Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
On 2011-04-15 03:01, Jed Rothwell wrote: I assume this part is accurately translated: So there were two parallel lines of research: on one side, the deuterium and palladium people, who never got anything . . .[...] Yes, it is. Several people on discussion boards I read on the matter have criticized that excerpt from the original audio interview for the same reasons (and also, because in my opinion it reinforces skeptics' argument that FP' experiments were a scam. Many still think that). Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
a word is missing: technological I will comment at Daniele's blog. Otherwise he cannot claim the paternity of Cold Fusion, or of Ni-H LENR. Peter On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:10 PM, SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-04-15 03:01, Jed Rothwell wrote: I assume this part is accurately translated: So there were two parallel lines of research: on one side, the deuterium and palladium people, who never got anything . . .[...] Yes, it is. Several people on discussion boards I read on the matter have criticized that excerpt from the original audio interview for the same reasons (and also, because in my opinion it reinforces skeptics' argument that FP' experiments were a scam. Many still think that). Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Re Bonsai ecats
I have asked: Dear Ing. Rossi, It was some dispute between your supporters regarding the minimum size of the E-cat generator- 2.5 kW? Do you mean that smaller sizes are impossible to manufacture for some technical reason or only not practical or notefficient? Again metaphoricallly, bonsai E-kittens or cat babies are excluded, or just not interesting technologically? I imagine that you had and can manufacture miniatural generators if you wish- for special applications (?) Thank you! Peter (also Ing. – from 1959) And Andrea Rossi has answered- very promptly, politely and correctly, in my opnion: Dear Ing. Peter Gluck: Good question. At the moment I am not focused on bonsai-ecats, and there are difficulties to be overcame. Theoretically such difficulties could be resolved, I think. At the moment the focus is on the industrial applications, because the market is there, now. But our RD will arrive also to try to make good results with very small amounts of reactants. It is not easy, but I think is not impossible. Now I am focused on my 1 MW unit, but we’ll talk again about the important issue you put a spotlight on. Warm Regards, A.R. That's it! -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
On january 2010 A new energy source they say that the isotpic ratio of Cu is nearly natural background. Source: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf On March 2010 they correct it and say that isotopic ration of Cu is different from background. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
RE: [Vo]:The Best Way to Avoid Infringement
From Robin: ... In reply to Wm. Scott Smith's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:13:42 -0700: Hi, [snip] If they immediately have virtually free energy, but no new goods and services have been already developed, the economy will feel the extra money; this will cause inflation. Yes, I believe it could... at least initially. However... it would simultaneously stimulate the economy through increased spending. Kind of like getting a massive tax rebate. This will cause the economy to want to product more products, which in turn increases the supply of products and services. Eventually a new supply and balance equilibrium will be created, stabilizing inflation. If I understand inflation correctly, then it's when the price goes up without a matching increase in actual value (price may also be the price of labor). IMO, the questions that should be pondered are: (1) what mechanisms drive the price of a product to go up, and (2) what's happening to the status productivity while currency is maintained as a fixed supply? I would simplify the definition of inflation as simply meaning it occurs when there is too much money chasing too few products and services. Increased supplies of money, while simultaneously maintaining a fixed supply of products and services, automatically generates an artificial increase in demand for products and services. This results in price increases through the supply and demand equation - aka inflation. The solution to keeping inflation at bay is to increase productivity (increases in supply of products and services) in more-or-less direct proportion with increases in the supply of currency. The implementation of automation, as has often been discussed within the Vort Collective, throws a vexing wrench into the productivity equation since the traditional use of labor as a means of spreading productivity throughout society is being removed. What to do with all that surplus labor needs to be addressed. IMHO, the solution is to create new products consumers want to buy along with new forms of services... particularly new services that in the past might have been perceived as non-existent and/or considered irrelevant and/or unproductive, like the National Association of Professional Video Game Players - The NAPVGP. The solutions: Either print less money - or take it out of circulation such as with the recent mortgage lending fiasco. (which generates extremely unpleasant side-effects - recessions and depressions), or produce more products and services while keeping the supply of currency more-or-less fixed. The best solution, IMHO, is to increase the supply currency in direct proportion to increased supplies of products and services. However, this is often a difficult thing to manage since it would seem to be nearly impossible to accurately interpret the status of just how productive the country really is at any given moment in time. However when something actually gets cheaper to produce (energy), then the consequence is real growth, not inflation. I would agree with this assessment. I would also add that this interpretation is the equivalent of producing more products while keeping the supply of money stable. Decreasing the amount of energy needed to create the product would certainly do that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
The simplest explanation of this contradiction is that they do not want to tell what the isotopic ratio of Cu is- and will not tell till the scientific report of the Bologna Univ. is published. Unnnatural, natural? The first is a mistery at the 2nd power, the other a mystery at the 3rd power. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.comwrote: On january 2010 A new energy source they say that the isotpic ratio of Cu is nearly natural background. Source: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf On March 2010 they correct it and say that isotopic ration of Cu is different from background. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Another perspective on feasible Ni-H reations
I originally proposed the following reactions as justifying the Rossi results: 58Ni28 + p* -- 59Cu29 * -- 59Ni28 + neutrino 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Zn30 * -- 60Ni28 + 2 neutrinos 60Ni28 + p* -- 61Cu29 * -- 61Ni28 + neutrino 61Ni28 + p* -- 62Cu29 * -- 62Ni28 + neutrino 62Ni28 + p* -- 63Cu29 64Ni28 + p* -- 65Cu29 This has the now obvious problem of producing radioactive 59Ni, via the first reaction. Is there any potential reason only the second reaction should be probable? Yes. The reason is the same reason behind my suggestion that nuclear catalytic reactions may be responsible for the bulk of D+D--4He (net) reactions in Pd, as described here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt in association with reports C and D. Since few people read linked references, here is the important part of what is said in regards to those reports: Quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Report C, including 288 reactions in 20 pages, 44 kB, demonstrates 3- body nuclear catalytic LENR reactions, which can more simply just be be called “nuclear catalytic reactions”, or NCRs, a new class of LENR reaction proposed by this author. This class of reaction may provide a fundamental new understanding of how hydrogen fusion most often occurs in a lattice, by use of the lattice heavy element nuclei as catalysts. A given hydrogen atom is much closer to lattice element nuclei than to any other hydrogen atom in the lattice. If a hydrogen nucleus is in the deflated state, it is much more probable it will tunnel to a lattice nucleus than to the site of another hydrogen nucleus which is much further away. Tunneling distance is in an exponential term of the tunneling probability. The lattice nucleus can thus act as a catalyst for multiple simultaneous deuteron reactions which would otherwise not be feasible under less than extreme loading conditions. In that magnetic gradients are necessary to the tunneling of deflated state nuclei, and thus heavy element LENR, it is therefore also true that magnetic gradients are important to n-body heavy element catalytic LENR. High magnetic fields are also important to deflation fusion because it tends to spin align the deflated nucleus and thus improve spin coupling binding energy. While only 3-body reactions of the type: X + 2 D* -- X + Y were selected for Report C, it is also true that many more (n+1)-body catalytic reactions of the form: X + n D* -- X + Y can be found in Report A, and reactions solely of that type are in Report D. It is likely that 3-body catalytic reactions, rather than n- body reactions, n 3, dominate heavy element catalyzed LENR, so Report C was created to show only those reactions, though it is very boring as they are all exactly of the form: X + 2 D* -- X + 4He2 + 23.847 MeV What notably changes is the energy deficit due to deflated electrons. It appears elements heavier than tin can be expected to be capable of weak reactions and heavy element transmutation LENR. It is especially notable that no equivalent report is feasible for the strong force catalytic reactions: X + 2 p* --- X + Z because no such reactions are feasible producing stable Z, because pp is not a stable particle. This makes for a significant difference between light water and heavy water experiments. Light water experiments are not capable of heavy element catalytic LENR unless weak reactions follow the creation of the compound nucleus. This makes such reactions rare. It is feasible for X + n p* -- X + Z heavy element transmutation reactions to occur via strong force reactions, but only in the cases n 2, or the cases of reactions of the form X + 2 p* -- Y + H. It is important to note that X + 2 p* -- Y + H is energetically not the same as: X + p* -- Y because the negative energy due to the two catalytic electrons in the former greatly exceeds the negative energy provided by the single catalytic electron in the later reaction. Further, two additional bodies are available to carry off kinetic energy. For example, consider the two reactions: 26Mg12 + p* -- 27Al13 + 8.271 MeV [3.663 MeV] 26Mg12 + 2 p* -- 27Al13 + 1H1 + 8.271 MeV [-1.593 MeV] The trapping energy of the extra deflated electron provides a strong catalytic influence due to the initial negative reaction energy, i.e. due to deflated electron binding energy immediaely post fusion. Report D, 136 kB, including 2,016 reactions in 94 pages, provides all the energetically feasible X + n D* -- X + Z Reactions, for n = 1 to 4. These are in the set of all n-body heavy element nuclear catalytic LENR reactions, a new class of reaction. Note the preponderance of negative energies in brackets for the heaviest lattice elements. This indicates good prospects for subsequent weak reactions when these heavy elements are in the lattice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: [Vo]:Re Bonsai ecats
Rossi wrote: . . . our RD will arrive also to try to make good results with very small amounts of reactants. It is not easy, but I think is not impossible. That's good! This does not contradict his previous statement, it clarifies it. Many of Rossi's assertions seem like misdirection or lies because of the medium. He is answering complicated questions with short e-mail messages. It is like giving a physics lecture via twitter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest explanation of this contradiction is that they do not want to tell what the isotopic ratio of Cu is No, the simplest explanation is that they are having difficulty doing mass spectroscopy, and they keep getting conflicting results. Many people do, even experienced researchers at major universities. Mizuno used to send a sample to three different groups of experts and get three different answers. With some samples, that is. It depends on the element, the extent of the shift, and the type of spectrometer. Some shifts are large and easily detected. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re Bonsai ecats
I agree. It was only the impossibility to make generators 2.5 KW what I could not accept. peter On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi wrote: . . . our RD will arrive also to try to make good results with very small amounts of reactants. It is not easy, but I think is not impossible. That's good! This does not contradict his previous statement, it clarifies it. Many of Rossi's assertions seem like misdirection or lies because of the medium. He is answering complicated questions with short e-mail messages. It is like giving a physics lecture via twitter. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
SHIRAKAWA Akira wrote: I assume this part is accurately translated: So there were two parallel lines of research: on one side, the deuterium and palladium people, who never got anything . . .[...] Yes, it is. Several people on discussion boards I read on the matter have criticized that excerpt from the original audio interview for the same reasons . . . But Peter Gluck wrote: . . . one word is missing: 'technological.' What do you mean by missing word? Did Focardi say this and it is missing from the translation? Or did he fail to say this and he should have? If he said it, I judged him too harshly. I hope that is what he meant, in any case. You see that he is outspoken and he says all kinds of things, including stuff better left unsaid. Maybe he was just exaggerating, or mouthing off. It is hard to believe he does not know there have been positive results from palladium. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
On Apr 15, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote: On january 2010 A new energy source they say that the isotpic ratio of Cu is nearly natural background. Source: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf On March 2010 they correct it and say that isotopic ration of Cu is different from background. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi- Focardi_paper.pdf I see their paper has the same typo mine did, namely: p + e -- n + v' which should read: p + e -- n + v It is a natural mistake to make and overlook, partly because the reverse reaction creates an antineutrino. The important statement referenced must be: These allowed us the determination of the ratio Cu63/Cu65=1,6 different from the value (2,24) relative to the copper isotopic natural composition. This shows an enrichment in Cu65 abundance over natural abundance. The article seems to ignore the huge signatures of radioactive products that should be in the ash. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
What you say means NO reliable measurements can be made. Take please a look at the Web for *Ni isotope measurements*. Inductively coupled mass spectrometry is very performant, even the small variations in natural abundance of the Ni isotopes can be measured and evaluated. If you wish I can found you an analytical lab relatively near to Atlanta and you could ask them about precision and price both for Ni and Cu. I can ask at my former workplace- however they have worked mainly with lighter elements/isotopes. Peter On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest explanation of this contradiction is that they do not want to tell what the isotopic ratio of Cu is No, the simplest explanation is that they are having difficulty doing mass spectroscopy, and they keep getting conflicting results. Many people do, even experienced researchers at major universities. Mizuno used to send a sample to three different groups of experts and get three different answers. With some samples, that is. It depends on the element, the extent of the shift, and the type of spectrometer. Some shifts are large and easily detected. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Peter Gluck wrote: What you say means NO reliable measurements can be made. Experts tell me that would depend on who is making them. Take please a look at the Web for *Ni isotope measurements*. Inductively coupled mass spectrometry is very performant . . . Is that the method Focardi used? In both studies? The fact is, we have contradictory reports. Focardi says one thing, Essen says another. There are two possibilities: 1. They are getting different answers from the same sample (or the same type of sample) because one of them is doing mass spectroscopy incorrectly. 2. The sample they sent to Essen is fake. I discount explanation #2. I cannot think of any reason why they would bother to do that. If they didn't want him to learn the nature of the material, they would politely refused to send him anything. They would not go to the trouble of sending a carefully dummied-up fake sample. These people are busy and do not have time for such elaborate deceptions. Furthermore, why would they send him a fake sample that calls into question their claims, with natural isotopes? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Another perspective on feasible Ni-H reactions
Horace An immediate response is this: if that if two deflated protons can get together in such a way as in the second reaction - then why would they not simply emerge as deuterium most of the time? i.e. a deflated version of P-e-P ? You tend to subscribe to Ockham more than me, so why not go with the simplest alternative? As a magic number and extremely stable nucleus - Ni -- Zn seems to be so unnecessary. Jones I originally proposed the following reactions as justifying the Rossi results: 58Ni28 + p* -- 59Cu29 * -- 59Ni28 + neutrino 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Zn30 * -- 60Ni28 + 2 neutrinos 60Ni28 + p* -- 61Cu29 * -- 61Ni28 + neutrino 61Ni28 + p* -- 62Cu29 * -- 62Ni28 + neutrino 62Ni28 + p* -- 63Cu29 64Ni28 + p* -- 65Cu29 This has the now obvious problem of producing radioactive 59Ni, via the first reaction. Is there any potential reason only the second reaction should be probable? Yes.
Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
On 2011-04-15 16:04, Jed Rothwell wrote: But Peter Gluck wrote: . . . one word is missing: 'technological.' What do you mean by missing word? Did Focardi say this and it is missing from the translation? Or did he fail to say this and he should have? He didn't say that in the interview and in retrospect he should have. I don't believe he really thinks there haven't been positive results from Pd-D LENR research, he was more referring to their scale. In that sense he is somewhat right that the difference between those and his/Rossi's is so large that in practical terms other researchers haven't got anything so far. You see that he is outspoken and he says all kinds of things, including stuff better left unsaid. Maybe he was just exaggerating, or mouthing off. It is hard to believe he does not know there have been positive results from palladium. It was a very informal interview on a local radio station (located in Bologna) with people that he already knew and already invited him a few times in the past months. Focardi probably didn't expect that an international audience would dissect it word by word, so he spoke without filters as he, reportedly, usually does. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
I don't suppose Essen took a look at the geometry of the sample? It would be telling to examine the composition with an electron microscope. T
[Vo]:unsubscribe
[Vo]:Deflated P-e-P
There could be a reason why Horace's deflated fusion model doesn't work with only hydrogen- IOW a version of the proton fusion reaction - leading to deuterium; BUT if it can fit, then it provides many clear advantages to a Rossi-type of device, and cannot be ruled-out simply because the inventor thinks otherwise. As for expectations based on what has been reported: They seem to match, since some slight radioactivity (with a built-in time delay) would be expected - due to eventual deuterium fusion, once enough deuterium shows up ... and to Rothwell's delight (and Krivit's embarrassment), since in the end the Rossi effect could still be hydrogen fusion followed by a delayed deuterium fusion reaction. If some radioactivity is seen, most of it could be from tritium - but it might take weeks for it to show. This seems to explain reported results. To put this into a Universal perspective - you must appreciate that the most common reaction in the universe is the fusion of two protons into deuterium, releasing a positron and a neutrino as one proton changes into a neutron. Life on earth is absolutely dependent on this reaction. H + H → D + e+(positron) + neutrino + .42 MeV The reaction is extremely slow, even in the gravity well of a solar-sized mass - because the protons must tunnel through an 'unmasked' Coulomb barrier, which presumably would be absent - in the deflated model of a trapped electron. IOW the Coulomb barrier would be attenuated by the deflation, allowing a greatly enhanced rate. Warm and sunny regards, Dr. Pepper -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Horace An immediate response is this: if that if two deflated protons can get together in such a way as in the second reaction - then why would they not simply emerge as deuterium most of the time? i.e. a deflated version of P-e-P ?
RE: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P
In addition to the fusion of deflated hydrogen, there is an alternative in the possible fusion of IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen). The difference between the two, as I understand it is that IRH is trapped in 2D (two dimensions) on a dielectric surface via 'mirror charge' while according to Horace, the deflated hydrogen has its electron trapped in or near the nucleus, and a dielectric is not necessary. In fact, the two might be related or even identical, once everything is understood. You can include in that category: the deeply-redundant hydrino. ... but many metal oxide surfaces present a “Lawandy-type” dielectric for accumulation of ultra dense hydrogen IRH. This could be the predecessor state for a modified P-e-P reaction and it would need to be different in a number of details (such as: what happens to the positron). IRH has been seen on zirconia, iron-oxide and nickel-oxide. This paper by Miley is very important. He has actually documented the species. www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHclusterswi.pdf From there on, the we can posit that hydrogen fuses into deuterium either using energy borrowed from the zero point field or not, but in the end the ash is deuterium, and this provides the falsifiability. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene There could be a reason why Horace's deflated fusion model doesn't work with only hydrogen- IOW a version of the proton fusion reaction - leading to deuterium; BUT if it can fit, then it provides many clear advantages to a Rossi-type of device, and cannot be ruled-out simply because the inventor thinks otherwise. As for expectations based on what has been reported: They seem to match, since some slight radioactivity (with a built-in time delay) would be expected - due to eventual deuterium fusion, once enough deuterium shows up ... and to Rothwell's delight (and Krivit's embarrassment), since in the end the Rossi effect could still be hydrogen fusion followed by a delayed deuterium fusion reaction. If some radioactivity is seen, most of it could be from tritium - but it might take weeks for it to show. This seems to explain reported results. To put this into a Universal perspective - you must appreciate that the most common reaction in the universe is the fusion of two protons into deuterium, releasing a positron and a neutrino as one proton changes into a neutron. Life on earth is absolutely dependent on this reaction. H + H → D + e+(positron) + neutrino + .42 MeV The reaction is extremely slow, even in the gravity well of a solar-sized mass - because the protons must tunnel through an 'unmasked' Coulomb barrier, which presumably would be absent - in the deflated model of a trapped electron. IOW the Coulomb barrier would be attenuated by the deflation, allowing a greatly enhanced rate. Warm and sunny regards, Dr. Pepper -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Horace An immediate response is this: if that if two deflated protons can get together in such a way as in the second reaction - then why would they not simply emerge as deuterium most of the time? i.e. a deflated version of P-e-P ?
[Vo]:Op-Ed news -- not Main Stream Media, but it's a start
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Fusion-Revolution-by-Christopher-Calder-110409-21.html Fairly good summary. Christopher Calder is an advocate for world food supply security with no financial interest in any energy related business. ... Unlike the notoriously flawed cold fusion experiments using deuterium and palladium conducted by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989, Rossi's invention is decidedly hot in that the reactor yields generous amounts of reliable heat. The reaction is so powerful that even a first year engineering student could easily measure the E-Cat's healthy net energy gain. We therefore know with certainty that the E-Cat's energy is real and not an illusion created by measuring error, a possibility that haunted the work of Pons and Fleischmann. In some tests E-Cats have continued to produce stable heat output for very long periods of time even after all energy inputs were switched off. Sherlock Holmes would ask what are the odds that Rossi, Focardi, and Levi could all go insane at the same time, deciding to throw away their reputations, careers, and scientific legacies by endorsing a fraudulent energy scheme. How could a public test closely observed by 50 scientists be faked? The E-Cat produced so much energy that if the power had come from the wall socket, the power cord would have melted. No tiny hidden battery could have possibly unleashed so much energy, and the small amount of hydrogen gas consumed during the reactor test was independently measured at less than 1 gram, thus simple combustion is ruled out as an energy source. Overall hydrogen consumption for the E-Cat is estimated at 0.01 grams of hydrogen to produce 10 kilowatt hours of heat. The only reasonable explanation for the excess energy produced is some form of low energy nuclear reaction (LENR). Thus, no matter how improbable it is that Rossi and others have discovered a new field of physics, it must be true according to the practical logic of Sherlock Holmes. ...
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
I guess Focardi must have meant there has been no significant technological progress. After all, he did mention Fleischmann's explosion. (He has it going the wrong direction.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P
On Apr 15, 2011, at 7:38 AM, Jones Beene wrote: There could be a reason why Horace's deflated fusion model doesn't work with only hydrogen- The model works fine. The model explains heavy element fusion as well. It is p-p or p-e-p that does not occur with observable, but not because the model does not work. More comments below. IOW a version of the proton fusion reaction - leading to deuterium; BUT if it can fit, then it provides many clear advantages to a Rossi-type of device, and cannot be ruled-out simply because the inventor thinks otherwise. As for expectations based on what has been reported: They seem to match, since some slight radioactivity (with a built-in time delay) would be expected - due to eventual deuterium fusion, once enough deuterium shows up ... and to Rothwell's delight (and Krivit's embarrassment), since in the end the Rossi effect could still be hydrogen fusion followed by a delayed deuterium fusion reaction. If some radioactivity is seen, most of it could be from tritium - but it might take weeks for it to show. This seems to explain reported results. To put this into a Universal perspective - you must appreciate that the most common reaction in the universe is the fusion of two protons into deuterium, releasing a positron and a neutrino as one proton changes into a neutron. Life on earth is absolutely dependent on this reaction. H + H → D + e+(positron) + neutrino + .42 MeV The reaction is extremely slow, even in the gravity well of a solar- sized mass - because the protons must tunnel through an 'unmasked' Coulomb barrier, which presumably would be absent - in the deflated model of a trapped electron. IOW the Coulomb barrier would be attenuated by the deflation, allowing a greatly enhanced rate. Warm and sunny regards, Dr. Pepper -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Horace An immediate response is this: if that if two deflated protons can get together in such a way as in the second reaction - then why would they not simply emerge as deuterium most of the time? i.e. a deflated version of P-e-P ? Weak reactions take much longer then strong reactions. THe key to deflation fusion, when it comes to weak reactions, is the strong reaction occurs first, giving the weak reaction time to occur if there is an energy deficit, by trapping the electron. I say this in my paper. Proton pairs don't bind by the strong force, so this eliminates the prospect for the follow-on weak reaction, at least at readily observable levels. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium Helium-2 is a hypothetical isotope of helium which according to theoretical calculations would have existed if the strong force had been 2% greater. This atom would have two protons without any neutrons. A diproton (or helium-2, symbol 2He) is a hypothetical type of helium nucleus consisting of two protons and no neutrons. Diprotons are not stable; this is due to spin-spin interactions in the nuclear force, and the Pauli exclusion principle, which forces the two protons to have anti-aligned spins and gives the diproton a negative binding energy.[7] I also explain why the deflated state does not form with measurable probability in plasma. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P
Horace, Proton pairs don't bind by the strong force, so this eliminates the prospect for the follow-on weak reaction, at least at readily observable levels. Well - They can bind for an indeterminate period, according to Nyman. http://dipole.se/ Go down to Strong Force between Two Protons. Simulations made with two different kinds of physics software show the following: 1) Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the time. 2) Two protons shot at each other will repel each other most of the time. 3) However, it is occasionally possible to shoot protons at each other with the right speed and quark positions so that they latch on to each other - held in place by the Strong Force. Jones
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
I am surprised no one else has picked up on this. This part of the Focardi interview is likely to put the President of Greece and the Min. of Energy in the hot seat: it was easy to convince the Greek President, the minister... Consequently Greece has signed a contract with Rossi and can build these devices. I suppose the press will hear of this, and will be asking questions. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 06:17 PM 4/14/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'll say it, Rossi is probably real. I would say almost certainly real. But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to totally avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, we'd fool ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people. A loss. Well said. I agree. I personally agree with both statements ... but at present I have to go with : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v320.php The December/January experiments were too short to rule out ANY of these theoretical fakes. But if Levi's informal reports on the February trial are accepted, then ALL chemical fakes are eliminated. However, neither the January or February reports rule out a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake. The March report probably rules out a Tarallo fake -- but since the Horizontal arm was NOT unwrapped, it does NOT rule out all chemical fakes. At present the Rossi eCat has NOT been proven to be real. However, a few simple improvements to the experimental setup will almost certainly do that. Here's hoping that Kullander and Essén close the remaining loopholes in their anticipated new test.
Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
On 2011-04-15 21:07, Jed Rothwell wrote: I am surprised no one else has picked up on this. This part of the Focardi interview is likely to put the President of Greece and the Min. of Energy in the hot seat: [...] Does it? Personally when I heard that in the original audio I assumed what Focardi said was a huge simplification of what actually went on between Stremmenos and the Greek government. But you're right, I guess the press would like to hear the details about that. By the way, I think that has something to do with Nickel mining, of which Greece is number 1 in Europe (excluding Russia). Having nickel powder production on site where it's produced would be quite convenient, I suppose, and I guess special permits would be needed. If Rossi's reactor will be successful, expanded Nickel mining alone would bring a lot of needed new jobs that the government might want to regulate. Also if this will actually happen, the Greek government might want to tax nickel used in E-cat power production to account for the loss of revenues due to the decrease of hydrocarbon usage. Maybe this is what Focardi was referring about in a few words. There has been a post about that on Passerini's blog last week, with a nice and in my opinion informative discussion among users (in Italian only, unfortunately): http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/estrazione-di-nickel-nel-mondo.html Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:An Optical Battery
http://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=8368 April 13, 2011 Solar power without solar cells: A hidden magnetic effect of light could make it possible ANN ARBOR, Mich.—A dramatic and surprising magnetic effect of light discovered by University of Michigan researchers could lead to solar power without traditional semiconductor-based solar cells. The researchers found a way to make an “optical battery,” said Stephen Rand, a professor in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Physics and Applied Physics. In the process, they overturned a century-old tenet of physics. “You could stare at the equations of motion all day and you will not see this possibility. We’ve all been taught that this doesn’t happen,” said Rand, an author of a paper on the work published in the Journal of Applied Physics. “It’s a very odd interaction. That’s why it’s been overlooked for more than 100 years.” Light has electric and magnetic components. Until now, scientists thought the effects of the magnetic field were so weak that they could be ignored. What Rand and his colleagues found is that at the right intensity, when light is traveling through a material that does not conduct electricity, the light field can generate magnetic effects that are 100 million times stronger than previously expected. Under these circumstances, the magnetic effects develop strength equivalent to a strong electric effect. “This could lead to a new kind of solar cell without semiconductors and without absorption to produce charge separation,” Rand said. “In solar cells, the light goes into a material, gets absorbed and creates heat. Here, we expect to have a very low heat load. Instead of the light being absorbed, energy is stored in the magnetic moment. Intense magnetization can be induced by intense light and then it is ultimately capable of providing a capacitive power source.” What makes this possible is a previously undetected brand of “optical rectification,” says William Fisher, a doctoral student in applied physics. In traditional optical rectification, light’s electric field causes a charge separation, or a pulling apart of the positive and negative charges in a material. This sets up a voltage, similar to that in a battery. This electric effect had previously been detected only in crystalline materials that possessed a certain symmetry. Rand and Fisher found that under the right circumstances and in other types of materials, the light’s magnetic field can also create optical rectification. “It turns out that the magnetic field starts curving the electrons into a C-shape and they move forward a little each time,” Fisher said. “That C-shape of charge motion generates both an electric dipole and a magnetic dipole. If we can set up many of these in a row in a long fiber, we can make a huge voltage and by extracting that voltage, we can use it as a power source.” The light must be shone through a material that does not conduct electricity, such as glass. And it must be focused to an intensity of 10 million watts per square centimeter. Sunlight isn’t this intense on its own, but new materials are being sought that would work at lower intensities, Fisher said. “In our most recent paper, we show that incoherent light like sunlight is theoretically almost as effective in producing charge separation as laser light is,” Fisher said. This new technique could make solar power cheaper, the researchers say. They predict that with improved materials they could achieve 10 percent efficiency in converting solar power to useable energy. That’s equivalent to today’s commercial-grade solar cells. “To manufacture modern solar cells, you have to do extensive semiconductor processing,” Fisher said. “All we would need are lenses to focus the light and a fiber to guide it. Glass works for both. It’s already made in bulk, and it doesn’t require as much processing. Transparent ceramics might be even better.” In experiments this summer, the researchers will work on harnessing this power with laser light, and then with sunlight. The paper is titled “Optically-induced charge separation and terahertz emission in unbiased dielectrics.” The university is pursuing patent protection for the intellectual property. end T
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Could another variable be the amount of time that the ash spends in the Rossi reactor? When the Reaction first begins, the isotopic ratios could be random in the same way that a few samples among a population will produce widely varied statistics. But when the reactor runs for a very long time, the isotopic ratios begin to resolve around a natural distribution, much like a large statistical sample will produce a reliable description of a large population. The isotopic ratios might all depend (as a function of time) on the way the ash was produced. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest explanation of this contradiction is that they do not want to tell what the isotopic ratio of Cu is- and will not tell till the scientific report of the Bologna Univ. is published. Unnnatural, natural? The first is a mistery at the 2nd power, the other a mystery at the 3rd power. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.comwrote: On january 2010 A new energy source they say that the isotpic ratio of Cu is nearly natural background. Source: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf On March 2010 they correct it and say that isotopic ration of Cu is different from background. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
What I wanted to say with the missing word technological? The truth is that Pd-D LENR has contributed to science but has not succeeded to become an energy source. If it ever will, that's an open question but in the spirit of fairness you cannot tell that Pd- D is nothing. The second non-ethical aspect in Focardi's discourse was that he well knows that Piantelii is the leading scientist in the field of Ni-H but he just mentioned en passant about Habel *and *Piantelli, as somebody of no importance. Peter On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:32 PM, SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-04-15 16:04, Jed Rothwell wrote: But Peter Gluck wrote: . . . one word is missing: 'technological.' What do you mean by missing word? Did Focardi say this and it is missing from the translation? Or did he fail to say this and he should have? He didn't say that in the interview and in retrospect he should have. I don't believe he really thinks there haven't been positive results from Pd-D LENR research, he was more referring to their scale. In that sense he is somewhat right that the difference between those and his/Rossi's is so large that in practical terms other researchers haven't got anything so far. You see that he is outspoken and he says all kinds of things, including stuff better left unsaid. Maybe he was just exaggerating, or mouthing off. It is hard to believe he does not know there have been positive results from palladium. It was a very informal interview on a local radio station (located in Bologna) with people that he already knew and already invited him a few times in the past months. Focardi probably didn't expect that an international audience would dissect it word by word, so he spoke without filters as he, reportedly, usually does. Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P
From Jones: ... 3) However, it is occasionally possible to shoot protons at each other with the right speed and quark positions so that they latch on to each other - held in place by the Strong Force. Without one of the protons converting into a neutron? I thought that was impossible. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
When the Reaction first begins, the isotopic ratios could be random No. Isotopic ratio from natural background is constant, with low deviation. in the same way that a few samples among a population will produce widely varied statistics. Check how many atoms (and isotopes) are contained inside 1g of matter. the isotopic ratios begin to resolve around a natural distribution This is non-sense. A nuclear reaction should produce non-natural distributions. From: Axil Axil Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat) Could another variable be the amount of time that the ash spends in the Rossi reactor? When the Reaction first begins, the isotopic ratios could be random in the same way that a few samples among a population will produce widely varied statistics. But when the reactor runs for a very long time, the isotopic ratios begin to resolve around a natural distribution, much like a large statistical sample will produce a reliable description of a large population. The isotopic ratios might all depend (as a function of time) on the way the ash was produced. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest explanation of this contradiction is that they do not want to tell what the isotopic ratio of Cu is- and will not tell till the scientific report of the Bologna Univ. is published. Unnnatural, natural? The first is a mistery at the 2nd power, the other a mystery at the 3rd power. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: On january 2010 A new energy source they say that the isotpic ratio of Cu is nearly natural background. Source: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf On March 2010 they correct it and say that isotopic ration of Cu is different from background. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Could the protons be fusing into Helium (perhaps providing some of the heat), and then the Helium burning? -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 1:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat) From: Mattia Rizzi the isotopic ratios begin to resolve around a natural distribution This is non-sense. A nuclear reaction should produce non-natural distributions. Yes. It is clear from the Swedish analysis that this is CANNOT be a nuclear of reaction of nickel at all. Nickel certainly can provide a good matrix in which protons fuse into deuterium. This seems to be the only conceivable way that the metal can maintain a natural distribution, and yet participate in the large amount of gain (in a non-nuclear way). If there is anything nuclear, and the metal isotope distribution is natural - then it is almost a guarantee that it must involve only hydrogen, no metal. This conclusion is falsifiable.
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Thank you for your insight. “If there is anything nuclear, and the metal isotope distribution is natural – then it is almost a guarantee that it must involve only hydrogen, no metal.” This is probable true. Would it not be ironic that the fusion/fission of just hydrogen produces nickel and copper without nickel entering into the reaction in any way, contray to what Rossi thinks? I am surprised that you are not well versed in the work of the LENR team: Dr H. Hora, and Dr. G.H. Miley. From a large volume of LENR experimental results, Dr Miley has developed a theory of LENR transmutation that predicts this natural abundance of isotopes around the magic atomic numbers of 2, 6, 14, 28, 50, 82, 126… Now, 28 is the atomic number of nickel, and the fission of the super atom formed during the fusion of many atoms will result in an array of elements that cluster around peaks defined by these magic numbers: 2 – helium 6 – carbon 14 – silicon 28 – nickel There will be many transmutation events producing nickel whose atomic number (A) is 28, but also some lesser amounts producing copper (A = 29) and even less zinc (A = 30). On the other side of the Boltzmann quark distribution described by the expression N(Z) = N’ exp (-Z/Z’) where Z’ = 10. You get more cobalt (A = 27) and even less Iron (A = 26). All these elements have been seen is Rossi ash. Around the lower order magic numbers carbon (A = 6) and silicon(A = 14) are clustered the following elements: 8 - Oxygen 9 - Fluorine(captured to form fluorides) 10 - Neon (outgased ?) 11 - Sodium 12 - Magnesium 13- Silicon (mentioned as ash) 14 - Phosphorus 15 – Sulfur (mentioned as ash) 16 – Chlorine (mentioned as ash) 17 – Argon (outgased ?) 18 – Potassium (mentioned as ash) 19 – Calcium (mentioned as ash) A further consequence of the LENR evaluation leads to the ratios R (n) (n = 1, 2, 3…) of the Boltzmann probabilities, namely R (n) = 3n. This suggests a threefold property of stable configurations at magic numbers in nuclei, consistent with a quark property. It is as if a large amount of hydrogen atoms form into a cold plasma go into a quantum mechanical blender and turned into a coherent quark soup. In an instant, when the quark soup fissions, this LENR process produces atoms whose isotopic character is the same as exists in nature. This is to be expected since the inherent properties of quarks define what comes out of the fission process. This LENR fission process is done so gently and at such low energies that no unstable (radioactive) elements are produced. Emitted X-rays energies correspond to the speeds of these various fission fragments rebounding away from the center of this fission process. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.comwrote: When the Reaction first begins, the isotopic ratios could be random No. Isotopic ratio from natural background is constant, with low deviation. in the same way that a few samples among a population will produce widely varied statistics. Check how many atoms (and isotopes) are contained inside 1g of matter. the isotopic ratios begin to resolve around a natural distribution This is non-sense. A nuclear reaction should produce non-natural distributions. *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2011 9:42 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat) Could another variable be the amount of time that the ash spends in the Rossi reactor? When the Reaction first begins, the isotopic ratios could be random in the same way that a few samples among a population will produce widely varied statistics. But when the reactor runs for a very long time, the isotopic ratios begin to resolve around a natural distribution, much like a large statistical sample will produce a reliable description of a large population. The isotopic ratios might all depend (as a function of time) on the way the ash was produced. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: The simplest explanation of this contradiction is that they do not want to tell what the isotopic ratio of Cu is- and will not tell till the scientific report of the Bologna Univ. is published. Unnnatural, natural? The first is a mistery at the 2nd power, the other a mystery at the 3rd power. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.comwrote: On january 2010 A new energy source they say that the isotpic ratio of Cu is nearly natural background. Source: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf On March 2010 they correct it and say that isotopic ration of Cu is different from background. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Perhaps the 'secret' catalyst is the Nickel and its catalyzing the fusion of H into He... -Mark _ From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 2:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat) Thank you for your insight. If there is anything nuclear, and the metal isotope distribution is natural - then it is almost a guarantee that it must involve only hydrogen, no metal. This is probable true. Would it not be ironic that the fusion/fission of just hydrogen produces nickel and copper without nickel entering into the reaction in any way, contray to what Rossi thinks? I am surprised that you are not well versed in the work of the LENR team: Dr H. Hora, and Dr. G.H. Miley. From a large volume of LENR experimental results, Dr Miley has developed a theory of LENR transmutation that predicts this natural abundance of isotopes around the magic atomic numbers of 2, 6, 14, 28, 50, 82, 126. Now, 28 is the atomic number of nickel, and the fission of the super atom formed during the fusion of many atoms will result in an array of elements that cluster around peaks defined by these magic numbers: 2 - helium 6 - carbon 14 - silicon 28 - nickel There will be many transmutation events producing nickel whose atomic number (A) is 28, but also some lesser amounts producing copper (A = 29) and even less zinc (A = 30). On the other side of the Boltzmann quark distribution described by the expression N(Z) = N' exp (-Z/Z') where Z' = 10. You get more cobalt (A = 27) and even less Iron (A = 26). All these elements have been seen is Rossi ash. Around the lower order magic numbers carbon (A = 6) and silicon(A = 14) are clustered the following elements: 8 - Oxygen 9 - Fluorine(captured to form fluorides) 10 - Neon (outgased ?) 11 - Sodium 12 - Magnesium 13- Silicon (mentioned as ash) 14 - Phosphorus 15 - Sulfur (mentioned as ash) 16 - Chlorine (mentioned as ash) 17 - Argon (outgased ?) 18 - Potassium (mentioned as ash) 19 - Calcium (mentioned as ash) A further consequence of the LENR evaluation leads to the ratios R (n) (n = 1, 2, 3.) of the Boltzmann probabilities, namely R (n) = 3n. This suggests a threefold property of stable configurations at magic numbers in nuclei, consistent with a quark property. It is as if a large amount of hydrogen atoms form into a cold plasma go into a quantum mechanical blender and turned into a coherent quark soup. In an instant, when the quark soup fissions, this LENR process produces atoms whose isotopic character is the same as exists in nature. This is to be expected since the inherent properties of quarks define what comes out of the fission process. This LENR fission process is done so gently and at such low energies that no unstable (radioactive) elements are produced. Emitted X-rays energies correspond to the speeds of these various fission fragments rebounding away from the center of this fission process. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: When the Reaction first begins, the isotopic ratios could be random No. Isotopic ratio from natural background is constant, with low deviation. in the same way that a few samples among a population will produce widely varied statistics. Check how many atoms (and isotopes) are contained inside 1g of matter. the isotopic ratios begin to resolve around a natural distribution This is non-sense. A nuclear reaction should produce non-natural distributions. From: Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat) Could another variable be the amount of time that the ash spends in the Rossi reactor? When the Reaction first begins, the isotopic ratios could be random in the same way that a few samples among a population will produce widely varied statistics. But when the reactor runs for a very long time, the isotopic ratios begin to resolve around a natural distribution, much like a large statistical sample will produce a reliable description of a large population. The isotopic ratios might all depend (as a function of time) on the way the ash was produced. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest explanation of this contradiction is that they do not want to tell what the isotopic ratio of Cu is- and will not tell till the scientific report of the Bologna Univ. is published. Unnnatural, natural? The first is a mistery at the 2nd power, the other a mystery at the 3rd power. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: On january 2010 A new energy source they say that the isotpic ratio of Cu is nearly natural background. Source: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf On March 2010 they correct it and say that isotopic ration of Cu is
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
As per my last post, helium is produced in large amounts because it is one of the magic number elements. But the fusion of helium is not required for the formation of the other elements in the Rossi ash. IMHO, at the current time, the catalytic interaction at the surface interfaces of a heterogeneous admixture of iron and nickel nano-particles produces a fusion/fission reaction of only hydrogen resulting in the isotopic ash distribution seen in the Rossi ash product. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Perhaps the 'secret' catalyst is the Nickel and its catalyzing the fusion of H into He... -Mark -- *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2011 2:11 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat) Thank you for your insight. “If there is anything nuclear, and the metal isotope distribution is natural – then it is almost a guarantee that it must involve only hydrogen, no metal.” This is probable true. Would it not be ironic that the fusion/fission of just hydrogen produces nickel and copper without nickel entering into the reaction in any way, contray to what Rossi thinks? I am surprised that you are not well versed in the work of the LENR team: Dr H. Hora, and Dr. G.H. Miley. From a large volume of LENR experimental results, Dr Miley has developed a theory of LENR transmutation that predicts this natural abundance of isotopes around the magic atomic numbers of 2, 6, 14, 28, 50, 82, 126… Now, 28 is the atomic number of nickel, and the fission of the super atom formed during the fusion of many atoms will result in an array of elements that cluster around peaks defined by these magic numbers: 2 – helium 6 – carbon 14 – silicon 28 – nickel There will be many transmutation events producing nickel whose atomic number (A) is 28, but also some lesser amounts producing copper (A = 29) and even less zinc (A = 30). On the other side of the Boltzmann quark distribution described by the expression N(Z) = N’ exp (-Z/Z’) where Z’ = 10. You get more cobalt (A = 27) and even less Iron (A = 26). All these elements have been seen is Rossi ash. Around the lower order magic numbers carbon (A = 6) and silicon(A = 14) are clustered the following elements: 8 - Oxygen 9 - Fluorine(captured to form fluorides) 10 - Neon (outgased ?) 11 - Sodium 12 - Magnesium 13- Silicon (mentioned as ash) 14 - Phosphorus 15 – Sulfur (mentioned as ash) 16 – Chlorine (mentioned as ash) 17 – Argon (outgased ?) 18 – Potassium (mentioned as ash) 19 – Calcium (mentioned as ash) A further consequence of the LENR evaluation leads to the ratios R (n) (n = 1, 2, 3…) of the Boltzmann probabilities, namely R (n) = 3n. This suggests a threefold property of stable configurations at magic numbers in nuclei, consistent with a quark property. It is as if a large amount of hydrogen atoms form into a cold plasma go into a quantum mechanical blender and turned into a coherent quark soup. In an instant, when the quark soup fissions, this LENR process produces atoms whose isotopic character is the same as exists in nature. This is to be expected since the inherent properties of quarks define what comes out of the fission process. This LENR fission process is done so gently and at such low energies that no unstable (radioactive) elements are produced. Emitted X-rays energies correspond to the speeds of these various fission fragments rebounding away from the center of this fission process. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.comwrote: When the Reaction first begins, the isotopic ratios could be random No. Isotopic ratio from natural background is constant, with low deviation. in the same way that a few samples among a population will produce widely varied statistics. Check how many atoms (and isotopes) are contained inside 1g of matter. the isotopic ratios begin to resolve around a natural distribution This is non-sense. A nuclear reaction should produce non-natural distributions. *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2011 9:42 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat) Could another variable be the amount of time that the ash spends in the Rossi reactor? When the Reaction first begins, the isotopic ratios could be random in the same way that a few samples among a population will produce widely varied statistics. But when the reactor runs for a very long time, the isotopic ratios begin to resolve around a natural distribution, much like a large statistical sample will produce a reliable description of a large population. The isotopic ratios might all depend (as a function of time) on the way the ash was produced. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Peter Gluck
RE: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P
Steven - the simulation does not go there. It is too complicated for me to say if the simulation is accurate or not. I like it, and have not found anything obviously wrong with it yet. Everyone interprets the shadows on Plato's cave in their own way If one doesn't mind admitting that he is, in effect, working backwards from real results- (which is the case here) and that the goal is trying to explain those anomalous results (of Rossi) in the most coherent way possible, then Nyman's SIM is the one key missing ingredient which would make the H - D reaction feasible; and it is clear that this is the ideal reaction which best fits the results. ... that does not indicate that it is correct - just that it could be the best available choice to date (of many unlikely scenarios) To continue the Sherlock imitation, and in going back over some old comments on the blog, it seems Focardi said early-on that deuterium kills the Rossi reaction. Now to my thinking, one way that he would know this is: if it had been a recurring problem and that they had figured out a way to the purge of deuterium periodically, as it accumulates. There is not much rationale for every even trying the two isotopes together, since D costs a million times more, and moreover - Focardi is a hydrogen man (protium) all the way. By that, I also mean since H works well on its own - no way do you waste time with D, since it can never make commercial sense, even if it improves the reaction rate by a large amount. Ergo, when someone mentions D at all in the context of a Ni-H demonstration - then it is probably because deuterium has been a recurring problem in the recent past! Get it? Or do you find that logic too convoluted? -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 3) However, it is occasionally possible to shoot protons at each other with the right speed and quark positions so that they latch on to each other - held in place by the Strong Force. Without one of the protons converting into a neutron? I thought that was impossible.
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Two major claims about Rossi's must be verified (cause and effect): 1. It is nuclear (the cause) 2. It gives far more thermal energy than consumed electrical energy so there is a commercial viability (the effect) An experiment should focus only on calorimetry since the claimed effect would be lots of heat . Let's forget the cause, at the moment. The simple question: Is the fire (really) hot? still needs to be answered. All other questions come afterwards. And since such experiment could be really simple, we should wonder why it was not done right away? Since the claim is a 200 ratio for out/in the following simple components could be used besides the E-cat, H2 gas tank and control box: 1) a (sealed) room without power outlet. 2) a number of car batteries that can provide the necessary but limited amount of energy 3) a tank full of water (how many cubic meters would be enough to avoid a reaction out of control?) well insulated (quasi adiabatic) 4) a simple liquid mixer (using power from a dedicated pack of batteries) Just connect the in and the out of the E-cat to the tank and measure the temperature in different points of the tank at regular intervals until batteries are exhausted. Check the level of water inside the tank stays the same. Weight everything before and after. At the end there should be a positive T increase and should be much more than the one that could be possibly generated by the batteries (even the mixer ones) and by burning the missing mass. mic 2011/4/15 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com: At 06:17 PM 4/14/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'll say it, Rossi is probably real. I would say almost certainly real. But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to totally avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, we'd fool ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people. A loss. Well said. I agree. I personally agree with both statements ... but at present I have to go with : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v320.php The December/January experiments were too short to rule out ANY of these theoretical fakes. But if Levi's informal reports on the February trial are accepted, then ALL chemical fakes are eliminated. However, neither the January or February reports rule out a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake. The March report probably rules out a Tarallo fake -- but since the Horizontal arm was NOT unwrapped, it does NOT rule out all chemical fakes. At present the Rossi eCat has NOT been proven to be real. However, a few simple improvements to the experimental setup will almost certainly do that. Here's hoping that Kullander and Essén close the remaining loopholes in their anticipated new test.
[Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
NOTES ON ROSSI DEVICE [This was previously titled What Rossi Says list) This list is not comprehensive. These are items I thought are significant. Sources are sometimes shown in parentheses after the item. SL = Shirakawa List, Focardi = Focardi radio interview, April 5, 2011 Some items are marked “CONTRADICTION” at the end, where two or more statements appear to contradict one another. To avoid confusion, the term “turn off” here refers to turning on or off the resistance heaters used to control the reactor. “Quench” means stop the reaction itself. There may be important comments in Italian in SL that I do not understand. Calorimetry is not addressed in detail here, since it has been discussed elsewhere. All statements by Rossi and Focardi are reported here, regardless of whether I or others suspect they may not be true. Questions from me are shown in square brackets. DEVICE CHARACTERISTICS The volume of the 15 kW reactor cell is about 1 liter. The smaller 4 kW reactor cell volume is ~50 ml. During the Feb. 10 test, the 15 kW reactor was operated for about 18 min. at ~130 kW. Smaller devices are safer to operate. The 1 MW (thermal) device will be made of many smaller ones ganged together. It was originally planned to be made up of ~130 10 kW units, where 30 were held in standby to replace or augment older ones as the power decreased. They now plan to use ~300 units. These cells (“modules” - Rossi) are designed to be connected in series and in parallel. (SL) Maintenance and operation is similar to that of a conventional boiler. (SL “normal boiler” comment) The minimum power of the e-Cat reactor unit is presently 2.5 kW, with the present design and engineering. Smaller units may be engineered in the future. These cells are made of stainless steel. In the mini-Rossi unit, the stainless steel cells are inside a larger copper pipe. Cooling water flows around the walls of the cell. The device does not produce gamma rays except for a slight increase over background (Rossi, SL) The device produced a large burst of gamma rays when it started up. (Celani) CONTRADICTION The device produces no radioactive nuclear ash. There may be intermediate radioactive products. “We are not able to know which instable atoms are produced DURING the operation of the reactor, but we can analyze the composition of the powders left AFTER the operations: in such powders we do not find instable elements.” (SL) The device requires 1-cm thick lead shielding, presumably for safety. DEVICE OPERATING PROCEDURES Minimal operating temperature is 400°C. (SL) The optimal operating temperature is 600°C. [RIGHT?] [WHAT IS THE PRESSURE?] The effect is triggered with resistance heaters. There are five in the 15 kW device. The reaction is modulated with the resistance heaters. The resistance heaters are high-powered trigger the reaction and then hours reduced to maintain it. The reaction can be made self-sustaining with the resistance heaters turned off. This was done in a preliminary test with U. Bologna professors. (SL) However, this mode is not recommended because it is unsafe and it is difficult to quench the reaction. There is a “risk of explosions” (SL). The device is inherently safe; “if you violate [safety rules] the reactor [quenches].” (SL) CONTRADICTION To ensure safety, Rossi prefers the control electronics be externally powered rather than powered by the device itself with a thermoelectric or a steam turbine generator. The input output ratio has been as high as 200 in recent tests; 80 W in 16 kW out, sustained, and it went over 1600 during the 130 kW burst. The ratio is “always over 6” (SL). (Footnote. I do not think the input/output ratio is meaningful for this device – Rothwell) The device will need maintenance and new nickel catalyst every six months. Picograms of Ni and H are consumed (SL) There are 100 g of nickel in the larger cell. There are “several milligrams” of Ni in the larger cell but “not all of the nickel in the reactor reacts.” (SL) [Could this mean nuclear active material?] The actual consumption to make 10 kW is about 0.1 g of nickel and 0.01 g of hydrogen per hour. This is the “mass of Ni that you need in the reactor” but not all of this actually reacts. “The efficiency is very low, due to the probabilistic issue.” (SL). The Ni lattice can be disrupted to a certain extent. (SL: “Does the integrity of the Ni lattice have to be maintained ? do damage, disruption, and melting impede the results? No, it is not necessary within certain limits.”) The effect can be quenched with the following methods: Where hydrogen is injected with electrolysis, stop electrolysis to cut off the supply of hydrogen. (Focardi) De-gas the cell. Inject N to displace the H. Increase the flow rate to cool the catalyst. (This may have to be done quickly, to induce a thermal shock – Rothwell) A small percentage (2% to 3%) of deuterium will quench the reaction. NICKEL CATALYST CHARACTERISTICS The
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On 2011-04-15 23:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: NOTES ON ROSSI DEVICE [...] Good job! I'll try collecting other questions/answers from various posts in Rossi's blog. I'll post them in this thread unsorted. By the way, I think the question/answer date is important and should not be taken out of context. The E-Cat apparently continuously evolved over time since January. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
The proper way to organize this type of data is through the use of a relational database. That is how systems engineers do it. The primary key would be the time of origination. The secondary keys could be calorimetry, nano-particle, ash product, isotopic ratio… MS access would be the simplest. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:58 PM, SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-04-15 23:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: NOTES ON ROSSI DEVICE [...] Good job! I'll try collecting other questions/answers from various posts in Rossi's blog. I'll post them in this thread unsorted. By the way, I think the question/answer date is important and should not be taken out of context. The E-Cat apparently continuously evolved over time since January. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On 2011-04-15 23:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: The 1 MW (thermal) device will be made of many smaller ones ganged together. It was originally planned to be made up of ~130 10 kW units, where 30 were held in standby to replace or augment older ones as the power decreased. They now plan to use ~300 units. Originally there were even less units planned: * * * Andrea Rossi March 26th, 2010 at 9:36 AM Yes, we are making a 1 MW power reactor constituted by 50 modules of 20 kw each[...] * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: Since the claim is a 200 ratio for out/in the following simple components could be used besides the E-cat, H2 gas tank and control box: 1) a (sealed) room without power outlet. 2) a number of car batteries that can provide the necessary but limited amount of energy This is not necessary. Power meters can be relied upon. Normal scientific instruments and procedures should be used to test this device. Carl Sagan was wrong. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof. They are best supported with ordinary evidence from off-the-shelf instruments and standard techniques. (MR) A test with batteries would be showboating in my opinion. It would be giving the skeptics and their unrealistic doubts more respect than they deserve. It is physically impossible for the wire used in this device to conduct more than ~3 kW. The wire would melt. Years ago, plug in electric heaters drew ~3 kW and the wires became very hot. Those were thick wires. Heaters nowadays are limited to 1.5 kW, or 12.5 amps. To be specific, from the photos I take this to be: 18 AWG, 1.0 mm, 2.3 max amps transmission, 16 amps chassis wiring. (Chassis wiring means a short stretch of uninsulated wiring inside a machine.) See: Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm It is preposterous to suggest that you could use this wire to conduct 16 kW at any voltage. Furthermore, Levi looked inside the box at the control electronics and found only 5 simple PLC (programmable logic control). Such devices are rated at one power level and will not work at far higher levels. They would burn up, along with the wire. Fletcher's scenarios are Just So Stories meaning that in real life we can dismiss them. The devices he describes are physically impossible. The people and instruments in his stories would have to react precisely the way he imagines they might -- the slightest variation in their actions or use of instruments would instantly reveal the fake nature of the device. One glance in the wrong direction, one touch of the wrong component, and all would be revealed. The observers would have to be hypnotized to follow Rossi's every instruction. His scenario demands that 50 or more highly experienced engineers and scientists suddenly forget how to do experiments, and how to take rudimentary common sense steps such as holding their hand briefly over the device to confirm it is radiating heat, and over the outlet tube to determine that it is warm. Three of the observers in the January 14 test assured me they did check the tube, and it was too hot to touch, therefore the reactor was definitely producing the level of heat the instruments indicated. The outlet tube would be stone cold in the scenarios Fletcher imagines. His scenarios also assumes that Rossi is a lunatic who has spent €1 million to produce a fake that will be completely revealed soon when they open up the cell and look inside. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On 2011-04-15 23:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: The effect can be quenched with the following methods: [...] Inject N to displace the H. Recently he added: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=64 * * * 2. I’ve read that you once had to stop the machine by insufflating nitrogen and that the E-cat has to be steered or controlled by electricity. What would happen if there’s a break in the supply of electricity ? would it then be necessary to stop the machine, and if so, how? Is there a need for an alternative supply of electricity to step in, in form of a (rechargeable) backup battery, in such situations? And would it be a safety step to replace the hydrogen tube with a nitrogen ditto in order to stop the process by an automatic valve which opens up when needed ? for ex if the machine becomes overheated? Andrea Rossi March 30th, 2011 at 7:00 PM Dear Mr Ake Ostlund: 1- when the powder has to be changed, as you correctly suggest, the hydrogen tube has to be disconnected 2-I neve insufflated Nytrogen. That info was wrong. If there is a black out, the E-Cat automatically stops, for lack of current: it is intrinsecally safe Warm Regards, * * * Ok, I'll post all of these in a list later, not going to create a new post each time, although I'm tempted. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:29:59 -0400: Hi, [snip] mix...@bigpond.com wrote: 15 kW for 18 hours at 5 MeV / reaction equates to 120 mg of Nickel. IOW the amount that would actually react is 120 mg. I gather you are suggesting that much of the Ni will eventually react, but in the 18-hour experiment only 120 mg did react. In this case I suspect that is what Rossi was saying. The rest is unburned fuel if you will. It will eventually . . . do what? Transmute into copper? Supposedly. I wonder what keeps the whole shebang from going off at once? According to Rossi, sometimes it (nearly) does (note the 130 kW output for a short period). A catalyst is a material that promotes a reaction, and is then freed up to promote it again. Catalysts are not used up. So perhaps it is a misnomer to call this a catalyst. Mills catalysts need to be recycled. I think that means the conditions under which they form are different to the conditions under which they are destroyed, though there is no net change over a full cycle in either quantity or energy content. That may also be true of Rossi's catalyst. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:The mechanism behind the fail safe nature of the Rossi process.
The mechanism behind the fail safe nature of the Rossi process. I believe that the magnetic property of Fe2O3 in a key part of the Rossi process and is the way that the Rossi process achieves failsafe operation. . When the temperature of the catalyst get to about 577C (the Néel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9el_temperature point) the Fe2O3 nano-particle loses its magnetic organization and the nuclear heat production slows. The Rossi will tend to reach a temperature equilibrium at about 600C more or less and avoid a run away meltdown .
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The proper way to organize this type of data is through the use of a relational database. That is how systems engineers do it. Great idea! Are you going to do that for us? Thanks! Add to the list: DEVICE CHARACTERISTICS The control box contains 5 simple PLCs, and weighs ~7 kg. (Levi) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Rossi wrote: 2-I never insufflated Nytrogen. That info was wrong. If there is a black out, the E-Cat automatically stops, for lack of current: it is intrinsically safe Okay. I think I should just delete the statement about N: Inject N to displace the H. This was either a misunderstanding or he has retracted it. It is not important. The purpose of the list is to present an up-to-date description of what Rossi now thinks, not to hold him to previous statements or find out how often he has changed his mind. The statements marked CONTRADICTION are usually between Rossi and someone else, although in one case it was Rossi versus Rossi. We will leave that as is, unless he makes a definitive statement one way or the other. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
It is physically impossible for the wire used in this device to conduct more than ~3 kW. The wire would melt. Years ago, plug in electric heaters drew ~3 kW and the wires became very hot. Those were thick wires. Heaters nowadays are limited to 1.5 kW, or 12.5 amps. Jed I agree with you ... but then they can claim superconductors... ;-) Batteries as all other instumentation besides the E-Cat should not be Rossi's. Rossi's should not even be in the room. The point is that a *closed* system takes away many possible arguments such as Tarallo's paradox. BTW see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarallo they are good!
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On 2011-04-16 00:37, Jed Rothwell wrote: This was either a misunderstanding or he has retracted it. It is not important. The purpose of the list is to present an up-to-date description of what Rossi now thinks, not to hold him to previous statements or find out how often he has changed his mind. Fair enough. I'm not sure if I will be able to send them, but what follows is a series of text files containing raw question/answers I found relevant from Rossi's blog up to the JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS CONFERENCE post, which will take alone some dedicated work to process entirely (you used part of that for the list in the opening post). By the way, what caught my attention in particular is that it appears that the reactor shielding is made of lead and boron, not lead only, but that might be outdated information. Cheers, S.A. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=53 Andrea Rossi April 16th, 2010 at 8:27 AM Gent. Sig. Luca: Se non ci fossero radiazioni gamma, non potrebbe funzionare il reattore: lfenergia si ottiene proprio in virtuf della generazione di raggi gamma e di altre reazioni descritte nel mio brevetto. Quello che ha detto il Prof. Focardi, che in base ad un contratto che abbiamo con lfUniversitaf di Bologna ha controllato le radiazione residue nellfambiente, ef, appunto, che non ci sono radiazioni residue fuori dal reattore. Tali misurazioni, ovviamente, sono state necessarie al fine di certificare la sicurezza dellf reattore sia sotto il profilo della protezione individuale, sia della protezione ambientale. Il grosso vantaggio di questo apparato ef che non usa materiale radioattivo e non lascia residui radioattivi, ne come rifiuti solidi, ne come emissioni ambientali. La ringrazio per la Sua apprezzata attenzione e Le porgo cordiali saluti, Andrea Rossi *** Giancarlo Rossi June 19th, 2010 at 3:49 PM Gentile Prof. Andrea Rossi Sono un semplice appassionato, vorrei porre qualche domandac 1) State usando qualche isotopo particolarmente pesante del Nichel (Nichel-64 che dicono costi 100.000 dollari per 5 grammi?) 2) State usando DEUTERIO oppure se ho ben capito IDROGENO ? 3) Utilizzate forse il LITIO come gcatalizzatoreh della reazione. 4) ATTENZIONE ALLE LOBBY DEL PETROLIO E DEL CARBONE: http://pesn.com/2010/06/18/9501662_water-fuel-research_Explosion_kills_inventor/ Giancarlo Rossi (Ma non era meglio se svolgeva queste ricerche in Giappone o in Cina, paesi assolutamente privi di risorse e di lobby assassine?) Andrea Rossi June 20th, 2010 at 2:52 AM Gent. Sig. Giancarlo Rossi, Grazie per la Sua attenzione; ecco le risposte: 1-No, usiamo Ni nella sua composizione isotopica naturale 2-Idrogeno 3-Non posso dare informazioni in merito ai catalizzatori 4- Nella mia vita ne ho passate di tali, che ormai non mi impressiono piu di niente 5- Ho la fortuna di potere lavorare negli USA, e Le assicuro che, almeno dal mio punto di vista, non esiste Paese migliore al mondo Cordiali saluti, Andrea Rossi ** Andrea Rossi April 6th, 2011 at 5:43 AM Dear Mr M: We have contacts in the whole world, but our commercial operations will begin in November, after the start up of our 1 MW plant in Greece. Thank you for your kind considerations, Warm regards, A.R. Warm Regards, A.R. *** http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=58 http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=59http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62 John Fisher March 16th, 2010 at 12:29 PM As I understand it you can control the rate of energy production in the nickel by adjusting the hydrogen pressure, and this method was used to maintain constant output power during the periods of energy measurement. Is this correct? Andrea Rossi March 16th, 2010 at 2:16 PM Actually, is more complex. You are asking confidential issues. Sorry. A.R. *** Andrea Rossi March 26th, 2010 at 9:28 AM A module with a power of 20 kw has a volume of 20 liters and weights 30 kg. Bigger powers are made with more modules, because for safety reasons I prefer to add up series and parallels with the cooling fluids , not with the reactors, to maintain small energy reactors. Andrea Rossi *** Andrea Rossi March 26th, 2010 at 9:36 AM Yes, we are making a 1 MW power reactor constituted by 50 modules of 20 kw each: I prefer for safety reasons to add series and parallels with the cooling fluids, not making bigger reactors, to maintain small and well tested reactors which we learnt perfectly to control. Soon wefll put in operation the first section of the 1MW plant, in the USA and when we will have everything well in operation we will communicate the data. We want not to make press conferences if we have not an industrial plant operated not by us, as it has been up to now, but by the very high level
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi wrote: 2-I never insufflated Nytrogen. That info was wrong. If there is a black out, the E-Cat automatically stops, for lack of current: it is intrinsically safe Okay. I think I should just delete the statement about N: Why? That ain't no H2 tank in the Jan demo image. T attachment: January_Demo.jpg
RE: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Yes. Do not delete this ! It is important. Add this one to the growing 'contradictions' list, because I am sure that at one time he said he can operate the device for a period of time with no electrical input. How can it then be possible to shut down automatically with no current unless you flush with N ? ... and Terry is correct: the tank is labeled as nitrogen. Surely he is not so careless (miserly) as to fill this tank with H2 to cut cost ? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi wrote: 2-I never insufflated Nytrogen. That info was wrong. If there is a black out, the E-Cat automatically stops, for lack of current: it is intrinsically safe Okay. I think I should just delete the statement about N: Why? That ain't no H2 tank in the Jan demo image. T
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Surely he is not so careless (miserly) as to fill this tank with H2 to cut cost ? Not likely. I think his H2 (large) tank is shown in Fig. 10 here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2011Essen-Kullander3April.pdf T
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Between then and now, Rossi may have come up with a way to make his catalyst(s) sub-critical, that is, always requiring some external heat to be input as a control on the output heat production. Provarication may not be an issue here. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Yes. Do not delete this ! It is important. Add this one to the growing 'contradictions' list, because I am sure that at one time he said he can operate the device for a period of time with no electrical input. How can it then be possible to shut down automatically with no current unless you flush with N ? ... and Terry is correct: the tank is labeled as nitrogen. Surely he is not so careless (miserly) as to fill this tank with H2 to cut cost ? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi wrote: 2-I never insufflated Nytrogen. That info was wrong. If there is a black out, the E-Cat automatically stops, for lack of current: it is intrinsically safe Okay. I think I should just delete the statement about N: Why? That ain't no H2 tank in the Jan demo image. T
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:11:56 Axil wrote [snip] It is as if a large amount of hydrogen atoms form into a cold plasma go into a quantum mechanical blender and turned into a coherent quark soup. In an instant, when the quark soup fissions, this LENR process produces atoms whose isotopic character is the same as exists in nature. This is to be expected since the inherent properties of quarks define what comes out of the fission process. This LENR fission process is done so gently and at such low energies that no unstable (radioactive) elements are produced, Emitted X-rays energies correspond to the speeds of these various fission fragments rebounding away from the center of this fission process.[/snip] Axil, I like your term Gentle fissions and your concept that only the hydrogen is participating to produce the natural distribution of elements and isotopes based on magic numbers, It agrees with my hunch that hydrides are only formed when The system is self destructing in runaway. It is very likely the threshold temperature and control loop are intended to turn the hydrogen gas into a bond state oscillator where h2 keeps getting disassociated then cooled back down to reform h2 and emit energy over and over again. your blender? The threshold level is discounted by the nickel geometry creating a tapestry of different vacuum energy densities as the atoms appear to shrink down between ever smaller geometries. I think these small atoms reflect normal catalytic action amplified by Casimir geometry and the relativistic nature Naudts suggested for the hydrino actually applies to any reactants in a catalyst. My point is the energy density suppression between Casimir boundaries accelerates time from our perspective exactly like the increased energy density of a stellar mass slows time from our perspective. The slow gradient of changes in energy density at our scale are not mirrored by the abrupt changes provided by nature in the surfaces of Casimir cavities, As an atom seems to shrink into ever smaller Casimir confinement these dramatic changes in energy density are equivalent to changes in velocity on the spatial axis - what we see as time dilation appears to these gas atoms like open space and random accelerations that keep pumping more and more gas, deeper and deeper into this relativistic plane with your blender/bond state oscillator. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On 2011-04-16 01:36, Jones Beene wrote: Yes. Do not delete this ! It is important. Add this one to the growing 'contradictions' list, because I am sure that at one time he said he can operate the device for a period of time with no electrical input. How can it then be possible to shut down automatically with no current unless you flush with N ? ... and Terry is correct: the tank is labeled as nitrogen. Surely he is not so careless (miserly) as to fill this tank with H2 to cut cost ? By shutting down hydrogen supply, as Focardi said in his latest interview. After hydrogen pressure decreases by a certain amount the reactor supposedly stops working by itself. P.S.: By the way, did my other email containing a long list of questions and answers by Rossi reach the group? Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Jed: You forgot to mention Rossi's quote about seeing 100keV to 300keV particles... I think that's a reasonably important piece of data! I've posted it twice; not going to do it again just look for postings in the last 3 to 7 days with 300 keV at the end of the subject line. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:51 PM, SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: By shutting down hydrogen supply, as Focardi said in his latest interview. After hydrogen pressure decreases by a certain amount the reactor supposedly stops working by itself. If the system is in a runaway condition, I'm sure there is enough H2 in the reactor to take it to meltdown. Look at the configuration, the H2 is injected into the reactor at 300 psi and likely shut off. There is no gas return port that I can see. To shut the reaction down, you have to inject N2. These tanks are usually pressurized around 2500 psi; so, you can send in a lot of N2 without a gas return port. P.S.: By the way, did my other email containing a long list of questions and answers by Rossi reach the group? Yep, I saw it with all the attachments. T
[Vo]:BLP posts another job opening - Battery Development Scientist/ENgineer
See: http://jobsearch.monster.com/BlackLight-Power__2c-Inc__2e_6 http://jobview.monster.com/Battery-Development-Scientist-Engineer-Job-Cranbu ry-NJ-US-97865477.aspx I think it's a recent post. I would interpret this as possibly meaning: I'm not dead yet! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Shutting down H2 supply cannot work, since the gas in the reactor is highly pressurized and consumed slowly, so the reaction would not be abated on H2 shut-down - in fact not for an extended period - possibly hours or days. Do you release pressurized and very hot hydrogen into a room where many people may be gathered? Answer: No. it would be instantly explosive. Now, it's indeed possible that the Nitrogen tank was there BECAUSE this was a public demo and Rossi anticipated that it would be impossible to release the pressurized H2, so he had to fashion an alternative for the demo only. However, does he normally risk release in a factory situation, where workers could be present? Maybe it could be ported outside, so N would not be necessary - but only a fool would dispense with it. Anyway, the demo situation would be the rationalization that makes the most sense for the N but it is still a contradiction. -Original Message- From: SHIRAKAWA Akira On 2011-04-16 01:36, Jones Beene wrote: Yes. Do not delete this ! It is important. Add this one to the growing 'contradictions' list, because I am sure that at one time he said he can operate the device for a period of time with no electrical input. How can it then be possible to shut down automatically with no current unless you flush with N ? ... and Terry is correct: the tank is labeled as nitrogen. Surely he is not so careless (miserly) as to fill this tank with H2 to cut cost ? By shutting down hydrogen supply, as Focardi said in his latest interview. After hydrogen pressure decreases by a certain amount the reactor supposedly stops working by itself. P.S.: By the way, did my other email containing a long list of questions and answers by Rossi reach the group? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Okay. I think I should just delete the statement about N: Why? That ain't no H2 tank in the Jan demo image. Who knows what it's doing there. Maybe they use it to purge the cell or clean out the tubes. The thing is, he says that was a misunderstanding and he never asserted that N is used to quench the reaction. I don't recall where I heard that. Looking around I see no record that Rossi said it. I looked in the SL and did not see it. So I say let's take him at his word on this. This is a minor issue. The contradictory statements about Ni isotope enrichment *are* important, and I would not propose removing them. If we find an earlier statement from him saying he used N, I suppose we can leave it in, and put in another statement next to it, with the label RETRACTION (not CONTRADICTION). If someone else said they use N, I guess that person was misinformed. No big deal. I'll bet N would work! They should try it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 03:22 PM 4/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: Since the claim is a 200 ratio for out/in the following simple components could be used besides the E-cat, H2 gas tank and control box: 1) a (sealed) room without power outlet. 2) a number of car batteries that can provide the necessary but limited amount of energy This is not necessary. Power meters can be relied upon. Normal scientific instruments and procedures should be used to test this device. Power meters can NOT be relied on. http://pesn.com/2011/02/27/9501773_Aviso_Ponders_Open_Sourcing_Self-Running_EV_Tech/ http://pesn.com/2011/02/24/9501772_Philippine_DOE_Verifies_Aviso_Self-Charging_EV/ is almost certainly due to high-frequency crud confusing normal scientific instruments and procedures Carl Sagan was wrong. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof. They are best supported with ordinary evidence I agree -- see Rothwell's Razor -- but the ordinary evidence has to be complete. from off-the-shelf instruments and standard techniques. (MR) See above. A test with batteries would be showboating in my opinion. It would be giving the skeptics and their unrealistic doubts more respect than they deserve. It is physically impossible for the wire used in this device to conduct more than ~3 kW. The wire would melt. Years ago, plug in electric heaters drew ~3 kW and the wires became very hot. Those were thick wires. Heaters nowadays are limited to 1.5 kW, or 12.5 amps. To be specific, from the photos I take this to be: 18 AWG, 1.0 mm, 2.3 max amps transmission, 16 amps chassis wiring. (Chassis wiring means a short stretch of uninsulated wiring inside a machine.) See: Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm It is preposterous to suggest that you could use this wire to conduct 16 kW at any voltage. Furthermore, Levi looked inside the box at the control electronics and found only 5 simple PLC (programmable logic control). Such devices are rated at one power level and will not work at far higher levels. They would burn up, along with the wire. I agreed with you on this one. Fletcher's scenarios are Just So Stories meaning that in real life we can dismiss them. Except for extending the inner line of the Tarallo fake down the output hose (and selecting some of the chemicals) every single fake I've analyzed has been suggested by somebody else, including the original observing team. Everyone else on the web/academia is demanding more stringent proof. They are NOT dismissing them. Even my methodology comes from an observer: As Villa reported: In the present test, as a precautionary attitude, whatever was not known, not disclosed or not understood has been considered as the energy source. The duration of the tests would be directly proportional to the mass and volume of unknown origin. The devices he describes are physically impossible. The methodology proof of the chemical/finite storage methods does exactly that. By setting the bar at 100% fuel and 100% efficiency all quibbling about engineering efficiency goes away. Why settle for improbable when you can have impossible or unlikely or would have noticed with very little extra work. The people and instruments in his stories would have to react precisely the way he imagines they might -- the slightest variation in their actions or use of instruments would instantly reveal the fake nature of the device. One glance in the wrong direction, one touch of the wrong component, and all would be revealed. The observers would have to be hypnotized to follow Rossi's every instruction. I include air-breathing and fume-emitting combustion as not eliminated, because nobody checked it. But I also include closed systems, where nothing is output except heat, and where the weight of the apparatus doesn't change. They are indistinguishable from a wrapped eCat except that they eventually run out of fuel. His scenario demands that 50 or more highly experienced engineers and scientists suddenly forget how to do experiments, ... Gee : Essen admits it : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44803.html Hello group, In answer to a question from a concerned person regarding water flow measurements during the last Rossi E-cat test/demonstration, Hanno Essén added, perhaps unconsciously, that there will be a follow-up experiment next week. Here's the original email as posted by him on an italian discussion forum (some personal info omitted): * * * Hello I remember clearly that there was no adjusting of the pump during the experiment. There was a tank of distilled water on the floor below the pump. Unfortunately its refilling and weight etc were not checked. These things will be better checked in a follow up experiment next week. Best regards Hanno Essén They also forgot to weigh the hydrogen bottle. They accepted many of Rossi's statements as fact. That wouldn't make it through
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: You forgot to mention Rossi's quote about seeing 100keV to 300keV particles... I think that's a reasonably important piece of data! Okay. Not sure where to put it. We may need more better categories. I guess that would come under DEVICE CHARACTERISTICS. OPERATIONS is supposed to be how you make the thing work. How you twiddle the knobs. I did not give much thought to these categories. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: If the system is in a runaway condition, I'm sure there is enough H2 in the reactor to take it to meltdown. Look at the configuration, the H2 is injected into the reactor at 300 psi and likely shut off. Simply depressurizing the reactor by opening the valve to release the H2 pressure might not work. By all our estimates, H2 has saturated the Ni and will not leave the metal quickly before a meltdown. No, I really think you have to pollute the reaction with N2; which, by the way, lends credence to Peter Gluck's theory that it is polluting gases which prevent these experiments from showing the same results that Rossi has seen. Clean and bake your metal in a vacuum and seal it in the reactor. Then inject the H2. I think that will give you heat. It might be the Fe2O3 which makes it take off like an ECat. It might be the Cu. It might be both. Look carefully at what Rossi says. In one response to a question, he uses the word 'catalysts'. Plural! Nickel, rust and copper? T
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Piantelii said that he used N to stop a run away meltdown before he found that D2 would stop the reaction on HIS system. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Okay. I think I should just delete the statement about N: Why? That ain't no H2 tank in the Jan demo image. Who knows what it's doing there. Maybe they use it to purge the cell or clean out the tubes. The thing is, he says that was a misunderstanding and he never asserted that N is used to quench the reaction. I don't recall where I heard that. Looking around I see no record that Rossi said it. I looked in the SL and did not see it. So I say let's take him at his word on this. This is a minor issue. The contradictory statements about Ni isotope enrichment *are*important, and I would not propose removing them. If we find an earlier statement from him saying he used N, I suppose we can leave it in, and put in another statement next to it, with the label RETRACTION (not CONTRADICTION). If someone else said they use N, I guess that person was misinformed. No big deal. I'll bet N would work! They should try it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Mattia Rizzi wrote: A nuclear reaction should produce non-natural distributions. but how did the natural distributions arise in the first place? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Do you release pressurized and very hot hydrogen into a room where many people may be gathered? Answer: No. it would be instantly explosive. There is only a tiny bit. Pressure is low. What is the pressure, by the way? To scram a real, commercial device I would recommend the cells be vented then pumped out, with gas from all cells vented out of one hose. The hose should go outside, I guess, and it should ignite the gas at the end. Deliberately, I mean, with a spark. Put the end of it high up, like the exhaust pipe from a gas-fired water heater. Kind of like burning off gases at a Saudi oil refinery. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Deflated P-e-P
From Jones: ... By that, I also mean since H works well on its own - no way do you waste time with D, since it can never make commercial sense, even if it improves the reaction rate by a large amount. Ergo, when someone mentions D at all in the context of a Ni-H demonstration - then it is probably because deuterium has been a recurring problem in the recent past! Get it? Or do you find that logic too convoluted? Thanks for the clarifications. I’m still looking at the flickering shadows! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Piantelii said that he used N to stop a run away meltdown before he found that D2 would stop the reaction on HIS system. Wouldn't it be ironic if they end up using D2 to scram the reactors? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Power meters can NOT be relied on. Bull$hit! The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results. T
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
This is a ridiculous voice input error: The resistance heaters are high-powered trigger the reaction and then hours reduced to maintain it. I guess it was supposed to be: The resistance heaters are used at high power to trigger the reaction, then power is reduced to maintain the reaction. In the Feb. 10 test, 1000 W triggered, and 80 W maintained. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: What is the pressure, by the way? I think he said 25 bar which would be about 360 psi. T
RE: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Our sun is a second (or third) generation star. The previous supernova which created all of the elements and isotope balances that are found on earth, are the products of a certain starting mass, age, temperature, and other variables that existed billions of years ago. These influenced that prior Nova, and determined precisely what we see today as unique isotope ratios in our (local) system among trillions of other unique systems. All of them are different locally. However, physical nuclear reactions are supposed to be universal, not local. For a universal reaction to reproduce the exact same ratio as found in a 10 billion year old nova/supernova, one of trillions ... well, the odds of that happening are ... shall we say - astronomical? -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Mattia Rizzi wrote: A nuclear reaction should produce non-natural distributions. but how did the natural distributions arise in the first place? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: What is the pressure, by the way? I think he said 25 bar which would be about 360 psi. Ah. 24 atm. I thought it was low, like 4 atm. I guess it would make quite a bang if they exhausted it into the room and it ignited. (Why are there so many ways to measure pressure?) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
he said he never insufflated nytrogen. That is not the same as saying he never injected nitrogen. Could this be an example Rossi's sense of humour? Harry - Original Message From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, April 15, 2011 7:36:03 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device Yes. Do not delete this ! It is important. Add this one to the growing 'contradictions' list, because I am sure that at one time he said he can operate the device for a period of time with no electrical input. How can it then be possible to shut down automatically with no current unless you flush with N ? ... and Terry is correct: the tank is labeled as nitrogen. Surely he is not so careless (miserly) as to fill this tank with H2 to cut cost ? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi wrote: 2-I never insufflated Nytrogen. That info was wrong. If there is a black out, the E-Cat automatically stops, for lack of current: it is intrinsically safe Okay. I think I should just delete the statement about N: Why? That ain't no H2 tank in the Jan demo image. T
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 05:28 PM 4/15/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Power meters can NOT be relied on. Bull$hit! The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results. I'll raise you TWO bullshits : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2010Levi-Report-RossiDemo.pdf Power from the 220V line was monitor and logged by a WATTUP? Pro Es power meter. https://www.wattsupmeters.com/secure/products.php?pn=0wai=0spec=3 Mains supply voltage fluctuations not to exceed +/- 10% of the nominal voltage *Some inverters have extremely fast rise times and can damage the electronics. The .Net is recommended if using with an inverter. * Some loads and environments cause excessive noise, which can corrupt calibration data thus leading to erroneous data. This is typically not a problem. But especially for industrial studies where the data is critical, we highly recommend the .Net. This model has significant hardware and software improvements to reduce the likelihood of errors.
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: (Why are there so many ways to measure pressure?) Because all people are under it? :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 05:50 PM 4/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 05:28 PM 4/15/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Power meters can NOT be relied on. Bull$hit! The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results. I'll raise you TWO bull$hits : Make that THREE : (on experimental procedures). The temperatures recorded in [Test 2] are shown in fig 4. Unfortunately the original data has been lost but the different evolution is evident.
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'll raise you TWO bullshits : You'll lose. Give me a good digital oscilloscope with current and voltage probes that outputs CSV data to an Excel spreadsheet and I'll give you power measurements within the sampling error per one Mr. Nyquist. T
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 05:59 PM 4/15/2011, you wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'll raise you TWO bullshits : You'll lose. Give me a good digital oscilloscope with current and voltage probes that outputs CSV data to an Excel spreadsheet and I'll give you power measurements within the sampling error per one Mr. Nyquist. If you read my document you'll see that I recommend the use of oscilloscopes, both to get the accurate non-sinusoidal power AND to verify there's no HF or phase futz. I win because THEY used the wrong equipment, despite specific warnings.
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
On Apr 15, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: Could the protons be fusing into Helium (perhaps providing some of the heat), and then the Helium burning? -Mark Yes, however this then provides no explanation for the large amount of copper. 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-8.973 MeV] 62Ni28 + p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 00.346 MeV [-7.760 MeV] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-4.734 MeV] 64Ni28 + 4 p* -- 64Zn30 + 4He2 + 25.635 MeV [-9.362 MeV] Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I win because THEY used the wrong equipment, despite specific warnings. No, you lose because you did not read what I said: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Power meters can NOT be relied on. Bull$hit! The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results. Plus, there are perfectly good power measuring instruments that are not oscilloscopes. T
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Hey, let's agree that most experimenters measure power incorrectly. T
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, April 15, 2011 8:32:34 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Notes on Rossi device This is a ridiculous voice input error: The resistance heaters are high-powered trigger the reaction and then hours reduced to maintain it. I guess it was supposed to be: The resistance heaters are used at high power to trigger the reaction, then power is reduced to maintain the reaction. In the Feb. 10 test, 1000 W triggered, and 80 W maintained. - Jed If all energy is convertible and equivalent as - modern physics preaches - what is the purpose of maintaining a small supply of energy when the reaction chamber gets much hotter? Clearly the quality of the input energy matters. I don't think the reductive notion that all energy is equivalent exists in the alchemical tradition. Harry
RE: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
I picked up a conventional rotating eddy current rotor utility power meter at a junk yard, and it's really quite accurate ( Public service laws require a certain precision since you're being charged for the power). ( The number Kh stamped on the label is watt hours/revolution ). I recently bought a fully digital power meter from Newegg.com for US$17 : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENEN=16521%205 0011445%204336IsNodeId=1Manufactory=11445bop=AndSpeTabStoreType=10C ompareItemList=336|82-715-001^82-715-001-05%23%2C82-715-005^82-715-005-05%23 which has also proved quite accurate. I haven't tried it with pathologically shaped waveforms, though. Yes -- a $20,000 scope would be better :-) . My guess is it's using the new ICs designed for the electronic versions of smart utility meters. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US http://HoytStearns.com -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 6:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I win because THEY used the wrong equipment, despite specific warnings. No, you lose because you did not read what I said: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Power meters can NOT be relied on. Bull$hit! The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results. Plus, there are perfectly good power measuring instruments that are not oscilloscopes. T
Re: [Vo]:[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of Ni-H Cold-Fusion\ [English translation]
Mössbauer spectroscopy is a spectroscopichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopytechnique based on the recoil-free, resonant absorption and emission of gamma rays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray in solidshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid. This resonant emission and absorption was first observed by Rudolf Mössbauerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_M%C3%B6ssbauerduring his graduate studies in 1957, and is called the Mössbauer effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6ssbauer_effect in his honor. Mössbauer received a Nobel Prize in 1961 for this work. Like NMR spectroscopy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMR_spectroscopy, Mössbauer spectroscopy probes tiny changes in the energy levels of an atomic nucleus in response to its environment. Typically, three types of nuclear interaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_interaction may be observed: an isomer shift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomer_shift, also known as a chemical shift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_shift; quadrupole splitting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole_splitting; and, magnetic or hyperfine splitting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_splitting, also known as the Zeeman effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect. Due to the high energy and extremely narrow linehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_linewidths of gamma rays, Mössbauer spectroscopy is one of the most sensitive techniques in terms of energy (and hence frequency) resolution, capable of detecting change in just a few parts per 10e11. Depending on the local environment of the Fe atoms and the magnetic properties, Mössbauer spectra of iron oxides can consist of a singlet, a doublet, or a sextet. If the iron is superparamagnetic a telltale hyperfine sextet structure will be detected. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:26 PM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote: Jed wrote [snip] Focardi says some things that are supposed to be confidential. I will leave it to the reader to find those bits, as an exercise. He's got a big mouth. I'll bet this ruffles some feathers![/snip] Focardi says “and then there's this chemical compound. The issue came up during that demonstration because, when some people tried to measure the gamma rays, Rossi objected, because by measuring the gamma rays they would have also measured the gamma rays emitted by this secret compound, and so they would have understood what it was, what was in it.” He is revealing that it is a chemical compound that emits gamma rays…. That it participates in the nuclear reaction? Fran
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Has anyone described the necessary chain of stellar events that would produce the present isotopic abundance of copper and is there proof that all those events actually happened? My point is perhaps some elements/isotopes are formed naturally by a LENR process rather than by a succession of stellar events. Therefore the reason why the isotopic abundance produced by the rossi reactor is natural is because the rossi reactor emulates how nature does it. Harry - Original Message From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, April 15, 2011 8:43:40 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat) Our sun is a second (or third) generation star. The previous supernova which created all of the elements and isotope balances that are found on earth, are the products of a certain starting mass, age, temperature, and other variables that existed billions of years ago. These influenced that prior Nova, and determined precisely what we see today as unique isotope ratios in our (local) system among trillions of other unique systems. All of them are different locally. However, physical nuclear reactions are supposed to be universal, not local. For a universal reaction to reproduce the exact same ratio as found in a 10 billion year old nova/supernova, one of trillions ... well, the odds of that happening are ... shall we say - astronomical? -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Mattia Rizzi wrote: A nuclear reaction should produce non-natural distributions. but how did the natural distributions arise in the first place? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2010Levi-Report-RossiDemo.pdf Power from the 220V line was monitor and logged by a “WATTUP?” Pro Es power meter. Plus a clamp-on ammeter. So you think that a watt meter can be wrong by a factor of 200 (16 kw)? Or by a factor of 1,600 (130 kW)? Because if cannot be anywhere near that wrong, you are wasting your time considering it. I understand that these are merely hypothetical examinations of what *could* happen. However, when you consider how a trick might work, you should pay some attention to how that trick might fail to work, and to the fact that if the person testing the machine took even minimal common-sense precautions, or looked closely at the machine, the trick would be immediately revealed. The thing is, I could add dozens more impossible tricks, or a hundred more variations. For example, maybe Rossi waited until the professors left the room for a moment and then swapped instruments with fake one. Where would he find ones that looked exactly alike? Well, he hired someone to brake into their labs, photograph the equipment, and make an exact duplicate. The FBI did this in a episode of the Soprano's. Sure, it could happen. Or, lets say, when they were not looking, he substituted a machine that looked exactly the same except it had a fuel line going through one of the legs. Or, he hypnotized them, and by power of persuasion and post-hypnotic suggestion, made them believe they saw 130 kW. That could happen too! Hypnosis is remarkable. I could go on like that all day, getting farther and farther removed from reality. I have not addressed the fact that they are now testing the gadget in Rossi's absence and they will soon open it up and find whatever trick he is using. Forget about motive or the likelihood of anyone actually doing this. If we fantasize and assume that anything can happen, we can come up with an endless series of reasons why *any* experiment might be fake or wrong. You can disprove the moon landings. The skeptics have been doing that for years with Pd-D experiments by McKubre and others. I could a far better job than they do, and not a single one of their hypotheses is worth considering, but that does not stop them. You need to draw the line, and exclude tricks that any experienced person would detect in a few minutes. You need to exclude tricks that only the FBI would have the resources to do. The trick has to be plausible, or it is a waste of time thinking about it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
Wait a minute. You want to change half the Standard Model of Physics in order to suggest that Rossi's device has some tiny chance of being theoretically possible in the oddball way that he thinks it is - when we're not even sure that it's not a total scam? ... now that is true devotion to a cause g -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Has anyone described the necessary chain of stellar events that would produce the present isotopic abundance of copper and is there proof that all those events actually happened? My point is perhaps some elements/isotopes are formed naturally by a LENR process rather than by a succession of stellar events. Therefore the reason why the isotopic abundance produced by the Rossi reactor is natural is because the Rossi reactor emulates how nature does it. Harry
Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)
The scam status of the Rossi reactor has nothing to do with natural abundance in Lenr reactions. It has been shown that all Lenr reactions produce waste conformant to natural abundance. Like all Lenr reactions, the Rossi reactor show natural abundance in it’s ash product. This should lend credence to the claim that the Rossi reaction is real and that it is a valid Lenr Reaction. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Wait a minute. You want to change half the Standard Model of Physics in order to suggest that Rossi's device has some tiny chance of being theoretically possible in the oddball way that he thinks it is - when we're not even sure that it's not a total scam? ... now that is true devotion to a cause g -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Has anyone described the necessary chain of stellar events that would produce the present isotopic abundance of copper and is there proof that all those events actually happened? My point is perhaps some elements/isotopes are formed naturally by a LENR process rather than by a succession of stellar events. Therefore the reason why the isotopic abundance produced by the Rossi reactor is natural is because the Rossi reactor emulates how nature does it. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Is it nuclear, or is it Memorex?
Alchemy was more than just a collection of blind rituals. It was based on a natural philosophy which may contain some precious insights that were buried with the rise of the mechanical philosophy. Harry --- Original Message From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, April 14, 2011 11:04:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is it nuclear, or is it Memorex? Robin, Harry, Just to clarify some of my ramblings... My use of the term alchemy was an oversimplified reference to the desire to transmute common elements into valuable elements... i.e. the desire to transmute lead into gold. The point I was trying to imply is that the old-world alchemical (almost ritualistic) pursuit of creating gold from common elements is, in a sense, metaphorically equivalent to the new-world pursuit of generating lots of clean cheap excess heat, or energy. I would even go so far as to speculate here that what Rossi seems to be doing with his e-cat reactors is analogous to an alchemical ritual - in the sense that if you follow the recipe to the letter, and in the right sequence, it would seem that you can end up generating lots of heat. No one yet knows why these ritualistic sequences-of-events work in the manner that they do. That's what rituals are really good at doing: Producing a desired result, particularly when the fundamental physics that might scientifically explain what's happening remains (a present) a baffling mystery. Alas, I've often noted that some of the metaphors I conjure up occasionally cause more confusion than their intended purpose. Win a few metaphors... lose a few metaphors. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Mass balance in the Rossi ash.
Mass balance in the Rossi ash. IMHO, Rossi can’t tell how much nickel or hydrogen is used, consumed, or transmuted in his reactor because of the large amount of Iron (and other undocumented elements) that are produced by erosion from the walls of the reaction vessel. How can a pico-level mass determination be done in such a dirty environment? Can someone explain?
[Vo]:The long running time of the Rossi process is a clue.
The long running time of the Rossi process is a clue. The very long running times of the Rossi process being reported to run up to two years, lends weight to the opinion that elements in the catalyst are not consumed in the Rossi reaction. The nanopowder that makes up the various components of the catalyst remains functional for a very long time. If nickel was consumed, the nano-nickel particles would be systematically destroyed over time. A hydrogen only nuclear process in which only hydrogen transmutes to other elements is the likely explanation.
