Why Prospecting Asteroids for Precious Resources Is Now Possible [Video]

2,836 16 Loading

Today’s world is built on a foundation of material objects, and Earth is the only place to obtain the natural resources that modern life depends on. But maybe not for much longer.

Most of the raw materials we value on Earth exist in much larger quantities in space. Asteroids aren’t much more than huge chunks of rock, metal, and water. Leveraging them for mining and human space exploration is a major opportunity.

If we solve the technical challenges, the potential is vast. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has said: “The first trillionaire in the world is going to be the person who first mines asteroids.”

Planetary Resources is a private company dedicated to outer space resource extraction. Peter Diamandis, Singularity University cofounder and executive chairman and Planetary Resources cofounder brought Chris Lewicki, Planetary Resources president and chief engineer, to Singularity University’s Global Solutions Program (GSP) for a fireside chat with participants last summer.

Lewicki says new technologies are enabling private space firms like theirs to take on big and bold projects once only reserved for space agencies with massive budgets.

“Instead of taking a thousand people ten years and a billion dollars to do something, we can take dozens of people, a few years, and a few million dollars to do this," Lewicki says. "Which, as it turns out, is about the same amount of money that it takes to prospect a new oil well or find a new gold mine. And the statistics for finding new resources on Earth are probably worse than finding new resources in space because...in space there's nothing between you and the asteroid but vacuum.”

Lewicki has deep experience with NASA and the Mars exploration rover programs and is a recipient of two NASA Exceptional Achievement Medals. He shares some insights from the Mars missions and Planetary Resources in the video below.

Image credit: Shutterstock.com

Andrew O'Keefe
Tweet Me

Andrew O'Keefe

Andrew operates as a media producer and archivist. Generating backups of critical cultural data, he has worked across various industries — entertainment, art, and technology — telling emerging stories via recording and distribution.
Andrew O'Keefe
Tweet Me

Discussion — 16 Responses

  • DSM February 29, 2016 on 2:20 pm

    Changing the orbital characteristics of near earth objects large enough to be worth mining is potentially as dangerous as storing nuclear weapons in orbit.

    You live at the bottom of a gravity well and you think it is OK to have space cowboys kicking around huge rocks on the rim of it?

    The NEOs with the heavy metals are the larger ones, they are larger because their heavy cores are gravitational accretion seeds.

    All it takes is one error to send debris in the direction of the significant number of nuclear reactors abandoned in high earth orbit and it is game over humanity.

    Sure it is possible to mine asteroids, but until you have cleaned up your room lad you don’t get to go and play in the yard.

    • Sine Arrow DSM March 2, 2016 on 9:30 am

      “Changing the orbital characteristics of near earth objects large enough to be worth mining is potentially as dangerous as storing nuclear weapons in orbit.”

      Then don’t. Instead, scrape loose regolith off the surface, or, if its a carbonaceous chondrite, just use a grinder to bore into the fragile friable body of the asteroid. The high grade the result by heating til water is released, collected, and then frozen for transport, heating more till the kerogen-like “carbonaceous” material oozes forth, and then send the rest through a magnetic separator that pulls out the native Nickel/Iron bits. *Then* send that back to EML-1 to be processed in propellant and spaceships. Since you cannot claim an asteroid in place, and can only lay claim to those portions you have added value to anyway, don’t bother moving the whole thing!

      “All it takes is one error to send debris in the direction of the significant number of nuclear reactors abandoned in high earth orbit and it is game over humanity.”

      No. I assume you mean an asteroid breaking open the reactor vessels of the abandoned Russian nuke-powered radar sats. That could happen today. Indeed, the recent South Atlantic bolide could have done that, and those are far more frequent (several a year) than any out of control asteroids will be. No, they are not a threat to humanity as a whole, though they are a threat to Russia’s treasury should they experience any accident.

      “Sure it is possible to mine asteroids, but until you have cleaned up your room lad you don’t get to go and play in the yard.”

      In short, till you have solved all problems down here on Earth, no one gets to go make money off of asteroids.

      No sale.

      • DSM Sine Arrow March 2, 2016 on 1:34 pm

        What grossly flawed logic, “it is OK to make a risk greater because a risk already exists”? Where did your learn rhetoric, at a circus?

        Bottom line is, you don’t have a legal right to claim it and you risk people killing you (in a war of some form) if you try to take what has already been agreed is in part their property, furthermore your operations need to have the highest safety standards and that include the things that I have pointed out, which clearly you overlooked and resent being highlighted.

        • Sine Arrow DSM March 2, 2016 on 5:37 pm

          ” “it is OK to make a risk greater because a risk already exists”?”

          When both risks are microscopic, yes. They are indeed microscopic, as I tried to politely point out. This is especially so when the gain to our species is so great from asteroid mining. You vastly inflate the risk of Russia’s reactors still in orbit being struck by *anything*. Space is vast, and the constructions of humans are small.

          ‘Bottom line is, you don’t have a legal right to claim it, ….”

          You seem far more interested in this word “claim” than in anything resembling the word “produce”. In particular you have shown no interest at all in the term “value added”, which production is what would allow profit.

          Why is that?

          You flail around waving fear, uncertainty and doubt (known as FUD in engineering circles) when there is no one threatening anyone who is planning to go after these resources. Now, why do you think that other governments aren’t bothering with your FUD? Do you think it might be because there are so many asteroids that fighting over them is infinitely less productive than simply finding another asteroid to mine, by selecting one from the databases already growing at the rate of thousands per year?

          In fact, once US companies start producing equipment from asteroid resources to settle the Solar System, if other countries want to participate, they can do so by investing in productive equipment, which US companies making such equipment at EML-1 would gladly sell them. 3/4ths of asteroid spectra show them to be carbonaceous chondrites, …the easiest to mine for what is wanted most, water, Carbon, Nickel/Iron, etc. The idea that producing something from them *requires* a government controlling who gets to do the production and where it is sold is simply not reality. If some country raises objections to it the first thing to do is not to start shooting, but to renegotiate the Outer Space Treaty to be both clear and accommodate production more easily.

          Treaties are tools. When those tools no longer serve a productive purpose, they can be changed. Treaties which kept the US and the USSR from worrying about claims on the Moon in 1967-72 during the “Moon Race” reply to Kruschev’s space propaganda campaign, are not written in stone. If someone disagrees with the interpretation that is now US law, they can come and negotiate that disagreement. That doesn’t mean *we* have to stop what we are doing.

          Sorry, but “lawfare” isn’t going to be a useful tool to create restrictions on US citizens in this instance. You could try, of course. Flail away, ..if you have nothing else better to do with your life.

          In fact most of your arguments seem to be trying to create a “dog in the manger” to keep US citizens from being first in doing asteroid mining. You have rhapsodized about your “arguably superior culture” in other posts, whichever that culture happens to be, and made your opinion of US culture clear through your sneers. None of which is relevant to the topic of any of these articles. If another nation wishes to produce something from asteroids, they are likely to find us quite happy to sell them whatever they need.

          • DSM Sine Arrow March 2, 2016 on 6:23 pm

            You can’t make any specific claim about the scale of either risk as a comparison without even an attempt to quantify them. Do you even know how many reactors have been parked in HEO? Have you looked at what other junk is up there? No you have no idea. My *principle* is solid, the orbital stability of the entire system is finely balanced and without very great care it can be made unstable. It is like a gun with a hair trigger, not a state that requires a large knock to cause it to reconfigure rapidly and significantly.

            When you claim “When both risks are microscopic” you are deliberately telling a lie because you know that you don’t have the knowledge to make such a specific claim in an attempt to undermine a principle about due caution

            In mining “claim” is a very well defined term and it implies exclusive rights. Why are you so ignorant of that fact?

            I am not spreading FUD that is just another of your cheap shots because you have no principles and therefore find it hard to have a dialogue that is based on them., The risks of living at the bottom of a gravitational well are real, if you allow “space cowboys to kick rocks around on the rim”. Take a look at the massive mess BHP caused in Brazil, accidents do happen when you have human activities that set up such huge energy potentials without appropriate caution.

            Also, take a look at the state of international relations now, because of resource issues, China is about to up their military spending enormously, because they feel threatened by resistance to their claims. This is what not cooperating causes. Now look at space, not all resources are of equal value, and not all are as profitable to access therefore one can’t honestly say a “first in first served” approach is compatible with global equity, only a division of profits after the fact is.This is yet again a perfect example of where your ideas are not founded on logic, and why they lead not toward a prosperous future but potentially one where a massive war is possible because your mind-set seeks to cheat the system for personal gain, due to your lack of respect for other humans and their rights.

            The Outer Space Treaty stands and there is no serious talk of changing it amongst the major stakeholders. How do you expect to have a hope in hell of doing that without getting global relations on a more civilised footing first?

            Only an agreement ratified by the entire UN assembly can allow for the protection of off-world mining operations, and that is another requirement because without it your hard earned gains, even if they are just your agreed share, can be taken from you by anyone capable of “accidentally” causing a lump of rock to intercept your space vehicles. “Oh dear poor old Ame Space Mining Co just had another cargo ship break up after interacting with a small dark and dense lump of rock travelling at extreme velocities, I wonder where that came from? Never mind, lets just go and enact our rights to salvage what is left….for profit! Muhahahahaaa” etc.

            Then you make the paranoid claim that I seek ” to keep US citizens from being first in doing asteroid mining.” Now that is just pathetic scum-bag false patriotisms from a hypocrite that hates his own federal government’s control over his life.

            The truth of the matter is, and I am getting very tired of the abusive level of deliberate deceit from you, that I have not made any point or espoused any principle that does not apply to every member of humanity equally.

            My point about “your” culture regarding longevity is relevant to this forum, where longevity is an important topic, or hadn’t you noticed? All nations that fail, despite having first world status, to improve the longevity of their own citizens should be deeply ashamed and should question their right to hold a leadership role on the world stage. That is yet another principle that applies to all.

            • Sine Arrow DSM March 3, 2016 on 12:14 pm

              “Do you even know how many reactors have been parked in HEO? ”

              In disposal orbits? Less than fifty.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_space

              “Russia has sent about 40 reactors into space and its TOPAZ-II reactor can produce 10 kilowatts.[3] The Romashka reactor family uses uranium and direct thermoelectric conversion to electricity, rather than using a heated fluid to drive a turbine.[4] The United States tested a nuclear reactor in space for 43 days in 1965.”

              That’s pretty much it, outside RTGs on probes beyond Earth Orbit and and on a few satellites.

              That’s simply too little to worry much about. If any of the reactors comes down, the launching nation pays for the resulting damage and/or cleanup.

              “Have you looked at what other junk is up there? No you have no idea.”

              Actually, being a decades-long supporter of cleaning up the final stages of rockets that have put satellites in orbit, I know of the debris problem quite well, and have been favoring “Tethers Unlimited”‘s proposals for getting rid of them for some years.

              “In mining “claim” is a very well defined term and it implies exclusive rights. Why are you so ignorant of that fact?”

              I know that quite well, having had long discussions with relatives who’ve worked small mining claims here in the Pacific NorthWest. I also know that having exclusive rights to mining an asteroid is not included anywhere in the law recently passed in the US. Indeed, that law has language explicitly deferring to the Outer Space Treaty about exclusive claims. You won’t find any US companies trying to make any claim under that law. That means an open pit mine on an asteroid is truly “open”, …to everyone. I would assume that people will be sane enough not to bash other groups’ equipment while doing their own mining, since neither group can “claim” the body being mined. Common courtesy should apply.

              “I am not spreading FUD that is just another of your cheap shots because you have no principles and therefore find it hard to have a dialogue that is based on them.”

              If it isn’t just FUD, then which national government is threatening war over any US asteroid mining??? Till they do, it’s FUD.

              As to principles, …your principles are not my principles, …obviously. I have some time to devote to discussions, but not all day, so I have no interest in documenting exhaustively all I opine about.

              “Now look at space, not all resources are of equal value, and not all are as profitable to access …..”

              While that’s true, such a large majority of asteroids are carbonaceous chondrites (at least by present data), that there won’t be much to choose from among them, except by orbit. The idea of going to war over a 500m/sec difference in orbital velocity of two different sources of asteroid material is silly. It will be cheaper, even for a “winner” in such a war to just eat the delta-vee cost, by orders of magnitude. BTW, that 500m/sec difference has recently been predicted to cover upwards of a million small asteroids. (<100m diameter) There's *plenty* to choose from!

              "…therefore one can’t honestly say a “first in first served” approach is compatible with global equity, only a division of profits after the fact is."

              Which leads us into the progressive realm of taking from investors, and handing the results to "friends of the Crown", which tradition is why the Spanish Empire did so poorly. No, DSM, I see no reason to do this, most especially not through your suggestion of using the most corrupt international organization on planet Earth, the UN.

              "that I have not made any point or espoused any principle that does not apply to every member of humanity equally."

              Well, that's the true problem we have with each other, because I don't believe they are valid, much less that they are universally applicable.

              Waiting upon perfection is an old game of the last 50 years to delay something US citizens want to do. I doubt it will work this time.

              " “Oh dear poor old Ame Space Mining Co just had another cargo ship break up after interacting with a small dark and dense lump of rock travelling at extreme velocities, I wonder where that came from? Never mind, lets just go and enact our rights to salvage what is left….for profit! Muhahahahaaa” etc."

              Which is precisely why a "Space Guard is needed.

              • DSM Sine Arrow March 3, 2016 on 6:29 pm

                You can’t have a “space guard” without a UN ratified treaty. Nor could you afford one, there is so much territory to cover and almost no way to detect and defend against a stealthy projectile sent to intercept a predictable orbit. Are you going to blow out your costs even more with constant evasive manoeuvres etc? Don’t be stupid, if you turn the solar system into the wild west you will risk so much chaos that it will not be worth the effort. Only a single conglomerate of all interested parties would have any chance of avoiding such problems. i.e. A single team, Team Humanity, not Team China, or Team India, or Team Russia etc. The only competition should be who can create the best solutions to agreed problems in the fastest time, then share them.

                Your opinion of the UN is irrelevant because it is the forum where the nations of Earth decide such things. Your logic which is of the form “it isn’t perfect therefore it is completely broken” is an idiotic fallacy, furthermore you have no better option and even if you did how would you get anyone to agree to it? What other global forum is there that is better? Yes the UN is a slow and blunt instrument but it is the best that humanity can agree on.

                You want to ignore the UN and all that it represents. Well I say that your powers of self delusion are as impressive as your want to use false and deceptive claims is offensive, but in the end you are not going to get anywhere even with a decent proposal if you do not have the consent of those who have a rightful claim over that which you lust after.

                You say war is not likely, what what an insane denial of history and human nature that is, most wars are the product of one group believing they have a right to what another group considers their property, or over the division of a shared resource.

                This is the constant taint of your dialogue, that you are not obliged to share in a globally democratic manner and that one country has an ethically valid right to pass a law that effectively creates “Space Buccaneers” who have an (despite your deception) absolute claim over anything that falls into their possession regardless of previous treaties.

                So all I have to do is spray my company logo all over the surface of an asteroid and attach a solar sail to send it to my factory (eventually) then it is 100% my property and no longer the property of humanity? You didn’t think of that did you? If you do not have an international agreement there will be a plethora of tactics like that used to spoil your fun, and what are you going to do about it, just ignore the logos and cut off the sail so you can take what you want? Now tell me why would that not cause you to end up in a fight with the original claimant? Can you now see how unworkable the system you espouse is? It is arrogant, greedy and shot sighted, guaranteed to get you into some form of destructive conflict, because it does not contain an inherent mechanism to settle disputes. At best you will have late comers having to scoop up the crumbs after all the big rocks with their heavy cores are “tagged” as property. That is guaranteed to cause resentment and conflict too. The claim of uniformity in asteroids is false, there are very good reasons why they come in different sizes and have different orbits. Would you settle for having them allocated to you in a lottery? No, I didn’t think so, because you want to bet on finding the valuable ones first, to the detriment of the rest of humanity.

                Why not test your theories on Earth first? Try mining in Antarctica, or sinking an oil well near the South Pole then see how long you survive. I guarantee a country that tried that would face a military response from others very rapidly. How many millions have died in the Middle East fighting over what is left of the wealth in the ground there, despite the fact that we are on the cusp of the fusion age when we will have so much power that we can generate fuels from air and water using electrochemical cells. You need to convince people specifically how your way of doing things will avoid humanity’s innate tendency to go to war. I should not have to point out why it is in fact likely, because it is self evident, yet I can point to many a precedent that proves my point.

                • Sine Arrow DSM March 6, 2016 on 11:08 am

                  “You need to convince people specifically how your way of doing things will avoid humanity’s innate tendency to go to war. ”

                  Why should I? Nothing will avoid that. The worthwhile argument is over whether free men and women will cause *enough* resentment (yours is already plainly visible) by freely mining the asteroids, to cause a war. I don’t think they will, unless it’s just an excuse to cover already existing animus against the US for its defense of industrial freedoms in general.

                  “You can’t have a “space guard” without a UN ratified treaty. Nor could you afford one, there is so much territory to cover and almost no way to detect and defend against a stealthy projectile sent to intercept a predictable orbit.”

                  Sure you can. The US can start its own. Start small, and as the industries grow, support the growth of that off agreed fees. Indeed, most of its equipment will be sensors that are already being prototyped and tested in orbit today to look for asteroids in the first place. Since Planetary Resources intends to mass produce those anyway, just get the Space Guard into their production stream, and make sure that each transport has these sensors looking outwards in all directions. That will allow them to continuously lasercom back to Space Guard a record of all approaching objects, allowing Space Guard to track where even the blackest intercepting weapon came from. Once they know where it came from, they will know who it came from. Then previously announced policies are applied.

                  That will start a conversation among diplomats over rules of the road, as others do the same. Bit by bit those will be worked out, No need for pedophelia-generating UN forces to be involved at all, much less their tendencies to favor whoever has bribed the rulers of nations in a majority of the General Assembly.

                  “You didn’t think of that did you? ”

                  Many people not knowledgeable of celestial mechanics and the real life abilities we can expect from various propulsion systems have proposed schemes. Some of them are even less likely to produce profit than yours. Since engineers with that experience won’t be doing that, we can pay attention to what will work.

                  “if you turn the solar system into the wild west you will risk so much chaos that it will not be worth the effort.”

                  And yet, …it was worth it in what Europe and Europeanized academics here insist on calling “The Wild West”. In fact, it was often highly profitable, as long as people did their sums right, which they sometimes didn’t.

                  • DSM Sine Arrow March 7, 2016 on 12:19 pm

                    “allowing Space Guard to track where even the blackest intercepting weapon came from.”

                    “Some of them are even less likely to produce profit than yours.”

                    You come across as scientifically illiterate. The above is basically all you have to defend your entire argument? If only your possession of facts and your principles were of the same magnitude as your blatherings. All that text, with a small diversion off into false patriotism, again, and those two points are all you really communicated.

                    You cannot detect something that is small, travelling at extreme velocities an non reflective, even to radar, yet it can have enough kinetic energy to be extremely destructive. Ever heard of vanta black? Do you know how to calculate the kinetic energy of a 1 meter diameter sphere of iron travelling at 10,000 meters per second? You have no idea what is or is not possible.

                    As for the profitability of using solar sails, they are the solution with the smallest mass and energy requirement (i.e. cost) and if you don’t think they can attain significant velocities then you are an innumerate fool.

                    Perhaps it would be saner if you stop trying to tell other people about how you see the future unfolding until you even have a fraction of the knowledge required to describe what is possible now?

  • dobermanmacleod February 29, 2016 on 9:49 pm

    What is needed is a Von Neumann probe, which lands on an asteroid and replicates itself with the material found, and then proceeds on. Exponential production. Using AI, 3D printing, and LENT (low energy nuclear transmutation), it is now possible.

    By the way, for you that have the IQ to understand (I don’t mean to be derogatory, but many simply can’t understand what I am saying, so dismiss it): cold fusion is now open sourced fully transparent recipe (LENT is just nuclear fusion, with elements getting larger from the same physical reaction):

    https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/02/24/breaking-the-e-cat-has-been-replicated-hers-the-recipe/

    And here’s the recipe in short form, as published by MFMP on February 24, 2016. For further details, please visit Quantumheat.org:
    Prepare thoroughly (Ni + LiAlH4 + Li)
    1. Bake Ni
    2. Reduce Ni
    3. Hydrogenate Ni
    4. Mix: Ni + LiAlH4 + Li
    5. Bake and vac reactor, add Mix, vac warm, add H2, Vac
    6. Heat to above Mössbauer determined Ni Debye (say 135C), pressure regulated to approx 1bar abs.
    7. Hold, pressure regulated to approx 1bar abs.
    8. Heat slowly to as close to Ni Curie as comfortable (Say 340C), pressure regulated to approx 1bar abs.
    9. Hold, pressure regulated to approx 1bar abs.
    10. Slowly lower temp to above highest known Ni Debye (Say 220C), pressure regulated to approx 1bar abs.
    11. Hold, pressure regulated to approx 1bar abs.
    12. Go as fast as possible through Ni Curie
    13. Hold, pressure regulated to approx 0.5bar abs.
    14. Cycle through 500C internal, pressure regulated to approx 0.5bar abs.
    15. Hold, pressure regulated to approx 0.5bar abs.
    16. Raise internal temperature to over 1200, pressure regulated to approx 0.5bar abs.
    17. Drop to around 1000C and hold, pressure regulated to approx 0.5bar abs.
    18. Raise internal temperature to near boiling point of Lithium

    • DSM dobermanmacleod February 29, 2016 on 10:11 pm

      You forgot the key part of creating that fake reaction, don’t use common H2, you need to use tritium. Nobody will ever realise that you are scamming them as it will never occur to them you can get hold of an unstable isotope to add to the mix.

      • dobermanmacleod DSM March 1, 2016 on 2:30 pm

        You appear not to be able to differentiate between fake and real. This is open source, replicable, and completely transparent. I assumed you tried the experiment but failed, huh? No, instead you judged based upon your false sense of faulty intuition. The MFMP is a very valid and respectable organization that you no doubt have no idea about or even quite probably wish to learn about. Your closed mind does not belong on this forum, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for spreading ill informed slander.

        • DSM dobermanmacleod March 1, 2016 on 5:39 pm

          It is fake and both versions are not useful in the real world, but tritium is how they fake the excess neutrons. It is crank science and not even worth stealing, otherwise it would have been stolen and used long ago. Well? Deal with that as logic rather than launch another childish attack on me because I am just the messenger, not the logic or facts you need to deal with.

          In my country fraud is a criminal offence so if you sold e-cat as a product with quantified promises regarding power production you would find yourself facing a multimillion dollar fine or imprisonment. And that is another fact you can’t deny either.

          Who are you to dictate who should or should not express their opinions on any open forum? What sort of self appointed fascist dictator-censor are you? Have you so little self insight that you cannot see that you are using all of the bullying tactics typical of con-men when faced with an alternative point-of-view that undermines their deliberate deception? Can you also see therefore why such tactics make it look like your promotion of this fraudulent product is more than just nativity or delusion, that you know it is fake and you consciously suppress dissent to cover your lies? If your deception is deliberate your culpability is greater too.

          • DSM DSM March 1, 2016 on 5:52 pm

            @ dobermanmacleod

            Let me do you a sincere favour and give you a valuable tip, download and study all of this free book, http://www.motionmountain.net/

          • dobermanmacleod DSM March 1, 2016 on 10:08 pm

            I am laughing so loud about your ridiculous disbelief based upon intuition. Rossi and company have had a 1 megawatt reactor running for over a year now in an industrial setting, and a report is coming out about it this month.

            BTW, here is another third party report, but I am sure you are so closed minded that you can’t learn anything regardless of the evidence:

            http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

            Here is another article with an interview with one of Rossi’s engineers:

            https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/

            Shame on you for having such a closed mind when such an abundant amount of evidence exists. Do you even know about the MFMP? I bet you don’t. I bet you won’t find out either. Instead, you want to continuing believing falsehoods because of cognitive dissidence.

            By the way, to illustrate your faulty logic: the formula just came to light last week, but you are “sure” it would have been “stolen long ago” if it worked,” huh?

            “It is crank science and not even worth stealing, otherwise it would have been stolen and used long ago.”

            In other words, because it is new news, then it must be false. Such circular logic is the clue that the person who is dishing it is just rationalizing an already closed mind. I am not censoring you, I am ridiculing your stated opinion, which is not only dead wrong, but a virtual certitude inside your mind. I suppose the report coming out about the 1 megawatt E-Cat reactor will be dismissed by you as well, because you now simply can’t afford psychologically to admit you were wrong. You’ve isolated yourself from evidence to protect your ego sir.

            • DSM dobermanmacleod March 1, 2016 on 11:01 pm

              You contradicted yourself, “reactor running for over a year” “formula just came to light last week”, if Rossi had anything worth taking he would have lost it a long time ago (+1 year) and others would be using it. One does not need to take what is on the open web, so only an insane person would try and use that new event as and example to disprove my point about the original claims by Rossi.

              And you lecture me on logic?

              Here is some more logic for you, if e-cat was more than a fraud the price of nickel would rise significantly. But it has done the opposite in the year that Rossi has been playing his mad scientist games.

              http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/nickel/1-year/

              There is no peer reviewed science that supports your assertion that Rossi has something useful in the “real world” for producing commercially viable power.

              As I pointed out, fraud is a crime.

              Grow up and go and learn some real science, for free, http://www.motionmountain.net/ because it is a tragedy to see you wasting your mind on delusions.