Lewis Larsen, one of the co-promoter of Widom-Larsen-Srivastava theory, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC published yesterday slides about LENR application for planes, and further, bringing new documents and ideas.
You can read his slides on Slideshare : "Revolutionary LENRs Could Power Future Aircraft and Other Systems"
His slides goes further than my preview article on the same subject : "About NASA research : Are Cold Fusion/LENR Planes already feasible?"
Lewis Larsen starts from the NASA work, SUGAR report and recent Wells seedling project, that I discussed earlier.
One of his very interesting finding is that report published by AIAA : "Impact of Advanced Energy Technologies on Aircraft Design"
This report, authored from California Polytechnic State University by Robert A McDonald, consider using Brayton cycle engine, and consider high altitude long endurance (multi-year) drone. I could not find the detail of the article (paywal), but the simple existence and subject is an event.
It remind us, that there are already electric planes, and drone, that could be adapter to LENR. There are also prototypes of single-person aircraft, micro-drones, which could benefit from high density energy source, provided the turbines are of the good size.
Further discussion goes to using LENR for cars, (crossing again one of my recent articl about cars) for home energy. He remind us that there are currently micro-turbines (sub kW) in development.
Crossing my previous article on energy for the battlefield, but being more ambitious he propose a vision of "starship troopers" style of equipment, based on emergy exoskeleton fed by LENR, and autonomous robots.
About Widom-Larsen-Srivastava theory
As people may have noticed, I evolved toward a skeptic position on Widom-Larsen-Srivastava theory. This theory have many supporters, including NASA LENR supporters.
Lewis Larsen in his numerous slides is explaining well the keys of that theory. The main key is that because of collective coherence effects, protons and electrons can acquire enough energy to merge into ultra-slow neutrons that are swallowed by neighboring nucleus, staying undetected. The energy dissipated as gamma is then absorbed by the coherent electrons.
The main idea, from Edmund Storms who convinced me, is that observed thermal/fast neutrons and hard gamma are 10^6 times less intense than expected. It seems impossible that a shielding be able to suppress so efficiently the gamma. Similarly even if the neutrons produced are ultra-slow and undetectable, they are thermalized as soon as they collide with any particle, and get visible. Even if slow neutrons are absorbed quickly by nucleus, it cannot be so efficient.
Ed Storms interpret the observations as there is no neutrons, nor gamma produced (except as parasitic reactions) by the reaction. He propose a 3-body reaction declined as : p+e+p (for NiH), d+e+d (for PdD), and p+e+d for the Pd+D+H reaction producing tritium... There is some missing link, and maybe more than 3 particles are involved.
Anyway discussion on theory is premature, and not so meaningful.
Lewis Larsen and his groups have raised very interesting facts, and ideas, and maybe some are valuable, even if as Edmund storms is convinced, the big picture is probably different.
History will say who is right... but current time is to innovators, not theoretician, and Lewis Larsen vision of the future is worth reading for sure. Thanks to him for his enthusiasm and his hard work to communicate.
Published on Feb 18th, 2014
By AlainCo (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Discuss about that article
Open answer about LENR/Cold Fusion to a consensual anti-scientific science apologist. [Updated 2014-02-17]
Today I found that article reporting the announce of Cherokee fund and industrial Heat, about buying E-cat technology... Nothing worth new except that astounding closing message :
Reminder: Cold fusion has not been verified by science and has been rejected. So I do not allow cold fusion advocates to post claims that it’s being verified all over the world.
So since censorship is announced, I publish here that open answer. The occasion to answer many similar believers in consensus.
"So I do not allow cold fusion advocates to post claims that it’s being verified all over the world. "
This sentence resonated like one of the most awful, anti-scientific, and consensual position about the cold fusion. So forgive my extensive response, nothing is really personal and feel free to escape from the box.
Do you accept evidence , peer-reviewed papers, with absence of any written critics that have not been addressed? Or do you prefer theoretical arguments, unwritten and unreviewed critics, rumors, rebutted arguments, organized ignorance of recent result ? I imagine you prefer scientific arguments, based on experimental results, and classic first order logic.
I will base my answer on one of the most serious review of cold fusion research done in 1996, and update about 2000 (no new critic emerged) : the book of Charles Beaudette, "Excess Heat" that he kindly published as PDF for ICCF9 in University of Tsinghua.
The paper of F&P was peer-reviewed, even if criticized later by only 4 authors, Lewis, Hansen, Wilson and Morrison.
The incompetence of Lewis is proven, since instead of admitting his incompetence in calorimetry, not able to stir automatically his cell, he accused without checking, F&P of his incompetence. He also ignored later the work of McKubre who used flow calorimetry at stable temperature (via compensation), the work of Oriani using Seebeck calorimetry (immune to that artifact), the presentation made few days latter by F&P proving with colorant fast mixing, and the precise measurements done by F&P until 2012 proving their cell was precise at 0.01C, and having few % imprecision with few 10% of anomaly... reaching sometime 50 sigma of signal (much above Higgs).
Hansen did the same late about recombination, ignoring the work of McKubre who used closed cell with recombination, of Oriani who separated the gases, and ignoring that F&P were measuring recombination (during refilling) which was kept at the usual (known by electro-chemist, unlike him)
Morrison was enough honest to flee when he realized he simply missed key points.
Wilson was enough competent to explain how Lewis and Hansen were incompetent and how Fleishmann have proven anomalous heat in the most important event, yet claiming the opposite.
Add to that the paper of Oriani which was Peer-reviewed, even if Nature refused to publish it for no reason relative to the real question, the calorimetry, and no doubt the real reason was cold fusion was satanic for that high impact journal.
The book of beaudette, gives much more detail, about the blank, about the media manipulation, about the ethic violation, about the communication errors of F&P too, about University of Utah responsibility in the carnage, as much as of the "few outspoken US nuclear physicist", son of Manhattan project, who were totally unequipped intellectually to work on a chemistry problem... because yes, cold fusion is experimentally a chemistry problem, to be managed by top electro-chemist. None of the experiments or evidence are nuclear (except latest Tritium and He4 evidences).
Beaudette makes a nice summary of the tragedy:
Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.
The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.
The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.
It is clear, but the various chapters, like the chapter in an attorney general report, covers in detail many points, many dimension of the tragedy, from the pathetic undocumented books of Huizenga, to the Cal-tech/Baltimore TV show of Lewis which convinced the planet based on his pure incompetence in calorimetry (chemistry is a job) and his huge ego of physicist.
Normally just those 2 replications are enough. I let you analyse the work of McKubre, and Miles. Miles collaboration in double blind with Bush, proving Heat and Helium-4 correlation may surely convince you of no artifact or fraud.
You don't need to read the replications of Tritium, Helium-4, since all is already in calorimetry evidences. Maybe just seeing how Gary Taubes facing tritium evidence, impossible to claim as artifact, chose like a conspiracy theoretician, to claim fraud without any evidences, ignoring the parallel replications... No fraud (except , guess where) was ever found, but that does not stop conspiracy theoreticians.
Did you know Lewis Visited McKubre lab for DoE, with Garwin... they noticed no real problem, but since for them it was impossible they just said there was something not identified... good science !
Beaudette stay very moderate, but the facts he describes talk alone. One of his gem is the description of the denialist, that he name "skeptics" by oppositions to critics (the real skeptics):
In general, skeptics display the following habits.
- They do not express their criticism in those venues where it will be subject to peer review.
- They do not go into the laboratory and practice the experiment along side the practitioner (as does the critic).
- Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when they are merely guesses.
- Questions are raised that concern matters outside of the boundaries of the claimed observation.
- Satire, dismissal, and slander are freely employed.
- When explanations are advanced for a possible source, ad hoc reasons are instantly presented for their rejection. These rejections often assert offhand that the explanation violates some physical conservation law.
- Evidence raised in support of the claims is rejected outright if it does not answer every possible question. No intermediate steps to find a source are acceptable
I make a call to skeptics to find me a real critic, rebutting F&P, Oriani, McKubre, Miles/Bush that was not addressed and rebutted to the point of dismissal. I will surely manage to bring the rebuttal after some inquiries to more competent people.
Before facing risk of ridicule one can also ask directly to Ed Storms, the LENR editor at Naturwissenschaften, who published one among the few LENR review in 2010.
Of course if your position is that only what the physicist admit as real is real, then there is no hope, since they will never admit the screwed-up like college student, so far, so deeps, so many people, with so huge impact, despite so clear evidence, just because they were not chemist, yet egotic.
I really wait for the written critics on the calorimetry you claim. Please no theory, and nothing about the radiation measurement and the fact that LENR produce too few neutrons, and cows don't fly. Only about calorimetry.
If you need articles, read the book of Beaudette which is one of the only book which cover results after 1989. You can even consult his own library, which helped to write his book donated to "Willard Marriott Library of the University of Utah , in Salt Lake City , Utah"
The Charles G.Beaudette Papers (Accession #2297) contains over 1,800 papers written by cold fusion researchers; 700 quotations; 40 interviews from the period starting in March 1989 and continuing through 2005; the proceedings for the first through eleventh International Conferences on Cold Fusion; technical reports from other conferences, such as the EPRI/NSF meeting of October 1989; photographs of many members of the cold fusion community; about 40 CDs of e-mails, photographs, and technical papers recorded on gold-film disks; miscellaneous popular press articles about the field; and a sampling of the various monthly journals and magazines that were published from 1989 to 2005, including but not limited to Cold Fusion Times, Infinite Energy, New Energy News, and New Energy Times. Also included are draft and final versions of both the first and second editions of Excess Heat.
Beside that scientific question, which is closed since 1992-96, you can see what the business actors are doing currently despite the pathological consensus:
As you say I predict I will be censored. I will anyway keep your article for history, and take the care to answer it, and I agree answer to the similarly uninformed articles.
Roland Benabou theory of groupthink predict you will never read anything that dissent with your belief. To understand the model that predict that behavior, best it to read his paper "Group-think : Collective delusions in organizations and markets"
To understand how such a pathological consensus can appear (Benabou explain how it resists to reality) a first reference is the well known and consensually rejected vision about experimental anomaly denial during scientific revolution by Thomas Kuhn (see that summary of Kuhn):
To understand how academics put theoretical question before experimental evidence, and that practitioners are the real inventors and discoverers, and how like Kuhn says to the history is rewritten to hide that, the book Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb contains two key chapters "Lecturing birds how to fly" and "History being written by the losers".
Hope you make me lie and prove Roland Benabou MAD theory is wrong. At least read the book... and if you don't accept some claims, check the citations. And if you don't accept anything that face you belief, be a priest.
UPDATE,PS: I added a shorted comment, hoping it is published... Who knows, theories sometime are wrong.
The end is clear, and it inspired an open answer to your final censorship announce.
Clearly you ignore the facts on cold fusion, and you should first read the book of Charles Beaudette.
I keep your article for history.
Prove me I'm wrong about groupthink and MAD,
either by finding a written critics on F&P experiments, on McKubre experiments, on Oriani experiments,on Miles/Bush experiments, and on the hundreds of others including the latest by SRI/ENEA/NRL which at last explain why this chemistry experiment was so hard to replicate (because beside loading, current density, evident contamination, there are requirement on the crystallographic structure and impurity of the palladium - https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/36833 ).
or by admitting you are wrong.
anyway best regards, and I hope good reading.
UPDATE2: I noticed that conversation on an italian skeptic site. It seems that they are today afraid that a public panel like the DoE ERAB, in Italy, may lead to part of the panel follow the "Beaudette Doctrine" like I do...
Ascoli65: To me, though, it was a good opportunity for the Ministry of Education to investigate what had happened in the field of Cold Fusion in the last 25 years and especially since 2011, and inform, through the Parliament, all Italian citizens.
Camillo Franchini: ... I guess you mean the establishment of a commission similar to the two panels of the DoE. Who would consist of? Someone would have immediately proposed to apply the Beaudette's doctrine . It may on the other hand a Ministry decree authority if a 25-year research must cease or continue, when they are involved in the DF of a University, a Polytechnic, INFN, ENEL? I think not. More than the Ministry of Education would be a task of the Ministry of Energy.
The most appropriate thing would have been to encourage internal defense reactions such as those put in place by INFN, but Ferroni and Dosselli have been described as two reactionaries who suppress the free search. Even in this blog frequented by people who are mature and prepared someone is inquietato.By a government to end like that of Letta you would not expect an intervention on cold fusion, run by almost all characters "in share". Now there is an establishment in Italy oriented Cold Fusion to the right.
They have no shame to admit that Beaudette doctrine, that experiments precede theory, that there is no written critic that hold, is really convincing for non physicists... for competent people, with no theory to protect.
After all Cold Fusion evidence are purely chemistry evidence, chemistry lab experiments, chemistry problem. Only the theory is nuclear, and this have no room to challenge the experimental results. Not only the ruin the job of competent people, the chemists, but they are unable to do their job, find an explanation. This is maybe why they thy to hide that fiasco, blaming their victims, and using lobbyist methods instead of risky scientific method.
Published on February 16th, 2014
By AlainCo (email@example.com)
Discuss about that article
A conference is planned for March 10th in Iowa, sponsored by RRTTC (the Recycling & Reuse Technology Transfer Center).
The flyer of the conference does not says much :
Join us for this presentation to learn about Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). This relatively new technology was discovered in 1989 by two electrochemists at the University of Utah. A few determined scientists around the world continued this research to fully develop this technology with a few small companies who are on the verge of commercializing products that use this technology. This technology allows controlled fusion of hydrogen into helium in small modular reactors that can fit on a table top. The result is abundant thermal energy, with no radiation dangers, no radioactive byproducts, and no combustion of fossil fuels. The cost of the hydrogen, the necessary materials and the catalysts are but a small fraction of the cost of traditional fossil fuels. Could this be the possible energy solution of the future?
Any information about who is RRTTC will be interesting.
RRTTC seems to be related to University of Northern Iowa. The conference is not hidden at all, available at the top of the current events.
Published on Feb 17th 2014
By AlainCo (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Discuss about that article
Today is Valentine's Day, and The Guardian took the opportunity to present some Valentine's Day cards dedicated to scientist...
One nasty one against Cold Fusion and hopeless love shocked me.
But as any engineer, and followed TRIZ spirit, I remembered that from nasty joke to advertising there is few inches.
Dedicated to my dear, and to the dear love of all LENR fan that consume so much energy to convince wind mills.
Published on Valentine Day 2014
By AlainCo (email@example.com)
Discuss about that article
Well Produced by an MIT student, explaining what has happened in the field.
Posted by David
9 February 2014
Just today I fall on another article about the death of John Huizenga, the man who delayed the chance for Cold Fusion to make our world better of 10-20 years.
John Huizenga dies at 92; physicist helped discredit 'cold fusion'
John Huizenga worked on the Manhattan Project, helped discover two chemical elements and co-led inquiry into 'cold fusion,' the 'scientific fiasco of the century.'
Thanks to LA Times to allow us to comment (it seems less and less allowed), but my dreamed answer was too long for the rules, and finally it makes a good article. Feel free to critic, correct, comment and improve :
It seems your article is uninformed, but anyway state the current consensus.
One of the best voice to talk on cold fusion science have been Charles Beaudette, in Excess Heat. (You can find his book on the site of University of Tsinghua
, courtesy of the author, or on on-line libraries).
His work, was to document and analyse the critics. His book contains much more citation of scientific papers, and by the way many many more after 1989. In fact the only good results appeared after one or two years of hard work, and only by competent electrochemist.
As Beaudette reminded, physicist had abandonned the domain of calorimetry in the 1950s, to focus on nuclear physics, thanks to the success of Manhattan project, which launched many nuclear physicist in the higher governmental sphere.
There have been in 1996 only 4 critics, by Lewis, Hansen, Wilson, Morrison.
The one of Lewis, that the cell was not mixed, was asserted enough strongly in Baltimore conference, with hidden insults and understatements, to convince the planet and terrorize dissenters... it was in fact a huge evidence of his ego and his incompetence. Fleischmann rebutted it quickly showing that his cell was perfectly stirred by design (which Lewis could not imagine without decades of experience). It tooks 2 more years to prove with measurements that the temperature was stable at 0.01C, thanks to the design.
Fleischman&Pons cell design (a Dewar with hard vacuum,tiny and lonk neck, compact shape for self-stirring, open electrolysis, refilling measurement to control recombination) was replicated exactly in 1996 by CEA (Longchampt).
Meanwhile many other design replicated the results, with different techniques : Oriani used seebeck calorimetry with opencell and separated gas to cancel recombination (His paper was peer-reviewed but rejected afterward because of what Scheckman denounce today). McKubre (SRI) used a closed pressurized cell with recombination, with temperature compensation ensure isothermal mode and flow calorimetry. Miles (Of Chinal Lake Naval Air Warfare) used open cells, and captured the gases. He organized double blind measurement of He4 with Bush of Texas university, and proved that Heat and He4 were commensurate. ENEA later with Report41 Deninno confirmed that only active cells did produce He4.
Many labs proved Tritium (but not with heat) which as Huzenga admitted could not be an artifact, from US to India. This is why he concluded it could not be an artifact, thus without any evidence, concluded it was a fraud. 3 inquiry were launched, all failed, but it did not change his position.
Hansen raised the problem of recombination, but again it was rebuted by facts. Fleischmann was measuren the recombination by measureing the refilling. it was below 1% and negligible compared to the 15-50% of anomalous heat (and heat after death).
Wilson produced interesting critics, and by the way he rebutted Lewis and Hansen arguments. He nevertheless admitted undeniable anomalous heat even after his corrections. This was presented as a critic, but was in fact a confirmation.
Morrison critic was just based on misunderstanding, and was not maintained.
None of the 4 critics are anymore defended. The summary is that according to science, Cold fusion excess heat is replicated, measured, and no critic is maintained. Why it is the consensus that Cold Fusion is bad science? It is a cognitive cascade that can be explained by the Groupthink theory of Roland Benabou (Find his papers at Princeton, Groupthink: collective delusion in organizations and markets).
Lewis with Garwin visited the lab of another replicator (McKubre, with closed cell, in isothermal mode using flow calorimetry and recombination), and found nothing. Like any honest man he stay absolutely silent about that fact, moaned about minor details that did not rule out results, and continued like Huizenga to say that since it was impossible, and there was no artifact found, it was thus unknown artifact...
People should really read the book of Beaudette to read the details, to check the scientific articles, and judge of their respective quality, and about the ethical structure of each camp. This book is boring like an attorney report, but raise furror to the one who understand what it reveal.
The argument that there was no neutron is like a cowboy saying that bull dont produce milk, or birds don't have horn. The only question was about the excess heat, and it is proven.
It is true that all physicist, except one trained by Heinz Gerischer (a skeptic German top electrochemist of Plank Institute who admitted in 1992 that Excess heat was real), failed to reproduce Excess Heat. Most did not measure it and focused on neutrons.
Many did not know the required conditions, discovered few years after, about deuterium loading, current density, palladium impurity selection, crystallographic structure of the surface (found recently by ENEA/NRL/SRI). Their main problems were that they were assuming cold fusion was hot fusion, expecting what was not there, they expected quick result where it tooks minimum 3 month to obtain a single result, and finally they were simply incompetent relatively to the extreme complexity of the calorimetry, which was challenging even for the top expert.
Serious electro-chemist obtained results in more than 1 year, often 2 or 3 years to cross-check all...
Back to business and free-market, please note that Cherokee fund (who manage billions of $ in energy) have invested 12million$ in an LENR technology (E-cat bought by Industrial Heat LLC).
They have signed agreement with the technology park of Badoing HIDZ, known as the valley of electricity in China.
Darpa is funding LENR research, hidden as nanotechnology since few years.
US navy after SPAWAR (closed when boss changed), is researching actively in NRL with Italian ENEA and SRI. It seems even that SRI is subsidized to test the technology of others commercial companies, and have replicated 5 of them (from SRI McKubre).
NASA GRC state on their internet site that Excess Heat is proven, and Doug Wells works for NASA/NARI to study LENR propulsion for planes, in seedling project (conference soon in 2014).
Toyota have recently replicated the research of Mitsubishi (Iwamura), and published in JJAP a peer-reviewed journal... Unlike the myth, many LENR papers are published in peer-reviewed papers like in Naturwissenschaften, Journal of electroanalythical chemistry, JJAP... Thanks to Pamela Boss (Spawar), Schekman, to have described the problem to publish in high-impact journals, that Enea report41 DeNinno and Oriani have revealed.
I have no doubt that Huizenga was sincere and honest when seing that Bockris (and others in US and India) cells were producing tritium, he concluded that it could not be an artifact, and THUS it HAVE TO BE A FRAUD.
Future will say how that statement have to be judged. Sadly many scientist of that affair are dying, and it will ruin our chance to obtain excuses.
Sorry for the family. I have no doubt all was done with sincerity. It is a tragedy of Groupthink, like are subprimes, Challenger, Enron, and... many others in process...
All assertion on theoretical question, either in 1989 or today, are for me without foundation until we have more data. No theory works. It seems data will came from free market and venture capitalist, not from peer-review or pet-theories.
Published on 3 Feb 2014
By AlainCo (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Discuss about that article
This is time to think about one of the most dreamed application of LENR to every day life : The Cold Fusion car.
The article of ibTimes talks if using E-cat technology to make hybrid-electric cars.
It discuss also of Dennis Craven Crowdsourcing campaign to develop a cold fusion car. I found no recent news about that project.
They did not discuss of the "LENR-Cars", the startup of Nicolas Chauvin, initially dedicated to that kind of project. It is only at inception state with general presentations. Their presentation for ILENRS2012, was already interesting to underatnd the potential. The video of Nicolas Chauvin Presentation for
show their strategy and achievement (patent, MFMP, studies) with more details...
Nicolas Chauvin is quite active in the community, and even proposed a Chinese Stirling engine manufactured to Rossi. He also applied for Arpa-E sponsored Ultraligh startup competition, but seems to have lost at 2nd turn.
His vision is quite evident, and match in fact the vision of NASA/Boeing SUGAR LENR plane:
- A first step would be to design a LENR recharged electric car. For LENR-cars they think of a Tesla S, with some batteries replaced by a LENR reactor with Stirling engines.
- A second step, with better technology, would be to design an hybrid car specifically with more powerful LENR group, and less batteries...
- Finally when LENR and thermal engine or TEG get enough cheap, controllable and efficient, a full (or micro-hybrid) LENR propulsion group could be designed.
The vision of Rossi, expressed on his blog is that it will takes 20 years before it is affordable and safe. Of course the enthusiast like me hope it will be faster.
Rossi made good points anyway. It seems that LENR reactors today are less mature than what we imagine, and are not very controllable. The fact that there is no third party test claiming good COP raise concern about the current technology maturity of LENR.
Road vehicles are a very aggressive environment, with vibration, changing temperatures, crash and safety constraints, and it may trouble the LENR phenomenon until engineers work on that problem.
The price of thermal engine, turbines, TEG is today absolutely huge. I have discussed with some Car engineering experts and they say however that with mass production, the required thermal engine could go below 1000$ as it is the case for a car engine.
The cost of maintenance is also a problem,like the competence of the garage mechanics.
It seems reasonable to say that mainstream LENR cars will not be a reality before 20 years... maybe pessimistic?
Sure there maybe very specific niche markets. LENR-Cars seems to propose to share the same niche of luxury cars, as Tesla does.
Another niche market is corporate fleets, like for Postal services fleets, on-site maintenance fleets, and why not afterward, the car rental fleets. It is currently the other niche of electric cars.
Of course the niche market of military vehicle will be receiving that innovation as a benediction, because fuel is paid in blood during war, and they work on it.
My optimistic view is that 3-5 years after the first non industrial reactor get certified (home E-cat, Hyperion, downsized HHT) there will be prototypes as LENR-cars prepares...
Quickly it will be tested in the military niche market.
After few years some luxury cars will be designed from existing vehicles, and sold at awful price.
after 5 years probably there will be professional vehicles targeted to corporate fleet, with matching training and equipment for maintenance inside corporate garages.
And after 5 years more the first mainstream vehicles will be targeted to common people, based on corporate feedback and retraining of the garage mechanics.
We are not far from the 20 years Rossi does estimate...
Keep your diesel or gasoline car.
Published on 2 Feb 2014
By AlainCo (email@example.com)
Discuss about that article