http://ecatreport.com/andrearossi/on-rossis-fascinating-emf-discovery
Andrea Rossi recently stated on his blog Journal of Nuclear Physics that he is currently taking the road to circumventing the Carnot Cycle. The Italian inventor posted that direct EMF from the reactor core. EMF or Electromotive Force, according to Faraday’s Law, represents energy per unit charge (voltage) which has been made available by the generating mechanism and is not a ‘force’. Rossi said: “Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point, also of high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle.” Daniel G. Zavela, another poster on JONP website, commented that his electrical engineer friend found Rossi’s EMF discovery fascinating. Zavela further stated that his friend has a few questions for Rossi if his research has found the answers yet. Here are the three questions and the corresponding answers from Rossi: Q: If this is not a temperature-dependent phenomenon, why wasn’t it detected earlier? (it is quite unexpected, so perhaps no one was looking for it, and the recent discovery was merely a fortunate accident, as often happens in Science). A: Matter of Serendipity Q: What is the strength of the EMF? Milligauss? Dozens of Gauss? That makes a difference in (a) whether it might be due to something else going on in the lab, or from the reactor core itself, and (b) whether there is enough energy in the EMF to provide useful levels of output power. A: I prefer not to give precise data until we have not understood well the “strange power” Q. What is the internal physical arrangement of the nickel and other elements in the eCat? I ask this, because I speculate that if there is some kind of circular layout, it is conceivable that some subatomic effect has set up a circular electron flow that would produce an EMF. A: Confidential For more than a year now since Rossi announced that he has a working cold fusion/LENR based device, there have been several speculations and quite a few of creative inventions. People get easily excited. However, it is still good to get some confirmation from Rossi’s team and provide us significant information with evidence. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and > their SCADA function. > > > Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted > from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was > influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Perhaps the effect gives > off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field. > Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened. > We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and > hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what > they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an > observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are > generated. > > Ed > > > The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6 > tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't > want to believe it, that is. > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. >> Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would >> not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T >> magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of >> ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional >> scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter >> how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. >> >> Ed >> >> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like >> systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to >> me. >> >> If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the >> also research Rossi's EMF claims. >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> >>> The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton >>> production. >>> >>> >>> It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not >>> real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you >>> say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing >>> claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation >>> with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim >>> is not believed? >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced >>> by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the >>> nucleus. >>> >>> >>> Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole >>> magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton. >>> >>> >>> But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in >>> LENR. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> *I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with >>>>> conventional, textbook physics and engineering. * >>>>> >>>>> In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to >>>>> produce solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2 before >>>>> the sensors blew out. >>>>> >>>>> Not finding this behavior is a result of not looking in the proper >>>>> text book. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important >>>> clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not >>>> believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside >>>> this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges. >>>> >>>> There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An >>>> evaluation should not be "all or nothing." You can accept some claims >>>> readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without >>>> prejudice, waiting for better evidence. >>>> >>>> A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others. >>>> Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many >>>> physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong. >>>> That was a dangerous attitude. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
