[Vo]:PESN: S.Korean manufacturer licenses Brillouin LENR

[pagnucco]

S. Korean manufacturing company signs license with Brillouin
(LENR technology)

http://pesn.com/2013/12/30/9602416_S-Korean-manufacturing-company_signs_license_with_Brillouin-LENR-technology/

Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes

[James Bowery]

Oh, and if you want to really get nasty, ask them if they've done a
quantitative analysis within an order of magnitude as comprehensive as this:

http://diogenesinstitute.org/index.php/Fullspreadsheet



On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:03 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> None of these guys advertise their capex per area.
>
> That's the first question you should ask of anyone who claims they've
> solved the algae problem.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Patrick Ellul wrote:
>
>> Just linking this company, which claim the same: http://solazyme.com/
>> The Fools have been billing it as a money maker:
>> http://stockgumshoe.com/reviews/motley-fool-hidden-gems/revealing-the-fools-silicon-valley-oil-superstar-1-company-pulling-profits-out-of-thin-air/
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I was referring to "the world" as companies like Exxon which
>>> wasted a huge amount of money on algae 
>>> biofuels.
>>>  They could have had what they wanted, no genetic engineering or special
>>> strains, for under $10M.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM,  wrote:
>>>
 In reply to  James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 >The biomass production cost problem has been solved.  I don't know
 when the
 >world will wake up.
 >
 ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html


>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Patrick
>>
>> www.tRacePerfect.com
>> The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
>> The quickest puzzle ever!
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes

[James Bowery]

None of these guys advertise their capex per area.

That's the first question you should ask of anyone who claims they've
solved the algae problem.



On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Patrick Ellul wrote:

> Just linking this company, which claim the same: http://solazyme.com/
> The Fools have been billing it as a money maker:
> http://stockgumshoe.com/reviews/motley-fool-hidden-gems/revealing-the-fools-silicon-valley-oil-superstar-1-company-pulling-profits-out-of-thin-air/
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Actually, I was referring to "the world" as companies like Exxon which
>> wasted a huge amount of money on algae 
>> biofuels.
>>  They could have had what they wanted, no genetic engineering or special
>> strains, for under $10M.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>> In reply to  James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600:
>>> Hi,
>>> [snip]
>>> >The biomass production cost problem has been solved.  I don't know when
>>> the
>>> >world will wake up.
>>> >
>>> ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>>
>>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Patrick
>
> www.tRacePerfect.com
> The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
> The quickest puzzle ever!
>

Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes

[Patrick Ellul]

Just linking this company, which claim the same: http://solazyme.com/
The Fools have been billing it as a money maker:
http://stockgumshoe.com/reviews/motley-fool-hidden-gems/revealing-the-fools-silicon-valley-oil-superstar-1-company-pulling-profits-out-of-thin-air/


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Actually, I was referring to "the world" as companies like Exxon which
> wasted a huge amount of money on algae 
> biofuels.
>  They could have had what they wanted, no genetic engineering or special
> strains, for under $10M.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >The biomass production cost problem has been solved.  I don't know when
>> the
>> >world will wake up.
>> >
>> ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>


-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes

[James Bowery]

Actually, I was referring to "the world" as companies like Exxon which
wasted a huge amount of money on algae
biofuels.
 They could have had what they wanted, no genetic engineering or special
strains, for under $10M.


On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >The biomass production cost problem has been solved.  I don't know when
> the
> >world will wake up.
> >
> ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes

[mixent]

In reply to  James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>The biomass production cost problem has been solved.  I don't know when the
>world will wake up.
>
...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Molten Zinc Bath W/Reflux Transfer To CO2 for HotCat?

[James Bowery]

Done.


On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:50 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  James Bowery's message of Sat, 28 Dec 2013 19:54:31 -0600:
> Hi James,
> [snip]
> >It seems the use of heat pipes -- regardless of the power vector substance
> >-- would put more geometric constraints on the HotCat than would a molten
> >bath.  These constraints might be acceptable given enough engineering but
> >it isn't immediately apparent to me you could take the HotCat we've seen
> in
> >the photos and adapt it to heat pipes.
> [snip]
> Why don't you suggest this to Rossi directly?
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Molten Zinc Bath W/Reflux Transfer To CO2 for HotCat?

[mixent]

In reply to  James Bowery's message of Sat, 28 Dec 2013 19:54:31 -0600:
Hi James,
[snip]
>It seems the use of heat pipes -- regardless of the power vector substance
>-- would put more geometric constraints on the HotCat than would a molten
>bath.  These constraints might be acceptable given enough engineering but
>it isn't immediately apparent to me you could take the HotCat we've seen in
>the photos and adapt it to heat pipes.
[snip]
Why don't you suggest this to Rossi directly?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog -- destructive tests

[Alan Fletcher]

Andrea Rossi 
December 29th, 2013 at 8:20 AM 

Steven N Karels: 
.. 
About the temperature: during the destructive tests the temperature raises for 
some second well above the melting point of Ni. This is why the “Mouse” cannot 
excite over a certain limit the E-Cat to maintain well stabilized operation. 
Warm Regards,  A.R. 

- - - 
Andrea Rossi 
December 29th, 2013 at 8:24 AM 

Gherardo: 1- I cannot publish this information, while I can confirm that the 
destructive tests are performed respecting all the safety issues: we know 
perfectly what can happen and behave consequently. The reason we make these 
destructive tests is aimed to make industrial E-Cats totally safe and perfectly 
stable at the highest possible temperature 2- The E-Cats are intrinsecally 
safe. To bring them to destructive levels is necessary to make operations that 
can only be made voluntarily and by experts. Warm Regards, A.R. 

Re: [Vo]:Is Lewis the decisive cause of LENR denial, and the possible 2014 scapegoat

[Edmund Storms]

Yes, and both Lewis and Koonin went on to high office and were well  
rewarded for not rocking the boat on any subject.  There was and is no  
reward in advocating for cold fusion.  Until this fact changes, the  
subject will not make much progress. So, enjoy the discussion because  
that is the only reward you will get.


Ed Storms
On Dec 29, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Foks0904 . wrote:

Both Koonin and Lewis took a hatchet to F&P for the same  
psychologicl and professional reasons as other "skeptics". Koonin's  
denialism was based on the standard nuclear physicist arguments  
drawn from experience in d+d, 2-body interactions in vacua (i.e.  
nothing to do with LENR in condensed matter). Lewis took an  
absolutist stand on the stirring issue early on even in the face of  
obvious evidence to the contrary. He quickly quieted down, and has  
remained quiet for years, but the damage was done and he has never  
backed off of his claims. He and Koonin leveraged the APS pulpit to  
slander cold fusion science only after a couple months of  
exploration. This is antithetical to science in many ways.



On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Alain Sepeda  
 wrote:

Hi,
I'm continuing to read Excess heat and I fall on the story of the  
first caltech conference. Chapter6 (4 press conference)


Beaudette present it as a big manipulation of press, with Lewis  
behaving in a very unscientific way, pretending his failure was an  
evidence, claiming lack of stirring, without the least doubt  
expressed... finally joking nastily on F&P...


F&P argued on the stirring with evidence (colorant mixing shown) but  
it was too late, and Lewis even caused a nearly lynching in a  
conference with F&P...


It seems that since then, media, journals and officials followed  
that vision. LENR was forbidden in USA, but surviving abroad...   
(until US influence won in most place)...
of course all was supported by a deep desire not to admit cold  
fusion, lose dominance, and endanger funding, but the key event was  
that few press conference were Lewis say he was sure, sure, and sure  
it was nothing.


Beaudette explain that Lewis and his colleague were not important  
scientist, except by that claim...


I imagine you know that position.
Is is a vision that you share here?

as you know, based on Taleb vision, history should be soon rewritten  
to hide that academic tragedy.
One way could be to blame a scapegoat, and Lewis could be a good  
candidate ...


who is he today ?
would he be the useful idiot needed to save the community ?

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog -- destructive tests -- 1MW in 10 secs

[Axil Axil]

In order to make a convenient commercial product, a hydride compound that
sublimates (releases hydrogen) when the temperature of the reactor is
increased is required. This hydrogen production mechanism need not be
located in the mouse.



I believe that the job of the mouse is to produce nano-particles as a
product of heat it produces beyond the melting point of an alkali metal
(most probably potassium).



The nuclear active sites that these nanoparticles produce through
amalgamation will degrade over time due to nuclear activity and must
periodically be rebuilt by a reapplication of high temperature heat.



When the temperature of the E-Cat gets above a set temperature, other high
temperature nano-particle processes take over and control is lost.



By the way adding to the list of candidates, lithium hydride is another
candidate that will produce uncontrolled high temperature nanoparticle
reactions.



Normally, there is little oxygen present in the Rossi reactor because
oxygen will produce uncontrollable and chaotic LENR activity inside of the
nuclear active sites.


On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>  The "mouse" is nothing more than a ceramic canister within his SS tube
>> full of (most probably) MgH and Ni acting as a catalyst to brake the
>> released H2 to atomic from its solid state MgH at high temperatures. If H
>> or Mg are in contact with air or moister then a Lungmuir toarch reaction
>> (reaching 3400C) and/or a violent reaction of Mg with H20 give such
>> "explosing" results lasting for some seconds. Such are not desirable
>> results but accidents due to poor controllability.
>>
>
> Interesting idea.  You say this with some confidence -- can you elaborate
> on the basis of this confidence?
>
> If the "mouse" is a ceramic canister with MgH (or something comparable), I
> think the implication is that it is Rossi's Hot Cat, specifically, that is
> prone to meltdowns, and not the underlying LENR itself?  Why is it
> necessary to break down H2 into monoatomic H if the H is going to recombine
> right away once it migrates away from the ceramic canister, presumably well
> before it gets to the Ni?  If some Ni is in the "mouse," what is in the
> "cat"?
>
> What is a Langmuir torch reaction?  Is this rapid hydrogen recombination?
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is Lewis the decisive cause of LENR denial, and the possible 2014 scapegoat

[Foks0904 .]

Both Koonin and Lewis took a hatchet to F&P for the same psychologicl and
professional reasons as other "skeptics". Koonin's denialism was based on
the standard nuclear physicist arguments drawn from experience in d+d,
2-body interactions in vacua (i.e. nothing to do with LENR in condensed
matter). Lewis took an absolutist stand on the stirring issue early on even
in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. He quickly quieted down,
and has remained quiet for years, but the damage was done and he has never
backed off of his claims. He and Koonin leveraged the APS pulpit to
slander cold fusion science only after a couple months of exploration. This
is antithetical to science in many ways.


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm continuing to read Excess heat and I fall on the story of the first
> caltech conference. Chapter6 (4 press conference)
>
> Beaudette present it as a big manipulation of press, with Lewis behaving
> in a very unscientific way, pretending his failure was an evidence,
> claiming lack of stirring, without the least doubt expressed... finally
> joking nastily on F&P...
>
> F&P argued on the stirring with evidence (colorant mixing shown) but it
> was too late, and Lewis even caused a nearly lynching in a conference with
> F&P...
>
> It seems that since then, media, journals and officials followed that
> vision. LENR was forbidden in USA, but surviving abroad...  (until US
> influence won in most place)...
> of course all was supported by a deep desire not to admit cold fusion,
> lose dominance, and endanger funding, but the key event was that few press
> conference were Lewis say he was sure, sure, and sure it was nothing.
>
> Beaudette explain that Lewis and his colleague were not important
> scientist, except by that claim...
>
> I imagine you know that position.
> Is is a vision that you share here?
>
> as you know, based on Taleb vision, history should be soon rewritten to
> hide that academic tragedy.
> One way could be to blame a scapegoat, and Lewis could be a good candidate
> ...
>
> who is he today ?
> would he be the useful idiot needed to save the community ?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog -- destructive tests -- 1MW in 10 secs

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 The "mouse" is nothing more than a ceramic canister within his SS tube
> full of (most probably) MgH and Ni acting as a catalyst to brake the
> released H2 to atomic from its solid state MgH at high temperatures. If H
> or Mg are in contact with air or moister then a Lungmuir toarch reaction
> (reaching 3400C) and/or a violent reaction of Mg with H20 give such
> "explosing" results lasting for some seconds. Such are not desirable
> results but accidents due to poor controllability.
>

Interesting idea.  You say this with some confidence -- can you elaborate
on the basis of this confidence?

If the "mouse" is a ceramic canister with MgH (or something comparable), I
think the implication is that it is Rossi's Hot Cat, specifically, that is
prone to meltdowns, and not the underlying LENR itself?  Why is it
necessary to break down H2 into monoatomic H if the H is going to recombine
right away once it migrates away from the ceramic canister, presumably well
before it gets to the Ni?  If some Ni is in the "mouse," what is in the
"cat"?

What is a Langmuir torch reaction?  Is this rapid hydrogen recombination?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog -- destructive tests -- 1MW in 10 secs

[Axil Axil]

Reference:

http://www.chemicalelements.com/show/boilingpoint.html


The boiling temperature of Manganese is 1091 °C. This temperature is in the
goldilocks range for the production of high temperature nanoplasmonic
reactions.

As the temperature of the Rossi reactor increases beyond 1000C, new
elements begin to take over the LENR reaction through the production of
nano-particles when the hydrogen envelop is cooled near the outer edge of
the  reaction chamber.

Another candidate element is calcium with a boiling point of 1484.0 °C.
There are other low boiling point elements that are possible, but they are
improbable components of the Rossi chemical compliment. Thallium is one of
these metals with a boiling point near 1457.0 °C. Selenium is another at a
boiling point at 684.9 °C.

These intermediate boiling point elements take over from potassium whose
boiling point is 774.0 °C.

The job of the mouse is to produce potassium vapor by heating it beyond its
boiling point. When the heat source is removed, the potassium vapor
condenses into nano-particles whose amalgamation into piles produce the
nuclear active sites between the edges of the potassium nano-particles.

When the Rossi reaction enters a new and higher temperature range, new
types of nano-particles are produced when vapor of these intermediate
boiling point elements condense in a cool zone of the reaction chamber near
the outer edge of the reaction chamber.

The LENR reaction is a topological based reaction that depends on the shape
and size of the nano-particles that condense out of the hot hydrogen
plasma.

Experiments with exploding wire and foils show that transmutation of high
melting point metals like titanium is possible. This indicates that very
high temperatures are possible in LENR though the condensation of high
melting point elements into nanoparticles.





On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

>  The "mouse" is nothing more than a ceramic canister within his SS tube
> full of (most probably) MgH and Ni acting as a catalyst to brake the
> released H2 to atomic from its solid state MgH at high temperatures. If H
> or Mg are in contact with air or moister then a Lungmuir toarch reaction
> (reaching 3400C) and/or a violent reaction of Mg with H20 give such
> "explosing" results lasting for some seconds. Such are not desirable
> results but accidents due to poor controllability.
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog -- destructive tests -- 1MW in 10 secs

[Daniel Rocha]

 The "mouse" is nothing more than a ceramic canister within his SS tube
full of (most probably) MgH and Ni acting as a catalyst to brake the
released H2 to atomic from its solid state MgH at high temperatures. If H
or Mg are in contact with air or moister then a Lungmuir toarch reaction
(reaching 3400C) and/or a violent reaction of Mg with H20 give such
"explosing" results lasting for some seconds. Such are not desirable
results but accidents due to poor controllability.



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog -- destructive tests -- 1MW in 10 secs

[Frank roarty]

I've often wondered if Stainless Steele can properly contain fractional
hydrogen and doesn't act somewhat like a Pd filter turning fractional
molecular hydrogen into fractional atomic hydrogen as it is squeezed thru
the lattice with all the subsequent opportunity for anomalous behavior we
have been seeing since Langmuir. I obviously agree with Axil that the
secondary reaction is more valuable but we are already stymied trying to
contain the initial reaction and will have to learn how to crawl before we
can hope to exploit the real prize.

Fran

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:28 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog -- destructive tests -- 1MW in 10 secs

 

This meltdown condition is revealing. When you take a process to its
extreme, its nature is revealed in a truer light.  It is unreasonable to
believe that the power to meltdown the reactor came from only 3 grams of
nickel powder.

The heat produced by the runaway was isothermal throughout the volume of the
reactor. This implies that the entire hydrogen envelope supported the
reaction. The reaction must have had to moved away from the nickel powder
which would have already been melted to a secondary reaction mechanism that
must have been be supported exclusively in the hydrogen gas.
 
In this secondary reaction mechanism is where the real power density in LENR
will be found. If this type of reaction can be controlled, a 2000C reaction
can be very useful in process heat production like steel making, concrete
production, and glass making.

 

Also the BEC temperature range is higher than I through possible. If the BEC
had broken down, Rossi and his crew would have been bathed in radiation.

 

BEC would also support superfluidic heat distribution throughout the volume
of the reaction chamber.

The explosion  at the end of the meltdown might have been the release  of
the compressed hydrogen gas when the material holding that gas under
pressure failed.

 

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

From: "Eric Walker" 
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:43:45 PM
Sorry about that; I accidentally pressed "send" when I didn't mean to.

Eric

I had this strange feeling of deja vu ...

To Jed :


Andrea Rossi
December 28th, 2013 at 6:47 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833

&cpage=4#comment-891266

Jed Rothwell:
The team of Prof. has been increased.
I cannot give more information about this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

And on self-destruct --- 1MW in 10 seconds !


James Bowery
December 28th, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Dr. Rossi,

When you say that reactors "explode" when out of control, do you mean they
actually produce a loud noise? Or do they merely destructively over-heat?
(As apparently happened to a HotCat in this photograph during the prior
validation test:)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XuKgtxpqL9U/UYQSyPJP-OI/JYI/96mRUBJjs1w/s1
600/hot-cat.JPG


Andrea Rossi
December 28th, 2013 at 8:32 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833

&cpage=4#comment-891334

James Bowery:
Very sorry, I cannot answer to this question exhaustively, but I can say
something. Obviously, the experiments are made with total respect of the
safety of my team and myself. During the destructive tests we arrived to
reach temperatures in the range of 2,000 Celsius degrees, when the "mouse"
excited too much the E-Cat, and it is gone out of control, in the sense that
we have not been able to stop the raise of the temperature ( we arrived on
purpose to that level, because we wanted to study this kind of situation). A
nuclear Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has calculated
that the increase of temperature ( from 1 000 Celsius to 2,000 Celsius in
about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has increased of such
temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while the Mouse had a mean power
of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have given the link of, and imagine that
the cylinder was cherry red, then in 10 seconds all the cylinder became
white-blue, starting from the white dot you see in the photo ( after 1
second) becoming totally white-blue in the following 9 seconds, and then an
explosion and the ceramic inside ( which is a ceramic that melts at 2,000
Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant stone, like a ruby. When we opened the
reactor, part of the AISI 310 ss steel was not molten, but sublimated and
recondensed in form of microscopic drops of steel.
Warm Regards,
A.R.







 

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog -- destructive tests -- 1MW in 10 secs

[Edmund Storms]

Axil, you make assumptions that are not in evidence. First, what  
actually melted is not known. The source of heat must remain solid  
because otherwise the NAE would be destroyed. We know the nuclear  
reaction requires a special condition in a solid. Second, why suggest  
a secondary reaction in H2 when the density of the gas would not  
support such a production rate. What nuclear reaction do you think can  
occur in H2 at 1 atm? Third, why assume the effect is caused by a BEC?  
NO evidence supports this claim.


It is easy to make up explanations. Anyone can do this, but what is  
the point when the descriptions have no obvious relationship to reality.


Ed Storms
On Dec 28, 2013, at 11:28 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

This meltdown condition is revealing. When you take a process to its  
extreme, its nature is revealed in a truer light.  It is  
unreasonable to believe that the power to meltdown the reactor came  
from only 3 grams of nickel powder.


The heat produced by the runaway was isothermal throughout the  
volume of the reactor. This implies that the entire hydrogen  
envelope supported the reaction. The reaction must have had to moved  
away from the nickel powder which would have already been melted to  
a secondary reaction mechanism that must have been be supported  
exclusively in the hydrogen gas.


In this secondary reaction mechanism is where the real power density  
in LENR will be found. If this type of reaction can be controlled, a  
2000C reaction can be very useful in process heat production like  
steel making, concrete production, and glass making.


Also the BEC temperature range is higher than I through possible. If  
the BEC had broken down, Rossi and his crew would have been bathed  
in radiation.


BEC would also support superfluidic heat distribution throughout the  
volume of the reaction chamber.
The explosion  at the end of the meltdown might have been the  
release  of the compressed hydrogen gas when the material holding  
that gas under pressure failed.




On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:
From: "Eric Walker" 
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:43:45 PM
Sorry about that; I accidentally pressed "send" when I didn't mean to.

Eric

I had this strange feeling of deja vu ...

To Jed :


Andrea Rossi
December 28th, 2013 at 6:47 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/? 
p=833&cpage=4#comment-891266


Jed Rothwell:
The team of Prof. has been increased.
I cannot give more information about this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

And on self-destruct --- 1MW in 10 seconds !


James Bowery
December 28th, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Dr. Rossi,

When you say that reactors “explode” when out of control, do you  
mean they actually produce a loud noise? Or do they merely  
destructively over-heat? (As apparently happened to a HotCat in this  
photograph during the prior validation test:)


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XuKgtxpqL9U/UYQSyPJP-OI/JYI/96mRUBJjs1w/s1600/hot-cat.JPG


Andrea Rossi
December 28th, 2013 at 8:32 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/? 
p=833&cpage=4#comment-891334


James Bowery:
Very sorry, I cannot answer to this question exhaustively, but I can  
say something. Obviously, the experiments are made with total  
respect of the safety of my team and myself. During the destructive  
tests we arrived to reach temperatures in the range of 2,000 Celsius  
degrees, when the “mouse” excited too much the E-Cat, and it is gone  
out of control, in the sense that we have not been able to stop the  
raise of the temperature ( we arrived on purpose to that level,  
because we wanted to study this kind of situation). A nuclear  
Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has calculated  
that the increase of temperature ( from 1 000 Celsius to 2,000  
Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has  
increased of such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while  
the Mouse had a mean power of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have  
given the link of, and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red,  
then in 10 seconds all the cylinder became white-blue, starting from  
the white dot you see in the photo ( after 1 second) becoming  
totally white-blue in the following 9 seconds, and then an explosion  
and the ceramic inside ( which is a ceramic that melts at 2,000  
Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant stone, like a ruby. When we  
opened the reactor, part of the AISI 310 ss steel was not molten,  
but sublimated and recondensed in form of microscopic drops of steel.

Warm Regards,
A.R.