Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
walker

LENR "Cold Fusion" Pons and Fleischman got it right sort of say NASA MIT Stanford etc

Recommended Posts

So where is the irrefutable, reproducible proof that it will work? Just because Brazil's state oil company Petrobras has launched an auction to sell its interest in Nigerian oil fields makes LERN go real?? Just some lines from reuters

  Quote
The plan should help Petrobras more than double current production by the start of next decade, to about 5.2 million barrels of oil and natural gas equivalent a day, and help Brazil become self-sufficient in refined products as well as crude oil. By divesting assets such as the Nigeria blocks, Petrobras could focus more on exploring for oil in a vast deep sea region off the coast of Brazil known as the subsalt and thought to contain dozens of billions of barrels of high-quality oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

In Reply to No Railgunner:

A Previous link further up the last page:

http://oilprice.com/Finance/investing-and-trading-reports/Why-Are-the-Big-Financial-Institutions-Selling-Oil-BIG.html

I could literally fill this post with links, it is well known in the Oil industry that the major players are on a divestment and diversification strategy. Many are giving various excuses, but when you check them they do not pan out. We are shifting to US based fields is a common one, but when you look they have bought options to consider buying or leases rather than the asset.

That is the key factor no buying only renting. You rent assets when the asset value is about to take a hit. While you keep the capital sum from the sale in the bank. Another strategy is; claiming to use the money from the sale to go out and focus on exploring, while keeping the money in the bank; because planning all that exploring will take time, per your emboldened quoted text. ;)

Shell has been on a massive divestment strategy on its oil field assets, from Africa to the Far East for the last 12 months, or since Rossi did his first demonstration this time last year.

http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/news/newsshell-divests-stake-nigerian-oil-asset

Other Fossil Fuel companies on a divestment strategy are BP who are selling their stakes in fields in the North Sea, Russia, the Arctic and the Gulf to name but a few and not even batting an eyelid about being refused license to buy future assets in the Gulf.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20527045

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7081129

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7080956

http://indrus.in/articles/2012/11/29/rosneft_and_bp_to_develop_new_arctic_oil_fields_19411.html

Connoco

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/conocophillips-to-sell-5-bln-stake-off-kazakhstan-to-incur-400-mln-q4-charge-20121126-00448

Exxon

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/09/iraqi-official-says-exxon-mobil-is-trying-to-sell-stake-in-major-oil-field-by/

http://www.newsystocks.com/News/4108444/Weak-Demand-Outlook-Forces-Exxon-Mobil--XOM--to-Sell-Its-Japanese-Unit

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-iraq-exxon-idUSBRE8A60Y420121107

Even the pipeline parts and refinery companies are joining the rush to divest the fossil fuel business.

http://dcnonl.com/nw/32627/cb

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323830404578145611979409082.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Do a Google search for any oil company and the phrase "Oil field" and the words divest or sell.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/536428

Some are trying to cover their strategy and the risk by divesting half of the asset others are just cashing in their chips.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/03/25/us-conoco-lukoil-idINTRE62N43M20100325

This year has been an Oil Field Night of the Long Knives as all the major players have been dumping these soon to be seriously downgraded assets.

It is all about putting the money in the bank while the asset value drops.

The price per barrel dropped 20+ dollars since May.

I expect the real drop to be when the 60 day and 30 Day options on the price per barrel get shorted when the Rossi announcement is about to be made. I expect the price per barrel will drop below 70. Then it will re-surge as people realise LENR will not happen overnight. Then Oil and other fossil fuels will go into a long decline with investors on a business decline strategy making money out of the asset stripping and running the oil fields into the ground. Natural Gas will be the longest lived of the Fossil Fuel assets.

Coal might die out in as little a year and a half as converting coal power plants to use Rossi's Hot Cat or other LENR tech will be very easy. Oil will be next. Converting all power plants could take a 5 to 7 years but the fact that President Obama changed the Law to allow Combined Heat and Power means that many plants will end up being scrapped before they can convert, as faster cheaper more nimble competitors will create power plants on customers door steps, that provide power at a tenth but theoretically at up to one thousandth of the cost.

Buckle in people it is about to get real bumpy!

Kind Regards walker

Post Script

And just so you know that they are hiding what they are doing; take note:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/oil-derivatives-regulation-idUKL2N0CH1Q120130327

Once again Kind Regards walker

Edited by walker
Addendum Post script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still trying to figure out why you think the oil cost will change so rapidly ,

after-all oil is used in ways where you can't replace the planes/cars/ships so fast with new device

even if LERN was real and publicly revealed as the 'way of future' energy sources

it will take years before adopted in mass scale

also the market is relatively stable and new deposits were opened all leading to price drops

same goes about gas prices, recently some of new methods by Japanese for sea bottom methane use caused drop in price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

In Reply to Dwarden:

I think there will be dramatic drop in the value of Oil Assets because it is an asset that has a value based on decades of future value. Oil companies and oil field values are traditionally calculated in Decades worth of supply. If LENR takes over the energy market then other energy sources loose but it will take 5 to 7 years at least.

Also I do point out that it is not just me thinking this, that traders position report above demonstrates that the banks think the Oil will take a hit, that is after all the bet they are making by shorting it. It is also the bet the oil companies are taking, by selling off the asset and putting the money in the banks.

As Yourself and I earlier said here and elsewhere. Oil is also a useful starting point for chemicals and plastics. So its value will not totally disappear.

So the Big Oil Companies will get back into owning oil fields after the Asset value has been dropped! That is after all where they have experience. This is all about the Oil Companies letting some dupe who has not got their ear to the ground take the hit for them. Caveat Emptor. The Oil companies will buy back into the oil fields after the hit. It will be presented as supporting the economy and jobs in the third world or some such drivel along with, can we have a tax write off for doing it, but what it will be about is asset stripping and managed decline.

Kind Regards walker

Edited by walker
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have here is an 'astroturfer' that actually believes his plastic grass is real.

He is putting his faith in a report due to be released around mid-April by Andrea Rossi about '3rd party' testing of the Hot-Cat device.

Even if it works (most think it's a scam) there is no way you could use it to convert existing power stations in the short term without significant redesign / increases in efficiency.

It would have limited effects on oil production.

Only a small fraction of the product from a typical barrel of crude oil is fuel oil for heating homes / use in power stations.

It will be interesting to see if Rossi actually produces something credible this time, who actually did the testing and were their methods scientific, where it's published (bet myself $1 it's on his blog - 'Journal of Nuclear Physics').

Found this the other day, it's a somewhat fanatical debunking of Rossi's claims but can't be ignored:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Andrea-Rossi-Energy-Catalyzer-Investigation-Index.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

In Reply to Mattar_Tharkari:

Mr Krivitz (he is not a scientist) had his funding (from where ever it came) pulled late last year around September, so he had to start charging to see his stuff, if you want to see it you will have to pay though whether you want to is another matter, his funding got cut the same time as a whole bunch of other skeptic sites went offline apparently due to no longer being funded, I remember because it was also September when Rossi did his hot cat demonstration and got it certified, see earlier in the thread.

I wonder why their funds got cut, they previously had money to fly all over the world to conferences and news events being skeptical about LENR, then they just disappeared?

It must burn to be left out in the cold like that by your bakers :rolleyes:

NASA is now researching LENR powered fusion engines, for space flight:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/716081main_Tarditi_2011_PhI_Aneutronic_Fusion.pdf

George Milley is the Professor working on LENR who proposed this to the DOE:

http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861

I wonder if Lockheed Martin's Skunk-Works are working on a Fusion powered space-plane? I supose I could Google it. :rolleyes: hint hint.

The LENR Boeing Green aircraft that I linked to the contract for earlier in the thread, is apparently now being considered for being classified in the US national interest, if you did not get the PDF before, it will probably be a while until you can see it again, if ever:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120009038_2012008934.pdf

Kind Regards walker

Edited by walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you list Rossi's scientific credentials please? NASA can dream and have half baked ideas just like anyone else - they have had 1000's of them over the years. Why don't you wait till something is verified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

In reply to Mattar_Tharkari:

Andrea Rossi obtained his qualification in Scientific Philosophy at Università degli Studi di Milano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Milan

Andrea Rossi's thesis was on Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and its interrelationship with Edmund Husserl’s Phenomenology.

His credentials were checked by nytechnic in Sweden

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3197200.ece/BINARY/Rossi_degree_University_Milan.pdf

An examination of Rossi's work shows him to be more of an Engineer/Inventor than a theorist, it is why NASA keep referring to Edisonian efforts in LENR, but Rossi knows enough theory to be able to understand the top theorists in LENR and many Nuclear Physicists including a Nobel Laureate think he has a bright mind and a fine grasp of the theories he is dealing with, hence why they meet, speak and correspond with him.

Everyone is aware that Mr. Krivitz has tried to smear Rossi but Mr. Krivitz's tone should be a signal to investigate further. Those who do, find out just how much Mr. Krivitz hides information and slants his writings.

One of Mr. Krivitz ploys is to "Appear" to accuse Andrea Rossi of being a criminal, careful reading of his prose shows Mr. Krivitz is walking a fine line just to the side of slander and libel.

Rossi threw Mr. Krivitz out of his lab when he caught him secretly trying to employ devices on Rossi's equipment, that would have allowed him to obtain information on Rossi's IP and trade secrets. Up until that point Mr. Krivitz had been sucking up to Andrea Rossi.

Have a careful read of this report it goes in to the detail of one of Mr. Krivitz's main smears.

http://www.examiner.com/article/andrea-rossi-the-man-who-saved-the-world

I should also point out that Mr. Krivitz's more strident tone's on Andrea Rossi has declined of late, and he seems some what more amenable on the subject of Andrea Rossi preferring to ignore him.

Kind Regards walker

Edited by walker
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - Philosophy, with an additional engineering qualification bought from the diploma mill: Kensington University. So he is ideally qualified to delve into areas of Nuclear Physics that most credible scientists fail to understand or explain?

Krivitz doesn't bother any longer because the investigation into Rossi was more than conclusive, there is nothing more to add. Krivitz still asks pertinent questions on Rossi's blog which Rossi fails to answer.

The rest of the astroturfing job is most entertaining, clock is ticking on the 15th April, like Krivitz I have better things to do than discuss convicted fraudsters ;)

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Powered by a source that produces MWs of electricity that cost a Dollar a Shot. Hint Hint.

http://www.today.com/video/today/51477271/#51477271

Couple of somethings in container boxes stuck on the back. Hint Hint.

Let us find a conventional electricity source that costs a Dollar or less per MW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Nope there is not one yet. Hint Hint.

:)

Mr. Krivitz let a cat out of the bag, naughty Mr. Krivitz :mad: , if you want to visit Mr. Krivit's site, he has now lost his DOD information privledges.

The US navy has long been rumoured to be the customer for 14 Rossi E-Cats each capable of MW output, I pointed this out in earlier posts I think. Earlier this year the US navy let slip its intention to Arm all its Destroyers with laser point defense. In the past only the Nuclear powered Carriers were capable of generating the needed power for this.

A game changer has been unveiled.

Kind Regards

Edited by walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what that does prove about the LENR usage at all , LAWS is on destroyer which has 'official 7500kW generators'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US Navy now has Laser weapons? I dare someone to say that A3 is to futuristic again....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

In reply to Dwarden I emphasized the bit you need to notice of; in this quoted text from the post you are replying to.

  walker said:

...Powered by a source that produces MWs of electricity that cost a Dollar a Shot. Hint Hint.

http://www.today.com/video/today/51477271/#51477271

Couple of somethings in container boxes stuck on the back. Hint Hint.

Let us find a conventional electricity source that costs a Dollar or less per MW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Nope there is not one yet. Hint Hint.

:)

...

And for additional emphasis here is the text from below the video, also my use of emphasis in the quoted text.

  Quote
TODAY | April 09, 2013

Navy deploys new laser to shoot down drones

The Navy has announced its latest weapon, a laser that targets drones and small ships. The cost for using the laser is about one dollar per shot, compared to thousands for the Gatling gun ammo it will replace.

And from the transcipt of the voice over, again my use of emphasis added:

  Quote
navy is hailing its latest weapon as future of warfare. the navy will deploy a laser on its ships capable of shooting down drones and hostile ships. the laser cost about $1 per shot compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars to set off a missile.

http://www.today.com/video/today/51477271/#51477271

As Always follow the link to see both the video in this case and to hear and see, the transcipted and quoted text

I also pointed out that no conventional MW power source exists that costs a dollar or less, and that only Nuclear Powered Aicraft Carriers previously had the exess power needed to give a ground level based laser enough energy to take out flying aircraft, all previous systems were connnected to a grid.

Kind Regards walker

Edited by walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well maybe that officer (who originally said that it costs only 1$ per shot) was mererly talking out of his arse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walker again where is the proof that LENR is now effective and useful - you keep on dreaming about since you found something about it in the internet and started this thread in 2012. "Soon" got delayed once again? Sorry but research and development on laser as weapon system is going on since decades.... as for those laser weapons they are LOS system, effective only in good weather condition (no sand, no dust, no smoke/clouds, actually they are even not capable to destroy maneuvering threats ....). Of course more research (= more money) is needed to keep such projects alive... hint hint :rolleyes: Please post something new about LENR instead of pushing your own threads up with sensationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  walker said:
Couple of somethings in container boxes stuck on the back. Hint Hint.

The "container" says CAT on it doesn't it? Therfore it must be a Hot-CAT or an E-CAT developed by Rossi, there is no other explanation?

476040-laser.jpg

(Unless you know that the logo is the official logo of Caterpillar Inc. - manufacturer and supplier of diesel generators)

http://www.depco.com/images/products/Item-09897/Item-09897_1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Walkers world something with a LASER on it must have a fusion reactor.

I analysed the mentined stock and pipeline equipment sales. As it seems this happens due to the declining prices for natural gas on the market due to the trend for "cheap fuel" won by fracking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

In reply to Mattar_Tharkari Never said a word about the Logo. Just pointed out that there were containers tacked on to it, apparently as the power source, that a company makes them does not mean they made or invented what powers them. So what gives enough power and where the power costs a dollar a shot? As I pointed out no such conventional power source exists. Please show me your conventional diesel or natural gas or petrol generator with such power and cost.

The key point is that you need MW's of power to punch a laser through kilometres of atmosphere with enough energy at the end to melt aircraft alloy, more still if it is Titanium. And as I pointed out all previous systems at sea level needed to be connected to the grid or the nuclear power plant on an aircraft carrier.

Your friend Mr Krivitz seems somewhat upset, with the US Navy, I wonder why.

Kind Regards walker

Edited by walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still living in la-la land i see walker...

I think you're taking this "dollar a shot" comment way out of context.

Pretty sure its more of a "takes a dollar of gas to run the generator" rather than it being $400,000 a pop for a RIM-66, or $800,000 for RIM-162, or even ~$600 (ammo only) for a 2 second burst of CIWS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  walker said:
In reply to Mattar_Tharkari Never said a word about the Logo. Just pointed out that there were containers tacked on to it, apparently as the power source, that a company makes them does not mean they made or invented what powers them.

Ooooh stop digging the hole please. Did you click the link to Depco? It's the same model Caterpillar rental generator with black diesel tank at the bottom. If you look closely at the Navy photos you can just make out where it says "Rental Power" just under the CAT logo.

Product data sheets from Caterpillar:

http://www.cat.com/cda/files/3732081/7/Cat%20XQ350%20Rental%20Power%20Module%20LEHX0012-00.pdf

http://www.cat.com/cda/files/98738/7/LEHX0018-00.pdf

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

In reply to Mattar_Thakari your Diesel Generators produce less than 1/2 a MW of power insufficient energy for a laser with sufficient power to punch through the atmosphere from Sea Level

May I suggest you do the math and tell me what power you need to melt even say an Aluminium based alloy through 3 to 10 KM of air at sea level.

Then tell me the energy source you will use that costs less than a dollar to provide this energy output.

How is you freind Krivitz doing? Why is he so upset with the US Navy?

Kind Regards walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulsed Laser do not need to use continous power feed...they work like a photo flashlight.

This lasers do not emitt a continous beam...they would burn themselfs out in a few seconds.

Edited by Beagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the laser don't need to be in mW range ...

germans successfully fire tested 10,20,30, 50kW ones http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/07/german-military-laser-destroys-targets-over-1km-away/

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:17 ----------

  walker said:
Hi all

In reply to Mattar_Tharkari Never said a word about the Logo. Just pointed out that there were containers tacked on to it, apparently as the power source, that a company makes them does not mean they made or invented what powers them. So what gives enough power and where the power costs a dollar a shot? As I pointed out no such conventional power source exists. Please show me your conventional diesel or natural gas or petrol generator with such power and cost.

The key point is that you need MW's of power to punch a laser through kilometres of atmosphere with enough energy at the end to melt aircraft alloy, more still if it is Titanium. And as I pointed out all previous systems at sea level needed to be connected to the grid or the nuclear power plant on an aircraft carrier.

Your friend Mr Krivitz seems somewhat upset, with the US Navy, I wonder why.

Kind Regards walker

http://marine.cat.com/gensets there is plenty of 1mW to 7mW generators

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Search for Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96C-14 turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine and Emma Maersk (2006) ... hint hint :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  walker said:
Hi all

In reply to Mattar_Thakari your Diesel Generators produce less than 1/2 a MW of power insufficient energy for a laser with sufficient power to punch through the atmosphere from Sea Level

May I suggest you do the math and tell me what power you need to melt even say an Aluminium based alloy through 3 to 10 KM of air at sea level.

Then tell me the energy source you will use that costs less than a dollar to provide this energy output.

How is you freind Krivitz doing? Why is he so upset with the US Navy?

Kind Regards walker

Who says the generators are powering the laser, not me? The ship itself can produce 7500kW (7.5MW) of power. I was simply trying to suggest that the mysterious containers you have seen are Caterpillar diesel generators?

Krivitz? No idea - if it's the thing about releasing emails you have it backwards - the DIA is upset with him. It doesn't want a busload of eco-nuts turning up at it's conference and disrupting the proceedings with silly questions and wild-eyed fantasy. Is that it or was it something else?

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×