About

My name is Bruce Fast,

I am a software engineer and inventor with seven patents to my name.  Ever since Ponds and Fleischman announced cold fusion back in 1989, I have suspected that their technology had more to offer than was understood.  I kept seeing their technology pop up.  There was a report some years later in Popular Science.  A lab at Lawrence Livermore Labs blew up in the “cold fusion lab”.  I discovered lenr-canr.org.  There was clearly a lot more to cold fusion than meets the eye.

I watch science sites daily.  There are a half-dozen sites that I check daily, including lenr-canr.org even though it is a very slow-moving site.  And there it was, Rossi showing off his energy catalyzer.  I got a bit excited, but I also said, “maybe”.  The next thing I know he presents it for 18 hours.  However the person who studied it, Giuseppe Levi, was clearly a friend.  Though Dr. Levi made a good case when he responded to the hoax question by saying that as a young professor with a career ahead of him, why would he waste it on a hoax.  A good point — but.  Then on March 29,2011, Dr. Hanno Essén, of the Swedish Skeptics Society and Sven Kullander chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science’ Energy Committee were given virtually free reign to study the energy catalyzer.  (They were not invited to see the internals of the Rossi e-cat itself, but were invited to poke and prod through everything else.)  Their findings were clear, that no known chemical process could produce the 25kw/h of heat that came out of this tiny thing during the next six hours.

As a technically astute  inventor, I began to see the possibilities.  This little engine was going to change everything! Everything! Energy was obsolete, global warming was obsolete!  I could clearly envision how air travel, cars, houses, recreational vehicles, were all going to be transformed.  I could see that electrical grids, oil, natural gas, coal, wind power, hydroelectric was all obsolete.  I could see that there would be significant social interruption.  Whole countries would suffer.  However, third world countries would be freed from much of the restrictions that their lack of infrastructure is producing.  I could see that some technologies would blossom: green housing would free the world to grow anything locally, anywhere.  Water purification and desalination would transform the same deserts that would be starved because their oil was useless.  The cost of living everywhere would drop precipitously.  My own monthly costs will be directly affected by about $600 per month!  Rossi’s e-cat will be revolutionary, transformational!

I believed that I had something to add to this conversation at its earliest stages.  Everyone was discussing how this technology worked, or if this technology worked.  There was no discussion of what difference it would make.  I dared to believe that not only could I show the world what difference it would make, but that as an early voice I may be able to influence that difference.  I dared to hope that industry and governments would listen to me, for instance, as I discussed the value of standardizing this technology — making rossi generators interchangeable.  Yes, I even dared to believe that I could convince people to call this thing a rossi rather than an e-cat, not that it makes much difference.

So I intend to update this blog with one entry most every weekday for a little while.  Each entry, of course, will allow for discussion.  I don’t have to be right.

<— To main blog

32 Responses to “About”

  1. Luigi Versaggi P. Says:

    Good that people like you are interested in “spread the word” about the Andrea Rossi E-Cat.
    I thing that at this point the Internet people have to diffuse the news about the new primary energy source to avoid the evil that Oil and Gas Company can do.

  2. Craig Binns Says:

    It’s not looking too good now, I’m afraid.

    Steven B. Krivit Senior Editor, New Energy Times, formerly a sympathiser, has written a devastating critique of Rossi’s work. See http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/Report2-372-EnergyCatalyzerScientificCommunicationAndEthicsIssues.shtml .

    CyclonePower’s various contraptions won’t be sweeping the market just yet, I fear.

  3. brucefast Says:

    Craig, I promoted your link to the news feed.

    While the article does offer some questions about the e-cat and Rossi, it certainly does not offer an alternative explanation for how Rossi duped the investigating scientists. Of continued note is the question of whether dry steam was being produced, yet I note that in the 18 hour test, water was heated but not turned to steam. Why they returned to a steam producing model is beyond me as it produces so many questions.

    I’m still waiting for the fourth quarter of 2011. If January 1 comes along with no sign of a working 1MW plant, I’m out.

  4. Bob Norman Says:

    Bruce: You sound like a strong advocate of science, I share you feelings and read everything I can. I have 150+ patents myself and have another 30+ in the patent office as we speak. I have an idea on how to participate in Cold Fusion. If your interested please send me an email, I believe you should have access to all emails as you are the administrator.
    Bob

  5. James Nelson Says:

    Dear Mr.Bruce
    I am interested in some of your inventions.
    Please be kind enough to provide me with your contact info to my e-mail address.
    Thanks and have a nice time.
    James

  6. Jimmy Samuel Says:

    You did a good job on this report.I was awaiting eagerly to see the revolution, but our hope in energy sustainabilty lokks like pipe dream.
    Thank you for your effort.
    Jimmy

  7. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Bruce – I should have read “about” before I entered into discussions, but it seemed an interesting conversation with some people denying that LENR can happen at all (so Rossi et al must be a scam) and others accepting everything as Gospel. My attempt to put a reasonably objective view seems to have re-said a lot of what you have penned in the last 8 months or so.

    I found your site accidentally. Serendipity, I suppose. I’ve occasionally looked at PESN for a few years, but they seem to just accept any claims as true without applying any common sense and the same set of Free Energy projects seem to be there year after year with success in a few months’ time (can someone please invest in this to speed it up?).

    I initially trained in Quantum Physics when the ideas were pretty new still, and it was necessary to believe at least two incompatible unbelievable things before breakfast. It’s now somewhat more mature, though still unbelievable – you just use it and ignore the illogical bits. The point here is that I was then trained to accept what is, not to hassle too much that it doesn’t make sense. Accumulate data and sometime somebody will make some sense of it. In the meantime here is some maths we can use to predict things….

    If you accept the Big Bang theory, then you have to accept that energy can be created from nothing. Cosmologists looking back in time see about twice as much matter in the early universe, implying that energy can be destroyed, too. Some of these crazy ideas may work even though we don’t yet know why – once it is proved to reliably work then someone will work out why after a time.

    The theories we work on are only the best we know at this moment, and we know that Relativity and Quantum theory cannot both be right – but they both give us the right answers so we use the correct one for the situation we’re considering. It seems a lot of people cannot accept this pragmatic view of theory, and hold on to what they know is true because that’s what they were taught. This, I think, is at the root of the sometimes nasty personal attacks seen on various blogs as well as this one.

    I appreciate the space for discussion. Thanks.

  8. Greg Goble Says:

    Bruce,

    I recently gained a point at the Wiki battleground of Cold Fusion with the removal of this sentence from the conferences section, “By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science,[29] (second part of sentence) and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences.[97]” See the Wiki talk Cold Fusion. user Gregory Goble

    The thread I unravel is Simons book (sourced throughout the article). To work ON the rest of the faulty work I would like some info from you. In an article of yours you stated that the Wiki article mentioned ‘cold fusion’ (popular term) as pathological science, quackery, or phariah science 9 times or so…

    Please email me your list of these references in the Wiki article on ‘cold fusion’. gbgobleAT….gmail……comorcall415724sixseven02

    I will address the logic of each one you source from the Wiki article.

    The removal of the sentence still leaves 8? to work on.

    ps…. email or other direct contact method is prefered. THNX

    I would rather not have this discourse on the blog.

    I hope you and yourn’ enjoy this which is…

    my ODE to the INVENTORS

    DISCOVERY

    It’s of great use to wonder
    Why my mind wanders in awe of it all

    Being forever true
    Seeking the new

    We are just now discovering
    That which has always been

    Impatiently awaiting us…
    Craving our keen attention…
    And hoping for deeper understanding!

    Awesome is the wonder

    Of discovery…

    And the power

    Of awe

  9. brucefast Says:

    Hi Greg,

    Just wikipedia article titled “Cold Fusion” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion), search the page for the phrase “pathological science”. You will notice that one of the references is in the Categories: list, ie cold fusion is seen as a primary example of “pathological science”.

  10. David Lessels Says:

    if you use metal in its natural state (crystaline) as opposed to rearranging its atomic form by processing and run the experiments
    is there a difference? and if you take negative thought environment and replace it with super positive thought environment things react differently at sub atomic level? gravity also changes its properties depending on where earth is relative to other planets and stars?
    The electro magnetic cycle of the sun and the number or electrons arriving from it at a particular instance, the variation of preassures on the tectonic plates. Signatures create signatures. So did things work under ideal conditions which have yet to be rediscovered or
    properly recorded so as to be reproduced? What other machines were running in the building at time of positive experiment results?
    or is there someone out there with the answers to the questions?

  11. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Well, hello Bruce….I just discovered “about”.

    I am a software engineer and inventor with seven patents to my name.

    Were your patents in the software field?

    I’ve always admired inventors. Tried to pursue a couple of ideas but was told they were not novel enough.

    • brucefast Says:

      Iggy,

      My patents are in document image enhancement software. You can read about it here: http://www.accusoft.com/scanfix.htm, though I was working for a micro-company called Sequoia Data. (When I wrote it it was all monochrome, they added the color later.)

      Sequoia Data merged with TMS to become TMS Sequoia. TMS Sequoia was bought out by Pegasus Imaging which eventually changed its name to Accusoft. The software is at least 20 years old, but is still considered marketable. Not bad in software.

      PS, I deleted your “tests”.

  12. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    The software is at least 20 years old, but is still considered marketable. Not bad in software.

    Must be good software to last 20 yr. I have a geek lady friend that wrote most of Amtrack’s software. She quit her job to raise her son, and a couple of years back returned to Amtrack after a 20 yr hiatus. Her old software was still in use but her first assignment was to update the old software.

  13. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    About pronounced in Yukonese – A-boot.

  14. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Bruce, have you considered that there’s a real possibility that nickel may not be an ingredient in the “Hot Cat”? “NickelPower”, the name of your site, may soon be obsolete.
    Maybe nano-power or quanturgy….nano-split, nano-pudding,
    nano-mag, LENRdo, protomic ?

  15. Greg Goble Says:

    nasa lenr technological gateway

  16. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    TorroidalTransWhomptifier

  17. brucefast Says:

    If something other than nickel really establishes itself, then I will have to consider a new name. However, because nickel is such a cheap and abundant metal, I am still voting that it’ll be the dominant metal in LENR. (If iron becomes a metal of choice, well that’lI be trippy.) I know that Rossi is achieving 1000c, which cannot likely be achieved with nickel. However, 500c is plenty hot for most applications, as that is the temperature range of choice in coal and fission plants.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      If we enter a new ice age, then cheap heat will rule.

      http://i.imgur.com/leXtv.png

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Bruce, looks like Nickel still reigns.
      8.00 pm Development and Future Aspects of E-Cat Technology
      Overview to the environmental friendly Nickel-Hdrogen technology
      Andrea Rossi, CEO Leonardo Corporation Inc., Miami/USA and Bologna/IT

      http://www.borderlands.de/Links/Kongress080912E-e.pdf

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Andrea Rossi
        August 8th, 2012 at 10:04 AM

        Dear Jake Di Vita:
        There is a limit due to the fact that nickel melts at 1455 Celsius degrees, but we will have to heat water, so the actual limit will be 600 Celsius when we will go to make steam. At 600 Celsius the efficiency will be around 50%. Wre are working on this, now, with our Friends of Swedish Siemens Friends. When we told them we reached 1 200 Celsius they became lyric.
        Warm Regards,
        Andrea
        http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679&cpage=3#comment-297605

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        It would seem that at over 1,000°C, to prevent sentering you would have to evenly distribute the heat by stirring or by using a fluidized bed.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        That fluidised bed idea just won’t go away, will it?

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Dear Jake Di Vita:
        There is a limit due to the fact that nickel melts at 1455 Celsius degrees, but we will have to heat water, so the actual limit will be 600 Celsius when we will go to make steam. At 600 Celsius the efficiency will be around 50%. Wre are working on this, now, with our Friends of Swedish Siemens Friends. When we told them we reached 1 200 Celsius they became lyric.
        Warm Regards,
        Andrea

        Simon, why does Rossi say 600° is the actual maximum when in the same breath he says he just attained 1200°?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – I think he’s talking about both the internal reactor temperature and the available temperature on the outside at the heat-exchanger. Since he’s talking now about a small package size, the thermal resistance of the casing is going to be somewhat of a limit if you want to put 10kW through it.

        So it’s likely that he’s got 600° steam on the outside of the reactor, and 1200° Nickel (or whatever) inside. Talking about efficiency, add 273 to the temperatures to get K, and then do the efficiency calculations. 600°C/1200°C is around 66%, not 50%. Presumably this is the maximum point in the power-out plot. If that curve has indeed been plotted – I would expect more power output with a lower temperature of steam, say around 463°C.

  18. Craig Binns Says:

    BruceFast

    Are you still monitoring this? All we have now is two enthusiasts telling each other how to fill copper tubes with borax, or whatever, on “Post”. Can we now agree that the Rossi ecat is a dud, and that Rossi is a common or garden swindler, selling “licenses” to idiots, exactly like all his free energy scam predecessors?

    And that cold fusion is still where it was before this nonsense started about two years ago. Ah well, back to the drawing board, eh?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – no-one seems to have answered you yet, so I will.

      I think Rossi believes his measurements, but that they are wrong and that there’s no appreciable over-unity from the hot-cats. I would like to quietly forget Rossi, since I can’t take what he says seriously, but he may possibly surprise us all and come out with a real working machine one of these days. His earlier Ecats did produce power at times, but not reliably and mostly not when they were being tested.

      Cold Fusion/LENR is not where it was 2 years ago – everyone else has progressed well. Check on Celani, Miley and Brillouin for some nice solid results, and now there’s a major replication effort (HUG) to get Celani’s method parameterised and understood.

      Rossi has publicised the effect, but in the process his demos have fed both the believers and the sceptical people with information that makes them more certain of their viewpoint. I’m still not sure whether Rossi started by intending a fraud and accidentally got something that worked, or whether his results were simply bad measurements that he believed were true. Just can’t tell, but he does seem to have chosen the least-reliable methods of measurement all the way through.

      Toshiba and Mitsubishi still seem to be investing in research, and there are a lot of good scientists getting good results – if you leave Rossi out of the line-up you can see a lot of progress. I therefore leave Rossi out and I can see a lot of cause for optimism.

    • brucefast Says:

      Sorry for being so uninvolved, but life has been more busy than usual lately.

      Craig, I remain to have every belief in the validity of LENR. Though Eng. Rossi is unnecessary for that belief, I still believe that he has pretty much what he says he has. I will admit, however, that I am growing weary of the challenge of being heard above the noise. LENR will — but it seems to be taking forever.

  19. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Bruce, if you google Yukon and click google maps(satellite image), just to the left of the word “Yukon”, is a large bright orange area (about 20 miles square). What causes that color? Is it fall foliage or mineral deposits?
    I see scattered orange colored spot all across Norther Canada and Alaska.

    • brucefast Says:

      I looked at the little fox lake burn (a forest fire in 1998). It was that same orange color. What causes the orange? I’m not sure, but I think its fireweed (the Yukon flower — though fireweed is redder/purpler than the image renders).

      I’m not sure that all of the orange is explained by this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 64 other followers

%d bloggers like this: