Hi all I think Rossi's reference to Jet engines may be with regard to matters that came up in the NASA seedling presentation, particularly the Brayton Cycle. It took up a big chunk of the NASA report: http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/SeedlingWELLS.pdf
I think a cloak of NDAs; as strong and legally frightening as those used by Google on their Barges; is what is preventing us from seeing what Rossi's partner companies are up to. I think Cherokee is just a cut-off for far bigger players, companies like Cherokee are what bigger companies use to keep the SEC off their backs. I think it is that cloud of NDAs that makes NASA and the US Navy only give us hints as to what is going on. We know they let slip the Lockheed Martin connection in the meeting and one paper from a Lockheed Martin researcher got on to the web only to be removed when it came to light. Kind Regards Walker On 25 March 2014 18:00, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Good point Bob. > > > > BTW - as to further HotCat possibilities - how many remember one of the > original drones which goes back 50 years ? ... and which design could be > notable for this thread since it was a ram-jet configuration. Only a few of > the Lockheed D-21 were built. It would fly very high but the fuel > consumption was miserable. That is why LENR could change everything. > > > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/D21-070308.jpg > > > > The ram-jet configuration would work with a HotCat power source to extend > the range considerably. And the platform is ultra cheap and expendable but > also nearly impossible to shoot down. > > > > Yes - I know that Rossi later said on his blog - that oops, he was really > talking about a turbine, not a jet -- but we also know from past experience > that AR has a habit of revealing too much at times, and then trying to > back-track to cover up. Or else, he is very good about playing his > audience. J > > > > *From:* Bob Cook > > > > Rossi came up with his hot cat design pretty quick. It seems from my > recollection that there was never a significant lead up to the > announcement. Available bucks could have been the answer. > > Here is Krivit's interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it > may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet > engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA) > > > > > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf > > > > It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of > producing the power plant directly. > > > > Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. > > > > DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a > year away with many strings attached. > > > > DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. > > > > There is one area of R&D in the USA capable of getting a check for a > transformational technology signed this afternoon - and it relates to > remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). > > > > This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, > you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed > up by public report of less than a year ago. > > > >
