RE: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia

[bobcook39923]

The beta from Ni-63 is WITHOUT  a gamma.  Its energy is 0.0669 Mev, not very 
penetrating and could be missed.  It has a half life of 101 years, not the 3 
months that Jones reported.  

It’s a byproduct of common fission reactors, primarily from the activation of 
Ni-62 found in reactor components.

Bob Cook 

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 10:20 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia

Bob,
OK let's also mention the main objection to this hypothesis. (Ni62 + HDH -> 
Ni63)
The objection would be the extended half-life of about 3 months for Ni-63. This 
is a problematic since the nickel powder should be radioactive after a run for 
many months, due to Ni-63 activation - and this has not been reported in the 
literature.
OTOH - the scenario which is being proposed is absorption of a virtual neutron 
(dense hydrogen) instead of a real neutron. The decay pathway would no doubt be 
different.
Is the beta decay of this alternative version of Ni-63 immediate when UDH has 
been the activator?
If not, then the scenario is wrong.

bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:
An advantage of Ni-63 is that it does not collect in the body like Sr-90 does 
and thus does not pose a large biological hazard, although to much can cause a 
problem.  In addition it is not as mobile in water as Sr-90 is.
 
Bob Cook
 

Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 19 Feb 2017 12:36:18 -0800:
Hi Jones,

Actually, I was wrong. It is energetically possible with light Hydrogen, and in
fact yields just over 6 MeV. The reason it didn't show up in my program as a
possible reaction is because my program doesn't take account of weak force
reactions.

However I still think that adding a proton to 62Ni is going to create 63Cu
rather than 63Ni because weak force conversions are much slower than strong
force mediated reactions. IOW the only way to get 63Ni is to create the neutron
first, which implies getting 782 keV from somewhere, and this is not generally
just found lying around. It would be possible if it could be taken from the
energy of the reaction, but for that to happen, I think it would need to  happen
in the nucleus as part of the reaction process. This is unlikely because 63Ni
decays to 63Cu, so the reaction would seem to require an inverse beta decay,
just to make a later beta decay possible, which doesn't make sense. The direct
reaction to 63Cu makes much more sense.

...but, if you can come up with a way of creating the neutron first, outside the
nucleus, then more power to you. ;)


>Robin,
>
>Agree it is not possible with hydrogen, but dense hydrogen is a 
>different story.
>
>Dense hydrogen includes the "virtual neutron" conceptions ...
>
>One reference is Daddi, Lino, "Virtual Neutrons In Orbital Capture And 
>In Neutron Synthesis"
>
>Another is Daddi, Lino, "Hydrogen Miniatoms" Both show up in Widom/Larsen
>
>
>On 2/19/2017 11:47 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>> In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:29:23 -0800:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>> Would the
>>> route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert Ni-62
>>> to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ?
>> This reaction is not energetically possible. The only possible light hydrogen
>> reactions are:-
>>
>> 62Ni+1H => 63Cu + 6.122 MeV
>> 62Ni+1H => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV
>>
>> However it is possible with D:-
>>
>> 2H+62Ni => 63Cu + n + 3.898 MeV
>> 2H+62Ni => 64Cu + 11.814 MeV
>> 2H+62Ni => 63Ni + 1H + 4.613 MeV
>> 2H+62Ni => 60Co + 4He + 5.614 MeV
>>
>> ..so the small amount of D naturally present in H could form some Ni63.
>>
>> Furthermore, the energy release from the intial fusion reaction would dwarf 
>> that
>> from the decay of Ni63 anyway.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia

[Jones Beene]

Robin,

Agree it is not possible with hydrogen, but dense hydrogen is a 
different story.


Dense hydrogen includes the "virtual neutron" conceptions ...

One reference is Daddi, Lino, "Virtual Neutrons In Orbital Capture And 
In Neutron Synthesis"


Another is Daddi, Lino, "Hydrogen Miniatoms" Both show up in Widom/Larsen


On 2/19/2017 11:47 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:29:23 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]

Would the
route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert Ni-62
to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ?

This reaction is not energetically possible. The only possible light hydrogen
reactions are:-

62Ni+1H => 63Cu + 6.122 MeV
62Ni+1H => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV

However it is possible with D:-

2H+62Ni => 63Cu + n + 3.898 MeV
2H+62Ni => 64Cu + 11.814 MeV
2H+62Ni => 63Ni + 1H + 4.613 MeV
2H+62Ni => 60Co + 4He + 5.614 MeV

..so the small amount of D naturally present in H could form some Ni63.

Furthermore, the energy release from the intial fusion reaction would dwarf that
from the decay of Ni63 anyway.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:LENR Professionalism independent and Innovative thinking

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/02/feb-19-2017-professional-approach-to.html

peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:29:23 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Would the 
>route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert Ni-62 
>to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ?

This reaction is not energetically possible. The only possible light hydrogen
reactions are:-

62Ni+1H => 63Cu + 6.122 MeV
62Ni+1H => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV

However it is possible with D:-

2H+62Ni => 63Cu + n + 3.898 MeV
2H+62Ni => 64Cu + 11.814 MeV
2H+62Ni => 63Ni + 1H + 4.613 MeV
2H+62Ni => 60Co + 4He + 5.614 MeV

...so the small amount of D naturally present in H could form some Ni63.

Furthermore, the energy release from the intial fusion reaction would dwarf that
from the decay of Ni63 anyway.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia

[a.ashfield]

Jones,
You have called me a Rossi fan but I have no trouble considering that he 
may have used a rare isotope of Ni.  That is the point. Nobody knows and 
it is better to wait for full information.


It does not seem necessary, at least for relatively low COPs.  See this 
example of a paper on replicating Rossi.  Or are you one of those like 
Jed who is certain that it doesn't work and any replication must be flawed?

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ExcessHeatInLAH-Ni_Stepanov_English.pdf

AA

On 2/19/2017 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Interesting article turned up, for those following the ongoing 
Rossigate drama... starting about the 7th paragraph concerning Russia, 
and the deployment of nickel isotopes for power, first to replace 
strontium-90 but also "with possible applications for space travel."


http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2016-04-russia-setting-up-for-new-radioactive-batteries-months-after-norway-helped-shut-down-the-old-ones 



According to the article, the active fuel will be Ni-63 which has been 
produced from Ni-62 "in a centrifuge".


That info is a bit senseless without more detail - but it does point 
to two things. First, Russia is already deploying Ni-63 as a beta 
emitter which is a fully developed fuel source, not an inventor's 
dream, and second the active isotope is derived from Ni-62 in some 
undisclosed way - possibly as a byproduct. We already know that there 
is large market for Ni-62 which Russia dominates - since the US 
stopped making it twenty years ago.


Moreover, Ni-63 has a short half-life of 73 years and only releases 
electrons of moderate energy - 67 keV which would NOT have been 
noticed in LENR. For a light house, with an intense light beam, it 
would require kilograms of Ni-63 so it must be moderately affordable 
to Russians,  in that context. The present price here is about 
$20,000/gram and all US sellers get it from Russia.


There is further implication from this scenario - possibly that Ni-63 
could be produced from Ni-62 more easily than being irradiated in a 
nuclear reactor and then separated by centrifuge. LENR. Many theories 
of NiH suggest that dense hydrogen acts as a virtual neutron. Would 
the route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert 
Ni-62 to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ?


Funny thing, Rossi initially staked everything in his IP on a patent 
application which protects the use of Ni-62 and admitted in his blog 
that he was using it. Then the patent application appears to have 
rejected, and we hear nothing more on it after the IH contract.


Ironically - for some idealist reason, even Rossi's strongest 
supporters balk at the suggestion that his secret is a rare isotope, 
despite its obvious fit, his many messages about it and the original 
patent application. They apparently resist the implications of a 
required costly isotope because of a preconceived notion about the 
larger field of LENR providing almost limitless "free energy". But, it 
is easy to see how the rare isotope fits into the category of "mouse" 
if you believe that myth... so the inventor may have thought he could 
solve the high-cost problem by using less of it, as a trigger.


It is unwise to be too idealistic about cheap energy such that one 
refuses to consider what is becoming most likely from looking into the 
public record, which includes the reality of Lugano being gainful, but 
less gainful - and not with the salting of the ash with Ni-62, but 
with the isotope being the actual fuel from the start, but the 
inventor needing to hide that fact.


This viewpoint suggests:
1) LENR can happen with NiH far more easily with enrichment of the 
isotope of nickel-62, which converts to Ni-63 via dense hydrogen


2) LENR as a robust energy source is therefore dependent on the cost 
of a rare isotope, limiting its market


3) Ni-63 can be converted in situ and then produces about 50,000 time 
more energy than combustion.


4) Even though the Ni-62 isotope will be brought down in cost, 
eventually, in a similar way that U235 was, it will be expensive and 
thus LENR will not propel society into the lofty realm of energy 
independence as idealists want to believe.


5) To explain the failure of the megawatt system - this is of course 
hypothetical but probably relates to the inventor's own self-deception 
about steam, along with the fact that a two-stage "cat and mouse" 
system with a tiny amount of Ni-62 as a trigger does not work as well 
as he imagined, since he  thought all along that his data was real 
when it was bogus from the start, thanks to Penon. Rossi fooled 
himself to the end.


In conclusion, it looks like the Ni-62/63 reaction, would provide a 
compact source of energy as is already being implement by the 
Russians, but likely too expensive for widespread civilian use, except 
for a few niche applications. The big $ market could be military and 
aerospace - where any small advantage can be "priceless" as they 

Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

OK let's also mention the main objection to this hypothesis. (Ni62 + HDH 
-> Ni63)


The objection would be the extended half-life of about 3 months for 
Ni-63. This is a problematic since the nickel powder should be 
radioactive after a run for many months, due to Ni-63 activation - and 
this has not been reported in the literature.


OTOH - the scenario which is being proposed is absorption of a virtual 
neutron (dense hydrogen) instead of a real neutron. The decay pathway 
would no doubt be different.


Is the beta decay of this alternative version of Ni-63 immediate when 
UDH has been the activator?


If not, then the scenario is wrong.


bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:


An advantage of Ni-63 is that it does not collect in the body like 
Sr-90 does and thus does not pose a large biological hazard, although 
to much can cause a problem.  In addition it is not as mobile in water 
as Sr-90 is.


Bob Cook

RE: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia

[bobcook39923]

Jones-

The article notes that centrifuges will be used to enrich “Ni-62” not Ni-63?  

That may be correct, since Ni-62 is what is used for LENR.

Bob Cook
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 8:29 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia

Interesting article turned up, for those following the ongoing Rossigate 
drama... starting about the 7th paragraph concerning Russia, and the 
deployment of nickel isotopes for power, first to replace strontium-90 
but also "with possible applications for space travel."

http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2016-04-russia-setting-up-for-new-radioactive-batteries-months-after-norway-helped-shut-down-the-old-ones

According to the article, the active fuel will be Ni-63 which has been 
produced from Ni-62 "in a centrifuge".

That info is a bit senseless without more detail - but it does point to 
two things. First, Russia is already deploying Ni-63 as a beta emitter 
which is a fully developed fuel source, not an inventor's dream, and 
second the active isotope is derived from Ni-62 in some undisclosed way 
- possibly as a byproduct. We already know that there is large market 
for Ni-62 which Russia dominates - since the US stopped making it twenty 
years ago.

Moreover, Ni-63 has a short half-life of 73 years and only releases 
electrons of moderate energy - 67 keV which would NOT have been noticed 
in LENR. For a light house, with an intense light beam, it would require 
kilograms of Ni-63 so it must be moderately affordable to Russians,  in 
that context. The present price here is about $20,000/gram and all US 
sellers get it from Russia.

There is further implication from this scenario - possibly that Ni-63 
could be produced from Ni-62 more easily than being irradiated in a 
nuclear reactor and then separated by centrifuge. LENR. Many theories of 
NiH suggest that dense hydrogen acts as a virtual neutron. Would the 
route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert Ni-62 
to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ?

Funny thing, Rossi initially staked everything in his IP on a patent 
application which protects the use of Ni-62 and admitted in his blog 
that he was using it. Then the patent application appears to have 
rejected, and we hear nothing more on it after the IH contract.

Ironically - for some idealist reason, even Rossi's strongest supporters 
balk at the suggestion that his secret is a rare isotope, despite its 
obvious fit, his many messages about it and the original patent 
application. They apparently resist the implications of a required 
costly isotope because of a preconceived notion about the larger field 
of LENR providing almost limitless "free energy". But, it is easy to see 
how the rare isotope fits into the category of "mouse" if you believe 
that myth... so the inventor may have thought he could solve the 
high-cost problem by using less of it, as a trigger.

It is unwise to be too idealistic about cheap energy such that one 
refuses to consider what is becoming most likely from looking into the 
public record, which includes the reality of Lugano being gainful, but 
less gainful - and not with the salting of the ash with Ni-62, but with 
the isotope being the actual fuel from the start, but the inventor 
needing to hide that fact.

This viewpoint suggests:
1) LENR can happen with NiH far more easily with enrichment of the 
isotope of nickel-62, which converts to Ni-63 via dense hydrogen

2) LENR as a robust energy source is therefore dependent on the cost of 
a rare isotope, limiting its market

3) Ni-63 can be converted in situ and then produces about 50,000 time 
more energy than combustion.

4) Even though the Ni-62 isotope will be brought down in cost, 
eventually, in a similar way that U235 was, it will be expensive and 
thus LENR will not propel society into the lofty realm of energy 
independence as idealists want to believe.

5) To explain the failure of the megawatt system - this is of course 
hypothetical but probably relates to the inventor's own self-deception 
about steam, along with the fact that a two-stage "cat and mouse" system 
with a tiny amount of Ni-62 as a trigger does not work as well as he 
imagined, since he  thought all along that his data was real when it was 
bogus from the start, thanks to Penon. Rossi fooled himself to the end.

In conclusion, it looks like the Ni-62/63 reaction, would provide a 
compact source of energy as is already being implement by the Russians, 
but likely too expensive for widespread civilian use, except for a few 
niche applications. The big $ market could be military and aerospace - 
where any small advantage can be "priceless" as they say in MasterCard 
lingo. The fact that Penon moved to Russia may not be coincidental.

[Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia

[Jones Beene]

Interesting article turned up, for those following the ongoing Rossigate 
drama... starting about the 7th paragraph concerning Russia, and the 
deployment of nickel isotopes for power, first to replace strontium-90 
but also "with possible applications for space travel."


http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2016-04-russia-setting-up-for-new-radioactive-batteries-months-after-norway-helped-shut-down-the-old-ones

According to the article, the active fuel will be Ni-63 which has been 
produced from Ni-62 "in a centrifuge".


That info is a bit senseless without more detail - but it does point to 
two things. First, Russia is already deploying Ni-63 as a beta emitter 
which is a fully developed fuel source, not an inventor's dream, and 
second the active isotope is derived from Ni-62 in some undisclosed way 
- possibly as a byproduct. We already know that there is large market 
for Ni-62 which Russia dominates - since the US stopped making it twenty 
years ago.


Moreover, Ni-63 has a short half-life of 73 years and only releases 
electrons of moderate energy - 67 keV which would NOT have been noticed 
in LENR. For a light house, with an intense light beam, it would require 
kilograms of Ni-63 so it must be moderately affordable to Russians,  in 
that context. The present price here is about $20,000/gram and all US 
sellers get it from Russia.


There is further implication from this scenario - possibly that Ni-63 
could be produced from Ni-62 more easily than being irradiated in a 
nuclear reactor and then separated by centrifuge. LENR. Many theories of 
NiH suggest that dense hydrogen acts as a virtual neutron. Would the 
route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert Ni-62 
to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ?


Funny thing, Rossi initially staked everything in his IP on a patent 
application which protects the use of Ni-62 and admitted in his blog 
that he was using it. Then the patent application appears to have 
rejected, and we hear nothing more on it after the IH contract.


Ironically - for some idealist reason, even Rossi's strongest supporters 
balk at the suggestion that his secret is a rare isotope, despite its 
obvious fit, his many messages about it and the original patent 
application. They apparently resist the implications of a required 
costly isotope because of a preconceived notion about the larger field 
of LENR providing almost limitless "free energy". But, it is easy to see 
how the rare isotope fits into the category of "mouse" if you believe 
that myth... so the inventor may have thought he could solve the 
high-cost problem by using less of it, as a trigger.


It is unwise to be too idealistic about cheap energy such that one 
refuses to consider what is becoming most likely from looking into the 
public record, which includes the reality of Lugano being gainful, but 
less gainful - and not with the salting of the ash with Ni-62, but with 
the isotope being the actual fuel from the start, but the inventor 
needing to hide that fact.


This viewpoint suggests:
1) LENR can happen with NiH far more easily with enrichment of the 
isotope of nickel-62, which converts to Ni-63 via dense hydrogen


2) LENR as a robust energy source is therefore dependent on the cost of 
a rare isotope, limiting its market


3) Ni-63 can be converted in situ and then produces about 50,000 time 
more energy than combustion.


4) Even though the Ni-62 isotope will be brought down in cost, 
eventually, in a similar way that U235 was, it will be expensive and 
thus LENR will not propel society into the lofty realm of energy 
independence as idealists want to believe.


5) To explain the failure of the megawatt system - this is of course 
hypothetical but probably relates to the inventor's own self-deception 
about steam, along with the fact that a two-stage "cat and mouse" system 
with a tiny amount of Ni-62 as a trigger does not work as well as he 
imagined, since he  thought all along that his data was real when it was 
bogus from the start, thanks to Penon. Rossi fooled himself to the end.


In conclusion, it looks like the Ni-62/63 reaction, would provide a 
compact source of energy as is already being implement by the Russians, 
but likely too expensive for widespread civilian use, except for a few 
niche applications. The big $ market could be military and aerospace - 
where any small advantage can be "priceless" as they say in MasterCard 
lingo. The fact that Penon moved to Russia may not be coincidental.

RE: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[bobcook39923]

Higgins—
  Consistent with my previous comments regarding the IH/Rossi contract, and 
with respect to Jed’s recent comment: ”You have to be a PHOSITA to replicate. 
Who that would be and what they have to know is often disputed. It is possible 
the I.H. people are not PHOSITA enough….”, I consider Rossi is within his 
rights to protect his state of the art knowledge regarding the production of 
high COP’s from his patented invention.  

I do not consider that the contractual sale of IP by Rossi included training IH 
in his POHOSITA to obtain long term performance of the E-Cat above a COP of 4.

At one point in my engineering career I worked with an International Nickel 
Corp invented alloy called Ni-Cr-Fe Alloy 600.  It is like a stainless steel 
corrosion resistant alloy, but with superior caustic corrosion resistance.   
Several specialty metals manufactures produced the alloy, I believe under 
license to use the applicable patent.  

Material specs used to purchase the alloy 600 products were very specific and 
detailed.  However,  all heats of materials produced by the various vendors did 
not perform as well as others when subjected to   stress corrosion cracking 
testing on the specifics heat of material purchased.  However the International 
Nickel heats procured to the detailed specifications typically performed well 
under the stress corrosion testing.

Our laboratory worked over three years to finally understand why certain heats 
performed better than others.  International Nickel Corporation did not help us 
discover the understanding.  

It turned that International Nickel’s PHOSITA in production of the alloy 600 
material was apparently important in achieving the superior stress corrosion 
performance.  It involved the addition of Nb at very small levels (a few ppm’s) 
to each heat.  Nb was not specified  in the detailed material specs and not 
apparently identified in the patent for the alloy.  

It was generally known that stress corrosion was some how related to impurities 
at the grain boundaries of the alloy 600 material.  However, measuring Nb at 
the ppm level was not so easy, but our laboratory finally reverse-engineered 
the good heats and subsequently we changed the specs to require Nb at the 
necessary level.  The Nb acted to scavenge O at the grain boundaries to prevent 
stress corrosion cracking.  

As far as I know there was no legal action against International Nickel Corp 
for hiding the details associated with the introduction of Nb to their heats of 
material, even thought it cost millions of dollars.  It was recognized as a 
valid trade secret, I believe.

I find Rossi’s protection of his trade secrets quite natural in this day and 
age.

Bob Cook








From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 5:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

Jed,   You are backing yourself into an extremist position with your latest 
comments.  I don't believe that you or anyone else has enough data to prove 
that there was 0 excess heat in Rossi's attempt at a contrived "GPT".  XH in 
this long experiment may not be close to what Rossi claims, but that is not the 
same as 0 XH.    

I believe at least Parkhmomov, Jiang, and Zhanghang have demonstrated that 
there is evidence of XH in the inferred Lugano fuel system.  In fact, MFMP's 
Dogbone replication suggests that there was XH in the Lugano experiment - just 
not nearly as much as claimed by the Lugano experimenters (JofCMNS v21).  Since 
this fuel system and experiment design came from Rossi, it lends credence to 
the claim that Rossi does have some working technology.  IH is duly indignant 
about the loss of $11M so far because Rossi has not taught them the high power, 
high COP technology he claims he has.  Despite all the rhetoric, I don't 
believe that even IH believes that Rossi has nothing - only that he has not 
given them anything of significance compared to what he claims.  There was even 
IH testimony in this case that there may have been some small XH measured in 
some of Rossi's replications at IH.
It appears that the Lugano technology that Rossi gave to IH was "throwing them 
a bone".  It is a low power, high temperature technology.  I personally believe 
this works or I would not be actively developing test systems for it.  I have 
seen Piantelli's lab, read his papers, and listened to him speak.  I believe he 
has working Ni-H technology.  If Piantelli has it, and Focardi said that Rossi 
had it (and I respect both of them), then it is likely Rossi has something.
Regarding patents... the present patent is nearly worthless in the scheme of 
things by itself.  It is nearly impossible to write a single broad patent when 
you don't understand how the technology works.  No matter what, you need a 
whole portfolio of patents to provide useful protection - protecting both the 
core and all of the non-LENR peripherals around it.  IH could have helped Rossi 
develop that 

RE: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE

[bobcook39923]

Dragone discussed the idea of decreasing entropy (increasing order of matter) 
as a an effect of the magnetic device he described.  That may include better 
nuclear order.  

Another interesting item is the assessment of the Dragone document.

http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/DragoneAnalysis.pdf

Bob Cook
From: MJ
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE


    Leon Dragone also observed the cooling effect related to magnetism:

    
http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/EM/Leon%20Dragone%20-%20Energetics%20of%20Ferromagnetism.pdf

    Mark Jordan
    

On 16-Feb-17 19:42, David Roberson wrote:
When a hot object radiates IR into space the temperature also drops.  Perhaps 
there is a low frequency form of magnetic coupling that can be encouraged to do 
a similar thing.  According to my observations there seems to be a method 
available to convert energy among the different forms under most conditions.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Chris Zell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 3:02 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE
If a specially shaped magnetic field can drop the temperature of an apparatus, 
shouldn’t we conclude that random motion (heat) is somehow being converted into 
directed, useful motion?  That Maxwell’s Demon has been found?

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
It looks to me that Bob was repeating my comment.  It is impossible to 
be sure, one way or the other. that the E-Cat works, without having all 
the data.  You said I was calling you a liar because of this and stopped 
replying to me.


If the instrumentation was so obviously useless on the 1 MW plant why on 
earth did IH agree to the instrumentation recommended by the ERV and 
even show potential customers around the plant saying how well it worked?


AA

On 2/18/2017 11:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Bob Higgins > wrote:


Jed,   You are backing yourself into an extremist position with
your latest comments.


Saying that an experiment failed is not extremist. Most experiments fail.

  I don't believe that you or anyone else has enough data to
_prove_ that there was 0 excess heat in Rossi's attempt at a
contrived "GPT".


The instruments and configuration that Rossi used could not prove 
anything. There might have been excess heat, but he would never detect 
it. However, I.H. used better instruments and saw nothing.


  XH in this long experiment may not be close to what Rossi
claims, but that is not the same as 0 XH.


There was no excess heat. That is what they say, and I am confident 
they know what they are doing. Unless they are lying to me, they got 
nothing. It is not hard to see the heat balance is zero within the 
margin of error.


I believe at least Parkhmomov, Jiang, and Zhanghang have
demonstrated that there is evidence of XH in the inferred Lugano
fuel system.


I do not think so. I think they made mistakes.

  In fact, MFMP's Dogbone replication suggests that there was XH
in the Lugano experiment - just not nearly as much as claimed by
the Lugano experimenters (JofCMNS v21).


MFMP has not seen any significant excess heat. In retrospect, there 
were so many mistakes at Lugano I do not think it means anything.


  Since this fuel system and experiment design came from Rossi, it
lends credence to the claim that Rossi does have _some_ working
technology.


I disagree.

Despite all the rhetoric, I don't believe that even IH believes
that Rossi has nothing . . .


You are wrong. They say he has nothing. I agree with their analysis. 
It is possible he had something in the past, but he has nothing now.



It appears that the Lugano technology that Rossi gave to IH was
"throwing them a bone".  It is a low power, high temperature
technology.  I personally believe this works or I would not be
actively developing test systems for it.


You have no reason to think it works. There is no experimental 
evidence for that.


  I have seen Piantelli's lab, read his papers, and listened to
him speak.  I believe he has working Ni-H technology.


Piantelli has nothing to do with Rossi. He does not believe Rossi. 
Also, Piantelli has not been replicated, so there is no reason to 
believe his claims . . . yet.


- Jed