Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Questions preparing a SWOT analysis of Ni-H energy sources

I wonder why we are worried for a strong opposition to Ni-H LENR
as a form of cold fusion...not the scientists will decide, but the energy market.

The initial problem of cold fusion is one well known to the players
of 'contract bridge' game- bidding too high, promise of cheap, inexhaustible
rich source of energy. But even after 20 years Pd-D LENR/CF is science,
very interesting science with many areas and ramifications and open ways
of research but definitely nothing good for Technology (yet), A bad question
is -will it ever be?

The Battle is now about the acceptance and implementation of the Rossi E-cat
on the energy market, especially the US market.
Can we consider the disastruous PR of Cold Fusion so strong that the E cat will
be  a collateral victim?
Let's look to the elementary conditions for an energy source, old or new to stay
on the market:

It must be sufficiently INTENSE to be useful

It must be sufficiently REPRODUCIBLE and CONTROLLABLE to be reliable,

It must be sufficiently CONTINUOUS (i.e. long lasting) to be 

It must be sufficiently SAFE and CLEAN to be harmless

It must be sufficiently easily UPSCALABLE to be extended and diversified,

It must be sufficiently CHEAP to be competitive

It must be sufficiently VALUABLE to be. or to be easily convertible in, electrical energy
It is usual to speak about "high  currency" and "low currency" energy.

These are ideal conditions and all the energy sources that had been, are, or will be used
fulfill these requirements- more or less.

Let's analyse thoroughly the Rossi generator, does it possess an irresistible combinations
of the above characteristics- so it could conquer the markets? Which are its weak points, 
can they be they cured or eliminated by development? Is it necessary or possible to 
elaborate an even better variant of Ni-H LENR? PIantelli is doing this, why other skilled people 
do not try? Or...?
Can somebody of you, friends, ask smarter questions? The secret of a good SWOT analysis
is to know to ask well. at the target.



  1. "...not the scientists will decide, but the energy market"

    This is an arrogant irresponsible sentence.
    Such a devaluation of scientists and up-valuation of the market! - in which era are you living? Do you know how much damage has been done because the profit-hungry marketeers over-ruled the scientists (but the scientists were later blamed for the bad results)?

  2. Dear Anonymous,
    You are almost right. But reality is arrogant and irresponsible if it does not accept the decision of those who KNOW.
    What's the alternative? Say the majority of scientists decide that the E-Cat cannot work, is impossible then it has to be abandoned?
    The profit hungry marketeers depend on the fact if people buy the energy source and that's a practical problem- the device is heating, your energy bill decreases, no accidents happen, the users' health is not in peril- everybody is contented and the E-cat is widely used. To demonstrate all these advantages is not easy and is a step-by-step process. Science can help a lot to make it faster and more easier.
    It is very different from selling a medicine based on lying to people. You cannot lie that it is warm in your flat, when the thermometer and your personal heat sensors say otherwise.
    In which era I am living? In Moneytheism, see please
    "Stop Koalemos" however the problem of energy is vital for Mankind.

    It is my pleasure to let you know that other New Energy devices are coming soon, E-cat will have competion. Greed is not good, competition is very good.

  3. The preceding dialog arises from assumptions attached to the generalities "scientists" amd "market". Scientists speaking outside their spealtiers carrya a baggage of opinions like ordinary consumers in the marketplace. Any applied energy technology must pass the tests Peter lists. Despite hype of decades ago, nobody wants a fission reactor in their basement or car. It is far from obvious that the Rossi technology will be more than a useful niche application. Mills'"CIHTY" technology may have better chance, but essentail details are unpublished, as they are with Rossi's.

    Stay tuned.It willbe interesting.

  4. Thank you Mike, our long collaboration in this field was very inspiring for me. Now, I postponed writing the SWOT analysis due to an unpleasant feeling that my list is not complete. Due to your posting I had a revelation- the energy source also must be INDEPENDENT
    i.e. working without the contribution of an other energy source. On longer term that means self-sustaining (zero energy input) It is possible, Prof Piantelli had achieved this at the 60-70 W level years ago so it will be possible for the E-cat too
    with more advanced methods of control.

  5. Thank dear Lucintel!
    You have added important characteristics of SWOT.
    I have continued the analysis explicitly or implicitly as SWOT...it is a very special case, and here special has both positive and negative senses
    Please read and criticise (if the case) the writings, they are under the label NEW ENERGY

  6. Really good post! Hope there will be more good post here!Thanks for sharing valuable information..Free Solar Panels