Dear Erik Ander:
I am in very good health, even if I work 16 hours per day with my E-Cats.
*As I said, we have not neutrons and high energy gamma emissions, and we
know now perfectly why. I will give the theory in November.*Thank you for
your attention,
Warm regards,
A.R.
=
S Woosnam
July 19th, 2011 at 3:33 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=16#comment-54541
Dear Mr. Rossi,
First may I say how refreshing it is for a scientist such as yourself to
engage with the public in the way you have done here. I think it is
commendable.
Second could I ask you about a technical aspect of your invention? I know
you do not subscribe to the Widom-Larsen theoretical explanation of your
empirical results; I found their theory rather plausible save for the
neutron capture gammas which one would expect but aren’t observed. If
neutrons aren’t generated (whether or not in the way they propose), what is
the purpose of the boron shield?
Andrea Rossi
July 19th, 2011 at 4:53 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=16#comment-54570
Dear S. Woosnam:
Good question.
*We put boron just for safety, as Prof. Focardi teached to me. Kind of just
in case…*Warm regards,
A.R.
==
Andrea Rossi
May 1st, 2011 at 4:19 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=488cpage=1#comment-36214
Dear Mr Mauro Rossi:
1- we consume about 1 gram of hydrogen in 24 hours
2-
*I never saw neutrons and neutrinos, with exception of few times, when I
saw neutrons, captured in bubble columns, but for a very particular
experiment I made by myself, being very dangerous.*3- No, I didn’t.
Warm regards,
A.R.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all
If the mention of Neutron emission by Paul on e-catworld is correct;
then is Rossi fully vindicated by the Goldilocks nature of LENR in his
choice of an Edisonian approach to LENR development?
I say Goldilocks nature of LENR because I conjecture that control of the
Neutron emission is the key to maintaining an LENR.
I think Rossi's catalyst forms an important part of the NAE and may
sustain it with ionised emissions from an absorber or more likely moderate
i,t keeping the Neutron flow even, this is standard for a hot fission
reactor so I see no reason LENR would be any different.
As water acts as a general Neutron absorber/moderator it may also explain
why the F/P water based reaction was not as successful.
TOO HOT! if the Neutrons are too fast they escape the reactor/NAE
producing Gamma bursts outside the reactor vessel and starving the reactor
of Neutrons the equivalent of a car backfiring and the reaction shuts down.
TOO COLD! Not enough Neutrons or too slow to sustain the reaction or they
all get absorbed in a moderator and the reaction starves of power and
stalls like a car without enough gas.
JUST SO and the Neutron emissions are constant and steady and the reaction
cruises along.
This Goldilocks zone would explain why so much LENR research is so hit and
miss.
On the Catalyst
I think moderation is the key. Graphite and Beryllium or maybe a
Hydrocarbon are the catalyst and provide that even Neutron flow that I
think is key to a sustained repeatable LENR.
Boron or Lithium could act as absorbers that then emit ionised particles
at a lower than hot fusion or normal fission energy level; then they may be
part of the heat production system. And may be part of the Catalyst, maybe
both processes are required.
I speculate that once again granular size and percentage in the mix of
moderators/absorbers are key. That we are looking at a bell curve of NAE's
in a reactor mass and that the mix of catalyst in the Nickel shifts the
Neutron production either way, fast or slow.
I submit that Rossi's Edisonian approach to the field is what has allowed
him to discover the LENR Goldilocks zone.
Kind Regards walker
