Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
I wrote: Apart from noise in measurements, such a discrepancy might be due to natural variation in the isotopic composition of nickel; to a reaction eating away some of the 61Ni and 64Ni; or to Rossi's using a preparation that is somehow depleted in these specific isotopes. I think the depletion hypothesis for explaining the low 61Ni/58Ni and 64Ni/62Ni ratios in the nickel isotopic analysis done in Sweden on behalf of Sven Kullander in connection with the E-Cat is an interesting one. I think it would be possible to accomplish depletion of sorts merely by enriching one of the other isotopes, e.g., 58Ni or 60Ni. The goal might not have been to deplete both 61Ni and 64Ni; if there was anything like this going on, it might have been simply that one of the isotopes was undesirable and the other one ended up being depleted along with it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Its entirely conceivable that if the nickel micro particles are spaced far enough apart, then no transmutation from nickel to copper will be seen. The magnetic beams that produce the LENR reaction will usually project away from the tips of the nanowire field emitters on the micro particles. The magnetic beams in a well spaced array of micro particles will only have access to hydrogen in the envelope whose transmutation products will include mainly lithium, boron, and beryllium. The types of transmutation that occur in LENR is an accident of the layout of the magnetic field emitters. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: Apart from noise in measurements, such a discrepancy might be due to natural variation in the isotopic composition of nickel; to a reaction eating away some of the 61Ni and 64Ni; or to Rossi's using a preparation that is somehow depleted in these specific isotopes. I think the depletion hypothesis for explaining the low 61Ni/58Ni and 64Ni/62Ni ratios in the nickel isotopic analysis done in Sweden on behalf of Sven Kullander in connection with the E-Cat is an interesting one. I think it would be possible to accomplish depletion of sorts merely by enriching one of the other isotopes, e.g., 58Ni or 60Ni. The goal might not have been to deplete both 61Ni and 64Ni; if there was anything like this going on, it might have been simply that one of the isotopes was undesirable and the other one ended up being depleted along with it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Who is Bill Nichols
www.rossilivecat.com/ The item is about #60 now--it is dated Oct 5 at 1:48 PM. The items on the rossi blog are listed by date and time. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneEric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:21 AM, frobertcook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: See item 36 for the comments. Akso note earlier comments of both Nichols and Rossi. Hi Bob -- is there a link you can share to the specific comments? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Zirconia?
Yes, but I am torn between Axil’s posit that the hydrogen atoms form a bose condensate and equally thermalize and this posit by Bob that the sites are discrete pockets contained by zirconia dielectric.. are these 2 posits as conflicted as they appear or perhaps this is a matter of scale where the condensate occurs only in the pockets. My preference for the suppression of virtual particles via geometry makes me suspect that the condensate must be present because it also opens the possibility of ZPE as the bootstrap mechanism which divides these materials from the same materials at larger dimensions. Fran From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 1:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Zirconia? On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.commailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Zirconia would not, itself, be a catalyst. I specifically mentioned zirconium - the metal. I thought your description of how you're using zirconium was interesting. My comments related to the way George Miley is using it, in an article Jones linked to. In the case of zeolites, I understand that the zeolite material is not LENR active itself. Makes sense. I was thinking of zeolites and zirconium dioxide, which are dielectrics, along the lines of providing a matrix within which conductive active sites are contained and electrically insulated from one another (in the manner of your description of zeolites). My hunch is that the electrical insulation will make it possible for higher potentials to arise between conductive grains than would be the case if the entire substrate were freely conductive. If the potential were high enough, I'm thinking there would be arcing. No doubt there would need to be something above and beyond the zeolite or zirconium dioxide substrate to set up the potential. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Zirconia?
Perhaps it could be more than just housing the nanoparticles because of the very strong electrostatic field created within the zeolite cavities and the oscillation of the cavity. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j100558a022 http://youtu.be/2L-lKozWjSA On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I am not a chemist, but have some familiarity with materials science. You can take this with an appropriate grain-of-salt. Zirconia would not, itself, be a catalyst. I specifically mentioned zirconium - the metal. Nano-Zr could be a catalyst that would have a high sintering temperature as a nano material because it melts at such a high temperature (1855C) in bulk that its sintering and melting temperature at nano scale would be high (sintering probably near 600-700C and melting at 900-1000C). Most catalysts are not fully oxidized metal oxides - they are partially reduced metal oxides. The best catalysts have nano-scale features and partial oxidation. These catalysts are usually (but not always) formed as fully oxidized metal features and subsequently processed to partly reduce the metal oxides. Reduction of small particles actually sharpens their features. The partial reduction sets up electrochemical behavior at the catalyst site that makes it active. Partly oxidized metals will not readily sinter - or at least not until much higher temperature. In the case of zeolites, I understand that the zeolite material is not LENR active itself. Zeolites have porous micro-scale gas permeable cells which are used to house nano-scale activated materials inside the cell. The zeolite cell prevents the nanoparticles housed inside adjacent cells from sintering at temperatures above where the nano-particles themselves would have sintered. Zeolite encapsulated LENR powder can be nano-scale and still operate at a temperature that would otherwise sinter powders of that scale. I don't think the zeolite itself otherwise contributes to the LENR. I would be happy to have someone with greater chemical background straighten me out if these understandings are wrong. Bob Higgins On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Miley's zirconia reactor came to mind since Bob mentioned zirconia at the same time I was writing a piece on perovskites. Does anyone know where George Miley's recent engine project is at? I noticed a patent in the article which I had not seen before [1]: Techniques to form dislocation cores along an interface of a multilayer thin film structure are described. The loading and/or deloading of isotopes of hydrogen are also described in association with core formation. The described techniques can provide be applied to superconductive structure formation, x-ray and charged particle generation, nuclear reaction processes, and/or inertial confinement fusion targets. In the LENR device describe in the original article (which may or may not be related to this patent), the substrate (fuel) is zirconium dioxide, a high-k dielectric. What I like about dielectrics is that I suspect they provide a good basis for arcing at the microscopic level. The same consideration applies to zeolites. Eric [1] http://www.google.com/patents/US8227020?dq=%22Low+Energy+Nuclear+Reaction%22ei=qEROUKH4JsjSrQHKmIGoBw#v=onepageqf=false
[Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi, Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters to me, but won't we just hear the same bullshit objections that it's a inside job? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
It's an impressive result, despite running it in a way to make measurement convenient and to minimize the likelihood of damaging the device. They ran the power at a constant rate rather than allowing for self-sustained periods. The COP was 3.13 to 3.74 depending on the power input level. Given the large isotopic shifts, it makes a person wonder how much longer it could have run with most of the nickel transitioning to Ni62 over the course of the 1 month run. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Levi, Essen, and company have made the chalorimetry, look down in the paper, there are more reports made by other people. On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:34:19 -0400, Foks0904 . wrote: Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi, Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters to me, but won't we just hear the same bullshit objections that it's a inside job? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Craig Haynie wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ [3] Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA Links: -- [1] mailto:foks0...@gmail.com [2] mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com [3] http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Aha. Thanks torulf. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:43 AM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: Levi, Essen, and company have made the chalorimetry, look down in the paper, there are more reports made by other people. On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:34:19 -0400, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi, Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters to me, but won't we just hear the same bullshit objections that it's a inside job? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
[Vo]:Second Rossi report is here
See: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/9-LuganoReportSubmit-pdf Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel Giuseppe Levi, Bologna University, Bologna, Italy Evelyn Foschi, Bologna, Italy Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Hanno Essén, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden ABSTRACT New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat, is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260ºC and 1400ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume. A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially. Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
This was not leaked. Essen gave a copy to someone who uploaded it with permission. (I think it was Mats Lewan.) This has been submitted to arXiv but it has been delayed for unknown reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
not 6 month... the longitudinal hair cutters will say Rossi lied ! moreover it was done by LEVI, and others accomplice... thus since Levi have seen an E-cat test work, and have not said it is a fraud (a sure fact), you know that he is himself part of the fraud, and thus his report have no value. that he have co-author just mean they are in the fraud too. moreover it will be published in a journal that let fraudster like Rossi, or Levi , publish... thus it is not a serious journal. thus this report have no value. so it does not work QED #lol 2014-10-08 14:33 GMT+02:00 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Yeah exactly...that's going to be the pseudo-skeptical talking-point that get's hammered home till we all want to puke. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: not 6 month... the longitudinal hair cutters will say Rossi lied ! moreover it was done by LEVI, and others accomplice... thus since Levi have seen an E-cat test work, and have not said it is a fraud (a sure fact), you know that he is himself part of the fraud, and thus his report have no value. that he have co-author just mean they are in the fraud too. moreover it will be published in a journal that let fraudster like Rossi, or Levi , publish... thus it is not a serious journal. thus this report have no value. so it does not work QED #lol 2014-10-08 14:33 GMT+02:00 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Although LENR supporters will be impressed at first glance, the biggest problems – already being mentioned - and they could be fatal to wider acceptance, are that Levi remains the lead author and the lack of reliable calorimetry, and the strange isotope shifts. Look at these ! Bizarre and telling (to the extent they can be believed) ! Appendix 3, Table 1 seems to propose – on first glance - that the gain is coming from Ni58 being converted to Ni62 by stripping four neutrons from 4 atoms of Li7 to convert it to Li6. Wow but there is no gamma radiation or remnant emission from the ash. That M.O. is the first time this has come up but of course – lithium has been a known reactant since the start/. Is there a better explanation? I will have to admit to being both impressed with the detail and the equipment used, but mildly disappointed on first read – not so much that I do not believe this, but knowing how it will be received in a wider audience. This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for. However, it could mature to that level if this lithium transfer of neutrons can be independently established. And this could actually happen quickly. There has been interest in lithium, going back decades - in being among the few elements which can densify other elements, in the sense of being able to be completely absorbed into the electron shell instead of being covalently bound. I know of a Lab which has been looking into this lithium phenomenon for many years – off-and-on. It is possible that a truly independent confirmation of a lithium neutron transfer has been seen with another host, one which could lead to this result – and it will carry the day - but that could take a few weeks. Unfortunately there are some nuclear proliferation issues involved. From: Foks0904 Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi, Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters to me, but won't we just hear the same bullshit objections that it's a inside job? It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! Craig Haynie wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
*This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for.* Agreed. I don't think any of us should be pinning all our hopes on this overturning establishment beliefs, but I think it's a rather large/important piece of the puzzle, no? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Although LENR supporters will be impressed at first glance, the biggest problems – already being mentioned - and they could be fatal to wider acceptance, are that Levi remains the lead author and the lack of reliable calorimetry, and the strange isotope shifts. Look at these ! Bizarre and telling (to the extent they can be believed) ! Appendix 3, Table 1 seems to propose – on first glance - that the gain is coming from Ni58 being converted to Ni62 by stripping four neutrons from 4 atoms of Li7 to convert it to Li6. Wow but there is no gamma radiation or remnant emission from the ash. That M.O. is the first time this has come up but of course – lithium has been a known reactant since the start/. Is there a better explanation? I will have to admit to being both impressed with the detail and the equipment used, but mildly disappointed on first read – not so much that I do not believe this, but knowing how it will be received in a wider audience. This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for. However, it could mature to that level if this lithium transfer of neutrons can be independently established. And this could actually happen quickly. There has been interest in lithium, going back decades - in being among the few elements which can densify other elements, in the sense of being able to be completely absorbed into the electron shell instead of being covalently bound. I know of a Lab which has been looking into this lithium phenomenon for many years – off-and-on. It is possible that a truly independent confirmation of a lithium neutron transfer has been seen with another host, one which could lead to this result – and it will carry the day - but that could take a few weeks. Unfortunately there are some nuclear proliferation issues involved. *From:* Foks0904 Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi, Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters to me, but won't we just hear the same bullshit objections that it's a inside job? It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! Craig Haynie wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
The report cites the fuel as a combination of LiAlH4 and Ni + Fe. It appears the Ni is treated with an Fe catalyst as I surmised - this is the powder I have been working with. The LiAlH4 means that Rossi is using a hydride supplying only H2 and not D. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
What does that indicate about the reaction to you Bob? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The report cites the fuel as a combination of LiAlH4 and Ni + Fe. It appears the Ni is treated with an Fe catalyst as I surmised - this is the powder I have been working with. The LiAlH4 means that Rossi is using a hydride supplying only H2 and not D. Bob Higgins
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
From: Foks0904 This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for. Agreed. I don't think any of us should be pinning all our hopes on this overturning establishment beliefs, but I think it's a rather large/important piece of the puzzle, no? Yes, this could actually be huge, in a couple of months – a diamond in the rough. By that, I mean after the usual skeptics have had their say – which they will, then we should see very quick confirmation of the neutron hopping phenomenon. The energy is too low for true stripping (Oppenheimer-Phillips) – and “hopping” is basically what it is, as naïve as it sounds. Lithium-7 has one too many neutrons, based on its place in the periodic table and Ni-58 is neutron-light. That part is pretty simple logic - which needs little advanced theory to understand. The part that is hard to swallow is that the Table in question seems to indicate or imply that this can happen in a multi-body reactions, such that we do not seen the orderly progression, 58-59-60-61-60 … There is some progression but it looks to me that this could be largely a multibody phenomenon. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
My opinion is that it will matter to the people who can do something with the information. It will matter to people with money to fund research and companies who don't live in ivory towers. It will matter to potential industrial customers of IH. In the end, I think Rossi will be proven correct with his statement of In Mercato Veritas -- In the market is truth. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for.* Agreed. I don't think any of us should be pinning all our hopes on this overturning establishment beliefs, but I think it's a rather large/important piece of the puzzle, no? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Although LENR supporters will be impressed at first glance, the biggest problems – already being mentioned - and they could be fatal to wider acceptance, are that Levi remains the lead author and the lack of reliable calorimetry, and the strange isotope shifts. Look at these ! Bizarre and telling (to the extent they can be believed) ! Appendix 3, Table 1 seems to propose – on first glance - that the gain is coming from Ni58 being converted to Ni62 by stripping four neutrons from 4 atoms of Li7 to convert it to Li6. Wow but there is no gamma radiation or remnant emission from the ash. That M.O. is the first time this has come up but of course – lithium has been a known reactant since the start/. Is there a better explanation? I will have to admit to being both impressed with the detail and the equipment used, but mildly disappointed on first read – not so much that I do not believe this, but knowing how it will be received in a wider audience. This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for. However, it could mature to that level if this lithium transfer of neutrons can be independently established. And this could actually happen quickly. There has been interest in lithium, going back decades - in being among the few elements which can densify other elements, in the sense of being able to be completely absorbed into the electron shell instead of being covalently bound. I know of a Lab which has been looking into this lithium phenomenon for many years – off-and-on. It is possible that a truly independent confirmation of a lithium neutron transfer has been seen with another host, one which could lead to this result – and it will carry the day - but that could take a few weeks. Unfortunately there are some nuclear proliferation issues involved. *From:* Foks0904 Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi, Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters to me, but won't we just hear the same bullshit objections that it's a inside job? It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! Craig Haynie wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Correction and addition. We seem to going from Ni58 all the way to Ni62, much of the time without the orderly progression 58-59-60-61-62. As for “hopping”… guess who is on the case: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27064120 On the possibility of neutron hopping in crystals https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?recordsFor=SingleRecor dRN=27064120 by Hagelstein, P. (Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, In multiconfigurational Hartree-Fock calculations of isolated nuclei, mixing between bound and continuum orbitals can occur due to correlation effects, leading to minor corrections in calculated energy levels and nuclear matrix elements. The analogous computation for a collection of nuclei in a lattice differs qualitatively. John – time to call Peter for a YouTube interview ? _ From: Jones Beene From: Foks0904 This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for. Agreed. I don't think any of us should be pinning all our hopes on this overturning establishment beliefs, but I think it's a rather large/important piece of the puzzle, no? Yes, this could actually be huge, in a couple of months – a diamond in the rough. By that, I mean after the usual skeptics have had their say – which they will, then we should see very quick confirmation of the neutron hopping phenomenon. The energy is too low for true stripping (Oppenheimer-Phillips) – and “hopping” is basically what it is, as naïve as it sounds. Lithium-7 has one too many neutrons, based on its place in the periodic table and Ni-58 is neutron-light. That part is pretty simple logic - which needs little advanced theory to understand. The part that is hard to swallow is that the Table in question seems to indicate or imply that this can happen in a multi-body reactions, such that we do not seen the orderly progression, 58-59-60-61-62 … There is some progression but it looks to me that this could be largely a multibody phenomenon. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Mats Lewan via eCat world : The report has been uploaded to Arxiv.org which, however has put it on hold, without specifying any motive for this. It has also been sent to Journal of Physics D. I got the report sent to me by Hanno Essén who said that he now considers it to be public, although not supposed to be published in any commercial journal until further notice from Journal of Physics D.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Jones -- I've been in contact on-and-off with Peter H. since last October, but he's a very busy man with his teaching duties, etc. and I try not to bother him too much. But I agree he is on my short-list no doubt and will get a hold of him sooner than later. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Correction and addition. We seem to going from Ni58 all the way to Ni62, much of the time without the orderly progression 58-59-60-61-62. As for “hopping”… guess who is on the case: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27064120 On the possibility of neutron hopping in crystals https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?recordsFor=SingleRecor dRN=27064120 by Hagelstein, P. (Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, In multiconfigurational Hartree-Fock calculations of isolated nuclei, mixing between bound and continuum orbitals can occur due to correlation effects, leading to minor corrections in calculated energy levels and nuclear matrix elements. The analogous computation for a collection of nuclei in a lattice differs qualitatively. John – time to call Peter for a YouTube interview ? _ From: Jones Beene From: Foks0904 This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for. Agreed. I don't think any of us should be pinning all our hopes on this overturning establishment beliefs, but I think it's a rather large/important piece of the puzzle, no? Yes, this could actually be huge, in a couple of months – a diamond in the rough. By that, I mean after the usual skeptics have had their say – which they will, then we should see very quick confirmation of the neutron hopping phenomenon. The energy is too low for true stripping (Oppenheimer-Phillips) – and “hopping” is basically what it is, as naïve as it sounds. Lithium-7 has one too many neutrons, based on its place in the periodic table and Ni-58 is neutron-light. That part is pretty simple logic - which needs little advanced theory to understand. The part that is hard to swallow is that the Table in question seems to indicate or imply that this can happen in a multi-body reactions, such that we do not seen the orderly progression, 58-59-60-61-62 … There is some progression but it looks to me that this could be largely a multibody phenomenon. Jones
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
There a few things I noticed in this. First is that Rossi's powder appears to be less actively thermochemically processed than what I have first used - I.E it seems more lightly thermochemically processed. The second observation is that the reactor is not very clean. There appears to be no means to evacuate this reactor after the powder is added to remove the air and water vapor. The powder is basically added and then it is glued shut with a refractory cement. [Refractory cements seal by going through a glass and then a ceramic phase as they are heated.] So it appears that the air and water are not poisons for the reaction. The third observation is that the new reactor is alumina ceramic. This will allow more of the RF to go through. If the reaction was creating RF fields, you would definitely measure them on the outside. Further the resistors are now closer to the fuel. RF excitation may simply be the switching transients of the triacs controlling the heat. When triacs are switched ON not at zero crossings, the switch is fast and can generate a lot of harmonics. Rossi seems to have optimized the ability for these harmonics (primarily 5kHz evanescent magnetic fields) to help excite his reaction. Yet, since there is mention that the reaction will continue in the OFF mode (but they didn't use that), it is clear that these excitations are not required to sustain the reaction. Bob Higgins On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: What does that indicate about the reaction to you Bob? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The report cites the fuel as a combination of LiAlH4 and Ni + Fe. It appears the Ni is treated with an Fe catalyst as I surmised - this is the powder I have been working with. The LiAlH4 means that Rossi is using a hydride supplying only H2 and not D. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Interesting, thanks. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: There a few things I noticed in this. First is that Rossi's powder appears to be less actively thermochemically processed than what I have first used - I.E it seems more lightly thermochemically processed. The second observation is that the reactor is not very clean. There appears to be no means to evacuate this reactor after the powder is added to remove the air and water vapor. The powder is basically added and then it is glued shut with a refractory cement. [Refractory cements seal by going through a glass and then a ceramic phase as they are heated.] So it appears that the air and water are not poisons for the reaction. The third observation is that the new reactor is alumina ceramic. This will allow more of the RF to go through. If the reaction was creating RF fields, you would definitely measure them on the outside. Further the resistors are now closer to the fuel. RF excitation may simply be the switching transients of the triacs controlling the heat. When triacs are switched ON not at zero crossings, the switch is fast and can generate a lot of harmonics. Rossi seems to have optimized the ability for these harmonics (primarily 5kHz evanescent magnetic fields) to help excite his reaction. Yet, since there is mention that the reaction will continue in the OFF mode (but they didn't use that), it is clear that these excitations are not required to sustain the reaction. Bob Higgins On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: What does that indicate about the reaction to you Bob? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The report cites the fuel as a combination of LiAlH4 and Ni + Fe. It appears the Ni is treated with an Fe catalyst as I surmised - this is the powder I have been working with. The LiAlH4 means that Rossi is using a hydride supplying only H2 and not D. Bob Higgins
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Of further interest https://archive.org/stream/TheLithiumAnomalyAndThe7li3he4he6liNeutronTransfe rReaction/Lithium_Anomaly_2_djvu.txt A thesis on “the lithium anomaly” Correction and addition. We seem to going from Ni58 all the way to Ni62, much of the time without the orderly progression 58-59-60-61-62. As for “hopping”… guess who is on the case: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27064120 On the possibility of neutron hopping in crystals https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?recordsFor=SingleRecor dRN=27064120 by Hagelstein, P. (Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, In multiconfigurational Hartree-Fock calculations of isolated nuclei, mixing between bound and continuum orbitals can occur due to correlation effects, leading to minor corrections in calculated energy levels and nuclear matrix elements. The analogous computation for a collection of nuclei in a lattice differs qualitatively. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: So it appears that the air and water are not poisons for the reaction. That is very surprising if true. Shocking! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
Releasing the report during Nobel week means that all the scientific journalists will be busy on that and/or won't have space for it (print versions). The Lithium shift is interesting and doesn't seem to be by design : it's purpose is just to supply the hydrogen, but it's obviously being exposed to something else. Neutrons?
[Vo]:Mats Lewan story on the new third party report
New scientific report on the E-Cat shows excess heat and nuclear process http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
the four neutron absorption remind be the 2,4 or 6 deuteron absorbed in Iwamura, as Ed Storms spotted. It is coherent with a symmetric reaction involving either 2/4/6 neutrons, or 2/4/6 hydrogen atoms . since there is no thermal neutron observed, there is no neutron involved in high quantity, or at leas some will thermalize since there is no huge gamma, it looks natural that CoM is respected because the reaction is symmetric in space. or else ther would be huge charge particles and induced gamma from slowing dows and reactions in the lattice... 2014-10-08 16:16 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Although LENR supporters will be impressed at first glance, the biggest problems – already being mentioned - and they could be fatal to wider acceptance, are that Levi remains the lead author and the lack of reliable calorimetry, and the strange isotope shifts. Look at these ! Bizarre and telling (to the extent they can be believed) ! Appendix 3, Table 1 seems to propose – on first glance - that the gain is coming from Ni58 being converted to Ni62 by stripping four neutrons from 4 atoms of Li7 to convert it to Li6. Wow but there is no gamma radiation or remnant emission from the ash. That M.O. is the first time this has come up but of course – lithium has been a known reactant since the start/. Is there a better explanation? I will have to admit to being both impressed with the detail and the equipment used, but mildly disappointed on first read – not so much that I do not believe this, but knowing how it will be received in a wider audience. This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for. However, it could mature to that level if this lithium transfer of neutrons can be independently established. And this could actually happen quickly. There has been interest in lithium, going back decades - in being among the few elements which can densify other elements, in the sense of being able to be completely absorbed into the electron shell instead of being covalently bound. I know of a Lab which has been looking into this lithium phenomenon for many years – off-and-on. It is possible that a truly independent confirmation of a lithium neutron transfer has been seen with another host, one which could lead to this result – and it will carry the day - but that could take a few weeks. Unfortunately there are some nuclear proliferation issues involved. *From:* Foks0904 Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi, Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters to me, but won't we just hear the same bullshit objections that it's a inside job? It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! Craig Haynie wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
indeed. to be honest AFAIK they don't need that report to know it. however it can help them not to be ridiculed and fired. 2014-10-08 16:40 GMT+02:00 Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com: My opinion is that it will matter to the people who can do something with the information. It will matter to people with money to fund research and companies who don't live in ivory towers. It will matter to potential industrial customers of IH. In the end, I think Rossi will be proven correct with his statement of In Mercato Veritas -- In the market is truth. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for.* Agreed. I don't think any of us should be pinning all our hopes on this overturning establishment beliefs, but I think it's a rather large/important piece of the puzzle, no? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Although LENR supporters will be impressed at first glance, the biggest problems – already being mentioned - and they could be fatal to wider acceptance, are that Levi remains the lead author and the lack of reliable calorimetry, and the strange isotope shifts. Look at these ! Bizarre and telling (to the extent they can be believed) ! Appendix 3, Table 1 seems to propose – on first glance - that the gain is coming from Ni58 being converted to Ni62 by stripping four neutrons from 4 atoms of Li7 to convert it to Li6. Wow but there is no gamma radiation or remnant emission from the ash. That M.O. is the first time this has come up but of course – lithium has been a known reactant since the start/. Is there a better explanation? I will have to admit to being both impressed with the detail and the equipment used, but mildly disappointed on first read – not so much that I do not believe this, but knowing how it will be received in a wider audience. This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for. However, it could mature to that level if this lithium transfer of neutrons can be independently established. And this could actually happen quickly. There has been interest in lithium, going back decades - in being among the few elements which can densify other elements, in the sense of being able to be completely absorbed into the electron shell instead of being covalently bound. I know of a Lab which has been looking into this lithium phenomenon for many years – off-and-on. It is possible that a truly independent confirmation of a lithium neutron transfer has been seen with another host, one which could lead to this result – and it will carry the day - but that could take a few weeks. Unfortunately there are some nuclear proliferation issues involved. *From:* Foks0904 Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi, Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters to me, but won't we just hear the same bullshit objections that it's a inside job? It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! Craig Haynie wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/probability-now-20/ Disappointed to see the same names at the top of the paper.Shocked to see not even Arxiv will accept it. I will increase the probability if does make it onto Arxiv or if we see IH and Cherokee step up. On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/probability-is-now-27/ On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/probability-rossi-is-real-is-now-28/ On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Well I worded that strongly to drive home a point, we often hide our ignorance in the talk of probability. There are 4 domains in which we apply probability. 1: Things which are set and we are ignorant of, no actual element of chance exist, such as with Rossi. 2: Macro chance, things that we fail to predict but maybe could if we did sufficiently in-depth analysis, this could be likened to the spinning of a wheel of wheel of fortune 3: While a machine could be used to spin a wheel and get the desired selection to come up on a wheel, some things seem beyond our ability to predict. The experiment with falling BB's hitting pegs and being seemingly effected by the intent of the observer in university studies backs up that this is maybe beyond modeling within known physics/ Rolling a dice is similar, but we do know dice can be loaded showing that even on this level small physical changes can reduce the randomness. 4: Quantum physics where it is believed God does actually pay dice. But this is in ignorance of the state of the aether behind such interactions. It could be that these things are not random at all. But even IF you believe that probability really exist, that does not apply to Rossi. And if you were to hide ignorance in the language of probability despite the obvious lack of 'chance', there is the fact that if you were at 1% confidence and then saw one tiny single sign, you could have to go to 100%. Such as an event that can only be explained by Rossi being genuine. Granted this is difficult with magicians (illusionists) and con men, but there has very likely been such a sign that either moves him to 100% or damn near 0%. Not that there is anything that could prove him false so easily including proof he faked a test as there might be genuine motives to fake a test despite being genuinely in possession of the real thing, it really is harder/impossible to prove a negative. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. I see.. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze's ego is astounding, thinking that he has things so well worked out that his ramblings about probability have meaning. Even if he were that good at working out probability, a few facts remain that make it worthless. 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. 2: What is the difference between a 30% chance and a 70% chance? Answer 1: 40% Answer 2: Nothing much, both means that there is a very real possibility of it going either way. If you were invested in oil, it would mean that there is a very real risk that you must take seriously. If you are on the side of good, you know that there is an extraordinary possibility that might be worthy of attention, but might not pan out. But the difference between 0.1% chance and a 0.001% chance is huge! With the 0.1% there is a long shot, but one that could still very well pan out. Just 1 in 1,000 is not too distant odds to let one ignore something potentially significant good or bad. But 0.001 is 1 in ten million, an almost impossible long shot worthy of no attention/investment unless there are enough of these low level 'promises/threats' to bring it up to a level of relevance. John On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.51%, taking into account the direction of the wind and the stock price for CYPW Cyclone Power. At least this time Blaze increased the chances of Rossi being real on the basis of stuff that had SOMEthing to do with Rossi. So, he thinks the In Mercato Veritas is a sign of unrealness rather than the OBVIOUS thing it is: an old fashioned Rossism expression of confidence. This was exactly the way Rossi used to post before his friend Focardi got cancer. When Blaze
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Unfortunately there are some nuclear proliferation issues involved. In what way ? Harry
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
*the four neutron absorption remind be the 2,4 or 6 deuteron absorbed in Iwamura, as Ed Storms spotted.* *It is coherent with a symmetric reaction involving either 2/4/6 neutrons, or 2/4/6 hydrogen atoms .* Yeah absolutely. Ed is one of the few who consistently highlighted this nugget as important in his books articles (I barely have seen mention of it elsewhere outside of Iwamura Arata). So if this is a cluster phenomenon, whether assisted by neutrons or not, it seems clearer that it is a 2-6 D or H reaction -- this sort of rules out the megaclusters of folks like Miley, Kim, etc. but that's just my opinion, but keeps stuff open to small cluster fusion effects like Takahashi/Storms/Meulenberg, or multi-body, global reaction distribution as seen in Hagelstein, Schwinger, etc. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: the four neutron absorption remind be the 2,4 or 6 deuteron absorbed in Iwamura, as Ed Storms spotted. It is coherent with a symmetric reaction involving either 2/4/6 neutrons, or 2/4/6 hydrogen atoms . since there is no thermal neutron observed, there is no neutron involved in high quantity, or at leas some will thermalize since there is no huge gamma, it looks natural that CoM is respected because the reaction is symmetric in space. or else ther would be huge charge particles and induced gamma from slowing dows and reactions in the lattice... 2014-10-08 16:16 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Although LENR supporters will be impressed at first glance, the biggest problems – already being mentioned - and they could be fatal to wider acceptance, are that Levi remains the lead author and the lack of reliable calorimetry, and the strange isotope shifts. Look at these ! Bizarre and telling (to the extent they can be believed) ! Appendix 3, Table 1 seems to propose – on first glance - that the gain is coming from Ni58 being converted to Ni62 by stripping four neutrons from 4 atoms of Li7 to convert it to Li6. Wow but there is no gamma radiation or remnant emission from the ash. That M.O. is the first time this has come up but of course – lithium has been a known reactant since the start/. Is there a better explanation? I will have to admit to being both impressed with the detail and the equipment used, but mildly disappointed on first read – not so much that I do not believe this, but knowing how it will be received in a wider audience. This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for. However, it could mature to that level if this lithium transfer of neutrons can be independently established. And this could actually happen quickly. There has been interest in lithium, going back decades - in being among the few elements which can densify other elements, in the sense of being able to be completely absorbed into the electron shell instead of being covalently bound. I know of a Lab which has been looking into this lithium phenomenon for many years – off-and-on. It is possible that a truly independent confirmation of a lithium neutron transfer has been seen with another host, one which could lead to this result – and it will carry the day - but that could take a few weeks. Unfortunately there are some nuclear proliferation issues involved. *From:* Foks0904 Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi, Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters to me, but won't we just hear the same bullshit objections that it's a inside job? It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! Craig Haynie wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This was not leaked. Essen gave a copy to someone who uploaded it with permission. (I think it was Mats Lewan.) This has been submitted to arXiv but it has been delayed for unknown reasons. Physics has fallen into a low estate if this group are not able to get a preprint up on arXiv. When I saw the list of authors and the abstract, I had a feeling both of excitement and keen disappointment. Excitement, because the report will no doubt have some very interesting information. Disappointment, because it will do little to sway scientific opinion (I can say this without having read it yet). The authors are more or less the same as the ones before; they continued to use the controversial calorimetry that engineers are happy with but which physicists seem to find out of the pale; and the run was only for a month duration rather than six months. So the report, whatever it says, will be very useful for advancing knowledge and nearly useless for swaying public scientific opinion. There are no doubt many fair-minded scientists who will look past any distractions and discretely try to glean something from the writeup. I'm looking forward to reading it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The report cites the fuel as a combination of LiAlH4 and Ni + Fe. It appears the Ni is treated with an Fe catalyst as I surmised - this is the powder I have been working with. The LiAlH4 means that Rossi is using a hydride supplying only H2 and not D. Unless they have used LiAlH4 that was specifically enriched in 1H, there should be ~ 1 in 6000 parts D to H. Also, keep in mind that Rossi no doubt knew in advance that there would be an isotope analysis, and he may have tried to walk a line between setting up a demo that showed a clear signal, on one hand, and taking steps to avoid giving away all of his secrets, on the other. Eric
[Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
In one way, this report is shaping up as an amazing piece of oversight - which Levi and the Swedes may have failed to grasp, or at least failed to fully appreciated in its ultimate significance. There could be a shadow over this story which goes back to 1989. Moreover, do we even need hydrogen at all? You have to wonder - given the tiny amount of hydrogen at the start, and the isotopic analysis at the end, if hydrogen was necessary for this reaction. This looks like a lithium burner. Perhaps it is basically a new kind of lithium reaction… or maybe it is not so new. As mentioned in many prior posts here, Nickel-58 is extremely neutron deficient. Nickel 58 is the most abundant isotope of element 28, but is out-of-place in the periodic table, being lighter in amu than any stable cobalt isotope, the element to the left of nickel having one less proton; and it should be heavier (essentially all cobalt is Co-59). By itself, that factoid would be somewhat unique - in that it only happens in two other places in the entire periodic table, where elements routinely increase in average amu, in step with Z. So, we have Ni-58 which is is strongly neutron deficient, in the vicinity of gaseous Li7 which has an anomalous excess – even if the excess is a single weakly bound neutron, such that the nickel is acting in some ways like a “neutron sink” for a low energy transfer from Li-7. If hydrogen is necessary at all, its role could be limited to that of a transfer mechanism to facilitate the movement of the excess neutron from lithium to nickel. Unfortunately, the strong overtone here could relate to non-proliferation issues which reverberate back to 1989. After all, if helium is seen in any kind of lithium reaction, when nickel is not present – it could derive from Li7. At that time in history, PF using lithium, plus that other dreaded ingredient (heavy water) may have worried strategists who knew a few things about lithium which are still not in the public domain. This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for. Agreed. I don't think any of us should be pinning all our hopes on this overturning establishment beliefs, but I think it's a rather large/important piece of the puzzle, no? attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
On 10/08/2014 12:22 PM, Jones Beene wrote: You have to wonder - given the tiny amount of hydrogen at the start, and the isotopic analysis at the end, if hydrogen was necessary for this reaction. This looks like a lithium burner. Captain, we're going to need more dilithium crystals! Craig
RE: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
-Original Message- From: Craig Haynie You have to wonder - given the tiny amount of hydrogen at the start, and the isotopic analysis at the end, if hydrogen was necessary for this reaction. This looks like a lithium burner. Captain, we're going to need more dilithium crystals! Truth is often stranger than fiction... ...or are we talking about life imitating art ?
Re: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
I have postulated for years that a alkali metal would be the secret sauce based on the operating temperature of the reactor. When the operating temperature is about 1200C, this makes lithium the best fit to vaporize at about 1330C and at lower temperatures condense into nano-particles in areas of the reactor that are below the lithium boiling point. Nano-particles of Lithium and lithium hydride form the dynamic nuclei active environments that are central to the Rossi reactor/ Rossi had to move his secret sauce from cesium and potassium to lithium as the operational temperature of his reactor increases to 1200C and above. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In one way, this report is shaping up as an amazing piece of oversight - which Levi and the Swedes may have failed to grasp, or at least failed to fully appreciated in its ultimate significance. There could be a shadow over this story which goes back to 1989. Moreover, do we even need hydrogen at all? You have to wonder - given the tiny amount of hydrogen at the start, and the isotopic analysis at the end, if hydrogen was necessary for this reaction. This looks like a lithium burner. Perhaps it is basically a new kind of lithium reaction… or maybe it is not so new. As mentioned in many prior posts here, Nickel-58 is extremely neutron deficient. Nickel 58 is the most abundant isotope of element 28, but is out-of-place in the periodic table, being lighter in amu than any stable cobalt isotope, the element to the left of nickel having one less proton; and it should be heavier (essentially all cobalt is Co-59). By itself, that factoid would be somewhat unique - in that it only happens in two other places in the entire periodic table, where elements routinely increase in average amu, in step with Z. So, we have Ni-58 which is is strongly neutron deficient, in the vicinity of gaseous Li7 which has an anomalous excess – even if the excess is a single weakly bound neutron, such that the nickel is acting in some ways like a “neutron sink” for a low energy transfer from Li-7. If hydrogen is necessary at all, its role could be limited to that of a transfer mechanism to facilitate the movement of the excess neutron from lithium to nickel. Unfortunately, the strong overtone here could relate to non-proliferation issues which reverberate back to 1989. After all, if helium is seen in any kind of lithium reaction, when nickel is not present – it could derive from Li7. At that time in history, PF using lithium, plus that other dreaded ingredient (heavy water) may have worried strategists who knew a few things about lithium which are still not in the public domain. This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that we had hoped for. Agreed. I don't think any of us should be pinning all our hopes on this overturning establishment beliefs, but I think it's a rather large/important piece of the puzzle, no?
Re: [Vo]:Second Rossi report is here
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/9-LuganoReportSubmit-pdf Registration required. Bleh. Registration not required: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBX1lIMU42UWxyeFk/view?usp=sharing Thanks, Jed!
[Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
This is interesting, and revealing: New scientific report on the E-Cat shows excess heat and nuclear process http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/ Mats has uploaded yet another copy of the report to his website. I will upload one to LENR-CANR soon. Some comments from Mats: *Without any optimization* with regard to input power, the reactor produced between 3.2 and 3.6 times the input power, and a total energy of 1.5 MWh from about 1 gram of fuel. The reactor was switched off according to plan, with no signs of the reaction slowing down. As I point out in my book An Impossible Invention — an energy source of this kind will have huge consequences for humanity, possibly solving a series of global issues. [JR comments: 1.5 megawatt-hours is 5040 MJ, which I believe is a new record for cold fusion. Previous records were around 50 MJ.] In order to avoid doubts that were presented with regard to their earlier report, several things have been changed: The measurement was performed during 32 days in a neutral laboratory in Switzerland, electric measurment on the input power has been improved, a 23-hour test of the reactor without charge was done in order to calibrate the measurement set-up, and chemical analysis of the fuel before and after the run has been performed with five different methods. The report has been uploaded to Arxiv.org which, however has put it on hold, without specifying any motive for this. It has also been sent to Journal of Physics D. I got the report sent to me by Hanno Essén who said that he now considers it to be public . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Second Rossi report is here
Here is another copy: https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/luganoreportsubmit.pdf
RE: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
One more interesting thing about this report. If lithium is the active fuel, and not hydrogen, which seems to be the case, then the ash which is lithium-6 is as valuable for batteries as is the natural metal. Maybe more valuable. Thus the fuel is essentially free, since the ash can be sold for cost (or even marked-up). Not that cost is as big an issue for IH as it is for Tesla, but it could also be that Li-6 is safer. Safer is worth paying for. Remember the Boeing lithium fires on their new plane? They were NEVER able to locate the real problem. Perhaps it was lithium-7 and the problem will go away once they get an adequate supply of Li-6 to make batteries only from the lighter isotope ... which of course will be the ash of the Rossi/IH reactor and the others which follow. I could see the necessity of Safety Laws being necessary, sometime in the future to demand that only Li-6 be used in batteries. Why do I think Elon Musk is already onto this ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
What is missing from LENR theory is how any nuclear radiation types are not detected in the Rossi reaction. I have put forward the Super-absorber theory made possible by boson condensation. The testing and analysis group are afraid to put their names onto a nuclear reaction mechanism that is nuclear radiation free. Yes, these testers are hopelessly conflicted. They state that the reaction must be nuclear because of the large amounts of energy produced, but say that nuclear reactions cannot occur without the detection of nuclear radiation. They cannot believe the evidence of their own eyes. They are afraid to stake their reputations on proclaiming the obvious conclusions of this test On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: One more interesting thing about this report. If lithium is the active fuel, and not hydrogen, which seems to be the case, then the ash which is lithium-6 is as valuable for batteries as is the natural metal. Maybe more valuable. Thus the fuel is essentially free, since the ash can be sold for cost (or even marked-up). Not that cost is as big an issue for IH as it is for Tesla, but it could also be that Li-6 is safer. Safer is worth paying for. Remember the Boeing lithium fires on their new plane? They were NEVER able to locate the real problem. Perhaps it was lithium-7 and the problem will go away once they get an adequate supply of Li-6 to make batteries only from the lighter isotope ... which of course will be the ash of the Rossi/IH reactor and the others which follow. I could see the necessity of Safety Laws being necessary, sometime in the future to demand that only Li-6 be used in batteries. Why do I think Elon Musk is already onto this ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
I wrote: [JR comments: 1.5 megawatt-hours is 5040 MJ, which I believe is a new record for cold fusion. Previous records were around 50 MJ.] Correction: Roulette et al. reported 294 MJ, over 3 months, and McKubre et al. got about 100 MJ over one month in their Arata replication. There may be a few other biggies. 5,040 MJ is how much you get from burning 120 kg of gasoline, or 210 kg of coal. According to the ANS, one uranium fuel pellet produces as much energy as three barrels of oil. That would be 17,600 MJ. So this reactor produced about as much energy as 29% of a fuel pellet. I believe the PPPL record is 6 MJ; JET is 22 MJ. So . . . suck on that, Tokomaks! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
I also see that the tubules on the a fraction of the micro-particles are melted by the high heat. This leads be to the conclusion that reaction is also being carried by lithium based nano-particles produced by plasma condensation. The testers are only looking at the nickel particles for isotope shifted reaction products but this method of analysis will not detect reaction products made by the lithium based nano-particles. They will only find what they expect to find not what is actually happening. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What is missing from LENR theory is how any nuclear radiation types are not detected in the Rossi reaction. I have put forward the Super-absorber theory made possible by boson condensation. The testing and analysis group are afraid to put their names onto a nuclear reaction mechanism that is nuclear radiation free. Yes, these testers are hopelessly conflicted. They state that the reaction must be nuclear because of the large amounts of energy produced, but say that nuclear reactions cannot occur without the detection of nuclear radiation. They cannot believe the evidence of their own eyes. They are afraid to stake their reputations on proclaiming the obvious conclusions of this test On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: One more interesting thing about this report. If lithium is the active fuel, and not hydrogen, which seems to be the case, then the ash which is lithium-6 is as valuable for batteries as is the natural metal. Maybe more valuable. Thus the fuel is essentially free, since the ash can be sold for cost (or even marked-up). Not that cost is as big an issue for IH as it is for Tesla, but it could also be that Li-6 is safer. Safer is worth paying for. Remember the Boeing lithium fires on their new plane? They were NEVER able to locate the real problem. Perhaps it was lithium-7 and the problem will go away once they get an adequate supply of Li-6 to make batteries only from the lighter isotope ... which of course will be the ash of the Rossi/IH reactor and the others which follow. I could see the necessity of Safety Laws being necessary, sometime in the future to demand that only Li-6 be used in batteries. Why do I think Elon Musk is already onto this ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
The efficiency of uranium pellets is only about 4% because of the deterioration of the zirconium cladding that encloses the uranium. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: [JR comments: 1.5 megawatt-hours is 5040 MJ, which I believe is a new record for cold fusion. Previous records were around 50 MJ.] Correction: Roulette et al. reported 294 MJ, over 3 months, and McKubre et al. got about 100 MJ over one month in their Arata replication. There may be a few other biggies. 5,040 MJ is how much you get from burning 120 kg of gasoline, or 210 kg of coal. According to the ANS, one uranium fuel pellet produces as much energy as three barrels of oil. That would be 17,600 MJ. So this reactor produced about as much energy as 29% of a fuel pellet. I believe the PPPL record is 6 MJ; JET is 22 MJ. So . . . suck on that, Tokomaks! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The efficiency of uranium pellets is only about 4% because of the deterioration of the zirconium cladding that encloses the uranium. That is true. So that means 4% of 29% of the pellet would be used up (transmuted). That's ~1%. A pellet weighs ~ 7 g total, with ~ 0.3 g U-235. http://epsc221.wustl.edu/Lectures/221L36.pdf So I guess that's about 3 mg of transmuted uranium? That's a lot of material. It would dead simple to find that much in an analysis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
To get a valid overview of the entire transmutation process, the testers must look at a complete sample of the fuel, not just a few nickel particles. There could be other nuclear processes going on away from the nickel particles. The testers have made an assumption that the reaction must be local to the nickel micro-particles. This is a bad assumption and could lead to a misrepresentation of the transmutation results. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The efficiency of uranium pellets is only about 4% because of the deterioration of the zirconium cladding that encloses the uranium. That is true. So that means 4% of 29% of the pellet would be used up (transmuted). That's ~1%. A pellet weighs ~ 7 g total, with ~ 0.3 g U-235. http://epsc221.wustl.edu/Lectures/221L36.pdf So I guess that's about 3 mg of transmuted uranium? That's a lot of material. It would dead simple to find that much in an analysis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
I predict that this new type of reactor cannot be shut down and restated because a significant fraction of the nickel particles has had their tubules melted off and many nickel micro-particles are now resurfaced as relatively smooth. Furthermore, if this reactor is cooled by a liquid based transfer fluid, it will shut down and not startup again. This reactor is effectively burnt out and cannot stand cooler running anymore. Could this be why the testers did not go through a startup/shutdown cycle and use a coolant based calorimetry method in their test? As a capability test for a commensal product, this test is very weak. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: To get a valid overview of the entire transmutation process, the testers must look at a complete sample of the fuel, not just a few nickel particles. There could be other nuclear processes going on away from the nickel particles. The testers have made an assumption that the reaction must be local to the nickel micro-particles. This is a bad assumption and could lead to a misrepresentation of the transmutation results. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The efficiency of uranium pellets is only about 4% because of the deterioration of the zirconium cladding that encloses the uranium. That is true. So that means 4% of 29% of the pellet would be used up (transmuted). That's ~1%. A pellet weighs ~ 7 g total, with ~ 0.3 g U-235. http://epsc221.wustl.edu/Lectures/221L36.pdf So I guess that's about 3 mg of transmuted uranium? That's a lot of material. It would dead simple to find that much in an analysis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: To get a valid overview of the entire transmutation process, the testers must look at a complete sample of the fuel, not just a few nickel particles. What makes you think this was not a complete sample, or not representative? These are experts in mass spectroscopy so I assume they know how to get a representative sample of material. They looked at the full range of mass numbers so if there were anomalies in other elements they would see them. There could be other nuclear processes going on away from the nickel particles. They saw anomalies in nickel and lithium. If there were other anomalies in other particles from the reactor why would they miss them? It is not possible to collect and analyze particles of nickel only and not various other particles that happen to be in the reactor. Particles are small. You cannot collect one type of leave the others. The testers have made an assumption that the reaction must be local to the nickel micro-particles. Again, if the reaction occurred in other particles why would they not see them? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
page 44... Figure 3. SEI showing the areas where EDS analysis where performed on the different fuel particles (a), EDS spectrum from the three different type of particles found in the fuel material; particle 1 (b), particle 2 (c) and particle 3 (d). On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: To get a valid overview of the entire transmutation process, the testers must look at a complete sample of the fuel, not just a few nickel particles. What makes you think this was not a complete sample, or not representative? These are experts in mass spectroscopy so I assume they know how to get a representative sample of material. They looked at the full range of mass numbers so if there were anomalies in other elements they would see them. There could be other nuclear processes going on away from the nickel particles. They saw anomalies in nickel and lithium. If there were other anomalies in other particles from the reactor why would they miss them? It is not possible to collect and analyze particles of nickel only and not various other particles that happen to be in the reactor. Particles are small. You cannot collect one type of leave the others. The testers have made an assumption that the reaction must be local to the nickel micro-particles. Again, if the reaction occurred in other particles why would they not see them? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I predict that this new type of reactor cannot be shut down and restated because a significant fraction of the nickel particles has had their tubules melted off and many nickel micro-particles are now resurfaced as relatively smooth. Where does it say that in the report? Furthermore, if this reactor is cooled by a liquid based transfer fluid, it will shut down and not startup again. Assuming this is true, why would you shut off a reactor that runs on water? As long as you can idle it, I see no reason to go through a complete shut down. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
Again, if the reaction occurred in other particles why would they not see them? They will not see them because they have not looked. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: page 44... Figure 3. SEI showing the areas where EDS analysis where performed on the different fuel particles (a), EDS spectrum from the three different type of particles found in the fuel material; particle 1 (b), particle 2 (c) and particle 3 (d). On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: To get a valid overview of the entire transmutation process, the testers must look at a complete sample of the fuel, not just a few nickel particles. What makes you think this was not a complete sample, or not representative? These are experts in mass spectroscopy so I assume they know how to get a representative sample of material. They looked at the full range of mass numbers so if there were anomalies in other elements they would see them. There could be other nuclear processes going on away from the nickel particles. They saw anomalies in nickel and lithium. If there were other anomalies in other particles from the reactor why would they miss them? It is not possible to collect and analyze particles of nickel only and not various other particles that happen to be in the reactor. Particles are small. You cannot collect one type of leave the others. The testers have made an assumption that the reaction must be local to the nickel micro-particles. Again, if the reaction occurred in other particles why would they not see them? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
on page 43... particle 2 and 3 have no tubercles. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I predict that this new type of reactor cannot be shut down and restated because a significant fraction of the nickel particles has had their tubules melted off and many nickel micro-particles are now resurfaced as relatively smooth. Where does it say that in the report? Furthermore, if this reactor is cooled by a liquid based transfer fluid, it will shut down and not startup again. Assuming this is true, why would you shut off a reactor that runs on water? As long as you can idle it, I see no reason to go through a complete shut down. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Again, if the reaction occurred in other particles why would they not see them? They will not see them because they have not looked. Well, I doubt you know as much about mass spectroscopy as these people do. In any case, they found dramatic shifts in isotopic ratios in Li-6 and Ni-62. Perhaps -- as you say -- they would find other shifts if they keep looking, but they have already found something that must be connected to the reaction, and that needs to be explained. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
I wrote: The efficiency of uranium pellets is only about 4% because of the deterioration of the zirconium cladding that encloses the uranium. That is true. So that means 4% of 29% of the pellet would be used up (transmuted). Maybe that's wrong. This reference seems to indicate that nearly all 300 mg of the U-235 may be used up (fissioned). See: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Introduction/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle-Overview/ Quote: Considering just how much of the original uranium is actually used: 0.7% fissile U-235 is in natural U (Unat), on above 'typical' figures: 0.49% of Unat goes into fuel as the fissile part, 0.394% is actually fissioned, and in addition about half that much U-238 turned into Pu-239 is fissioned, giving about a 0.6% utilization of the original Unat. I don't know much about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
I consider isotopic shits in nickel and lithium as structural damage leading the eventual fuel failure. Since the reactor looks like the nickel powder is packed in aluminum and oxygen compounds, I would expect to see transmutation of aluminum and oxygen in the vicinity of the nickel powder. Furthermore, at one time Rossi said that he enriched his nickel powder in Ni62 and Ni64 isotopes. He does not need to reduce positron emissions using heavy nickel isotopes anymore because he is pumping the boson condensate with large quantities of high heat. So the position emissions are now mitigated by a highly pump boson condensate. Yes, in the past, he was running his reactor too cold with insufficient heat pumping with resulted in gamma production from position/electron annulation. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Again, if the reaction occurred in other particles why would they not see them? They will not see them because they have not looked. Well, I doubt you know as much about mass spectroscopy as these people do. In any case, they found dramatic shifts in isotopic ratios in Li-6 and Ni-62. Perhaps -- as you say -- they would find other shifts if they keep looking, but they have already found something that must be connected to the reaction, and that needs to be explained. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
shits should read shifts On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I consider isotopic shits in nickel and lithium as structural damage leading the eventual fuel failure. Since the reactor looks like the nickel powder is packed in aluminum and oxygen compounds, I would expect to see transmutation of aluminum and oxygen in the vicinity of the nickel powder. Furthermore, at one time Rossi said that he enriched his nickel powder in Ni62 and Ni64 isotopes. He does not need to reduce positron emissions using heavy nickel isotopes anymore because he is pumping the boson condensate with large quantities of high heat. So the position emissions are now mitigated by a highly pump boson condensate. Yes, in the past, he was running his reactor too cold with insufficient heat pumping with resulted in gamma production from position/electron annulation. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Again, if the reaction occurred in other particles why would they not see them? They will not see them because they have not looked. Well, I doubt you know as much about mass spectroscopy as these people do. In any case, they found dramatic shifts in isotopic ratios in Li-6 and Ni-62. Perhaps -- as you say -- they would find other shifts if they keep looking, but they have already found something that must be connected to the reaction, and that needs to be explained. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
On the subject of energy balance and radiation Mass of Ni58 =57.935 mass of Ni62 =61.928 difference 3.993 amu Mass of neutron 1.0087 x 4 = 4.035 Mass of Li7=7.016 Mass of Li6= 6.015 difference 1.001 x 4= 4.004 The problem is that on paper - lithium cannot give up a neutron easily as there is a mass deficit going to neutrons - and at the same time, nickel cannot add 4 neutrons without shedding a large amount of energy. Curiously, if one looks at it from the perspective of 4 atoms of the initial lithium, 4.004 amu has been lost and only 3.993 gained, so the reaction is ostensibly lossy; but from the perspective of the nickel 4 neutrons have been added, and the gain is massive – in the range of 42 MeV net. One more interesting thing about this report. If lithium is the active fuel, and not hydrogen, which seems to be the case, then the ash which is lithium-6 is as valuable for batteries as is the natural metal. Maybe more valuable. Thus the fuel is essentially free, since the ash can be sold for cost (or even marked-up). Not that cost is as big an issue for IH as it is for Tesla, but it could also be that Li-6 is safer. Safer is worth paying for. Remember the Boeing lithium fires on their new plane? They were NEVER able to locate the real problem. Perhaps it was lithium-7 and the problem will go away once they get an adequate supply of Li-6 to make batteries only from the lighter isotope ... which of course will be the ash of the Rossi/IH reactor and the others which follow. I could see the necessity of Safety Laws being necessary, sometime in the future to demand that only Li-6 be used in batteries. Why do I think Elon Musk is already onto this ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I consider isotopic shi[f]ts in nickel and lithium as structural damage leading the eventual fuel failure. Eventually, when? The fuel has to run out eventually. All fuel does. All reactors have a limited lifetime. Either the fuel runs out, or some other component in the reactor wears out or becomes structurally damaged or embrittled. This reactor went for a month and it produced as much energy as one-third of a uranium fuel pellet, or 126 gallons of gasoline. There is no indication the performance was degrading or that the fuel was on the verge of failing. It is reasonable to assume it could go for a year. Given the price of nickel that would be cost-effective. Probably the structural damage could be repaired by recycling the materials. Actually it is reasonable to assume it would go for many years but there is no proof of that. There is certainly no proof that structural damage was measurably degrading performance in this test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
If you have noticed, the pattern of transmutation has changed over the years based on how the powder is positioned in the reactor. Tight powder packing leads to more transmutation of the powder. This transmutation will eventually change nickel into some other element like titanium or iron. This will eventually deactivated the powder. If the particles of the powder are spaced well apart as in the DGT reactor design, little nickel transmutation is seen. This is good since the nickel powder will experience a long service life. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I consider isotopic shi[f]ts in nickel and lithium as structural damage leading the eventual fuel failure. Eventually, when? The fuel has to run out eventually. All fuel does. All reactors have a limited lifetime. Either the fuel runs out, or some other component in the reactor wears out or becomes structurally damaged or embrittled. This reactor went for a month and it produced as much energy as one-third of a uranium fuel pellet, or 126 gallons of gasoline. There is no indication the performance was degrading or that the fuel was on the verge of failing. It is reasonable to assume it could go for a year. Given the price of nickel that would be cost-effective. Probably the structural damage could be repaired by recycling the materials. Actually it is reasonable to assume it would go for many years but there is no proof of that. There is certainly no proof that structural damage was measurably degrading performance in this test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
Larry Forsley told me: The pellet is ceramic and comprised of U2O3 and other U oxides, so the proportion of uranium is less than 100%, and hence, the enrichment is likely close to 5%. Over the typical fuel cycle, 4 1/2 years, more than half of the U-235 will fission while neutron capture on U-238 will breed Pu-239 and Pu-240. So, for 29% of the total energy from the pellet roughly 40 g of material would be transmuted. I think. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
I wrote: So, for 29% of the total energy from the pellet roughly 40 g of material would be transmuted. I think. I mean 40 mg. Of uranium. I do not know how much Ni we are talking about. Perhaps, as Axil suggests, it varies with the design of the reactor. My point is, there is a lot. Nuclear changes in the fuel are easily detected with conventional fission. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's report on the second Rossi report
The energy potential in the Ni/H reactor is very large in comparisons to U235 and if the nickel powder is not destroyed. The hydrogen, aluminum, and oxygen will transmute in all sorts of ways in a long chain of energy producing transmutations over the years. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Larry Forsley told me: The pellet is ceramic and comprised of U2O3 and other U oxides, so the proportion of uranium is less than 100%, and hence, the enrichment is likely close to 5%. Over the typical fuel cycle, 4 1/2 years, more than half of the U-235 will fission while neutron capture on U-238 will breed Pu-239 and Pu-240. So, for 29% of the total energy from the pellet roughly 40 g of material would be transmuted. I think. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
It may have been noted that lithium has a heat of vaporization of about 140 kJ/mol and that the boiling point is close to the operating temp of this reactor on the inside 1350C. This seems to work out to a whopping 20 MJ/kg which is high (did I get that wrong?) Consequently a lot thermal energy could be balanced, cycling around this phase change point – which is why they must keep the reactor hot. Phase change is one of the usual suspects in thermal anomalies. If one were to be looking for an alternative energy source which was gamma-free, but might cause mass-to-energy conversions as a side effect then any asymmetry here would do it. I say that without much risk - since in looking at 5 authoritative source for lithium properties, all of them had different heat of evaporation values - indicating that no one has a clue ! On the subject of energy balance and radiation Mass of Ni58 =57.935 mass of Ni62 =61.928 difference 3.993 amu Mass of neutron 1.0087 x 4 = 4.035 Mass of Li7=7.016 Mass of Li6= 6.015 difference 1.001 x 4= 4.004 The problem is that on paper - lithium cannot give up a neutron easily as there is a mass deficit going to neutrons - and at the same time, nickel cannot add 4 neutrons without shedding a large amount of energy. Curiously, if one looks at it from the perspective of 4 atoms of the initial lithium, 4.004 amu has been lost and only 3.993 gained, so the reaction is ostensibly lossy; but from the perspective of the nickel 4 neutrons have been added, and the gain is massive – in the range of 42 MeV net. One more interesting thing about this report. If lithium is the active fuel, and not hydrogen, which seems to be the case, then the ash which is lithium-6 is as valuable for batteries as is the natural metal. Maybe more valuable. Thus the fuel is essentially free, since the ash can be sold for cost (or even marked-up). Not that cost is as big an issue for IH as it is for Tesla, but it could also be that Li-6 is safer. Safer is worth paying for. Remember the Boeing lithium fires on their new plane? They were NEVER able to locate the real problem. Perhaps it was lithium-7 and the problem will go away once they get an adequate supply of Li-6 to make batteries only from the lighter isotope ... which of course will be the ash of the Rossi/IH reactor and the others which follow. I could see the necessity of Safety Laws being necessary, sometime in the future to demand that only Li-6 be used in batteries. Why do I think Elon Musk is already onto this ? Jones
[Vo]:How do ya' like THAT COP?
p. 7 of the report: Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. It might have worked even better. They did not push it: The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W. I have long said that the COP does not matter at this stage in the research. It is no indication of what the future COP might be, after practical devices are engineered. When the input power is stable direct current, it does not interfere much in the calorimetry. Having said all that, I will say that a high COP is gratifying. It does make the calorimetry more believable when the input power waveform is complicated as in this case. So I'm happy to see a high COP. Also it does away with some of the proposed theoretical limits some people have worried about. Finally, it is nice to see the device putting out much more thermal power than the power supplies could produce, according to the manufacturers. The significance of that will be lost on the skeptics. It has been lost on Mary Yugo already, who is blathering about cheese over at Lewan's blog: http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How do ya' like THAT COP?
I have read some of Yugo's comments on Mats blog and it amazes me that she continues to claim that the input power is likely faked by that nonsense of a connection. How could she consist in that belief when the scientists measuring the input power are so aware of that trick? The skeptics are running out of places to hide. The ECAT is the real thing! Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 8, 2014 5:40 pm Subject: [Vo]:How do ya' like THAT COP? p. 7 of the report: Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. It might have worked even better. They did not push it: The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W. I have long said that the COP does not matter at this stage in the research. It is no indication of what the future COP might be, after practical devices are engineered. When the input power is stable direct current, it does not interfere much in the calorimetry. Having said all that, I will say that a high COP is gratifying. It does make the calorimetry more believable when the input power waveform is complicated as in this case. So I'm happy to see a high COP. Also it does away with some of the proposed theoretical limits some people have worried about. Finally, it is nice to see the device putting out much more thermal power than the power supplies could produce, according to the manufacturers. The significance of that will be lost on the skeptics. It has been lost on Mary Yugo already, who is blathering about cheese over at Lewan's blog: http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/ - Jed
[Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Pomp, pomp, pomp: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html He apparently believes that calorimetry does not work, Prof. Stephan Boltzman are frauds, and the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Incorrigible is the word that comes to mind. I am not a bit surprised. I had no doubt the skeptics would respond this way. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How do ya' like THAT COP?
Hi Jed, Side-track question... what constitutes a peer-review? And does this report have one? Regards, Patrick On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: p. 7 of the report: Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. It might have worked even better. They did not push it: The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W. I have long said that the COP does not matter at this stage in the research. It is no indication of what the future COP might be, after practical devices are engineered. When the input power is stable direct current, it does not interfere much in the calorimetry. Having said all that, I will say that a high COP is gratifying. It does make the calorimetry more believable when the input power waveform is complicated as in this case. So I'm happy to see a high COP. Also it does away with some of the proposed theoretical limits some people have worried about. Finally, it is nice to see the device putting out much more thermal power than the power supplies could produce, according to the manufacturers. The significance of that will be lost on the skeptics. It has been lost on Mary Yugo already, who is blathering about cheese over at Lewan's blog: http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/ - Jed -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Who took the fuel-ash samples, and there? I can not find a account for this. On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:57:13 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Pomp, pomp, pomp: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html [1] He apparently believes that calorimetry does not work, Prof. Stephan Boltzman are frauds, and the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Incorrigible is the word that comes to mind. I am not a bit surprised. I had no doubt the skeptics would respond this way. - Jed Links: -- [1] http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
it seems to be as Beaudette observed with nuclear physicist. they imagine calorimetry is not science by cooking (and even cooking is serious) 2014-10-08 23:57 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Pomp, pomp, pomp: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html He apparently believes that calorimetry does not work, Prof. Stephan Boltzman are frauds, and the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Incorrigible is the word that comes to mind. I am not a bit surprised. I had no doubt the skeptics would respond this way. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Pomp makes a point though... the whole document is meaningless compared to the ash measurement. Who cares about heat / input / blah blah lbah if we're doing transumation without radiation. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: it seems to be as Beaudette observed with nuclear physicist. they imagine calorimetry is not science by cooking (and even cooking is serious) 2014-10-08 23:57 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Pomp, pomp, pomp: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html He apparently believes that calorimetry does not work, Prof. Stephan Boltzman are frauds, and the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Incorrigible is the word that comes to mind. I am not a bit surprised. I had no doubt the skeptics would respond this way. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
The simple reality is this - either Rossi has just changed reality as we know it or not. There is no longer a gray area at all. I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. I'm not betting my life though. There's a possibility, not that slim, that he might actually have done it. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Pomp makes a point though... the whole document is meaningless compared to the ash measurement. Who cares about heat / input / blah blah lbah if we're doing transumation without radiation. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: it seems to be as Beaudette observed with nuclear physicist. they imagine calorimetry is not science by cooking (and even cooking is serious) 2014-10-08 23:57 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Pomp, pomp, pomp: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html He apparently believes that calorimetry does not work, Prof. Stephan Boltzman are frauds, and the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Incorrigible is the word that comes to mind. I am not a bit surprised. I had no doubt the skeptics would respond this way. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
I have to admit that it would be trivially easy for an apprentice magician to construct a container into which you insert (say) white powder as fuel and later on extract black powder as ash. But the calorimetry stands. Pomp doesn't even denigrate the calorimetry : he just ignores it Because none of the measurements presented on the previous 26 pages matter ...
[Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent
One observation that I'm noting in reviewing the data is the remarkably complete conversion of nickel isotopes to Ni68, (from 3.9% in the starting fuel to 98.7% in the ash) and the corresponding nearly-complete transition of lithium-6 from 8.6% fuel to 92.1% ash abundance ratios. Given that the ash sample was taken at an arbitrarily-defined time point, which happened while the operating conditions of the reaction were stable, if not improving, then I believe this indicates that the reaction is a cyclic one, which decays to the measured ash isotope ratios while the reaction is stopping. If the reaction were based on a linear consumption of reactants, then it would be truly miraculous to have stopped the reaction and sampled the ash just when Nickel-68 had reached 98.7 enrichment. Given that there was no trending reduction in the output power prior to the ash sampling, I think this clearly indicates that we were not approaching the depletion point of the reactants, and that the heat must be produced as part of a durable cycle. This could indicate a much, much longer-lasting fuel charge is possible than the 6 months figure which has been floating around without apparent basis-in-fact. -Bob Ellefson
RE: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent
Er, s/Ni68/Ni62/g :-) -Original Message- From: Robert Ellefson [mailto:vortex-h...@e2ke.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 5:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent One observation that I'm noting in reviewing the data is the remarkably complete conversion of nickel isotopes to Ni68, (from 3.9% in the starting fuel to 98.7% in the ash) and the corresponding nearly-complete transition of lithium-6 from 8.6% fuel to 92.1% ash abundance ratios. Given that the ash sample was taken at an arbitrarily-defined time point, which happened while the operating conditions of the reaction were stable, if not improving, then I believe this indicates that the reaction is a cyclic one, which decays to the measured ash isotope ratios while the reaction is stopping. If the reaction were based on a linear consumption of reactants, then it would be truly miraculous to have stopped the reaction and sampled the ash just when Nickel-68 had reached 98.7 enrichment. Given that there was no trending reduction in the output power prior to the ash sampling, I think this clearly indicates that we were not approaching the depletion point of the reactants, and that the heat must be produced as part of a durable cycle. This could indicate a much, much longer-lasting fuel charge is possible than the 6 months figure which has been floating around without apparent basis-in-fact. -Bob Ellefson
Re: [Vo]:How do ya' like THAT COP?
At 1400C, the reactor is just shy of the melting point of Nickel. The Reactor is relying on some special structure on the surface of the Nickel to make this reaction work. The Nickle at that high temperature will likely lose the correct surface structure even if it doesn't fully liquefy. I wonder is the test was cut short of the intended 6 months duration by failure of the micro powder due to progressive micro powder surface destruction. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: p. 7 of the report: Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. It might have worked even better. They did not push it: The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W. I have long said that the COP does not matter at this stage in the research. It is no indication of what the future COP might be, after practical devices are engineered. When the input power is stable direct current, it does not interfere much in the calorimetry. Having said all that, I will say that a high COP is gratifying. It does make the calorimetry more believable when the input power waveform is complicated as in this case. So I'm happy to see a high COP. Also it does away with some of the proposed theoretical limits some people have worried about. Finally, it is nice to see the device putting out much more thermal power than the power supplies could produce, according to the manufacturers. The significance of that will be lost on the skeptics. It has been lost on Mary Yugo already, who is blathering about cheese over at Lewan's blog: http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I have to admit that it would be trivially easy for an apprentice magician to construct a container into which you insert (say) white powder as fuel and later on extract black powder as ash. But the calorimetry stands. Pomp doesn't even denigrate the calorimetry : he just ignores it Because none of the measurements presented on the previous 26 pages matter ...
Re: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent
The reactor will run for as long as the micro powder remains nickel, as long as the nickel is not Ni61, a non zero spin nucleus. I still believe that hydrogen is the fuel that is being consumed. Rossi has not yet found a way to protect his powder and lithium from destructive transmutation. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: One observation that I'm noting in reviewing the data is the remarkably complete conversion of nickel isotopes to Ni68, (from 3.9% in the starting fuel to 98.7% in the ash) and the corresponding nearly-complete transition of lithium-6 from 8.6% fuel to 92.1% ash abundance ratios. Given that the ash sample was taken at an arbitrarily-defined time point, which happened while the operating conditions of the reaction were stable, if not improving, then I believe this indicates that the reaction is a cyclic one, which decays to the measured ash isotope ratios while the reaction is stopping. If the reaction were based on a linear consumption of reactants, then it would be truly miraculous to have stopped the reaction and sampled the ash just when Nickel-68 had reached 98.7 enrichment. Given that there was no trending reduction in the output power prior to the ash sampling, I think this clearly indicates that we were not approaching the depletion point of the reactants, and that the heat must be produced as part of a durable cycle. This could indicate a much, much longer-lasting fuel charge is possible than the 6 months figure which has been floating around without apparent basis-in-fact. -Bob Ellefson
Re: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent
There may not be any transmutation of Ni at all. Read Norman Cook's paper from ICCF-18. There could be isotope dependent depletion of Ni due to fusion-fission or just fission. This would completely change the isotope ratios with no shuttling between one Ni isotope and any other. The Ni transmutation is probably less probable than what Norman Cook proposes. Rossi apparently raves about Norman's theory. Bob Higgins On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Er, s/Ni68/Ni62/g -Original Message- From: Robert Ellefson [mailto:vortex-h...@e2ke.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 5:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent One observation that I'm noting in reviewing the data is the remarkably complete conversion of nickel isotopes to Ni68, (from 3.9% in the starting fuel to 98.7% in the ash) and the corresponding nearly-complete transition of lithium-6 from 8.6% fuel to 92.1% ash abundance ratios. Given that the ash sample was taken at an arbitrarily-defined time point, which happened while the operating conditions of the reaction were stable, if not improving, then I believe this indicates that the reaction is a cyclic one, which decays to the measured ash isotope ratios while the reaction is stopping. If the reaction were based on a linear consumption of reactants, then it would be truly miraculous to have stopped the reaction and sampled the ash just when Nickel-68 had reached 98.7 enrichment. Given that there was no trending reduction in the output power prior to the ash sampling, I think this clearly indicates that we were not approaching the depletion point of the reactants, and that the heat must be produced as part of a durable cycle. This could indicate a much, much longer-lasting fuel charge is possible than the 6 months figure which has been floating around without apparent basis-in-fact. -Bob Ellefson
Re: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent
According to Cook, Ni61 does not participate in the reaction. Therefore, if depletion of Ni is due to fusion-fission or just fission, then Ni61 would become the majority of the nickel in the ash.. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: There may not be any transmutation of Ni at all. Read Norman Cook's paper from ICCF-18. There could be isotope dependent depletion of Ni due to fusion-fission or just fission. This would completely change the isotope ratios with no shuttling between one Ni isotope and any other. The Ni transmutation is probably less probable than what Norman Cook proposes. Rossi apparently raves about Norman's theory. Bob Higgins On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Er, s/Ni68/Ni62/g -Original Message- From: Robert Ellefson [mailto:vortex-h...@e2ke.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 5:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent One observation that I'm noting in reviewing the data is the remarkably complete conversion of nickel isotopes to Ni68, (from 3.9% in the starting fuel to 98.7% in the ash) and the corresponding nearly-complete transition of lithium-6 from 8.6% fuel to 92.1% ash abundance ratios. Given that the ash sample was taken at an arbitrarily-defined time point, which happened while the operating conditions of the reaction were stable, if not improving, then I believe this indicates that the reaction is a cyclic one, which decays to the measured ash isotope ratios while the reaction is stopping. If the reaction were based on a linear consumption of reactants, then it would be truly miraculous to have stopped the reaction and sampled the ash just when Nickel-68 had reached 98.7 enrichment. Given that there was no trending reduction in the output power prior to the ash sampling, I think this clearly indicates that we were not approaching the depletion point of the reactants, and that the heat must be produced as part of a durable cycle. This could indicate a much, much longer-lasting fuel charge is possible than the 6 months figure which has been floating around without apparent basis-in-fact. -Bob Ellefson
RE: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent
Is this a typo? There is no Ni68. Half life is less than 30 seconds -Original Message- From: Robert Ellefson One observation that I'm noting in reviewing the data is the remarkably complete conversion of nickel isotopes to Ni68,
RE: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent
Yes, it was a typo, sorry. I meant Ni-62. -Bob -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 5:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent Is this a typo? There is no Ni68. Half life is less than 30 seconds -Original Message- From: Robert Ellefson One observation that I'm noting in reviewing the data is the remarkably complete conversion of nickel isotopes to Ni68,
RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Many things do not add up here, especially the drastic changes from the original E-Cat. The more I read the more skeptical is my outlook on this. Could some clever troll have gotten hold of the manuscript and changed it just enough to make it barely believable, so long as one does not look too deeply ? Are we getting off on the13th Floor? From: Blaze Spinnaker The simple reality is this - either Rossi has just changed reality as we know it or not. There is no longer a gray area at all. I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. I'm not betting my life though. There's a possibility, not that slim, that he might actually have done it.
[Vo]:The Lithium Problem
From the test report as follows: *The Lithium content in the fuel is found to have the natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %. This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place. It is notable, but maybe only a coincidence, that also in Astrophysics a 7Li depletion is observed * *The Lithium problem* *http://phys.org/news/2014-08-big-conditions-lithium-problem.html* http://phys.org/news/2014-08-big-conditions-lithium-problem.html *Measurement at Big Bang conditions confirms lithium problem* *The field of astrophysics has a stubborn problem and it's called lithium. The quantities of lithium predicted to have resulted from the Big Bang are not actually present in stars. * * Lithium, aside from hydrogen and helium, is one of the three elements that are created before the first stars form. These three elements were – according to the theory – already created early on, through what is known as primordial nucleosynthesis. That means that when the universe was only a few minutes old, neutrons and protons merged to form the nuclei of the these elements.* *In the Italian **underground laboratory* http://phys.org/tags/underground+laboratory/ *, the scientists fired helium nuclei at heavy hydrogen (known as deuterium) in order to reach energies similar to those just after the Big Bang. The idea was to measure how much lithium forms under similar conditions to those during the early stages of the universe. The result of the experiment: the data confirmed the theoretical predictions, which are incompatible with the observed lithium concentrations found in the universe.* * For the first time, we could actually study the lithium-6 production in one part of the Big Bang energy range with our experiment, explains Daniel Bemmerer. Lithium-6 (three neutrons, three protons) is one of the element's two stable isotopes. The formation of lithium-7, which possesses an additional neutron, was studied in 2006 by Bemmerer at LUNA.* *With these new results, what is known as the lithium problem remains a hard nut to crack: on the one hand, now all laboratory results of the astrophysicists suggest that the theory of primordial nucleosynthesis is correct. On the other hand, many observations of astronomers show that the oldest stars in our Milky Way contain only half as much lithium-7 as predicted. Sensational reports by Swedish researchers, who discovered clearly more lithium-6 in such stars than predicted, must also likely be checked again based on the new LUNA data. Bemmerer says, Should unusual lithium concentrations be observed in the future, we know, thanks to the new measurements, that it cannot be due to the primordial nucleosynthesis.*
Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Its entirely conceivable that if the nickel micro particles are spaced far enough apart, then no transmutation from nickel to copper will be seen. Personally, I haven't found transmutation from nickel to copper credible for several weeks. In recent months my bet has been on transmutation from one isotope of nickel to another, but I will need to read the report to see how I continue to feel about that. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Transmutation has be seen in LENR experiments for many years and even Ed Storms says that Transmutation has nothing to do with the LENR reaction. This test result does not tell us anything new. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Many things do not add up here, especially the drastic changes from the original E-Cat. The more I read the more skeptical is my outlook on this. Could some clever troll have gotten hold of the manuscript and changed it just enough to make it barely believable, so long as one does not look too deeply ? Are we getting off on the13th Floor? *From:* Blaze Spinnaker The simple reality is this - either Rossi has just changed reality as we know it or not. There is no longer a gray area at all. I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. I'm not betting my life though. There's a possibility, not that slim, that he might actually have done it.
Re: [Vo]:The Lithium Problem
Because Lithium is a non zero spin nucleus, it cannot transmute. The additional Li6 seen in the ash must therefore be new lithium produced directly from hydrogen. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From the test report as follows: *The Lithium content in the fuel is found to have the natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %. This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place. It is notable, but maybe only a coincidence, that also in Astrophysics a 7Li depletion is observed * *The Lithium problem* *http://phys.org/news/2014-08-big-conditions-lithium-problem.html* http://phys.org/news/2014-08-big-conditions-lithium-problem.html *Measurement at Big Bang conditions confirms lithium problem* *The field of astrophysics has a stubborn problem and it's called lithium. The quantities of lithium predicted to have resulted from the Big Bang are not actually present in stars. * * Lithium, aside from hydrogen and helium, is one of the three elements that are created before the first stars form. These three elements were – according to the theory – already created early on, through what is known as primordial nucleosynthesis. That means that when the universe was only a few minutes old, neutrons and protons merged to form the nuclei of the these elements.* *In the Italian **underground laboratory* http://phys.org/tags/underground+laboratory/ *, the scientists fired helium nuclei at heavy hydrogen (known as deuterium) in order to reach energies similar to those just after the Big Bang. The idea was to measure how much lithium forms under similar conditions to those during the early stages of the universe. The result of the experiment: the data confirmed the theoretical predictions, which are incompatible with the observed lithium concentrations found in the universe.* * For the first time, we could actually study the lithium-6 production in one part of the Big Bang energy range with our experiment, explains Daniel Bemmerer. Lithium-6 (three neutrons, three protons) is one of the element's two stable isotopes. The formation of lithium-7, which possesses an additional neutron, was studied in 2006 by Bemmerer at LUNA.* *With these new results, what is known as the lithium problem remains a hard nut to crack: on the one hand, now all laboratory results of the astrophysicists suggest that the theory of primordial nucleosynthesis is correct. On the other hand, many observations of astronomers show that the oldest stars in our Milky Way contain only half as much lithium-7 as predicted. Sensational reports by Swedish researchers, who discovered clearly more lithium-6 in such stars than predicted, must also likely be checked again based on the new LUNA data. Bemmerer says, Should unusual lithium concentrations be observed in the future, we know, thanks to the new measurements, that it cannot be due to the primordial nucleosynthesis.*
Re: [Vo]:How do ya' like THAT COP?
Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jed, Side-track question... what constitutes a peer-review? We are peerless in this field. Posterity or God must judge us. And does this report have one? Seriously, not as far as I know. Peer-review is overrated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
From the last line on page 53... Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. Does this not mean that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn was consumed by the reaction? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Transmutation has be seen in LENR experiments for many years and even Ed Storms says that Transmutation has nothing to do with the LENR reaction. This test result does not tell us anything new. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Many things do not add up here, especially the drastic changes from the original E-Cat. The more I read the more skeptical is my outlook on this. Could some clever troll have gotten hold of the manuscript and changed it just enough to make it barely believable, so long as one does not look too deeply ? Are we getting off on the13th Floor? *From:* Blaze Spinnaker The simple reality is this - either Rossi has just changed reality as we know it or not. There is no longer a gray area at all. I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. I'm not betting my life though. There's a possibility, not that slim, that he might actually have done it.
Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
From page 41 of the test document... To remove the siloxane that has diffused over the particle surface the area being analyzed is sputtered. Figure 7 show the positive mass spectrum from a particle surface sputter cleaned for 180 seconds. The analyst cleaned the micro powder before he checked for transmutation products. This is BAD, IMHO. The cleaning could have removed transmutation products. The testers should have done a fuel analysis first and then a ash analysis of the UNCLEANED ash and then compared the two results for differences. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Its entirely conceivable that if the nickel micro particles are spaced far enough apart, then no transmutation from nickel to copper will be seen. Personally, I haven't found transmutation from nickel to copper credible for several weeks. In recent months my bet has been on transmutation from one isotope of nickel to another, but I will need to read the report to see how I continue to feel about that. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several hundred other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds? In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera? If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, it was caused by invisible unicorns. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to FP. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Zirconia?
...I am torn between Axil’s posit that the hydrogen atoms form a bose condensate ... The condensate is made of bosons comprised of a tightly bound single waveform of light and electron waves of equal energy. Extreme density of these bosons provide high temperature condensation. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Yes, but I am torn between Axil’s posit that the hydrogen atoms form a bose condensate and equally thermalize and this posit by Bob that the sites are discrete pockets contained by zirconia dielectric.. are these 2 posits as conflicted as they appear or perhaps this is a matter of scale where the condensate occurs only in the pockets. My preference for the suppression of virtual particles via geometry makes me suspect that the condensate must be present because it also opens the possibility of ZPE as the bootstrap mechanism which divides these materials from the same materials at larger dimensions. Fran *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, October 08, 2014 1:25 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Zirconia? On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Zirconia would not, itself, be a catalyst. I specifically mentioned zirconium - the metal. I thought your description of how you're using zirconium was interesting. My comments related to the way George Miley is using it, in an article Jones linked to. In the case of zeolites, I understand that the zeolite material is not LENR active itself. Makes sense. I was thinking of zeolites and zirconium dioxide, which are dielectrics, along the lines of providing a matrix within which conductive active sites are contained and electrically insulated from one another (in the manner of your description of zeolites). My hunch is that the electrical insulation will make it possible for higher potentials to arise between conductive grains than would be the case if the entire substrate were freely conductive. If the potential were high enough, I'm thinking there would be arcing. No doubt there would need to be something above and beyond the zeolite or zirconium dioxide substrate to set up the potential. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
I meant that Rossi is NO more miraculous than what FP and hundreds of others have done. Only the scale is larger. The Chicago Pile 1 one-watt nuclear reactor was as momentous as the fission bomb explosion. The scale was different, but they were equally convincing. If you do not believe that, or you do not understand it, you fail to understand science. A fraction of a watt from Fleischmann, Miles or McKubre is harbinger of the future just as much as Rossi's present reactors are. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Jed, it doesn't matter. If the ash is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud. Plain and simple. I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry. There are no such complexities in the ash which makes the discussion very straightforward. He either switched it out or he didn't. He's either a liar or he isn't. It's pretty simple.. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several hundred other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds? In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera? If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, it was caused by invisible unicorns. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to FP. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:How do ya' like THAT COP?
Jed sez Regarding what constitutes a peer-review? We are peerless in this field. Posterity or God must judge us. That's saying a lot from a devout atheist. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
