Give me a break, "ecatnews" just happened to have the best quote from this NASA engineer. His quote remains nonetheless correct.

Come back with some quality studies published in reputable journals and reproduced by numerous credible scientists, and we'll talk.

You do realize it is impossible to reach this situation if everyone had your mindset... You have to have people "crazy enough" to remotely believe in the possibility of LENR to study it and eventually prove it or disprove it. Your behavior is exactly what has been holding back LENR research for 20 years. Instead of bluntly rejecting it, you should be open-minded and support the current research, even if you currently don't believe in it.

For the record the Focardi report was published in a peer-reviewed journal (Il Nuovo Cimento).

Thermacore (DARPA contractor) reported anomalous heat in Ni-H cells: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

Very recently at the WSEC 2012 conference, Celani also reported excess heat: http://www.22passi.it/downloads/WSEC2012%20Present.pdf

So, technically speaking, I agree with you, no one can unambiguously prove LENR today. I am just pointing out research and experiments that indicate there are datapoints that current theories cannot explain, and that we may be at the verge of finally proving LENR.

You really ought to read my blog post. It is not biased because it merely quotes and links to other trusted external resources (such as NASA) referencing similar successful experiments.

The single experiment I quoted (900 extra MJ) was run over 278 days. That corresponds to 37W of heat produced continuously, in addition to the heat produced by the input power which varied from 149.6W to 94.3W. All this info is in the PDF I linked to.

Even today, the NASA scientist interviewed in the video referenced by TFA re-stated that "production of excess energy has been demonstrated": http://ecatnews.com/?p=1868

It is time to stop saying "I won't believe in it until it has been reproduced". It HAS been demonstrated/reproduced. We can't explain the phenomenon. So it is time to pour research effort into LENR...

http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=61

This covers 20 years of research of "anomalous heat" coming from nickel-hydrogen cells which is the basis of Rossi's technology. Did you that numerous prominent Italian scientists believe Rossi is onto something? Did you know that a former Greek ambassador to Italy and scientist became involved with Rossi to manufacture the E-Cat via an independent company (Defkalion)? And now this company claims to have reverse engineered Rossi's device, and is on a race to ship something before Rossi?

I have been following very closely the whole story around Rossi's E-Cat device for 3 months, and it is so much more complex and fascinating than what you all think...

You are wrong. The anomalous heat detected in some experiments is statistically significant. Just one example: in a 1998 experiment, Focardi had set up a cell that ran continuously for 278 days and produced an excess power of about 900 megajoule: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf

The problem is that this experiment, and many others, despite providing very interesting results, have been mostly ignored by the scientific community purely because of the stigma associated to Cold Fusion research. This is frustrating!

The submitter is also incorrect when saying that Rossi provided no details about how his reactors work. He explained that (a) he processes the nickel powder to create tubercles and enhance its contact surface with hydrogen, (b) he uses 2 nickel isotopes to enhance the reaction, (c) he splits molecular hydrogen (H2) into atomic hydrogen (H1), (d) he uses high pressure and temperature to initiates the reaction, etc.

I used to think that Rossi's E-Cat was a scam, but after researching deeply the subject, I am now convinced this guy might be onto something, see this post I wrote explaining many Cold Fusion experiments that seem to support Rossi and that have been ignored by the community at large: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=61

On "why does NetApp sell their PCIe NAND flash card $30k?", here is your answer, Chris Rima: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=37

In a 3 words: because NetApp can.

It's not the components or engineering behind the card that cost $30k. NetApp prices it so high because the card boosts the performance of their filers by about the same amount as a ~$50k shelf of SAS disks (click that link and go read NetApp's own marketing documentation). They have got to have price points that make sense to customers.

(I know a fraction of you will think "No way!". Well, arbitrary price markups on enterprise gear do exist. This NetApp Flash Cache is effectively priced $150/GB. How do you think that certain competitors can even sell _enterprise_ flash at well below $10/GB? We are not talking 25 or 50% less, but a whole order of magnitude less expensive!)

[...] as opposed to deciding that any home internet connection that tries to send mail is a spam botnet zombie.

To send email from a personal DSL/cable IP address, you should configure your MTA to send through your internet service provider's MTA.

Why don't people know this? This takes care of the problem of "getting my IP address removed from blacklists".

Thus, your best bet with bitcoins is to not spend it, but to hoard it, which means all you have are a bunch of people invest by mining and keeping, knowing they will go up in the future. And this is a problem - and why governments are deathly afraid of deflationary economic environments.

This argument does not work. In fact you can use it against either inflationary or deflationary economics:

• Inflation entices sellers to sell later (but buyers to buy now).
• Deflation entices buyers to buy later (but sellers to sell now).

In reality they have equivalent positive and negative effects.

Yes. In fact, France is already the world's largest net exporter of electricity (67 billion kWh per year): http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=82

1. Bitcoins are so hard to generate that 1 BTC is worth about 0.80 USD currently. http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
2. Correct. More powerful hardware (GPUs) generate more Bitcoins. Serious miners have farms of Radeon HD 5970.

Yes because after doing it, you can resell the card for more than half its original price. Profits are even easier if you buy used video cards. But most of all, recouping "half the price" is my own excessively conservative estimate. Personally, I have recouped the cost of multiple Radeon HD 5970 already, and think it is still possible (I continue to invest in more hardware).

You say that Bitcoin is elegant, but solves the wrong problem. I disagree. Read some of the introductory material that explains the flaws of the existing currency models that Bitcoin is trying to address:

• https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Introduction
• http://www.bitcoin.org/sites/default/files/bitcoin.pdf (just read the Introduction)

You are correct that bootstrapping a currency is the most difficult step. However it appears to have done just that: it went from zero to hundreds of merchants in a little over a year: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade

Of course, there is still a long way to go (most of them are individuals or very small shops), but the very fact it has already grown so quickly and so fast is very encouraging. It was possible because of its truly unique and revolutionary features that really no other currency provide, notably the combination of: absence of middlemen, anonymity, cryptographically irreversible money transfers.

I like to tell people that when they first hear about Bitcoin, they will either instantly dismiss it as something that could never work, or they will immediately understand its large potential :)

Here is a video, for non-technical persons, to help understand Bitcoin:

http://www.weusecoins.com/

It was just made very recently (today!)

Bitcoin's existence is essentially technically insuppressible at this moment: it is fully peer-to-peer, there is no central server or company that can be shut down.

The only risk is social: in other words people could simply lose interest in it. But its network strength (hash rate) has demonstrated a remarkable exponential growth recently. It has doubled every 27 days, continuously, in the last 15 months: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=49 This implies, of course, popularity. So I would say it is very improbable for Bitcoin to just disappear tomorrow.

The goldrush is certainly not over.

It is at the moment still quite profitable to mine on AMD GPUs, assuming your electricity costs are about $0.10/kWh. You will easily recoup at the very least half the price of a high-end video card if you jump in right now. Also the network continuously self-adjusts itself to distribute coins over a long period of time, as this graph shows: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/File:Total_bitcoins_over_time_graph.png As you can see, we have only generated about 5 million coins so far, out of 21 million. Additionally, many expect the value of 1 Bitcoin to continue to rise, significantly, on the various exchanges over the next few years.