LENR Research at MIT “Goes On”

An article reporting on the Google-funded project reported in Nature has been published in MIT News here: http://news.mit.edu/2019/3q-yet-ming-chiang-reopening-the-case-of-cold-fusion-0527#.XOw6HEe8lbU.twitter

It contains an interview with Yet-Ming Chiang, the Kyocera Professor in MIT’s Department of Materials Science and Engineering who was a member of the research team which Google funded to look again into cold fusion. Dr. Chiang explains that the work was conducted in secret. He states ” We didn’t want the fact that Google was funding research in this area to become a distraction. For the first couple of years, we didn’t even tell other members of our group the real reason behind the hydrogen storage experiments going on in the lab! ”

He also explains that the work of this team continues and that they are looking to add more members to the research group. Here is an excerpt:

“What we’ve learned over the past three years has suggested new ways to use electrochemistry and materials science to create highly loaded metal hydrides: palladium for sure, but also other metals. We believe that we have found certain knobs that could allow us to create phase states that have not been accessible before. If we can controllably produce these, they will be very interesting target materials for other experiments within the broader program looking at, for example, neutron yields from deuterium-deuterium fusion in a plasma discharge device at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Nature: Google-funded Team Fails to Generate ‘Cold Fusion’ in 400 Experiments

Thanks to the readers who have posted about a new article in Nature by a team of researchers, funded with $10 million from Google, who were trying to see if there could have been anything to the claims of ‘cold fusion’ initially reported by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. The verdict from the team is that they were unable to see any sign of the CF effect after 400 experiments. However, they do keep the door open that there may be a chance forfutu, however, stating that they were not able to create optimum conditions for possibly showing an effect in their tests to date.

Mats Lewan has posted links to four articles from the current issue of Nature on this research project, to which I have added some quotes:

“Lessons from cold fusion, 30 years on” by Philip Ball
‘Why revisit long-discredited claims for a source of abundant energy, asks Philip Ball? Because we are still learning how to treat pathological science.’


“Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments”
‘Researchers tested mechanisms linked to nuclear fusion at room temperature — but found no evidence for the phenomenon.’


“A Google programme failed to detect cold fusion — but is still a success”
‘Major project to reproduce controversial claims of bench-top nuclear fusion kindles debate about when high-risk research is worthwhile . . . Is that the final nail in the cold-fusion coffin? Not quite. The group was unable to attain the material conditions speculated to be most conducive to cold fusion. Indeed, it seems extremely difficult to do so using current experimental set-ups — although the team hasn’t excluded such a possibility. So the fusion trail, although cooling, is not yet cold, leaving a few straws for optimists to clutch on to.’


“Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion” [The Google paper – paid access]:
‘The 1989 claim of ‘cold fusion’ was publicly heralded as the future of clean energy generation. However, subsequent failures to reproduce the effect heightened scepticism of this claim in the academic community, and effectively led to the disqualification of the subject from further study. Motivated by the possibility that such judgement might have been premature, we embarked on a multi-institution programme to re-evaluate cold fusion to a high standard of scientific rigour. Here we describe our efforts, which have yet to yield any evidence of such an effect. Nonetheless, a by-product of our investigations has been to provide new insights into highly hydrided metals and low-energy nuclear reactions, and we contend that there remains much interesting science to be done in this underexplored parameter space.’


How to Achieve a 200% Conversion of Energy into Work – The Ringwood Energy Recycler Experiment

The following post has been submitted by Sandy Robson

Please Note:-

– this is not an attempt to create, or work towards a perpetuum mobile; the circuit used in these tests includes all the usual losses, it is the configuration and interaction of the whole system (battery + circuit) which exhibits interesting behaviour

– trying to quantify values for power levels and energy conversion can be tricky when current is switched through coils and LEDs; so, to avoid contention, the results described here have been obtained (as far as possible) by quantifying and comparing DC values, quantities of charge, and durations of time


The recharging of secondary batteries (or cells) requires electrical energy to be supplied, converted as work done in driving current through the cells; as a result of this work done, chemical energy becomes stored within the cells, available to be be converted back into electrical energy when required

A fully-charged 3 cell 750mAh NiMH battery, for example, could contain up to approximately 10000 Joules of energy

You might reasonably expect that when such a battery is then used to supply electrical power that we would only be able to convert a maximum of 10000 Joules of energy as work done

It appears, however, that it is possible to effectively double the total amount of work converted from the energy supplied

For example, we can arrange for part of the energy provided by the battery to be converted, say, to light, by means of a simple switched-mode power supply type circuit, driving a cluster of a few LEDs; some energy will be converted to heat as losses in the system, but any remaining part of the energy can be collected and used to do work in recharging a battery

The circuit used in these tests is not particularly unusual – it’s a simple blocking oscillator and it has a work-efficiency of approximately 85% (quantifiable-work performed for total energy supplied)

Unquantified losses include resistive heat-loss in the switching transistor & diode, coil windings, and transistor biasing


The battery capacity can be characterised by discharging it using a resistor with a known value

As an example, using a battery with 3 NiMH cells of 750mAh rated capacity, a fully charged battery supplied a 268 ohm (measured) resistor with an average power of 14.4mA x 3.86V for 42.5 hours, converting a total of 8504 Joules of energy


When the discharge resistor is replaced with the preliminary circuit, the quantifiable work consists of two parts:-
– converting 3105 Joules to illuminate some LEDs
– recharging a spare battery (in this case, not the supply battery) by using the 4238 Joules of energy which is being temporarily stored in the circuit as a by-product of the oscillator operation

The circuit provides this quantifiable work for a total of 30.5 hours, drawing an average of 20.1mA at 3.86V to draw a total of 8603 Joules (approximately matching the total energy, 8504 Joules, converted by the nominal 270 ohm resistor)

In this mode, the circuit draws the total energy available and converts this to 7343 Joules of quantifiable work, giving a quantifiable-work efficiency of 85%

so far, so expected


When the circuit is connected in ‘feedback to supply’ mode, however (see Fig. 1 in the accompanying Data PDF file for an overview of the circuit current paths), we see some interesting behaviour emerging: the most obvious is that the circuit will continue to operate for almost twice the duration of the conventional, non-feedback mode – the circuit now operates for a total of 60.5 hours, whilst drawing the same real average power, 20.1mA at 3.86V, (compared to 30.5 hours duration for the non-feedback mode) with the loads remaining the same values.

[Note that the circuit can operate at the same power drain for longer because it is constantly re-charging its supply with a proportion of the energy which has been input – the actual supply current drained is pulsed, with an average of 20.1mA, whilst 10mA av. is switched back into the battery, being interleaved each cycle similar to time-division-multiplexed operation (see Fig. 2 in the Data PDF file), resulting in a ‘virtual’ current drain from the battery of (20.1mA – 10.1mA) = 10mA av.]

The total energy drawn by the circuit is now 16898 Joules

The efficiency of the oscillator circuit compared to its total energy drawn hasn’t changed essentially:
the quantifiable work has increased to 14566 Joules, and these values give an efficiency of 14566 / 16898 = 86%

The overall system efficiency for quantifiable work from the original energy in the battery, however, is now 14566 / 8504 = 170%

The total system efficiency for conversion of energy in the whole system (battery + circuit) now becomes: 16898 / 8504 = 199%


The system is recycling its input energy by a factor of 1.99

The ‘feedback to supply’ mode has extended the duration for circuit operation and enabled the amount of useful energy available for the LEDs to be approximately doubled compared to the ‘no feedback’ arrangement.

Although the total work converted by the switching circuit LEDs, on their own, remains less than the original supply of energy, and the work-efficiency of those circuit LEDs matches that of a passive resistor-driven LED arrangement, the ‘With-Feedback’ current arrangement still enables the circuit to produce a level of light output slightly greater than the passive DC-drive arrangement but for approximately 34% longer duration (45 hours duration for the passive drive, 60.5 hours for the ‘With-Feedback’ circuit).

This resulting system behaviour provides a worthwhile gain, which has been enabled by the 200% conversion to work of the original store of energy in the battery.

s robson
27 May 2019


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Exotic Matter [Plasma] Uncovered in the Sun’s Atmosphere

Thanks to Sam for sharing this article from ScienceDaily.com

Title: Exotic matter uncovered in the sun’s atmosphere
Date: May 24, 2019
Source: Trinity College Dublin
Summary: Scientists have announced a major new finding about how matter behaves in the extreme conditions of the sun’s atmosphere. Their work has shed new light on the exotic but poorly understood ‘fourth state of matter,’ known as plasma, which could hold the key to developing safe, clean and efficient nuclear energy generators on Earth.
Journal Reference: Eoin P. Carley, Laura A. Hayes, Sophie A. Murray, Diana E. Morosan, Warren Shelley, Nicole Vilmer, Peter T. Gallagher. Loss-cone instability modulation due to a magnetohydrodynamic sausage mode oscillation in the solar corona. Nature Communications, 2019; 10 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-10204-1
Link: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190524094320.htm


Studying the behaviour of plasmas on the Sun allows for a comparison of how they behave on Earth, where much effort is now under way to build magnetic confinement fusion reactors. These are nuclear energy generators that are much safer, cleaner and more efficient than their fission reactor cousins that we currently use for energy today.

Professor at DIAS and collaborator on the project, Peter Gallagher, said: “Nuclear fusion is a different type of nuclear energy generation that fuses plasma atoms together, as opposed to breaking them apart like fission does. Fusion is more stable and safer, and it doesn’t require highly radioactive fuel; in fact, much of the waste material from fusion is inert helium.”

“The only problem is that nuclear fusion plasmas are highly unstable. As soon as the plasma starts generating energy, some natural process switches off the reaction. While this switch-off behaviour is like an inherent safety switch — fusion reactors cannot form runaway reactions — it also means the plasma is difficult to maintain in a stable state for energy generation. By studying how plasmas become unstable on the Sun, we can learn about how to control them on Earth.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Irina Savvatimova on LENR transmutations

Dr. Irina Savvatimova is one of the giants of Russian LENR research able to attend the 30-year celebration organized by the Coordination Council on the Cold Nuclear Transmutation Problem of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS). See Russian Ac...
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Teflon in the E-Cat

I have no idea what this means, but this is the first time I have heard about this:

Madison Mahrer
May 24, 2019 at 2:55 AM
Dear Dr Rossi,
Are you using also Teflon in the Ecat SK?

Andrea Rossi
May 24, 2019 at 7:02 AM
Madison Mahrer:
Warm Regards,

Here is a description from Wikipedia about Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), of which Teflon is the best-known brand name:

“PTFE is a fluorocarbon solid, as it is a high molecular weight compound consisting wholly of carbon and fluorine. PTFE is hydrophobic: neither water nor water-containing substances wet PTFE, as fluorocarbons demonstrate mitigated London dispersion forces due to the high electronegativity of fluorine. PTFE has one of the lowest coefficients of friction of any solid.”

“PTFE is used as a non-stick coating for pans and other cookware. It is nonreactive, partly because of the strength of carbon–fluorine bonds, and so it is often used in containers and pipework for reactive and corrosive chemicals. Where used as a lubricant, PTFE reduces friction, wear, and energy consumption of machinery. It is commonly used as a graft material in surgical interventions. It is also frequently employed as coating on catheters; this interferes with the ability of bacteria and other infectious agents to adhere to catheters and cause hospital-acquired infections.”


E-Cat: The Long View (Roland van Nus)

The following post has been submitted by Roland van Nus.

If the short view of the E-Cat focuses on the immediate technical issues and the intermediate view focuses specific industries and enterprises the long view focuses on how the Ecat might bend the arc of nations.

Leonardo Corp. has already revealed aspects of their thinking in the choice of nations that host manufacturing facilities, the USA, Japan and Sweden.

Altering the arc of the USA presents unique challenges in that it is the only one of the three who’s economy and politics are deeply intertwined with the carbon based industries; after all America invented the modern oil and gas business that now wields immense financial clout and, for all our intents and purposes here, owns one of the two political parties. Leonardo has already survived a run in with legal firm Jones Day who richly exist at the very nexus of this clout.

The obvious exception to this general observation is the State of California where the political climate is distinct from the nation as a whole and where the extended fire season is threatening the integrity of the electrical grid in a state that is home to the nation’s tech industry, the entertainment industry and a substantial contingent of the nation’s defense contractors, all of which are dependent upon reliable electrical power.

Japan is in a much more precarious position from an energy perspective; the events at Fukushima exposed the fundamental design flaw in a General Electric reactor design that was chosen for it’s economy, against the advice offered by GE at the time, at the expense of safety. This decision turned out to be catastrophic and has undermined public support for nuclear power generation. Japan has no indigenous O&G reserves and imports all its carbon fuels leaving it at the mercy of the markets and geopolitical considerations of other nations. The potential for the empowerment of Japan through the auspices of the Ecat could be seen as a significant bargaining chip in garnering political support for a national effort to move to a LENR economy once the viability of the technology is demonstrated at scale.

Through a complex of factors and historical developments Sweden presents the most immediate case for the power of LENR to bend the arc of a nation.

Sheer size is a factor as the USA has a population of 325.7 million and Japan has a population of 126.8 million whereas Sweden has a population of 10.2 million while maintaining a GDP per capita slightly higher than that of Japan. Sweden was an early adopter at the dawn of the electrical age and built extensive hydro facilities that provided reliable inexpensive power that propelled their economy for decades.

From 1975 to 1985 a total of 12 nuclear reactors were commissioned in Sweden and provided half the nation’s base load capacity, of these 12 three have already been decommissioned and a further three will be decommissioned over the next 18 months. This turning away from nuclear power was impelled by successive shifts in public opinion following accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, several relatively minor incidences at Swedish reactors, and a final blow from the disaster at Fukushima. Following Three Mile Island a public referendum led to the decision to decommission reactors as they aged, rather than refurbish them, and though the wisdom of this course has repeatedly come into question each subsequent event has further hardened public opposition to nuclear power.

As these plants were decommissioned the decline in base load capacity began to put a drag on the general economy, which is almost entirely concentrated in the southern temperate region of the country, and to offset this over 3,800 wind turbines were installed in the northern part of the country, as dictated by favorable the atmospheric conditions there.

Due to financial constraints facing the network of independent power distributors that comprise the Swedish electrical grid the necessary high tension power lines were delayed and much needed power is still not being delivered to the south of the country, and, understandably, commerce and industry have been notably reluctant to locate to the frozen northern hinterlands.

The situation has deteriorated to the point that Ericsson’s 5G roll out in Stockholm is in doubt, multi billion dollar high tech investments are being delayed and, for the first time since the beginning of electrification, brown outs are occurring in Southern cities during demand spikes.
The energy intense Swedish economy has relied on cheap reliable electrical power to harness a highly educated populace to leading edge technologies for well over a century; currently this model is imperiled.

It seems fitting that Leonardo Corp. honored Sevn Kullander, by naming the latest iteration of the E-Cat after him, in light of the role he played in advancing their cause both theoretically, and materially, by putting the weight of the Physics Department of the world’s second oldest university, at Uppsala, and the reputation and financing of ELFORSK behind running a month long experiment that produced the Lugano Report, the success of which underscored the legitimacy of Rossi’s long quest for a viable LENR technology.

In the long view Leonardo Corp. could bend the arc of a deserving Swedish nation by providing enterprise scale power on location, as needed, as a company priority when that becomes feasible, and by so doing provide the world with an exemplar of what a wealthy high tech carbon and nuclear free future can look like at a national scale.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Lattice White Paper: LENRs Enable Green Radiation-Free Nuclear Power and Propulsion (Lewis Larson)

Thanks to Greg Goble for the following comment and reference.

Studying this and learning… interesting history… excellent presentation. Worthy of its own thread and discussion. The race to LENR energy commercialization is gaining full stride… Quote L.L.”No a priori technical reason why LENRs could not scale-up as fast as fission did”. I’m fairly certain the oil and gas industry has advanced labs working on LENR energy systems. I expect we will see these corporate LENR players works’ soon. In the future we will likely be saying how stupid and ignorant we were to burn these valuable aromatic molecules. Once again, Lewis Larson (pg 23) invites the oil/coal industry to create LENR feedstock. “LENR technology provides a compelling strategic opportunity for fossil fuel companies because it could enable future processing and conversion of aromatic molecules found in oil and coal into green CO2-free nanoparticulate LENR fuels that have >5,000x the energy density of gasoline.”

Lewis Larson – May 16, 2019 “Lattice White Paper: LENRs enable green radiation-free nuclear power and propulsion” https://www.academia.edu/39165768/LENRs_enable_green_radiation-free_nuclear_power_and_propulsion?email_work_card=view-paper

If commercialized, LENRs could become one of the world’s preeminent energy technologies. At system electrical power outputs of just 5 – 10 kwh, modular LENR-based distributed power generation systems providing combined heat and electricity (CHP) could satisfy energy requirements of a majority of urban and rural households as well as smaller businesses worldwide. Much lower-output, revolutionary portable LENR power sources could displace chemical batteries in applications where ultrahigh performance and longevity are needed. At electrical outputs of 60 – 200 kwh, LENR-based integrated power generation systems would be able to power vehicles, drones, as well as smaller aircraft and watercraft. This would break oil-based fuels’ 150-year stranglehold on internal combustion engines and decisively decarbonize the entire transportation sector. High-performance LENR thermal sources could also provide high-quality heat for many types of industrial processes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Dennis Danzik on the Earth Engine — Magnetic Propulsion Based on Control of Entropy

Thanks to Woody and others for referencing a post by the Earth Engine inventor Dennis K. Danzik in which responds to comments on the website Revolution Green about the recent developments with the Earth Engine and Inductance Energy Corporation.

Here is part of his comment originally posted here: https://revolution-green.com/earth-engine-claimed-3-years-40-kw-mechanical-energy-production-magnets/

I am just going to respond in whole as to some of the very intelligent comments and questions in regard to Magnetic Propulsion. There are a few facts that you need to know about when and how I will respond, and on what subjects I will comment on.

First, I am not a “believer” in “over unity”, and I have never experienced anything close to perpetual motion. For the most part, I am a classically trained engineer and for the first twenty four years of my practice, I worked on the refining side of oil and gas, mainly in polymers and composite design. I was focused on laboratory work in olefins and polyesters.

My lifelong obsession with magnetics began as a child, and I started working on Magnetic Propulsion in 2009 when some rare earth magnets became low cost enough for me to afford access to those products. I started laboratory work on the Engine and its components in 2010. I started working floor models in mid 2011.

My background is that of a trained industrial engineer, and I did complete grad work in product development at MIT/Sloan in 2009. I am not a physicist, but I can keep pace with most of the post doctoral discussions in regard to magnetics over the last 10 years. The vast majority of my career time has been in a laboratory development environment.

I do like the name “magnetics” as it applies to magnetism as an applied science that studies magnetic fields and magnetic radiation paths in relation to opposing and attracting magnetic fields. In other words, I have little interest at this time in measures and experimenting with magnetic fields working on a conductor.

I will not be responding in any way to my posts. They are for information only and not intended to start a conversation. My posts are not intended to inform you on how Magnetic Propulsion works in detail, or that I need to “prove it” to anyone on these types of message boards. The information is not greatly detailed, as I have little extra time in my life, but I do want to casually inform as many people as possible.

The Earth Engine, which is based on Magnetic Propulsion, functions from the force developed by a paired magnetic field. The magnetic field STARTS and ACCELERATES the flywheel on its own force, once attenuated. Most of our flywheel combinations are greater than 800 kg.

What I have developed, after many years of laboratory work, was based on the Szilard paper of 1929. Leo Szilard, through the work he left behind, has taught me a great deal. Here is a link to the paper that I made my life’s work (outside of my career):


My development is the control of entropy in the system. The applied science of Magnetic Propulsion first diminishes the point of entropy and then uses that entropy to ACCELERATE the flywheel in what we call a “slingshot”.

Entropy in my system occurs at only one point in the rotation of the flywheel. This has taken me years to calculate and refine. Let’s say at 350 degrees as an example, entropy is at maximum (force in the opposite direction of the desired direction). So from 0 to 358 the flywheel is being pushed and accelerates continuously. Now, obeying all physical laws, if I did not control entropy, the flywheel would slow and eventually stop. At 359 degrees I have developed a way to attenuate the magnetic field that is already “lopsided” or asymmetrical. The flywheel then makes it past the reversing force and then enters the “slingshot” and then the flywheel, using the opposing force greatly accelerates from 359 to about 15 degrees.

There are only two fields opposing at a time. One from the attenuation section (what we call fuel), and the flywheel magnetic field (what we call receptors). There are no electromagnets, or any device coupling to the flywheel. It is a zero contact device that is also magnetically levitated.
Attenuation of the field is accomplished through the bending of the paired fields. This is a major breakthrough. We keep both the geometry (shape) and geography (where the magnetic fuel is placed)(the pattern).

On the laboratory device “Crystal” you can see the firing of the attenuation device every 360 degrees. It consumes about 20 watts on average per firing.

Crystal has a 100 watt alternator rectified to 24 volts. It is also magnetically driven.
Crystal was built SOLELY to prove the applied science of Magnetic Propulsion. The simple fact that two magnetic fields produce a force, and when harvested, that force can spin a flywheel. That flywheel can then charge a battery or capacitor.

Now, here are some very important facts;
1. Crystal is NOT a dynamic motor. Magnetic Propulsion is not dynamic (instant) in its power delivery. It is inertia. It delivers power (which can then spin a generator) by accelerating a flywheel and storing that energy. You cannot in any way hook a dynamic load to a Magnetic Propulsion Engine. It will just stop, and it will stop quickly.
2. Magnetic Propulsion Engines work by creating inertia in a very specialized flywheel (some 257 parts) that refuse to magnetize in the presence of a large and powerful magnetic field. Once to speed (125 to 350 RPM) you have a great way to harvest kinetic energy by spinning an alternator. The alternator is not allowed to exceed a specific load, based on its affect on inertia. This is also a closely held trade secret. Think of it as a very large electrical “pump”.
3. Magnetic Propulsion requires STORAGE. A battery or capacitor. You can charge 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
4. Magnetic Propulsion requires a BATTERY or CAPACITOR for its parasitic energy to run its attenuation section. But this is only about 20W p/s at 60 RPM. So the battery is very small.
5. Crystal’s flywheel weighs in at 622 LBS where our commercial Engine flywheels are just over 4,000 LBS.
6. Magnetic Propulsion is not “over unity” or perpetual motion. It receives its power from over 5,000 PSI of pressure from an accelerated magnetic field. My developed magnetic fuel has “pull forces” (a common measure used in magnetism) of over 10,000 Pounds. This type of force requires not only great safety procedures but has also led to great breakthroughs in the handling of these very powerful magnets.

This coming week, IEC will be producing a complete explanatory broadcast program called “Introduction to Magnetic Propulsion” which will air on www.earthenginelive.com. It will be broadcast live and then repeated at specific times during the day. Broadcast times will be announced this coming Monday morning on the IEC Website (www.ie.energy) and on www.earthenginelive.com.
The program will take you through the entire Magnetic Propulsion Cycle and introduce our new transparent control panel with consumption and output meters (compliments of AccuEnergy).
I sincerely hope that you will tune in !

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Translating Dr. Alexander Parkhomov’s Space. Earth. Human. into English (Bob Greenyer Kickstarter)

Bob Greenyer has launched a Kickstarter fundraising campaign to translate Dr. Alexander Parkhomov’s book “Space. Earth. Human.” into English (it was originally published in Russian)

The Kickstarter page for this project is here:

From the page:

Explores the roots of strange phenomena
Over more than 100 years, starting with Tesla around the time of the discovery of x-rays and the electron, strange unexplained phenomena have been observed by researchers the world over, from enthusiasts to Nobel prize winners.

Dr. Alexander Parkhomov on his discovery
“In 1988, when working with three-dimensional diffraction gratings and detectors, which made it possible to obtain a spatial effect distribution and accumulate information for long periods, I discovered radiation which had a micron-millimeter wavelength and had a very high penetrating power.

It was clear this radiation was not light, radio waves or ultrasound, however, like these radiation types, the wavelength is much longer than the distances between atoms in a substance, i.e. interaction occurs immediately with a huge number of atoms. Substance, for such radiation, is a continuous medium, in which it refracts and from which it surface reflects.

If there are irregularities on the surface smaller than the wavelength, mirror reflection occurs. A concave mirror allows concentration and focussing of the radiation. Even if the reflection coefficient is very small, by using a mirror with a large surface, you can get a large increase in the intensity of the radiation. To understand how this works, consider a plate of clear glass, even though it is transparent, light still reflects from it well.

All this and more is described in detail in parts 2 and 3 of my book.

The first experiments with focusing mirrors were made in 1992.”

Bob has a video on the Kickstarter page which explains the scope of the translation project and gives information about the rewards that are available to people who support this project. He has noted that after only one day, 39% of the funds have been raised.