You may think these comments are a bit premature, but . There are some heavy hitters in DoE and the major Universities behind thorium as a replacement for uranium. But that is for use in an expensive breeding cycle which has most of the negatives of any fission scheme.
Imagine how surprised they will be to find that there is (could be) a low energy version. A cheap version, suitable for home use, perhaps. One that has been known for 15 years or more. It would most likely is based on a new form of accelerated decay, instead of fission. This speculation presumes what almost no one has sensed so far - that the Rossi device is actually based on thorium, probably in the form of thoria - with nano-nickel being the spillover catalyst that deposits hydrogen into the dielectric, which is the thoria. Damn! The Cincinnati group came so close - if they had only changed a few details, and known about the advantages of "nano" then this could have happened at least a decade ago. Don't laugh too hard just yet. Of all the speculation which is out there now about Rossi, this one is starting to sound better and better; and it can explain the very robust nature of the device. Nickel-hydrogen, in contrast, has been fickle in the past. Only a fool would be trying to produce 100 units of any device, at such an untested state - unless it was extraordinarily robust, well beyond expectations of prior nickel-based LENR - and Rossi is no fool. BTW - Thorium is about four times more abundant than uranium, and is about as common as lead. The USA is well positioned with massive supplies. Australia and India have large deposits as well. One problem, as Robin hinted in another post, is that the energy extractable by "accelerated decay" (if that turns out to be the M.O.) is probably only a fraction of what it would be available in Th-fission. Even so, the prospect is most exciting. Let's go prospecting, so to speak! Jones
