It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BeforeTooLong
Anyone else think that this is just a little bit fishy?
I mean I dont doubt that they may have hit the jackpot, they probably did a long time ago.
But why are they telling us?
They have been trying to hide the realities of energy for a century now and I dont see NASA actually trying to help someone
Originally posted by indisputable
reply to post by NeoVain
I want this to be true but why have it not it hit the main stream news. More and likely it will remain submerged for another few years. Until we hear another vague and brief report about it then submerge again into the back round. All this vagueness is simply to try and keep the ones who are following the cold fusion process very carefully satisfied.
They have no interest in using this for the betterment of man otherwise it would be up in mainstream news. More than likely this will stay in the back round until the government and corporations have had there fill of this in the military and other sectors for a few more years yet. S&F opedit on 13/1/2012 by indisputable because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Might want to put the same amount of skepticism on the conspiracy theorist claiming they found free energy based on magnet and hamster tech and is being suppressed by the man.
Originally posted by DJM8507
Free Energy has been suppressed in order to preserve the planet, which is needed for EVERY SINGLE HUMAN to survive. With unlimited free energy comes increased standards of living and an incredible increase in consumption. That consumption would drive the destruction of earth, which many do not realize, is needed to sustain human life. The earth is essentially symbiotic to our existence, without it we would perish.
The elite understand this, and have opted for dirtier, but much more expensive energy technologies in order to slow the rate of development and consumption in order for science to catch up and provide solutions that will balance the equation.
Originally posted by flexy123
and they will go up for sale this Fall
How can you even REMOTELY believe this?
I remember reading that, while BASICALLY a harmless (claimed!) device, inside the device there is (allegedly) some nuclear reaction taking place. The device has to be shielded with lead because of this radiation.
You cannot simply "invent" something like that and make the RIDICULOUS claim it will be "on sale in Home Depot" a few months later - without EXTENSIVE tests for security and safety FROM ALL ANGLES and not only a "select few" people where no one even know WHO they are.
There is no fricking way that a potential nuclear reactor (as "safe" as it might be claimed it is) is on the shelves without MONTHS if not YEARS of testing, let alone the exact understanding of the process and underlying mechanism.
“The planet will benefit immensely. Eventually, we won’t have the pollution and problems we’ve had from nuclear energy ever again. We do not use toxic material, we do not use radioactive material, we do not produce radioactive material, and in the thousands of tests that we have made with specialists from the University of Bologna, we never have found any emission of radiation. We have no emission of smoke, no emission of waste of any kind, we have no CO2 emissions, no noise emissions and no liquid emissions.”
Here in Europe (for example) you could not manufacture a light bulb or even the simplest device and get it on the market without testing from CE, VDE and countless other organizations.
ITS NOT POSSIBLE, ITS ABSURD to think otherwise.edit on 13-1-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)edit on 13-1-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by zorgon
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Might want to put the same amount of skepticism on the conspiracy theorist claiming they found free energy based on magnet and hamster tech and is being suppressed by the man.
What about Guinea Pig tech? Does that count?
Originally posted by PutAQuarterIn
I had never heard of LENR so I searched it and found some reading.....I don't have a horse in this race but for anyone like me just hearing this term This seems to be a good starting read....]
This site features a library of papers on LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, also known as Cold Fusion. (CANR, Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions, is another term for this phenomenon.) The library includes more than 1,000 original scientific papers reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers. The papers are linked to a bibliography of over 3,500 journal papers, news articles and books about LENR. Click on the CONTENTS listed on the left to see:
The Introduction to LENR-CANR section, featuring A Student's Guide to Cold Fusion and books, videos and links to other sites about LENR. For a quick update on the status of cold fusion in 2009, see What is believed about cold fusion? A more detailed discussion of the lastest findings is in Scientific Overview of ICCF15.
News, download tally.
A look at experiments: photographs of laboratories and equipment.
Special collections of papers, including papers from ICCF conferences, the 2004 DoE review, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and U.S. Navy authors.
The Library guide: instructions for finding papers, downloading papers directly, and how to find the most recent papers.
The LIBRARY is a collection of papers integrated with our bibliography.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Where's the peer reviewed paper on this? Scientific discoveries are published in papers.
The LENR-CANR.org library includes several papers by U.S. Navy researchers at the China Lake Naval Weapons Laboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWARS). Here are some examples:
Miles, M., NEDO Final Report - Electrochemical Calorimetric Studies Of Palladium And Palladium Alloys In Heavy Water. 2004, University of La Verne.
Szpak, S., et al., Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition. Thermochim. Acta, 2004. 410: p. 101.
Originally posted by zorgon
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Where's the peer reviewed paper on this? Scientific discoveries are published in papers.
More PAPERS just to rub your nose into
U.S. Navy Cold Fusion Research
The LENR-CANR.org library includes several papers by U.S. Navy researchers at the China Lake Naval Weapons Laboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWARS). Here are some examples:
Miles, M., NEDO Final Report - Electrochemical Calorimetric Studies Of Palladium And Palladium Alloys In Heavy Water. 2004, University of La Verne.
Szpak, S., et al., Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition. Thermochim. Acta, 2004. 410: p. 101.
www.lenr-canr.org...
"The report I received on Jan. 17 from Francesco Celani, a physicist with the Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare in Frascati, Italy (National Institute of Nuclear Physics), gives me new confidence about the Rossi-Focardi device. If the data provided to Celani is correct and complete, the device is real and is demonstrating some excess heat – on demand, no less." "Rossi has, to his credit, answered all of my questions." "As far as Rossi’s story of a self-sustaining reactor, I am inclined to believe it. It is very similar to a story that Piantelli told me."
Krivits 41 Blog Posts Since June 2011 Slamming Rossi's eCat and Pro eCat Commentators
The Failure of Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer,Caught on Video - 7th January
The E-Cat Tribe Dec 23rd 2011
LENR Real; Rossi and Defkalion Dubious - December 20, 2011
Duncan’s Promotion of Rossi: A Tremendous Disservice - December 9, 2011
The Physics of Why the E-Cat’s Cold Fusion Claims Collapse - December 7, 2011
University of Bologna Clarifies Relationship With Rossi - December 1, 2011...
Originally posted by flexy123
Energy does not come "from nothing"...it can only be transformed.
This is an ELEMENTARY principle.
edit on 13-1-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)