Posted on 04/15/2011 5:34:37 PM PDT by Normandy
There are some indications today that the mainstream scientific community's attitude towards cold fusion and specifically the Rossi/Focardi energy catalyzer may not be as dismissive as some may seem.
An article by Natalie Wolchover on the website Life's Little Mysteries today included a review of the E-cat and comments from some leading researchers in the field of nuclear science -- and an interesting invitation was extended by one of them.
(Excerpt) Read more at freeenergytimes.com ...
This is a mighty contentious subject. Last time I posted a thread on it, it went almost 200 posts.
If Rossi accepts the invitation, it will show that he’s got a great deal of confidence in his claims. If not.....
Yes, contentious indeed. I think a yea or nay from MIT (or even a maybe) would make a big difference in the debate.
It definitely would -- if the developer will allow them to test it at all. The ball is suddenly in his court. His response to this offer will tell everyone all they need to know.
Inviting such testing from multiple universities would certainly help to gain credibility.
I wouldn't let one of the guys from MIT get near my stuff if I thought he thought there might be something to it one way or the other.
Ping!
We’re watching history unfold I believe.
I could be wrong but I really hope I’m not. Think how this would change our world. It would reshape humanity.
Yeah. The UN would claim it for “the benefit of the global village.” It would indeed usher in a new era. One I’d rather sit out.
And this is the physicist from CalTech? That's reassuring.
Who cares what a bunch of professors think, if it produces energy inexpensively, it is a winner. I could care less how it runs, just IF it runs.
___________________________________________________________________
The future of nuclear is cold fusion.
How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views
Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts
HOW TO SAVE OUR ECONOMY
Friday, December 31, 2010 1:57:41 AM · by Kevmo · 40 replies The American Reporter ^ | December 29, 2010 | Joe Shea
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2649712/posts
Re-Analysis of the Marinov Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2270920/posts
Friday, June 12, 2009 11:25:41 PM · by Kevmo · 27 replies · 1,027+ views
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612201v2.pdf ^ | Reginald T. Cahill
The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2266921/posts
Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:50:26 PM · by Kevmo · 78 replies · 1,626+ views Suppressed Science.Net ^ | 12/06/08 | http://www.suppressedscience.net/
The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts
Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 95 replies · 1,770+ views
Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al
‘Cold Fusion’ Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial Energy Source
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2212864/posts
Monday, March 23, 2009 12:42:14 PM · by FlameThrower · 35 replies · 1,586+ views
Science Daily ^ | Mar. 23, 2009 | American Chemical Society
___________________________________________________________________
http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/rossi-energy-catalyst-a-big-hoax-or-new-physics/#comments
and a strange answer by Rossi to Hagelstein:
Market
Dear Mr Frank:
I receive every day requests from all the world of Universities, Associations, Laboratories from any Country, of any kind which want to make an “indipendent” test to offer us the only possible real validation of the technology. Should I accept, 24 hours per day, 365days per year would not be enough to be so much validated. I respect all the wannavalidate of the Planet, but I want to remember that:
1- In October we will start deliver to our Customers our plants, so that the validation will be made by the Customers: they will use our plants 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. That is the sole real validation that counts for us, also because if the plants work, Customers will pay us, if not, they will not pay us. The plants have to respect precise guarantees we gave about their efficiency and their safety. We are not searching any validation. We never did. We just wanted to make a good product.We have already made our public presentations, no more of them will be made. With the University of Bologna we will continue the R&D program, but not to “validate”: the validation must arrive from the market. The aim of the R&D program with the University of Bologna, financed by us, and therefore made with our money, is to develope our future, not to “validate”. Not to mention the fact that the real target of the wannabe validators, in 99 cases out of 100, is to get information and make industrial espionage, as already occurred to me with another “validator” with whom we severed any collaboration after getting evidence of the fact that data obtained from us have been utilized for a competition.
2- I thank anyway Prof. Peter Hagelstein for his attention. If the MIT is interested to our product, they can buy a plant, and make all the validations they want, for themselves, and get from it good heating too, during the hard Bostonian winters ( I lived there for some year, mamma mia, che freddo!)
Warm regards,
A.R.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=3#comment-33250
Follow the money...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.