italy in which Professor Sergio Focardi and Eng. Andrea A. Rossi, both of the University of Bologna, announced to the world that they have a cold fusion device capable of producing more than 10 kilowatts of heat power, while only consuming a fraction of that.  This is the first public demonstration of a nickel-hydrogen fusion reactor capable of producing a few kilowatts of thermal energy.  At its peak, it is capable of generating 15,000 watts with just 400 watts input required.  On Saturday, a forum was opened allowing for questions online from around the world." -- http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/


Best regards,

Chess

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary:

The first public demonstration of the technology was on January 14th, 2011, according to PESN.COM.  The following is a partial quote from their website followed by the link to their page:

"Last Friday, January 14, we reported about a press conference held in Bologna, Italy in which Professor Sergio Focardi and Eng. Andrea A. Rossi, both of the University of Bologna, announced to the world that they have a cold fusion device capable of producing more than 10 kilowatts of heat power, while only consuming a fraction of that.  This is the first public demonstration of a nickel-hydrogen fusion reactor capable of producing a few kilowatts of thermal energy.  At its peak, it is capable of generating 15,000 watts with just 400 watts input required.  On Saturday, a forum was opened allowing for questions online from around the world." -- http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/


Best regards,

Chess

Thanks Chess.  I'll just amend the article without an actual date reference.  Then I'll repost it here.  Hopefully that'll answer the problem.  I've already changed the opening para to edit out some repetitious statements related to wattage.

many thanks again, and take care of yourself.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok Chess, Guys, - here's the final effort.  Cross fingers it's published.

Kindest as ever,
R

  COLD FUSION â€" OR A NEW FORCE UNFOLDING?

This year heralds the possibility of a solution to our global energy requirements and pollution concerns.  An Italian company headed by a Mr Andrea Rossi, has held a series of demonstrations 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 Kilowatt range â€" at the cost of a small initialising electrical input.  What was shown is that a current was applied to the reactor for about half an hour until it reached 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 possibly 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 is 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 prodigal over 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

[TEKTRON]

Rosemary, you may want to mention the name of the process, "E-CAT" and explain the unfortunate "Cold Fusion" name being given to his as well as  Pons and Fleischmann's device. It is a "L.E.N.R" Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, you may want to mention the name of the process, "E-CAT" and explain the unfortunate "Cold Fusion" name being given to his as well as  Pons and Fleischmann's device. It is a "L.E.N.R" Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.

Thanks TEKTRON.  I'll try and fit it in.  You're right I need to mention that it's called the E-CAT.  But that LENR thing is just as debatable as cold fusion.  If you check out the video and the comments - I think by Prof Stremmenos - any 'title' is a misnomer.  They've yet to work out the physics.  But I'll fit in that term as well.

It is my opinion that it's better to keep the explanation as ambiguous as it actually is.  If you remember it was precisely this that killed off the respectability required for that Fleischmann Pons number.  If it's acknowledged as 'anomalous' then that leaves the attention on the results.  I can understand why Rossi is insisting on 'cold fusion' as he can't patent or publish without this.  But, quite frankly - there is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that it's a nuclear reaction.  I don't care.  I'm sure none of us do.  We just want that technology up and running.  And there's nothing ambiguous about those results.  And whatever doubts about it's safety - these must have been ironed out or he would simply NOT be allowed to sell those units.

Just out of interest - and to share a concern - it may have been that he prevented that detailed analysis of the catalytic material precisely because there is no early or indeed, ANY evidence of copper.  As has been mentioned - this may be a contaminant rather than a transmuted by product.
 
The proof of the pudding - in this case - will be in it's saleability.  Hopefully it'll sell like hot cakes.  But it's fairly important to us to get this to the media.  Our own utility monopolist - ESKOM - are negotiating behind closed doors to build 2 new nuclear plants just few 20 kilometers from where I live.  I've got vested interests in promoting this knowledge.  And I don't want it snarled in debates about the cause when they clearly do not yet have that 'cause'.  Quite apart from which we're contending that he's actually using dark energy.  It's a far more respectable argument - if and when they get around to it. 

Kindest as ever
R 

Edited.  Quite funny actually.   I wrote untility.  It must be that subconscious thing where I was struggling to find the appropriate term.  In our case - because our supplies are that fragile it's better described as 'atility'.