|
On January 16 2012 13:46 HardMacro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 13:39 Papulatus wrote:On January 16 2012 13:19 Fallians wrote:I'm really hoping these guys aren't fakes and that this can take away some of the worlds dependence on fossil fuels, imagine what would happen if all the oil dried up tomorrow  But oil isn't going to dry up tomorrow. What if the sun miraculously disappeared! Then we would NEED Rossi's invention, or we'd all be fucked (even more so than we would be anyway) within a few years lol (ignoring the fact that we'd probably die much sooner due to shifting orbits and collisions and whatnot). CF should in theory, generate enough power to sustain a population in the millions on Earth, no?
in theory
ha
funny guy
|
On January 16 2012 12:30 XRaDiiX wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 13:54 NicolBolas wrote:On January 14 2012 13:24 XRaDiiX wrote:On January 14 2012 12:58 woody60707 wrote:On January 14 2012 10:49 XRaDiiX wrote:I found something interesting. On Wikipedia. On October 28, 2011, a 1 MW plant based on the Energy Catalyzer was reported to have been tested by engineer Domenico Fioravanti for an undisclosed customer.[58] According to Fioravanti, the plant released 2,635 kWh during five and a half hours of self sustained mode, an average power of 479 kilowatts – just under half the promised power of one megawatt. The customer reportedly acquired the plant after the test. Independent observers were not allowed to watch the measurements or make their own, and the plant remained connected to a power supply during the test allegedly to supply power to the fans and the water pumps.[59][60][61] Rossi claims to have orders from customers in the US and Europe for thirteen more 1 MW units in addition to the undisclosed customer from the October 28 test. He offers these for sale for $2 million.[62] The Italian popular science magazine Focus reports that 12 additional units are to the same, undisclosed customer, and quoted Rossi: "We are building a 13 MW thermal plant, made of 13 plant such as the one you saw on October 28th: but it's a military research and I can't reveal any further detail, not the name, nor the place, nor the nationality of the customer".[63]... I believe it may be genuine. ... + Show Spoiler +IMO could be big Oil trying to stop them. Or trying to steal the patents reason being why NASA is scrambling to work with LERN and possibly co-operate with Rossi. Looks like There has already been a few buyers at the price of 2 million each of preliminary devices. It also makes sense why he's trying to get it patented and stopping anyone from stealing his patents. He's just being careful so that nobody steals the rights to his technology. Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, described LENR as a "promising" technology and praised the work of Rossi and Focardi.[7] Bushnell also said that they were starting an experiment to test the Widom-Larson theory[8], in which a Heavy electron combines with a proton, through the Weak Nuclear Force (and thus avoiding the Coulomb barrier), creating a neutrino and a neutron. The neutron can then enter a nearby nucleus, causing additional nuclear reactions. On Oct 6, 2011 the US Patent Office published an application by NASA Langley scientist Joseph Zawodny[9] for a patent "Method For Producing Heavy Electrons"[10], which quotes the Widom-Larsen theory [11] and includes "by reference in its entirety" Larsen's Patent No. 7,893,414.
With Neutron+Nickel = Copper On November 23, 2011, in the Massachusetts Statehouse, Andrea Rossi met with the minority leader of the Massachusetts Senate Bruce Tarr and representatives from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, and the University of Massachusetts, to explore the prospects for developing and manufacturing the device in Massachusetts, USA. According to Robert Tamarin, the Dean of Science at UML, the representatives were mostly skeptical and only examined the possibilities of manufacturing within Massachusetts in case the technology turns out to work.[65][25]
On December 2011 Rossi stated that he had passed ten thousand pre-orders for a consumer version of the Energy Catalyzer and that he was already aiming for mass-scale production of it and electricity generation with it.[66] Video of NASA trying to steal/use/patent the same technology Rossi's E-Cat is using.http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.htmlIt' feels good to show all the doubters of this technology that this seems to be materializing and may actually be the real deal. Hopefully Big Oil doesn't stop them.... I'm sorry sir, but how can you read that and say "I believe it may be genuine" When you go to a magic show, do you really believe he really pulled a rabbit from a hat? No need for an Independent check of the hat, the rabbit was in there the whole time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off NASA doesn't steal, they would with the private sector to commercialized there inventions. A cute analogy but we will see who is wrong and right in the end and there's nothing wrong with believing what he has may be genuine. The difference between us is this: I won't be wrong for being skeptical of his invention. If it doesn't work, you will be wrong for believing in it when it didn't. Skepticism isn't saying "it doesn't work." Skepticism is saying, "he hasn't proven that it works." Which is true; at this point in time, he has not proven that it does. If tomorrow he does, then the statement will still be true. If it doesn't work however, you will have always been wrong, because your belief is that it did work when it in fact did not. See the difference? Especially considering the powers that may want to stop him from completing his device and making it available to the public if it does indeed do what he says it does.
Look at it this way do you believe the powers that control the energy sections propaganda or do you believe someone who may have possibly revolutionized the way we can gather energy. This is pure conspiracy theory garbage. "The powers" are trying to stop him. Ooohhh! Fear "the powers!" Fear them! Your mad ramblings about "the powers" do not change the fact that the man has produced virtually no independently verifiable evidence for what he claims to have done. Conspiracy theory crap doesn't change that simple fact: there is no evidence of his machine working. Yes, I can accept that if he found a way to produce cheap energy, he would play things close to the vest. Not so much to avoid "the powers" as simply to make sure that he gets paid for cornering the global energy market and taking over Alpha Cent- the world. If it were me, I might do something similar. But if I did, I would also be completely understanding and patient with the fact that people on the outside have no reason to accept what I've done with the virtually no independently verifiable evidence I've provided thus far. I would expect skepticism at every turn, because that's what I choose to do by keeping things hidden. I think we should be a little skeptical of course but it seems everyone wants to bury his work because it doesn't match with how science believes the physical world can work.
But theories are mean't to be broken. Theories are made to explain things. If facts are revealed that are contradictory to those theories, then new theories must replace or augment the old ones to explain all of the relevant facts. You don't "break" theories because of what some guy claims. You only "break" them because of what some guy can prove with actual independently verifiable facts. Thus far, there are no independently verifiable facts on his side. The energy corporations wouldn't bat an eye to silence buy-off anyone with such a possible device. It's actually common sense if you think about it because of how their company would become obsolete if this device actually works. So you might wanna think before uttering ignorance again and they also likely have ties with most of the main-stream press. Including science/physics publishers and what not. $$$ the Energy companies have a lot of it at their disposal. They also have the most to lose if some revolutionary invention were to render their energy monopoly obsolete. So use common sense.
Why would an energy company WANT to "silence" such a device?
If they like profits then they would buy the technology and use it to gain an advantage over their competitors. The money they could make from a more efficient way to create electricity would far outweigh any profits they can make with existing technology. OR they would be far too fearful of a competitor using the technology when it goes off-patent or creating a competing technology to not use it themselves.
Even if the technology makes oil + other fossil fuels obsolete it wouldn't happen overnight. Oil companies could just stop investing in new wells and slowly (and profitably) die out or move on to new businesses.
|
I'm not sure why you're asking if 'deflakion' is being duped, as they're the random guys saying they're trying to develop a version of the ecat of their own.
I don't know anything about UL, but I'd imagine if it's legit large newspapers will say something after UL says something. Interesting read anyway, thanks for the links.
|
Just want to say it again; I love this thread and I still cannot believe that you guys are producing so much entertainment for free.
|
On January 19 2012 14:10 Integra wrote:
Just want to say it again; I love this thread and I still cannot believe that you guys are producing so much entertainment for free.
Give it a rest man. christ.
|
On January 19 2012 14:10 Integra wrote:
Just want to say it again; I love this thread and I still cannot believe that you guys are producing so much entertainment for free.
Was this post really intended to be anything more than sticking your tongue out at people? Why bother posting that?
|
On January 19 2012 14:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 14:10 Integra wrote:
Just want to say it again; I love this thread and I still cannot believe that you guys are producing so much entertainment for free. Was this post really intended to be anything more than sticking your tongue out at people? Why bother posting that?
His post was more informative and factual correct then most of the post in here.
|
On January 19 2012 07:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Why would an energy company WANT to "silence" such a device?
If they like profits then they would buy the technology and use it to gain an advantage over their competitors. The money they could make from a more efficient way to create electricity would far outweigh any profits they can make with existing technology. OR they would be far too fearful of a competitor using the technology when it goes off-patent or creating a competing technology to not use it themselves.
It is easy to understand. There are some powers that benefit from the current state of energy supply. Free or very cheap energy will reshape the whole world. Just imagine that each and every country can buy or build devices that generate enough energy for national needs. The demand for fossil energy will drastically drop, the demand for USD (that you need to buy fossil energy) will drastically drop too. It is not acceptable. Any kind of energy supply improvement must remain under control.
I really hope that cheap energy is around the corner, humankind cannot rely on fossil energy forever of course, but it is not going to happen in the nearest feature.
Cold fusion is a real thing (http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html), but I am not sure about this Rossy's CAT, it maybe a hoax.
|
On January 19 2012 05:36 intrigue wrote:how do we verify whether this is true or not from UL? are deflakion and national instruments totally being duped? at this point i almost wish this wasn't true so i could just stop thinking about it. my imagination is running wild
National Instruments most likely had a private demonstration that convinced them. The business relationship with Rossi was kept secret for months at first.
Defkalion is no longer collaborating with Rossi. They have stated that they are working on their own nickel-hydrogen LENR reactor. If anything, they are duping everyone else. Despite claiming otherwise they've probably copied Rossi's tech.
|
Also New Energy Times reports the following:
Jan. 16, 2012: Celani reports in an e-mail to LENR researchers that he has received an invitation to speak at CERN about LENR.
“The key point is that CERN changed from [being] fully negative to [having] deep interest,” Celani wrote.
Prof. Celani is another italian LENR researcher and vice-president of the Society of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. He has attended an e-cat demo with Rossi. He has seen excess heat in his own nickel-hydrogen cells, with average excess output of 5W and heat production for over 20 days.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
On January 19 2012 14:10 Integra wrote:
Just want to say it again; I love this thread and I still cannot believe that you guys are producing so much entertainment for free.
you know, i don't mind at all if rossi's proven to be a hoax. i believe that the chances of that are really fucking high to be honest, maybe even 99%. it's this 1% or .1% or .01% or .001% chance that he actually found something that amazes me. it's like doing an EV calculation for whether placing your attention/interest will be rewarding. if you think it's 100% a hoax, well the difference between you and me isn't that big, and your opinion is definitely the result of an also skeptical and intelligent worldview. i just don't think you need to keep expressing how dumb you think everyone is. right? it's fun letting yourself be caught up a little bit, it's not like i'm betting my life savings on this dude.
|
On January 19 2012 21:06 GeyzeR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Why would an energy company WANT to "silence" such a device?
If they like profits then they would buy the technology and use it to gain an advantage over their competitors. The money they could make from a more efficient way to create electricity would far outweigh any profits they can make with existing technology. OR they would be far too fearful of a competitor using the technology when it goes off-patent or creating a competing technology to not use it themselves. Cold fusion is a real thing (http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html), but I am not sure about this Rossy's CAT, it maybe a hoax.
right. NASA admits that they get excess heat, so the process is real, but to be honest we've known that this specific process has been real since the mid 80s, and getting excess heat from a process and developing a commercial reactor are two very very very different things. We could observe quantum entanglement effects in the 70s but we still haven't created a quantum computer that reliably harnesses them to do more than a single calculation.
Rossi so far is, according to available evidence, absolutely no different than any of the other cold fusion salesmen that have come along. He's essentially taking a process that has been known about for decades, and claiming he has created an invention that harnesses it, while giving absolutely no verifiable information on how it works, or allowing people to monitor aspects of it that would protect his intellectual property while demonstrating that it isn't a scam. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. His claims have been extraordinary, evidence, nonexistent.
On January 20 2012 01:47 intrigue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 14:10 Integra wrote:
Just want to say it again; I love this thread and I still cannot believe that you guys are producing so much entertainment for free. you know, i don't mind at all if rossi's proven to be a hoax. i believe that the chances of that are really fucking high to be honest, maybe even 99%. it's this 1% or .1% or .01% or .001% chance that he actually found something that amazes me. it's like doing an EV calculation for whether placing your attention/interest will be rewarding. if you think it's 100% a hoax, well the difference between you and me isn't that big, and your opinion is definitely the result of an also skeptical and intelligent worldview. i just don't think you need to keep expressing how dumb you think everyone is. right? it's fun letting yourself be caught up a little bit, it's not like i'm betting my life savings on this dude.
I actually like this post. It's like how sometimes I'll read these weird fringe sites about aliens or alternative energy/physics etc as a kind of escape fiction or something. It is fun to get caught up in it since it's so easy to get stuck in a single consensus world view that can get boring after a while, and you need a vaster canvass to project your imaginations on sometimes.
|
On January 20 2012 01:47 intrigue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 14:10 Integra wrote:
Just want to say it again; I love this thread and I still cannot believe that you guys are producing so much entertainment for free. you know, i don't mind at all if rossi's proven to be a hoax. i believe that the chances of that are really fucking high to be honest, maybe even 99%. it's this 1% or .1% or .01% or .001% chance that he actually found something that amazes me. it's like doing an EV calculation for whether placing your attention/interest will be rewarding. if you think it's 100% a hoax, well the difference between you and me isn't that big, and your opinion is definitely the result of an also skeptical and intelligent worldview. i just don't think you need to keep expressing how dumb you think everyone is. right? it's fun letting yourself be caught up a little bit, it's not like i'm betting my life savings on this dude.
If you think there's a 1% chance this is real you are clearly deluding yourself. Even 0.01% seems extremely optimistic.
For me the best analogy would be a photo of an UFO that wasn't proven as fake even after some detailed analysis. What's the chance of it being an actual extraterrestial spacecraft? Does 1% sound reasonable? Or even 1 in 100 000?
You have a situation where you are a priori almost certain that it's fake. There must have been hundreds of thousands of free energy or cheap energy devices proposed in the last 100 years. How many of those worked? What if you add the condition that they had no clear theoretical explanation? I think the answer is none.
So maybe you start with an a priori probability of 1 in 1 000 000 and now ask how many of those 999 999 would have passed the tests Rossi's device has passed. Given that it's pretty hard to prove something is fake if you're not allowed to examine how it actually works something like 5% seems reasonable. So it looks like we're left with a 1/20 000 chance that it's real. Which is better than I originally expected.
Now let's say that even if it's real there's a ~90% chance that it can't be turned into a cheap large scale system. And assume that if it does work it has a present value of 10 trillion dollars. This might sound low but there's a decent chance some alternative method will decrease the price of energy significantly in the next 30-50 years so we can't go overboard.
So with these assumptions the value would be 10^13x2x10^-5=2x10^8 or 200 million dollars. That's actually a decent amount and much higher than I expected but not something I'd get really excited about as a spectator.
|
On January 21 2012 22:14 hypercube wrote:
If you think there's a 1% chance this is real you are clearly deluding yourself. Even 0.01% seems extremely optimistic.
[...]
Your analysis is based on arbitrary numbers. You can get a much better idea about the merit of the e-cat by examining the circumstantial evidence in favor of it.
We know that LENR is most likely real because more and more researchers claim to have achieved excess heat with it, the latest being the NASA. The highest reported energy densities correspond to a nuclear reaction. In layman terms, you can get a LOT of energy out of very little mass.
From there it does not seem too far-fetched to consider the possibility that some strange Italian engineer may have figured out how to control the reaction and thus scale it up. Nobody understands the theory behind LENR, so anyone who is willing to experiment could make an unexpected breakthrough. I will agree that Rossi does not inspire confidence, on the other hand, other involved people do. Nothing can replace independent testing but lack of independent testing is NOT strange despite what some think - it would be highly suspicious for a NASA scientist or a university researcher but not for a private inventor. If you think this is complete BS, look up the story of the Bloom Box.
|
On January 20 2012 01:47 intrigue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 14:10 Integra wrote:
Just want to say it again; I love this thread and I still cannot believe that you guys are producing so much entertainment for free. you know, i don't mind at all if rossi's proven to be a hoax. i believe that the chances of that are really fucking high to be honest, maybe even 99%. it's this 1% or .1% or .01% or .001% chance that he actually found something that amazes me. it's like doing an EV calculation for whether placing your attention/interest will be rewarding. if you think it's 100% a hoax, well the difference between you and me isn't that big, and your opinion is definitely the result of an also skeptical and intelligent worldview. i just don't think you need to keep expressing how dumb you think everyone is. right? it's fun letting yourself be caught up a little bit, it's not like i'm betting my life savings on this dude.
This is basically what I've been wondering throughout all this thread. I have no background whatsoever to judge or even remotely understand the theory behind this, but what the hell is everyone so upset about? What exactly do you lose if it turns out to be a hoax? I think so far it appears that it is reasonable to assume that there is a chance this is working and so this is worth exploring.
Most of the posts here are basically "how can anybody be so stupid as to believe in this" aka "gosh, I'm soooo smart".
You don't know for sure either way (yet), so sit calm down, son.
|
On January 21 2012 22:54 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 01:47 intrigue wrote:On January 19 2012 14:10 Integra wrote:
Just want to say it again; I love this thread and I still cannot believe that you guys are producing so much entertainment for free. you know, i don't mind at all if rossi's proven to be a hoax. i believe that the chances of that are really fucking high to be honest, maybe even 99%. it's this 1% or .1% or .01% or .001% chance that he actually found something that amazes me. it's like doing an EV calculation for whether placing your attention/interest will be rewarding. if you think it's 100% a hoax, well the difference between you and me isn't that big, and your opinion is definitely the result of an also skeptical and intelligent worldview. i just don't think you need to keep expressing how dumb you think everyone is. right? it's fun letting yourself be caught up a little bit, it's not like i'm betting my life savings on this dude. This is basically what I've been wondering throughout all this thread. I have no background whatsoever to judge or even remotely understand the theory behind this, but what the hell is everyone so upset about? What exactly do you lose if it turns out to be a hoax? I think so far it appears that it is reasonable to assume that there is a chance this is working and so this is worth exploring. Most of the posts here are basically "how can anybody be so stupid as to believe in this" aka "gosh, I'm soooo smart". You don't know for sure either way (yet), so sit calm down, son.
What you're saying is partially true but it's a pretty understandable reaction to some of the "fanatic" followers of this theory. There's no solid proof and history shows that in practically all cases where someone claims to have a worldchanging innovation but doesn't provide proof it's because it doesn't work.
|
On January 22 2012 01:57 karpo wrote:
What you're saying is partially true but it's a pretty understandable reaction to some of the "fanatic" followers of this theory. There's no solid proof and history shows that in practically all cases where someone claims to have a worldchanging innovation but doesn't provide proof it's because it doesn't work.
Recent history (from the Wikipedia article about it):
The Bloom Energy Server (commonly referred to as the Bloom Box) is a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) made by Bloom Energy, of Sunnyvale, California, that can use a wide variety of inputs (including liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons produced from bio sources) to generate electricity on the site where it will be used. It is highly efficient, low cost and has lower polluting emissions.
According to the company, a single cell (one 100 × 100 mm metal alloy plate between two ceramic layers) generates 25 watts.
Bloom say that two hundred servers have been deployed in California for a number of corporations like eBay, Google, Wal-Mart and many more.
Bloom Energy is the company that develops, builds, and installs Bloom Energy Servers. The company, started in 2002 by CEO K.R. Sridhar.
The CEO gave a media interview (to Fortune Magazine) for the first time in 2010, eight years after founding the company, because of pressure from his customers. A few days later he allowed a journalist (Lesley Stahl of the CBS News program 60 Minutes) to see the factory for the first time. On February 24, 2010, the company held its first press conference.
TL;DR: a company developed a revolutionary tech to produce electricity and NEVER had public independent testing - they sold straight to customers. They didn't even announce this to the public until the customers asked them to. They kept it all secret and how it works exactly is still secret. As long as it works, nobody cares.
Rossi never cared about convincing some internet skeptics or the scientific community. The tests he has done were not to convince the public - they were a favor to Focardi who is old and wants to see his work vindicated.
|
On January 22 2012 01:57 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 22:54 Monsen wrote:On January 20 2012 01:47 intrigue wrote:On January 19 2012 14:10 Integra wrote:
Just want to say it again; I love this thread and I still cannot believe that you guys are producing so much entertainment for free. you know, i don't mind at all if rossi's proven to be a hoax. i believe that the chances of that are really fucking high to be honest, maybe even 99%. it's this 1% or .1% or .01% or .001% chance that he actually found something that amazes me. it's like doing an EV calculation for whether placing your attention/interest will be rewarding. if you think it's 100% a hoax, well the difference between you and me isn't that big, and your opinion is definitely the result of an also skeptical and intelligent worldview. i just don't think you need to keep expressing how dumb you think everyone is. right? it's fun letting yourself be caught up a little bit, it's not like i'm betting my life savings on this dude. This is basically what I've been wondering throughout all this thread. I have no background whatsoever to judge or even remotely understand the theory behind this, but what the hell is everyone so upset about? What exactly do you lose if it turns out to be a hoax? I think so far it appears that it is reasonable to assume that there is a chance this is working and so this is worth exploring. Most of the posts here are basically "how can anybody be so stupid as to believe in this" aka "gosh, I'm soooo smart". You don't know for sure either way (yet), so sit calm down, son. What you're saying is partially true but it's a pretty understandable reaction to some of the "fanatic" followers of this theory. There's no solid proof and history shows that in practically all cases where someone claims to have a worldchanging innovation but doesn't provide proof it's because it doesn't work.
The comment I made was not in a sense of being an "ass" or against the people who believes in Rossi. I have followed this guy for years all the way back from the early 90's when he claimed being able to turn waste into oil and this is when it got really interesting;
The result was that he got into court for crimes against the environment since the "oil" he had produced was nothing else than junk and the region he had used as a site for his "production" now was a toxic dump and had to be sanitized which roughly ended up costing forty million euros.
I love this thread because now I don't have to look around to get new info about one of the biggest trolls of all time, I just have to check this thread. It's not the people opinion whether is right or wrong or if you believe in it or not, its the actual reporting of what he is doing or "claims" to be doing that I actually care about. and that was what I was referring to in the comment. And I'll state it again, if someone here is ready to update this thread on a regular basis and offers me a paypal account I will send you money for going through the trouble of actually getting the info posted it here.
|
On January 19 2012 21:06 GeyzeR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Why would an energy company WANT to "silence" such a device?
If they like profits then they would buy the technology and use it to gain an advantage over their competitors. The money they could make from a more efficient way to create electricity would far outweigh any profits they can make with existing technology. OR they would be far too fearful of a competitor using the technology when it goes off-patent or creating a competing technology to not use it themselves. It is easy to understand. There are some powers that benefit from the current state of energy supply. Free or very cheap energy will reshape the whole world. Just imagine that each and every country can buy or build devices that generate enough energy for national needs. The demand for fossil energy will drastically drop, the demand for USD (that you need to buy fossil energy) will drastically drop too. It is not acceptable. Any kind of energy supply improvement must remain under control. I really hope that cheap energy is around the corner, humankind cannot rely on fossil energy forever of course, but it is not going to happen in the nearest feature. Cold fusion is a real thing (http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html), but I am not sure about this Rossy's CAT, it maybe a hoax.
The only people that would be harmed by this new technology are those with economies dependent upon exporting oil. So Saudi Arabia are countries like it would be harmed but could potentially recover as they move to new technologies.
America would not be harmed in the least bit. In fact, assuming that it really could produce cheap energy, our economy would boom from such a technology.
"Demand for USD would drop" = silly nonsense that wouldn't harm the US in the slightest.
|
Northern Ireland1200 Posts
A brief video about what NASA are up to regarding LENR.
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
"While the world is drastically dependent on fossil fuel, researchers at NASA Langley Research Center are working on another way of producing energy efficient nuclear power"
Edit: Just realised someone already posted this few pages back.. sorry!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
