Re: [Vo]: E-Cat progress

@Jones Beene, Yup I agree I also find the neutron model hard to swallow for the same reasons you mentioned. Which is why I still prefer some kind proton capture at this time. I just have a hunch they may both be right with their respective mixes some how, however but I agree experiment is the

RE: [Vo]: E-Cat progress

But Stephen – what you suggest would involve neutron irradiation … which would activate much more than the nickel, if that was the main channel. Since there is no secondary activation, neutrons are probably out (except as something like Hagelstein’s neutron “hopping” which is speculative).

Re: [Vo]: E-Cat progress

@Jones Beene. Are you sure that they are not both correct? You said something interesting about the medical use of Ni62 and how both Ni62 and Ni64 form radio active isotopes Ni63 and Ni 65 if irradiated by neutrons. Could this be part of the process some how? For the LENR device maybe Ni65 is

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

March 10, 2016 – By Steven B. Krivit – Industrial Heat has apparently terminated its relationship with businessman Andrea Rossi. Andrea Rossi March 21, 2016 at 12:56 PM IH has the exclusive right to do this. (distribute the E-Cat in the US) Industrial Heat wrote “Any claims made about

RE: [Vo]: E-Cat progress

From: Bob Higgins Ø Interestingly, what MFMP found in the assay of its 62Ni sample was that the fraction of 64Ni in the enriched sample was not increased. This is not surprising. The main use of the 62 isotopes appears to be medical. The online information suggests that the starting

Re: [Vo]: E-Cat progress

Note that the Lugano report's TOF-SIMS analysis reported the 62Ni concentration of 98.7% (not pure 62Ni, see page 42, Table 1). Also, the Lugano report's ICP-MS analysis reported the ash sample tested (different particle) to be 99.3% (page 53, table in the middle of the page). Neither of these

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

Industrialization failure would not be a surprise at all, with a report saying it is leaking, melting, breaking from all side... If so, the interest if IH is simply to keep the report secret and work on improving the reliability until they can deliver a reactor that work , in the industrial way,

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

Jones Beene wrote: > It is beyond reasonable doubt that Rossi “salted” the reactor with > enriched isotope and did not tell anyone. > This is not beyond doubt. There is no evidence for it. People who know a great deal about mass spectroscopy tell me that it is difficult to

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

art of patience is long lost. From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 12:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress Jones, why is it so " beyond reasonable doubt" it can be many honest explanations as well.. I

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

Jones, why is it so " beyond reasonable doubt" it can be many honest explanations as well.. I understand the reasons to debate the Lugano report from an academic / scientific point of view. I do not understand why it is important to find out if the insufficiency is caused on purposeful

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

From: alain.coetmeur@gmail * saying it is a fraud seems not fair for me. Lugano report is visibly insufficient, unlike anything manufactured to look good... Alain - I should have been more specific. It is beyond reasonable doubt that Rossi “salted” the reactor with enriched isotope

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

saying it is a fraud seems not fair for me. Lugano report is visibly insufficient, unlike anything manufactured to look good. Fraud looks perfect, that is a rule, and even a way to detect it. it is easier to make a fake report that looks perfect than to make a good one that looks fair. There is

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

For the record, this comment did not come from me. I do not waste time on Rossi’s absurd blog for one thing. One the contrary, in my opinion there is no valid proof of any large energy anomaly from Rossi which is not fully explained by Thermacore’s earlier and better work - nor is it

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

have seen it earlier, OK, dear Adrian! Peter On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:50 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Peter Gluck, > From Rossi's blog. > > Jones > March 20, 2016 at 8:15 AM > > DR Rossi – interesting comment on Vortex-L by a ashfield could you comment > on this: > > There

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

Peter Gluck, From Rossi's blog. Jones March 20, 2016 at 8:15 AM DR Rossi – interesting comment on Vortex-L by a ashfield could you comment on this: There must be an important clue in the new E-Cat X being so small – 100 Watts. This would make a conventional control system for a large plant

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

thanks, dear Adrian please help Ego Out with new ideas! Peter On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 5:15 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Peter, you are welcome to publish it. > I sent that comment on 3/16/2016 and don't know why it took so long to be > posted. > I would now add a couple of

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

The establishment may know moire about LENR than I had supposed. http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/something-really-bothers-me-about-the-apcoworldwide-lenr-connection/#comments http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/license1.png

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

Peter, you are welcome to publish it. I sent that comment on 3/16/2016 and don't know why it took so long to be posted. I would now add a couple of points: 1 He will be "connected" to Mats Lewan's symposium in Sweden in June 2 The location of the E-Cat X plant will be disclosed at 1. 3 He

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

Dear Adrian, an excellent executive summary, please allow me to publish it on the Ego Out Blog. Thank you, Peter On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:33 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Progress with the E-Cats seems to be moving swiftly now. > Rossi says: > 1 He will be "connected" to