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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sure make you wonder why Nasa waited until Rossi had started to make demonstrations of massive amounts of excess heat before they chose to back LENR reactions as really happening?

Now Nasa's chief scientist in effect says, Oops sorry we skipped over LENR reactions. We should take a step back and utilize them to totally change the way we generate and use energy.

About time. Only 22 years late. BTW Pons and Fleischmann are due a BIG apology and a Nobel.

Could not agree with you more.  Here's that 'skip' you  referred to.

"We went directly from Chemical to
strong force Nuc 
and in the process 
bought huge energetics  improvements
and radiation protection/ safety issues   
that precluded fission nuc  application,
We leapt over the weak   
interaction energetics  landscape   
except for radiologics.

It is time to   back‐track……."

I believe that some of those LENR experimentalists actually got their system running for upwards of 100 days.  Where Rossi pipped them all was in getting the application to substantial wattage - and under conditions where he could also replicate the effect reliably.  AND HE WENT PUBLIC with his demonstrations.  Where the others were discussing the evidence behind closed doors, Rossi was trying to publish the results.  To no avail I might add.

But that link is an eye opener.  Needless to say I plan to forward this to my favourite Editor in Chief.  It may help to 'chip away' at all that prejudice.Guys.  The reason that none of the other forums are discussing all this is simply because it's pulled the rug from under their feet.  Most of these forums get their members and readership from fairly eccentric experimentalists and let's face it.  Rossi's made our best efforts look somewhat ham fisted.  It's rendered 'respectable' what used to be entirely 'fanciful'.  I think they're all going through an identity crisis.     

But NOTA BENE.  Fleishman and Pons were treated to the brutal effects of 'popular opinion'.  And to our credit - there's no-one here who's ever subscribed to popular opinion.  Here's where we can all be proud. This should be a salutary reminder to our academics that they can, indeed, be WRONG - on just so many issues.  Unfortunately it's a lesson that will be ENTIRELY forgotten in no time at all.  And there's that shameful facility of that 'academic public' who will deny EVER supporting that attack.  Just so typical.Anyway.  Let them rewrite their history as they will.  I think you're right.  Fleishmann and Pons should get a NOBEL or that entire award system will become a joke.  It'll represent NOT actual discovery and genius - but simply popular opinion.

Thank you for that link IronShell.  I'm constantly amazed at you all in finding these links.  One day I hope to learn your tricks and see how to find things out for myself.  And it's an ENORMOUS comfort to see our NASA scientists leading the advancement of all this.  Long overdue.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[IronShell3d]

I suspect NASA is playing catch up. Those documents were not openly released by NASA. They were obtained under a Freedom of Information request. Expect to see a lot of people who have slammed LENR in the past, now ducking for cover.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

... Expect to see a lot of people who have slammed LENR in the past, now ducking for cover.

Indeed. 

[hoptoad]

snip..
Catalists don't take part of any reactions by definition.
snip..

That would be a narrow definition.  Consumable catalysts such as a source of heat to start a reaction, but not required to maintain the reaction were among my favourite childhood resources.
Picture this.
In my left hand I'm holding a fireworks cracker, and in my right hand I'm holding a lit match : - the source of heat catalyst which I apply to the fireworks cracker wick, before throwing it and running ! 
Cheers

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - I have now been in correspondence with Rossi.  He's generously proposed to publish our papers in his Journal and we're honoured to take him up on this.  We've now 'officially' withdrawn our papers from the IEEE and have resubmitted them.

It's fortunate that he's an independent thinker.   Our trolls will, no doubt, rush to prevent this publication.  But I'm reasonably satisfied that the paper is sound.  It's been vetted by some very prestigious academics and, apart from an error in one of our definitions - it's only solicited favourable comment. 

I also took the trouble to delete the appendix to the first part of that paper which referenced Poynt.99's open sourced work on the sims.  This because Poynt will INEVITABLY object to any reference of his work.  So.  Hopefully before Christmas we'll have something available for our academics to argue about.  Our own contribution is small.  And, bear in mind, has absolutely no competitive advantage to Rossi's technology.  Nowhere near.  The best we can do is offer some 'weighty' and clumsy batteries, where he uses a spoonful of nickle and a whisper of hydrogen.  That's entirely outclassed our best efforts. 

So all.  Am delighted with this exposure and - with luck - the debate can progress to the forum where it belongs.  Which is not with me but with our academic experts.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary