subject:"\[Vo\]\:Rossi E\-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread"

Thank you Terry!
Sorry for sleeping during this looong thread- geography is destiny even on
the short term. It is not excluded that he adds something to the nickel that
helps for a better nanostructure genesis or for an easier, faster and more
thorough removal of the gases from the active surface. This compound will be
then a pseudo-catalyst. I have to compose a Septoe- showing that between
truth and lie, between possible and impossible there is a broad area of
intermediary states.

Otherwise this thread is a good exercise in intelligence- as the ability to
process data that are simultaneously redondant and missing, contradictory in
part, false or badly defined, changing- a real informational mess.
Actually an impossible task- but as it was told here- it is fun and prepares
us to surprises.
Peter


On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm willing to bet that Peter Gluck is right and Rossi bakes his Ni in
 a vacuum to remove the gaseous impurities then puts it in the reaction
 chamber under the bell jar.  I think the catalyst is a red herring.

 T




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

RE: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-12 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From Terry and Peter:

...

 I'm willing to bet that Peter Gluck is right and Rossi bakes his Ni in
 a vacuum to remove the gaseous impurities then puts it in the reaction
 chamber under the bell jar.  I think the catalyst is a red herring.

Meaning Rossi's Ni contains naturally found isotopic ratios from the
beginning of the process? Just verifying.

I would speculate that maintaining a proper pressure within the reactor cell
as it's being heated up might be a crucial factor as well.


Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Yessir!
normal, matural clean Ni ready to be nanometrized and degassed properly.
Isotopic enrichment is very difficult and costly..

I don't uinderstend exactly your idea with the prper pressure- they add
hydrogen, this is adsorbed in part, you cannot add exactly a dosis of
hydrogen- but surely there is a best practices type protocol here.

Peter

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:40 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 From Terry and Peter:

 ...

  I'm willing to bet that Peter Gluck is right and Rossi bakes his Ni in
  a vacuum to remove the gaseous impurities then puts it in the reaction
  chamber under the bell jar.  I think the catalyst is a red herring.

 Meaning Rossi's Ni contains naturally found isotopic ratios from the
 beginning of the process? Just verifying.

 I would speculate that maintaining a proper pressure within the reactor
 cell
 as it's being heated up might be a crucial factor as well.


 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks




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

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-12 Thread Man on Bridges


Hi,

I agree with Jed.
My first-hand personal experience with Italian people is the same.
Having to talk with them in meetings during several days can be very 
exhausting due to their different pronounciation and sometimes 
misunderstanding of the English language.


My personal classic example is when I was about ten years ago during a 
holiday in Rome, Italy and I asked the train-driver in English (what he 
claimed to speak) when does the first train leave on Sunday-morning. 
After repeating the question in several ways in English he gave me each 
time as answer every half hour; which I naturally didn't want to know. 
So I reverted to my few words Italian I picked up from watching Italian 
TV (RAI-Uno) and asked him: primero tren dominica?. And now he 
understood what I meant and gave as answer 05:30 , which was what I 
wanted to know.


So to conclude, maybe someone with a good Italian language background 
should ask him the relevant questions and then maybe we get the answers 
we need.


B.t.w. (English isn't my native language either; i.e. Dutch but I like 
to think that I do speak English and German as well ;-)  )


Kind regards,

MoB

On 12-4-2011 3:49, Jed Rothwell wrote:


This has to be a misunderstanding. Believe me, I have had many 
misunderstandings trying to communicate with Rossi, and often they 
were about issue that he had no reason at all to lie about.


Don't jump to the conclusion that he is lying.

You ask something several times and suddenly you get a different 
answer. Based on long experience dealing people who speak English as a 
second language, this does not shock me.


- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-12 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

From Peter Gluck:

...

 I don't uinderstend exactly your idea with the prper pressure- they add
 hydrogen, this is adsorbed in part, you cannot add exactly a dosis of
 hydrogen- but surely there is a best practices type protocol here.

My apologies, Peter.

Let me try to clarify my previous pressure statement.

Since the Vort Collective IS known to occasionally speculate
extravagantly at times...

Unorthodox Rossi Explanation Follows

The following is a massively edited transcript originating from a
completely unorthodox and totally unscientific source. Never the less,
this unorthodox source occasionally gives me interesting tidbits of
information that have caused me to ponder, people, events  history in
ways that I might not have pondered otherwise. Therefore, - and for
what it's worth...  ;-)

I was told me that some of the spurious results that have plagued the
CF community for the past 20 years is due to the fact that the process
is extremely susceptible to environmental/weather changes. This
includes high and low pressure weather patterns. The implication was
that when a mundane weather pattern, such as when a cold front passes
through the lab, the environmental conditions could affect the
experiment in seemingly unpredictable but dramatic ways.

When I heard this statement it suggested to me that it might be useful
to go back through some of the old experiments and determine what the
weather barometric pressure might have been at the time the certain
experiments suddenly began generating massive amounts of heat. I'm not
sure if this would be helpful however since I gather many labs had
numerous experiments running simultaneously - and some would suddenly
take off while the others remained stubbornly dormant. Obviously,
there must be other environmental factors at play as well.

The same unorthodox source implied that the current Rossi process
still has impurities (contaminants in the nickel powder - I
believe). These contaminants need to be refined out of the chemistry
in order to make the process more robust than it currently is (as if
it isn't robust enough as-is!). They have no doubt that those
impurities will be located and removed.

They also cautioned that this particular process, if not engineered
properly, is capable of generating harmful toxic impurities that could
be released into the environment. Such unwanted contaminants could
enter the water table where it could remain harmful for centuries. It
was not clear to me if the impurities being discussed might have
been chemical and/or radioactive in nature. I suspect it might have
been the latter - meaning radioactive. They stated the necessary
engineering that would be needed to make the technology safe should
not difficult to engineer.

Some here might find it amusing to ponder the fact that this
unorthodox source stated that what Rossi and Focardi have been
pursuing is nothing more than carrying on a centuries-old (old world)
European tradition, one that is close to the art of what we in the
western world would call alchemy. (This BTW, should help explain why
I have recently been mentioning Steam Punk! in some of my Vort
posts.) Old farts like Rossi and Focardi are instinctively comfortable
with how to manipulate these old-world alchemical technologies. It's
is right up their alley. Such alchemical explorations at present tend
to baffle modern western world scientific sensibilities.
Nevertheless, I'm sure nuclear explanations will eventually be
determined. When believable nuclear explanations are theorized the
western world will probably start feeling much more comfortable with
what's going on! 8-0.

Economically speaking, I got the distinct impression that they predict
that this technology will eventually be accepted by the world, this
despite initial economic resistance to marginalize it. Most of the
initial resistance, I was told, will NOT be due to the newness of
technology itself, but rather due to the complicated global economic
issues that will have to be addressed first. We have to find ways to
make the new technology profitable within the current economic
institutions in power in order to move it into a reality.

/Unorthodox Rossi Explanation Follows

I hope that some of the Vort Collective enjoyed the entertainment! And
now, back to regularly scheduled programming. ;-)


Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

It was told me that some of the spurious results that have plagued the
CF community for the past 20 years is due to the fact that the process
is extremely susceptible to environmental/weather changes.

If we speak about Pd-D, perhaps the best is to find out what was the best,
most consistent, powerful, reproducible system/result ever. How, and why?
As regarding unorthodox ideas I have tried to explain here that the
troubles
of Pd-D LENR are caused by the fact that polar gases inactivate the NAE.
0.5 ppb of such impurity means billions of molecules per cubic cm air.
I am not believed. OK, then what is the source of the R problem?
Why was it necessary that useful LENR came by an other car?

And, in principle. will we ever have a technologizable Pd-D cold fusion?

 As regarding an explanation of the Rossi system, orthodox or completely
unorthodox- it must jhave some logic in it. I have limited imagination (see
definition of Brainair in my septoes) and I don't see any reason for wjich
an isotope of nickel could function better than an other isotope of
nickel??? And enrichment is very expensive  difficult.
In patents ( I have 33 ones -Romanian ones but the rules are the same) you
have to be prepared for surprise and then you use the umbrella technique.

Peter

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 From Peter Gluck:

 ...

  I don't uinderstend exactly your idea with the prper pressure- they add
  hydrogen, this is adsorbed in part, you cannot add exactly a dosis of
  hydrogen- but surely there is a best practices type protocol here.

 My apologies, Peter.

 Let me try to clarify my previous pressure statement.

 Since the Vort Collective IS known to occasionally speculate
 extravagantly at times...

 Unorthodox Rossi Explanation Follows

 The following is a massively edited transcript originating from a
 completely unorthodox and totally unscientific source. Never the less,
 this unorthodox source occasionally gives me interesting tidbits of
 information that have caused me to ponder, people, events  history in
 ways that I might not have pondered otherwise. Therefore, - and for
 what it's worth...  ;-)

 I was told me that some of the spurious results that have plagued the
 CF community for the past 20 years is due to the fact that the process
 is extremely susceptible to environmental/weather changes. This
 includes high and low pressure weather patterns. The implication was
 that when a mundane weather pattern, such as when a cold front passes
 through the lab, the environmental conditions could affect the
 experiment in seemingly unpredictable but dramatic ways.

 When I heard this statement it suggested to me that it might be useful
 to go back through some of the old experiments and determine what the
 weather barometric pressure might have been at the time the certain
 experiments suddenly began generating massive amounts of heat. I'm not
 sure if this would be helpful however since I gather many labs had
 numerous experiments running simultaneously - and some would suddenly
 take off while the others remained stubbornly dormant. Obviously,
 there must be other environmental factors at play as well.

 The same unorthodox source implied that the current Rossi process
 still has impurities (contaminants in the nickel powder - I
 believe). These contaminants need to be refined out of the chemistry
 in order to make the process more robust than it currently is (as if
 it isn't robust enough as-is!). They have no doubt that those
 impurities will be located and removed.

 They also cautioned that this particular process, if not engineered
 properly, is capable of generating harmful toxic impurities that could
 be released into the environment. Such unwanted contaminants could
 enter the water table where it could remain harmful for centuries. It
 was not clear to me if the impurities being discussed might have
 been chemical and/or radioactive in nature. I suspect it might have
 been the latter - meaning radioactive. They stated the necessary
 engineering that would be needed to make the technology safe should
 not difficult to engineer.

 Some here might find it amusing to ponder the fact that this
 unorthodox source stated that what Rossi and Focardi have been
 pursuing is nothing more than carrying on a centuries-old (old world)
 European tradition, one that is close to the art of what we in the
 western world would call alchemy. (This BTW, should help explain why
 I have recently been mentioning Steam Punk! in some of my Vort
 posts.) Old farts like Rossi and Focardi are instinctively comfortable
 with how to manipulate these old-world alchemical technologies. It's
 is right up their alley. Such alchemical explorations at present tend
 to baffle modern western world scientific sensibilities.
 Nevertheless, I'm sure nuclear explanations will eventually be
 determined. When believable nuclear explanations are theorized the
 western world will

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-12 Thread mixent

In reply to  Peter Gluck's message of Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:26:41 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
And, in principle. will we ever have a technologizable Pd-D cold fusion?

Why would we want a technology based upon scarce ( expensive) substances (Pd 
D) when we can have one based on cheap and readily available ones (Ni  H)?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-12 Thread mixent

In reply to  Peter Gluck's message of Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:26:41 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
I don't see any reason for wjich
an isotope of nickel could function better than an other isotope of
nickel???

I explained this in a previous post. The neutron rich isotopes probably have a
higher nuclear cross section for proton absorption than the neutron poor
isotopes. Unfortunately most Ni atoms are neutron poor. There may however also
be another reason. Only Ni62  Ni64 result in stable isotopes upon proton
addition, and stability of the final nucleus may also mean a higher cross
section for those reactions.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-12 Thread mixent

In reply to  Peter Gluck's message of Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:26:41 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
And enrichment is very expensive  difficult.

...and so unnecessary. If the reactions to stable copper are preferred (by the
reaction mechanism itself) above other reactions, then Ni62  Ni64 will
automatically be selected from natural Ni anyway, leaving the rest behind.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-12 Thread Jed Rothwell

mix...@bigpond.com wrote:


 Why would we want a technology based upon scarce ( expensive) substances
 (Pd 
 D) when we can have one based on cheap and readily available ones (Ni  H)?


For the next several years I think researchers should concentrate on Ni-H,
but I think it would be a good idea to revisit other systems such as Pd-D
and even Au-H. Reasons:

We need broad understanding of the physics. These others might have lessons
that are not as easily learned from Ni-H. I don't know that for a fact, but
it is possible.

There may be some niche applications or operating domains in which these
other systems are superior. For example, one of them might work at low
temperatures, so it might be better for small implanted medical devices with
thermoelectric chips. It is hard to imagine implanting a micro-mini-Rossi
device, which only operates at  ~600°C (I think).

Even though the materials are more expensive, in some applications this will
not matter. Suppose it turns out  you can extract much more energy per gram
from a Pd-D system than Ni-H. Again, that would make it attractive for
implanted medical devices, and also for satellite power supplies or remote,
unmanned telephone repeaters, UAVs that stay aloft for months, and various
other applications in which people spare no expense.

Think of today's energy systems. There are cheap, large scale ones such as
gas turbines. At the other extreme there are tiny ones such as hearing-aid
batteries. The cost per watt of capacity for a hearing aid battery is
probably astronomical, and the materials are probably rare and expensive.
But the technology is useful and profitable.

- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Dear Robin,

The reason is first of all historical- for 21.85 years and 15 ICCFs we have
tried to explore, understand and make use of the palladium- deuterium
systems,first of all.
Scientifically these are OK, but it is a problem of principle is POSSIBLE
to use them as an energy source? A reliable energy source? The progress was
painfully slow, the quantity of disillusions huge, the efforts heroic. But
we are very far from a solution.

I remember that in 1997 (?) at Cambridge, at a conference organized by Gene
Mallove I had a kind of intellectual revelation- palladium is bad
at it was a very negative chance that Fleischmann and Pons have discovered
CF in this metal. A very unlucky choice. Heretical idea!
In a short speech I told that for CF to be discovered in/with palladium
was like for a lion to be born at the North Pole. Nobody has understood the
idea, including me - but later I became increasingly aware that
it is not such an idiocy as it seems at a first sight. What if Pd-D based
energy source will not ever fulfill the conditions of intensity,
reproducibility, continuity, safety, upscalability? Pd- D CF is science, but
not technology.I know a few reasons for that.


Other - I bet that Rossi's nickel is NOt isotopically enriched in any way,
in order to separate isotopes you have to bring the metal in a fluid form
liquid or gaseous.

peter




On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:05 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Peter Gluck's message of Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:26:41 +0300:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 And, in principle. will we ever have a technologizable Pd-D cold fusion?

 Why would we want a technology based upon scarce ( expensive) substances
 (Pd 
 D) when we can have one based on cheap and readily available ones (Ni  H)?

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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




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

[Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Hello Everyone,

Over the past few months I have read many guesses as to what the catalyst(s) 
might be.

A couple speculations are sodium hydride and zirconium. 

Please use this thread to post your speculations as to the catalysts used in 
the 
E-Cat.

If we can figure this out replication work can happen far sooner than when 
Rossi's catalyst patent is granted (which could be a long time).

Anyone have any ideas they would like to share?

All we know from Rossi is that...

1) The catalyst is not copper.
2) The catalyst is not iron.
3) The catalyst is not a precious metal.
4) The catalyst is not radioactive.
5) The catalyst is not expensive.
6) The catalyst is not Raney Nickel
7) The catalyst is not an additional gas placed in the reactor. 

What can we come up with from these clues?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread


Add to that:

8) the Ni processing system increases 10% the cost of Ni (Rossi, April 9)

That can't be much processing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread


Forgot:

9) The catalyst consists of Ni plus two other elements.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-11 Thread Peter Gluck

Why not bet on what the catalyst is?

My guess is this (it is valid only in Italian)
The catalyst is Nickel electro- Nitrogen Telluride,
shortened name NieNTe - niente- i.e. nothing
Just a very good method of activation. I have told
this here three days ago and I am ready to bet.

Peter

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:34 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.comwrote:

 Hello Everyone,

 Over the past few months I have read many guesses as to what the
 catalyst(s) might be.

 A couple speculations are sodium hydride and zirconium.

 Please use this thread to post your speculations as to the catalysts used
 in the E-Cat.

 If we can figure this out replication work can happen far sooner than when
 Rossi's catalyst patent is granted (which could be a long time).

 Anyone have any ideas they would like to share?

 All we know from Rossi is that...

 1) The catalyst is not copper.
 2) The catalyst is not iron.
 3) The catalyst is not a precious metal.
 4) The catalyst is not radioactive.
 5) The catalyst is not expensive.
 6) The catalyst is not Raney Nickel
 7) The catalyst is not an additional gas placed in the reactor.

 What can we come up with from these clues?






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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-11 Thread Craig Haynie

Mills told us years ago that his catalyst is potassium. Why do we think
this is a different process? Remember that Mills started this work with
a nickel-hydrogen fuel cell. If it's real, then more than likely it's
the same process.

Craig

On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 21:47 +0300, Peter Gluck wrote:
 Why not bet on what the catalyst is?
 
 
 My guess is this (it is valid only in Italian)
 The catalyst is Nickel electro- Nitrogen Telluride,
 shortened name NieNTe - niente- i.e. nothing
 Just a very good method of activation. I have told
 this here three days ago and I am ready to bet.
 
 
 Peter
 
 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:34 PM, noone noone
 thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Hello Everyone,
 
 Over the past few months I have read many guesses as to what
 the catalyst(s) might be.
 
 A couple speculations are sodium hydride and zirconium. 
 
 Please use this thread to post your speculations as to the
 catalysts used in the E-Cat.
 
 If we can figure this out replication work can happen far
 sooner than when Rossi's catalyst patent is granted (which
 could be a long time).
 
 Anyone have any ideas they would like to share?
 
 All we know from Rossi is that...
 
 1) The catalyst is not copper.
 2) The catalyst is not iron.
 3) The catalyst is not a precious metal.
 4) The catalyst is not radioactive.
 5) The catalyst is not expensive.
 6) The catalyst is not Raney Nickel
 7) The catalyst is not an additional gas placed in the
 reactor. 
 
 What can we come up with from these clues? 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread


Peter Gluck wrote:


Why not bet on what the catalyst is?

My guess is this (it is valid only in Italian)
The catalyst is Nickel electro- Nitrogen Telluride,
shortened name NieNTe - niente- i.e. nothing


So you are saying that Rossi is not telling the truth. Okay, but let us 
try playing a round in which we assume that everything Rossi says is 
either true, or he is sincere but mistaken. Things he has said that 
might be mistakes:


Example 1. He thinks the Cu isotopes have somewhat different ratios than 
the natural ones, but perhaps that is because the mass spec he used does 
not do a good job identifying isotopes.


Example 2. There is no way he could be wrong about the fact that two 
elements are added, but there might also be trace amounts of other 
elements he is unaware of that act as dopants.




Just a very good method of activation.


What do you mean by activation? Preparation? Cleaning?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-11 Thread Peter Gluck

In this case truth is a problem of definition. Ni as such can play the role
of a catalyst.
I think during the 22 years of CF history we have learned how important is
the nanometric structure of the metal. What I have called active sites in my
Topology paper and they are now NAE are products of smart nanotechnology.
And as I have told so many times- the gases that could compete with
deuterium or hydrogen have to be thoroughly eliminated from the surface-
please read the (accepted!) patent WO 2010/058288

Peter

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Peter Gluck wrote:

  Why not bet on what the catalyst is?

 My guess is this (it is valid only in Italian)
 The catalyst is Nickel electro- Nitrogen Telluride,
 shortened name NieNTe - niente- i.e. nothing


 So you are saying that Rossi is not telling the truth. Okay, but let us try
 playing a round in which we assume that everything Rossi says is either
 true, or he is sincere but mistaken. Things he has said that might be
 mistakes:

 Example 1. He thinks the Cu isotopes have somewhat different ratios than
 the natural ones, but perhaps that is because the mass spec he used does not
 do a good job identifying isotopes.

 Example 2. There is no way he could be wrong about the fact that two
 elements are added, but there might also be trace amounts of other elements
 he is unaware of that act as dopants.



  Just a very good method of activation.


 What do you mean by activation? Preparation? Cleaning?

 - Jed




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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:



 And as I have told so many times- the gases that could compete with
 deuterium or hydrogen have to be thoroughly eliminated from the surface-
 please read the (accepted!) patent WO 2010/058288


The Piantelli patent. So you are talking mainly about cleaning.

Here's something interesting. Under Description the patent says:

Preferably, said transition metal is Nickel. In particular, said Nickel is
selected from the group comprised of: natural Nickel, i.e. a mixture of
isotopes like Nickel 58, Nickel 60, Nickel 61 , Nickel 62, Nickel 64; - a
Nickel that contains only one isotope, said isotope selected from the group
comprised of:

Nickel 58;

Nickel 60

Nickel 61 ; - Nickel 62;

Nickel 64;

- a formulation comprising at least two of such isotopes at a desired
proportion.

The wording is confusing. It seems to say Use one isotope, or maybe
another, or just pick one from this list . . . take a card, any card. What
proportion, by the way? This does not teach a Person Skilled in the Art.

Anyway . . .

Mono-isotopic nickel?

Could that be the secret?

Where do buy mono-isotopic material, anyway? National labs used to sell that
sort of thing, for lots of money.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-11 Thread Dennis

notice that is not consistent with what you said earlier today:
Ni processing system increases 10% the cost of Ni 

a pure isotope Nickel would cost a lot.
It is more likely a simple commercially available modification of Ni





From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread


Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:



  And as I have told so many times- the gases that could compete with deuterium 
or hydrogen have to be thoroughly eliminated from the surface- please read the 
(accepted!) patent WO 2010/058288


The Piantelli patent. So you are talking mainly about cleaning.

Here's something interesting. Under Description the patent says:

Preferably, said transition metal is Nickel. In particular, said Nickel is 
selected from the group comprised of: natural Nickel, i.e. a mixture of 
isotopes like Nickel 58, Nickel 60, Nickel 61 , Nickel 62, Nickel 64; - a 
Nickel that contains only one isotope, said isotope selected from the group 
comprised of:

Nickel 58;

Nickel 60

Nickel 61 ; - Nickel 62;

Nickel 64;

- a formulation comprising at least two of such isotopes at a desired 
proportion.


The wording is confusing. It seems to say Use one isotope, or maybe another, 
or just pick one from this list . . . take a card, any card. What proportion, 
by the way? This does not teach a Person Skilled in the Art.


Anyway . . .

Mono-isotopic nickel?


Could that be the secret?


Where do buy mono-isotopic material, anyway? National labs used to sell that 
sort of thing, for lots of money.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Rossi has stated they use ordinary nickel and not any one specific isotope of 
nickel.

From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 1:24:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

And as I have told so many times- the gases that could compete with deuterium 
or 
hydrogen have to be thoroughly eliminated from the surface- please read the 
(accepted!) patent WO 2010/058288
The Piantelli patent. So you are talking mainly about cleaning.

Here's something interesting. Under Description the patent says:

Preferably, said transition metal is Nickel. In particular, said Nickel is 
selected from the group comprised of: natural Nickel, i.e. a mixture of 
isotopes 
like Nickel 58, Nickel 60, Nickel 61 , Nickel 62, Nickel 64; - a Nickel that 
contains only one isotope, said isotope selected from the group comprised of:

Nickel 58;

Nickel 60

Nickel 61 ; - Nickel 62;

Nickel 64;

- a formulation comprising at least two of such isotopes at a desired 
proportion.

The wording is confusing. It seems to say Use one isotope, or maybe another, 
or 
just pick one from this list . . . take a card, any card. What proportion, by 
the way? This does not teach a Person Skilled in the Art.

Anyway . . .

Mono-isotopic nickel?

Could that be the secret?

Where do buy mono-isotopic material, anyway? National labs used to sell that 
sort of thing, for lots of money.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread


Dennis wrote:


notice that is not consistent with what you said earlier today:
Ni processing system increases 10% the cost of Ni 
a pure isotope Nickel would cost a lot.
It is more likely a simple commercially available modification of Ni


Ah. You are right. Cancel that theory.

Could that be Piantelli's secret? I do not know of anyone who was able 
to replicate him. (I may have missed someone.) I cannot understand that 
patent but I am probably not what the Patent Office would call a Phosita 
Person having ordinary skill in the art.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-11 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence



On 04/11/2011 04:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Mono-isotopic nickel?

 Could that be the secret?

It would be nice -- that would explain a lot of things, including the
lack of radioactive ash.

Unfortunately, the sample tested in Sweden was apparently natural
nickel, and natural copper.

So, unless Rossi sent them a bogus sample, mono-isotopic nickel is right
out (along with any as yet mentioned plausible-sounding guess for how
this device could be using a nuclear reaction which combines nickel and
hydrogen to produce copper).

The Swedish report threw a monkey wrench into a lot of otherwise
appealing scenarios.

Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

-- Forwarded message --
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:18 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread
To: thesteornpa...@yahoo.com

This part of the Rossi patent caught my attention:

“The present inventor, moreover, has also accurately studies the following
related patents: US-6,236,225, US-5,122,054, US-H466, US-4,014,168,
US-5,552,155, US-5,195,157, US-4,782,303, US-4,341,730, US-A-20010024789.”

The patent nucbers are converted to links in URL formate as follows:

[url=
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=6236225.PN.OS=PN/6236225RS=PN/6236225]Method
of testing the gate oxide in integrated DMOS power transistors and
integrated device comprising a DMOS power transistor[/url]

[url=
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=5122054.PN.OS=PN/5122054RS=PN/5122054]Device
for stopping a radiant burner automatically in the event of ignition[/url]

[url=
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=H000466.PN.OS=PN/H000466RS=PN/H000466]Hall
effect device assembly[/url]

[url=
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=4014168.PN.OS=PN/4014168RS=PN/4014168]Electrical
technique[/url]

[url=
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=5552155.PN.OS=PN/5552155RS=PN/5552155]Fusogenic
lipsomes and methods for making and using same[/url]

[url=
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=5195157.PN.OS=PN/5195157RS=PN/5195157]Optical
fibre splicing[/url]

[url=
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=4782303.PN.OS=PN/4782303RS=PN/4782303]Current
guiding system[/url]

[url=
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=4341730.PN.OS=PN/4341730RS=PN/4341730]Beam
dancer fusion device[/url]

[url=
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PG01p=1u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htmlr=1f=Gl=50s1=20010024789.PGNR.OS=DN/20010024789RS=DN/20010024789]Methods
for generating catalytic proteins[/url]

Reference:

“Iron oxide-based nanomagnets in nanomedicine: fabrication and applications”

http://www.nano-reviews.net/index.php/nano/article/viewArticle/4883/5440

The some of the patents listed in the Rossi patent have a theme of organic
synthesis of organic compatible catalysts and their testing for
effectiveness.

Iron oxide nanoparticles are iron oxide particles with diameters between
about 1 and 100 nanometers. The two main forms are magnetite (Fe3O4) and its
oxidized form maghemite (Fe2O3). They have attracted extensive interest due
to their superparamagnetic properties and their potential applications in
many fields (although Cu, Co and Ni are also highly magnetic materials, they
are toxic and easily oxidized).

Applications of iron oxide nanoparticles include terabit magnetic storage
devices, catalysis, sensors, and high-sensitivity biomolecular magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) for medical diagnosis and therapeutics. These
applications require coating of the nanoparticles by agents such as
long-chain fatty acids, alkyl-substituted amines and diols.

Rossi may have been interested in the organic fabrication of Iron oxide
nanoparticles and subsiquent testing with the intent at selecting particles
with superparamagnetic properties.

This superparamagnetic behavior of iron oxide nanoparticles can be
attributed to their size. When the size gets small enough (20 nm), thermal
fluctuations can change the direction of magnetization of the entire
crystal. A material with many such crystals behaves like a paramagnet,
except that the moments of entire crystals are fluctuating instead of
individual atoms.

After fabrication, certain Iron oxide nanoparticles will be magnetic and
others won’t. A selection mechanism based on magnetic activity can pick out
the required magnetically active particles from the ones that aren’t.

If and what type of Iron oxide nanoparticles magnetization behavior that the
Rossi reaction requires is unknown. But it looks like Rossi is interested in
this type of particle and it behavior.

In detail, ferromagnetic (form permanent magnets) and ferrimagnetic
(Ferrimagnetic materials are like ferromagnets in that they hold a
spontaneous magnetization below the Curie temperature) materials become
disordered and lose their magnetization beyond the Curie temperature TC and
antiferromagnetic materials

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Putting aside Rossi for moment, I guess this has to be Piantelli's secret.
Or one of his secrets. I do not think you are allowed to add red herrings to
patents. (That is, irrelevant information or false clues as to how to make
the thing work.)

I have read this several times. It seems to me that it means:

1. Take a sample of some ordinary nickel.

2. Choose any two isotopes, and enhance the quantity of them in your sample
by a desired proportion.

I do not understand how such vague instructions can be considered sufficient
teaching to be worthy of a patent. Perhaps if you are an expert and you
read through the patent several times you could see what constitutes a
desired proportion but I regard that phraseology as a kind of mind game:
see if you can figure out what I mean here! I think the patent examiner
should have instructed them: tell the reader what two isotopes you mean,
and what the desired proportion should be.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

All this supports my contention that iron in the form of an X2O3 oxide forms
 the site of the active nuclear component in the Rossi catalyst.


So the secret is rust?

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 All this supports my contention that iron in the form of an X2O3 oxide
 forms the site of the active nuclear component in the Rossi catalyst.

 So the secret is rust?

Is your last name Foley, by chance?  :-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Hah!  I thought I recognized JANAP 128 Protocol:

http://sites.google.com/site/mdprcp/proceduresandprotocols

T

I've been mad for fu**ing years, absolutely years, been
Over the edge for yonks, been working me buns off for bands...
I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the
Most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even
If you're not mad...

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hah!  I thought I recognized JANAP 128 Protocol:

 http://sites.google.com/site/mdprcp/proceduresandprotocols

 T

 I've been mad for fu**ing years, absolutely years, been
 Over the edge for yonks, been working me buns off for bands...
 I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the
 Most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even
 If you're not mad...

 Yes I have worked on *AUTODIN and like systems.*

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-11 Thread SHIRAKAWA Akira


On 2011-04-11 23:04, Axil Axil wrote:


-- Forwarded message --

[...]

This is an extremely interesting, well thought post; you're definitely 
onto something. Iron oxide (=rust) would also be quite cheap to add to 
nickel power which is consistent to what we've read so far on charge 
(powdered nickel + catalyzer) costs.


Cheers,
S.A.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 All this supports my contention that iron in the form of an X2O3 oxide
 forms the site of the active nuclear component in the Rossi catalyst.

 So the secret is rust?

Is your last name Foley, by chance?  :-)


Don't laugh at suggestion of 'rust' as a catalyst. 

Not only is iron a Mills' catalyst, but ferrous oxide (the brown variety,
not the reddish) has popped up before in a number of other situations which
were claimed to be energy anomalies. 

Last year, I personally witnessed a demo of a pickup truck in Arizona
running on electrolyzed water (a version of the Stanley Meyer theme, which
will not go away). 

It was one of those predicaments where the device failed the following day
when associates were about to test the exhaust with a 5 gas analyzer, so
naturally we thought it to be a 'too convenient' failure to disguise the
fact that CO2 was going to turn up. And it probably was the old story of the
deluded inventor - but it was working for a while. Sound familiar? Sounds
like the Searle anti-gravity machine which he 'proved' by showing the hole
in the roof, where it escaped g.

Anyway the catalyst there was ferrous oxide IIRC and it is not the only time
that we have seen this. Problem is: it is very difficult, impossible really,
to keep ferrous oxides from changing to other isomers in an oxidizing or
reducing situation. 

That is why I think this is NOT Rossi's secret. 

Jones

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:44 PM, SHIRAKAWA Akira
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 2011-04-11 23:04, Axil Axil wrote:

 -- Forwarded message --

 [...]

 This is an extremely interesting, well thought post; you're definitely onto
 something. Iron oxide (=rust) would also be quite cheap to add to nickel
 power which is consistent to what we've read so far on charge (powdered
 nickel + catalyzer) costs.

 Cheers,
 S.A.


So sorry...please excuse me, I am just begining to learn the vortex ropes.
My main post does not look like it made it to vortex. It began as follows:

From Axil

The following speculation is offered as a springboard for discussion as
regards to the chemical and physical processes that underlie the Rossi
reactor. This is another attempt to connect the dots. 

Should I sent it again?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:15:29 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
should have instructed them: tell the reader what two isotopes you mean,
and what the desired proportion should be.

- Jed

Ni62  Ni64 in the proportion 70/30? ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

From: Axil Axil 

 

*  316L stainless steel has 18% chromium and 65% iron more or less. If the
process was a mechanical based sputtering process then 2.7 % chromium
contamination should have been found in the ash and this chromium would have
still been alloyed with the iron. 

What could have purified the chromium from the iron? 

 

Nothing. It is physically impossible. I believe he is disingenuous, as you
say. Did you see the spectrograms on the patent application? Same thing - no
chromium.

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44475.html

 

Jones

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-11 Thread SHIRAKAWA Akira


On 2011-04-11 23:57, Axil Axil wrote:

The following speculation is offered as a springboard for discussion as
regards to the chemical and physical processes that underlie the Rossi
reactor. This is another attempt to connect the dots. 


I haven't seen that part appear here.


Should I sent it again?


I think you should, but try joining all parts together first, so that 
there will be only one single post.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Don't laugh at suggestion of 'rust' as a catalyst.

It was maniacal.

T

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread


Axil Axil wrote:

IF maghemite(Fe2O3) is used in the Rossi process, and if the Rossi 
reaction depends on the magnetic behavior of Iron oxide nanoparticles 
. . .




Okay, that's 2 elements, and it would not add much to the cost. ~10%? 
Essen did not say there was oxygen but he didn't say there wasn't.


I would love to see Essen's assay from the mass spectrometer! As I said, 
I'll bet it tells the whole story.


I can't imagine that information will stay bottled up indefinitely. In 
the latest interview by Moebius on Radio 24, Levi says: . . .  I'll 
tell you at this time, also to protect Rossi, for the respect I have for 
Rossi, I do not intend to replicate it for now, I intend to work with 
him and continue to study this subject.


He does not intend to replicate for now. Yeah? What scientist could 
resist the temptation to replicate from scratch?


- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-11 Thread Harry Veeder

From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 5:05:37 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

There has been speculation within the cold-fusion community that Rossi is 
being 

disingenuous is stating that the reaction chamber is made of stainless steel. 
Why? Stainless steel is a poor conductor of heat. 

If stainless steel takes a few minutes longer to reach the maximum temperature
that is hardly a drawback if the Ecat runs for weeks or days or even hours.

Harry

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:..

 So sorry...please excuse me, I am just begining to learn the vortex ropes.

No, I apologize.  We have speculated for so long.

T

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread


Harry Veeder wrote:


disingenuous is stating that the reaction chamber is made of stainless steel.
Why? Stainless steel is a poor conductor of heat.


If stainless steel takes a few minutes longer to reach the maximum temperature
that is hardly a drawback if the Ecat runs for weeks or days or even hours.


Plus it is less likely to contaminate the sample. Mizuno and others used 
stainless steel for all hot gas loading experiments such as the 
phenanthrene one. I don't think they would consider any other material. 
They used quartz glass for the tungsten glow discharge experiments.


I believe fission reactor vessels are all stainless steel. It is the 
toughest common material, isn't it?


By the way, if Mizuno is ever funded and given a place to work, that 
experiment might overtake Rossi in a short time. (Assuming it is a real 
effect.)


- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:..

So sorry...please excuse me, I am just begining to learn the vortex
ropes.

No, I apologize. We have speculated for so long.

From Axil

The following speculation is offered as a springboard for discussion as
regards to the chemical and physical processes that underlie the Rossi
reactor. This is another attempt to connect the dots.

Some information from Piantelli is more revealing than the info so far
provided by Rossi as follows:

In the article “Rossi and Focardi LENR Device: Probably Real, With Credit to
Piantelli” as follows:

“The future of the Ni-H energy work, Piantelli explained, is all about
atomic deposition of elements. To this end, the heart of the new laboratory
features a clean room and machine that he calls Knudsen, which is used to
deposit thin films by thermal evaporation and surface preparation.

This is the heart of the problem, Piantelli said. The surface treatment
on the nickel rod is the secret; it's fundamental.

Actually, there are more secrets, he said. He didn't mind photographs being
taken of anything in the lab. However, he said the real secrets are in his
head - that is, the process of the surface preparation and what he's learned
of this art in the last 19 years.

Piantelli said that he now has the ability to look at the samples before the
experiments begin and predict whether the material will work. He said that a
special annealing furnace that the Piantelli-Focardi group now has is an
essential part of the materials preparation process.”

Speculation on what could be going on here.

Rock salt structure of NiO

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Sodium-chloride-3D-ionic.png/200px-Sodium-chloride-3D-ionic.png

Nickel(II) oxide (NiO) can be fabricated so that the planes of oxygen and
nickel stack on each other causing the formation of a capacitor where
two equivalent
layers of opposite charge densities alternate normal to the surface, with
an interlayer spacing R1.

NiO can be prepared by multiple methods. In one of them, upon heating above
400 °C, nickel powder reacts with oxygen to give NiO.

In a rock salt like crystal structure, each repeated crystal unit is
separated by a distance of R2 and bears a dipole moment density. Oxygen
being electronegative has an abundance of negative charge. As a result, the
electrostatic potential increases monotonically across the system by a fixed
amount per double layer.

When properly terminated, the voltage on the surface of the material is
large, typically of the order of several tens of electron volts per layer in
an ionic material. The total dipole moment of N bilayers is proportional to
the slab thickness, and the electrostatic energy amount grows very large,
even for thin films or nano-particles.

In other words, when truncated along the [1 1 1] direction, rock-salt oxides
like NiO exhibit alternating planes of metal2+ and oxygen2_ ions to create a
Type-3 polar surface.

In a type 3 polar surface of nickel oxide along the [1 1 1] direction, the
charge density is non zero and the dipole moment in the repeating unit
perpendicular to the surface, respectively is illustrated as follows:

N -- R1

O --

N -- R1

O --

N-- R1

O --

When so configured, nickel oxide provides a huge work function which
attracts hydrogen ions and electro-statically glues them to the surface of
the NiO with a greater force far more effectively that for any one pure
metallic element.

This large accumulation of electrostatic force is usually unstable and
causes distortions and breakdowns on the polar face of the crystal but if a
way has been found to somehow stabilize this polar surface of the Oxide
using fine nanopowder, then the electrostatic force might remain largely
undiminished.

In the small dimensions of nanopowder, polar surfaces of oxides have been
made to stabilize electrostatically.

Such strong electrostatic charge potential might help attract and pack
hydrogen into other forms of transition metal Oxide compounds which forms
the surface veneer of the a core and shell nanopowder.

The next step is annealing (remember that annealing is an important step in
the Focardi process)[/u] the Nickel oxide sub-layer in a pure oxygen
atmosphere to produce a cover of porous X2O3(where X is a high temperature
transition metal). This compound is colored other than that opposed to the
green of NiO. The annealing could be a step to remove water and lipids from
an organic nano-particle preperation step; see below

Note: I think that the X was Nickel for Piantelli and upgraded to Iron for
Rossi as explained below.

Packing of hydrogen is JOB ONE in the Rossi process:

[start quote] Edmund Storms: Rossi hit upon this somewhat by

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:05:37 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The iron assay in the ash is higher than even copper. So how did it get so
high? The proton fusion theory of nickel does not support the transmutation
of iron. The Miley theory of natural isotopic abundance that I prefer also
does not support a large iron assay in the ash.

Possible:

H2 + Ni58 = Co59 (enhanced double electron capture*) + proton + 9.2 MeV or

H + Ni62 = Co59 + He4 + 0.3 MeV then

H + Co59 = Fe56 + He4 + 3.2 MeV

* A Hydrino molecule has 2 shrunken electrons. If both of these are captured,
along with one of the protons, they convert Cu59 directly into Co59. Such double
electron capture may occur when the result of both no electron capture, and
single electron capture would be an unstable nucleus, as is the case here. (both
Cu59  Ni59 are unstable).

The first of the two Co59 producing reactions may explain 11% iron, the second
alone, would not, as there is insufficient Ni62 to start with, however it may
contribute.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread


Axil Axil wrote:

Deuterium impurities in the hydrogen will make formation of a 
fermionic condensate impossible. This is why a small percentage (2% to 
3%) of deuterium will kill the Rossi reaction.




Did Rossi say that? I don't recall that. Let's add that to the list of 
What We Know From Rossi.


This is a remarkable synthesis!



Let me reiterate the list of core facts from this thread --

What We Know From Rossi (WWKFR)

1) The catalyst is not copper.
2) The catalyst is not iron.
3) The catalyst is not a precious metal.
4) The catalyst is not radioactive.
5) The catalyst is not expensive.
6) The catalyst is not Raney Nickel
7) The catalyst is not an additional gas placed in the reactor.
8) The Ni processing system increases 10% the cost of Ni. (Rossi, April 9)
9) The catalyst consists of Ni plus two other elements.
10) A small percentage (2% to 3%) of deuterium will kill the reaction.

We forgot:

11) The reaction is modulated with resistance heaters. (Modulate? 
Control? Quench?)


12) The reaction can be killed by injecting N to displace the H. (Too 
obvious perhaps?)


- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

In reply to  SHIRAKAWA Akira's message of Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:44:33 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
On 2011-04-11 23:04, Axil Axil wrote:

 -- Forwarded message --
[...]

This is an extremely interesting, well thought post; you're definitely 
onto something. Iron oxide (=rust) would also be quite cheap to add to 
nickel power which is consistent to what we've read so far on charge 
(powdered nickel + catalyzer) costs.

Cheers,
S.A.
I agree. It also makes me wonder if such a nano structure wouldn't produce a
localized magnetic field gradient as Horace has suggested is desirable for his
Deflation Fusion theory.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
 The pressure
 buildup is so intense, the atoms stop being atoms, and the nucleus of the
 former hydrogen atoms breaks apart into it's constituent protons, which then
 break apart into their constituent sub-particles (quarks and gluons), which
 themselves start behaving abnormally.


This is where you lose me.  Can you cite any reference whereby this
proton breakup into quarks and gluons has been demonstrated?

T

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

I meant that Axil Axil's essay is a remarkable synthesis. As far as I 
can tell.


It is remarkable how much information can be gleaned from Rossi's 
publications and comments. You could not gather this much about 
Fleischmann and Pons at Technova, for example, because only Johnson 
Matthey knew about the Pd, and they aren't talking. Violante et al. have 
done detailed studies of their Pd, keeping track of many features such 
as the orientation of the crystals. They have described their database 
and conclusions they draw from it in papers and at conferences, but they 
have not put the whole database on line.


- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:23:55 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
What the function of the X2O3 does is absorb hydrogen is vast amounts by
packing the hydrogen atoms into a vast number of countless holes and defects
in the crystal structure of this X2O3 oxide compound.



This stuff has so many holes (crystal defects) that it can be used as a
semiconductor acting as a solid state diode.

If this is what is happening, then it may be possible to make use of the fact by
actually creating many diodes coupled together like solar cells. In this case
the energy would come from fusion (through ionization of atoms by fast
particles, resulting in many free electrons), and the output would be electric
current directly. No conversion required.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:23:55 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Doing the first test, .25 grams of hydrogen was loaded into one gram of
nickel. That is an enormous amount of hydrogen to pack into a very small
quantity of nickel.

If I calculated correctly, this is 15 H to each Ni.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
  The pressure
  buildup is so intense, the atoms stop being atoms, and the nucleus of the
  former hydrogen atoms breaks apart into it's constituent protons, which
 then
  break apart into their constituent sub-particles (quarks and gluons),
 which
  themselves start behaving abnormally.


 This is where you lose me.  Can you cite any reference whereby this
 proton breakup into quarks and gluons has been demonstrated?

 T


Radiochemical Comparisons on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Uranium





http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS%26PROFESSORS/pdf/ACS.Radiochem-paper.pdf



This theory posited by Milel et al explains why there is no isotopic
deviation from natural abundance.



The creation of a “super atom state” in the condensate results in condensate
fission whose reaction products adhere the natural distribution imposed by
the quark nature of matter.

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Okay; but, I cannot find the issue on proton breakdown.  Perhaps you
could direct me.

Thanks!

T

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
  The pressure
  buildup is so intense, the atoms stop being atoms, and the nucleus of
  the
  former hydrogen atoms breaks apart into it's constituent protons, which
  then
  break apart into their constituent sub-particles (quarks and gluons),
  which
  themselves start behaving abnormally.


 This is where you lose me.  Can you cite any reference whereby this
 proton breakup into quarks and gluons has been demonstrated?

 T


 Radiochemical Comparisons on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Uranium





 http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS%26PROFESSORS/pdf/ACS.Radiochem-paper.pdf



 This theory posited by Milel et al explains why there is no isotopic
 deviation from natural abundance.



 The creation of a “super atom state” in the condensate results in condensate
 fission whose reaction products adhere the natural distribution imposed by
 the quark nature of matter.

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Okay; but, I cannot find the issue on proton breakdown.  Perhaps you
 could direct me.

 Thanks!

 T

 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
  On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
   The pressure
   buildup is so intense, the atoms stop being atoms, and the nucleus of
   the
   former hydrogen atoms breaks apart into it's constituent protons,
 which
   then
   break apart into their constituent sub-particles (quarks and gluons),
   which
   themselves start behaving abnormally.
 
 
  This is where you lose me.  Can you cite any reference whereby this
  proton breakup into quarks and gluons has been demonstrated?
 
  T
 
 
  Radiochemical Comparisons on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Uranium
 
 
 
 
 
 
 http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS%26PROFESSORS/pdf/ACS.Radiochem-paper.pdf
 
 
 
  This theory posited by Milel et al explains why there is no isotopic
  deviation from natural abundance.
 
 
 
  The creation of a “super atom state” in the condensate results in
 condensate
  fission whose reaction products adhere the natural distribution imposed
 by
  the quark nature of matter.
 
 


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)











It is as if a large amount of hydrogen atoms together with some other atoms
like nickel 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.





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. IMHO, in order for the quark property to
be reflected in the Boltzmann distribution of the fission products, a
rearrangement of the constituent quarks on there level would have had to
take place: just like what happens after the “big bang”.**

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is as if a large amount of hydrogen atoms together with some other atoms
 like nickel go into a quantum mechanical blender and turned into a coherent
 quark soup.


Okay, the problem, as I see it, is overcoming the binding energy of
the quarks in the proton.  This blender would require energy levels
equivalent to those soon after the BB!

T

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

  It is as if a large amount of hydrogen atoms together with some other
 atoms
  like nickel go into a quantum mechanical blender and turned into a
 coherent
  quark soup.


 Okay, the problem, as I see it, is overcoming the binding energy of
 the quarks in the proton.  This blender would require energy levels
 equivalent to those soon after the BB!

 T


The natural abundance of fission products produced by the Rossi process is
hard to explain using current concepts of the nuclear shell and the standard
model.



Someone needs to look inside that fissioning condensate and find out what is
happening in detail. The worker that does so and makes sense of it has got
my vote for the Nobel; IMHO.

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Okay, the problem, as I see it, is overcoming the binding energy of
 the quarks in the proton.  This blender would require energy levels
 equivalent to those soon after the BB!

This would require about 1 GeV as I understand it.

T

Not that I understand it, mind you.

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Dear Rossi,
As I understand from your answers you confirm or suspect that only Ni  62 and 
Ni 
64 react to produce Cu 63 and Cu 65 respectively.
The Swedish professor Kullander says in the magazine “Ny teknik” that  in the 
‘spent’ fuel there is 10% copper 63 and 65 (70:30) and 11% iron.
Since nickel 62 and 64 is present in the proportions of 3.6% and 0.9%  totaling 
4.5% in normal natural nickel. Did you enrich for heavier  nickel isotopes to 
make the nickel fuel?
Best regards
Mattias Uppsala Sweden

Dear Mr Mattias Carlsson:
Yes, we do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

ROSSI ENRICHES HIS NICKEL!

Now, does this tell us anything about the type of catalyst he uses? 






From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 4:32:05 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Okay; but, I cannot find the issue on proton breakdown.  Perhaps you
could direct me.

Thanks!

T

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
  The pressure
  buildup is so intense, the atoms stop being atoms, and the nucleus of
  the
  former hydrogen atoms breaks apart into it's constituent protons, which
  then
  break apart into their constituent sub-particles (quarks and gluons),
  which
  themselves start behaving abnormally.


 This is where you lose me.  Can you cite any reference whereby this
 proton breakup into quarks and gluons has been demonstrated?

 T


 Radiochemical Comparisons on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Uranium





http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS%26PROFESSORS/pdf/ACS.Radiochem-paper.pdf
f



 This theory posited by Milel et al explains why there is no isotopic
 deviation from natural abundance.



 The creation of a “super atom state” in the condensate results in condensate
 fission whose reaction products adhere the natural distribution imposed by
 the quark nature of matter.

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Does this tell us anything new?

Dear “HRG”:
My process has nothing to do with Widom Larsen Theory. Nothing at all,  as you 
will see when we will publish our theory together with the  presentation of our 
1 MW plant in Greece in October.
Warm Regards,
A.R.






From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 4:47:05 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread




On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

Okay; but, I cannot find the issue on proton breakdown.  Perhaps you
could direct me.

Thanks!


T

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
  The pressure
  buildup is so intense, the atoms stop being atoms, and the nucleus of
  the
  former hydrogen atoms breaks apart into it's constituent protons, which
  then
  break apart into their constituent sub-particles (quarks and gluons),
  which
  themselves start behaving abnormally.


 This is where you lose me.  Can you cite any reference whereby this
 proton breakup into quarks and gluons has been demonstrated?

 T


 Radiochemical Comparisons on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Uranium





http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS%26PROFESSORS/pdf/ACS.Radiochem-paper.pdf
f



 This theory posited by Milel et al explains why there is no isotopic
 deviation from natural abundance.



 The creation of a “super atom state” in the condensate results in condensate
 fission whose reaction products adhere the natural distribution imposed by
 the quark nature of matter.





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)
 
 
 
 
 
It is as if a large amount of hydrogen atoms together with some other atoms 
like 
nickel 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.
 
 
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. IMHO, in order for the quark property to be 
reflected in the Boltzmann distribution of the fission products, a 
rearrangement 
of the constituent quarks on there level would have had to take place: just 
like 
what happens after the “big bang”.

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:

Does this tell us anything new?

 Dear “HRG”:
 My process has nothing to do with Widom Larsen Theory.


Indeed! This tells us that Steve Krivit will soon reveal that Rossi is a
fraud, a cad, he snatches candy from babies, and throws stones at innocent
songbirds.

- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:

ROSSI ENRICHES HIS NICKEL!


Wow! That is a revelation. He *has* learned from Piantelli.

It is surprising he can do this for 10% of the cost of nickel.

It is surprising how much he reveals in his blog. I hope it does not
endanger his intellectual property. At the same time, I guess I hope it
does, so that the people here can figure it out and others can replicate
soon. I am conflicted.

- Jed

RE: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

From: noone noone 

 

Dear Mr Mattias Carlsson:


Yes, we do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

ROSSI ENRICHES HIS NICKEL!

Now, does this tell us anything about the type of catalyst he uses? 

 

 

No – but it tells us volumes about someone’s basic honesty, doesn’t it ?

At least when you place this information side-by-side with the “adds 10% to the 
cost of nickel” quote. 

Why?

The cost of the cheapest nickel isotope is on the order of ~$20,000/gram. 

Cough … cough … Does anyone really believe they are getting straight answers 
about anything important from this inventor ? He may be honest about trivial 
details but that is all you can depend on.

I’m sorry I wasted my time with a previous post - trying to rationalize out how 
Rossi could be honest about the stainless, or the clear lack thereof, when the 
Swedish analysis showed no chromium. … and I am looking at a recent isotope 
analysis of a sample from a US inventor, which was in a stainless Dewar for two 
days and it SHOWS chromium !!

Why waste time with this nonsense? You will get no honest answers from him.

If you are going to replicate – the LAST THING you want to do is base any 
design choice on a pronouncement from Rossi about any detail which can related 
to important issues, like the catalyst or the quantities of reactants use. 

HE DOES NOT WANT REPLICATION - how obvious that is by now.

Jones

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Why waste time with this nonsense?

Because it's fun?  Fizzix is fun!

Personally, I contribute Rossi's success to spintronics!

Not.

T

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

I don't think he has been dishonest with us at all.

He has told us for a long time that the copper comes from Ni 62 and Ni 64. He 
just did not state that they enriched the nickel.

To me, the situation is obvious.

He buys one quantity of nickel powder. He stated that the nickel powder he buys 
costs about 20 dollars a kilogram.

He has found some process of removing some of the other isotopes so that there 
is a higher percentage of Ni62 and Ni64. This process costs about two dollars. 
This is probably due to the chemicals used. 


He then adds the catalysts.

However, because the Nickel was enriched there is probably less than one 
kilogram of nickel remaining. 


There was no dishonesty in any of this.






From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 5:54:27 PM
Subject: RE: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

 
From:noone noone 
 
Dear Mr Mattias Carlsson:

Yes, we do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

ROSSI ENRICHES HIS NICKEL!

Now, does this tell us anything about the type of catalyst he uses? 
 
 
No – but it tells us volumes about someone’s basic honesty, doesn’t it ?
At least when you place this information side-by-side with the “adds 10% to the 
cost of nickel” quote. 

Why?
The cost of the cheapest nickel isotope is on the order of ~$20,000/gram. 
Cough … cough … Does anyone really believe they are getting straight answers 
about anything important from this inventor ? He may be honest about trivial 
details but that is all you can depend on.
I’m sorry I wasted my time with a previous post - trying to rationalize out how 
Rossi could be honest about the stainless, or the clear lack thereof, when the 
Swedish analysis showed no chromium. … and I am looking at a recent isotope 
analysis of a sample from a US inventor, which was in a stainless Dewar for two 
days and it SHOWS chromium !!
Why waste time with this nonsense? You will get no honest answers from him.
If you are going to replicate – the LAST THING you want to do is base any 
design 
choice on a pronouncement from Rossi about any detail which can related to 
important issues, like the catalyst or the quantities of reactants use. 

HE DOES NOT WANT REPLICATION - how obvious that is by now.
Jones

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:15 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:

 He has found some process of removing some of the other isotopes so that
 there is a higher percentage of Ni62 and Ni64. This process costs about two
 dollars. This is probably due to the chemicals used.

Bovine tripe, IMNSHO.

Rossi is stirring the crap trap.

But we are having a jolly old time, eh?

T

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Ackshully, the implication here is that someone is getting tooo close
to the truth.

T

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-11 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence



On 04/11/2011 08:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com
 mailto:thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:

 ROSSI ENRICHES HIS NICKEL!


 Wow! That is a revelation. He _has_ learned from Piantelli.

 It is surprising he can do this for 10% of the cost of nickel.

It's also surprising that the nickel analyzed in Sweden didn't show any
signs of enrichment.

So, have we decided that Rossi handed them a phony sample, or is the
enrichment just so slight that it doesn't show up?

Or is there really no enrichment taking place?

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

I'm willing to bet that Peter Gluck is right and Rossi bakes his Ni in
a vacuum to remove the gaseous impurities then puts it in the reaction
chamber under the bell jar.  I think the catalyst is a red herring.

T

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:


 He has found some process of removing some of the other isotopes so that
 there is a higher percentage of Ni62 and Ni64. This process costs about two
 dollars. This is probably due to the chemicals used.


Look up isotope separation methods and you will see that chemicals are not
used and all methods are expensive.

If he changed the ratios a tiny bit, it might cost only 10%.

This could also be a classic Rossi miscommunication. On several occasions he
went for a week telling me one thing, and then suddenly said something else.
Especially the name of the company, which he said was Defkalion Energy.
There was another unrelated company by that name. He didn't bother to
mention the Green Energy part. He said, it's something like that; look it
up.

Anyway, let's ask him! On to the blog!

- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

I do not think he is lying about this.

I think he is telling us the truth.

The only downside is that even though the enrichment only costs 10% of the cost 
of the nickel the final amount of nickel fuel is less. It might only be 100 
grams out of a kilogram.






From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 6:20:50 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:15 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:

 He has found some process of removing some of the other isotopes so that
 there is a higher percentage of Ni62 and Ni64. This process costs about two
 dollars. This is probably due to the chemicals used.

Bovine tripe, IMNSHO.

Rossi is stirring the crap trap.

But we are having a jolly old time, eh?

T

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-11 Thread Harry Veeder

Jones,
From the April 6th NyTeknik article: 
 
NyTeknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses?
 
Kullander: Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly 
nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, 
mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through 
ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of 
nickel and copper.



There is not enough information in this article to conclude that the Swedes did 
not find chromium.
Chromium may or not be one of the several elements. 

They only say the pure nickel poweder is _mainly_ nickel so you have room to 
speculate what else might be present before the nickel poweder is used.

Harry

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:


 Kullander: . . . The isotopic analysis through
 ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of
 nickel and copper.


This has to be a misunderstanding. Believe me, I have had many
misunderstandings trying to communicate with Rossi, and often they were
about issue that he had no reason at all to lie about.

Don't jump to the conclusion that he is lying.

You ask something several times and suddenly you get a different answer.
Based on long experience dealing people who speak English as a second
language, this does not shock me.

- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

I uploaded a question about this to his blog, here:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=338cpage=2

It has not shown up yet.

- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 HE DOES NOT WANT REPLICATION - how obvious that is by now.

It is obvious because he has said it, clearly, many times. He does sometimes
make himself clear.

I don't see anything untoward about it. Of course he doesn't want
replication! It would endanger his intellectual property. If I were his
patent lawyer I would advise him to close down his blog and shut up.

- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:


 Kullander: . . . The isotopic analysis through

 ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of
 nickel and copper.


 This has to be a misunderstanding. Believe me, I have had many
 misunderstandings trying to communicate with Rossi, and often they were
 about issue that he had no reason at all to lie about.

 Don't jump to the conclusion that he is lying.

 You ask something several times and suddenly you get a different answer.
 Based on long experience dealing people who speak English as a second
 language, this does not shock me.

 - Jed


I don’t think Rossi knows what is going on and has an inaccurate physical
model of his process in his head.



If Rossi could be wrong about what is going on within his process down at
the atomic level and below, he could have attempted enrichment to no real
effect.



If the Rossi process produces isotopes that normalize to natural isotopic
abundances, the process will eventually overcome any enrichment when the
reactor is active for a long time. The process can obviously operate at
natural nickel isotopic levels with a high level of copper impurities.

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

2011-04-11 Thread Harry Veeder

I find it strange that the Swedes did not incorporate their isotopic analysis 
in 
their report. 

Harry

From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 9:49:04 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: 

Kullander: . . . The isotopic analysis through
ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of
nickel and copper.

This has to be a misunderstanding. Believe me, I have had many 
misunderstandings 
trying to communicate with Rossi, and often they were about issue that he had 
no 
reason at all to lie about.

Don't jump to the conclusion that he is lying.

You ask something several times and suddenly you get a different answer. Based 
on long experience dealing people who speak English as a second language, this 
does not shock me.

- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


HE DOES NOT WANT REPLICATION - how obvious that is by now.

 It is obvious because he has said it, clearly, many times. He does
 sometimes make himself clear.

 I don't see anything untoward about it. Of course he doesn't want
 replication! It would endanger his intellectual property. If I were his
 patent lawyer I would advise him to close down his blog and shut up.

 - Jed


Mae West : Don't keep a man guessing too long--he's sure to find the answer
somewhere else.

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 Mae West : Don't keep a man guessing too long--he's sure to find the
 answer somewhere else.


I love it!

- Jed

RE: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

From: Jed Rothwell 

HE DOES NOT WANT REPLICATION - how obvious that is by now.

*  It is obvious because he has said it, clearly, many times. He does
sometimes make himself clear.

 

Baloney. Where did he say this?  

 

Bologna?  G

 

*  I don't see anything untoward about it. Of course he doesn't want
replication! It would endanger his intellectual property. If I were his
patent lawyer I would advise him to close down his blog and shut up.

 

That would be good advice. However, you're not and he didn't .

 

Instead of silence, which would be the wisest course and which he has every
right to maintain - he enjoys the spotlight, encourages questions and
answers them in ways planned to misdirect the efforts of others. 

 

And then, when carrying out this ruse - he gets caught in obvious lies -
instead of condemnation, you want to go easy on him because he does not
speak the English language very well ?

 

Give me a break. Intentional deceit is immoral. 

 

Many observers would say that Rossi should have just closed down his blog,
remained silent until October, and maintained some semblance of integrity. 

 

Instead he has apparently chosen to stay in the headlines - sop-up the
praises and adulation and then intentionally mislead other researchers: thus
to impede the ability of finding out the truth, which sadly - he may not
know.

 

Jones

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Since I started this thread I would like to request that accusations against 
Andrea Rossi not be made in this thread.

If you think he is lying please take such discussion to another thread.

Lets focus on finding additional information and figuring out what catalysts he 
is using.






From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 7:36:44 PM
Subject: RE: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

 
From:Jed Rothwell 
HE DOES NOT WANT REPLICATION - how obvious that is by now.
Ø  It is obvious because he has said it, clearly, many times. He does sometimes 
make himself clear.
 
Baloney. Where did he say this?  
 
Bologna?  G
 
Ø  I don't see anything untoward about it. Of course he doesn't want 
replication! It would endanger his intellectual property. If I were his patent 
lawyer I would advise him to close down his blog and shut up.
 
That would be good advice. However, you’re not and he didn’t …
 
Instead of silence, which would be the wisest course and which he has every 
right to maintain - he enjoys the spotlight, encourages questions and answers 
them in ways planned to misdirect the efforts of others. 

 
And then, when carrying out this ruse – he gets caught in obvious lies - 
instead 
of condemnation, you want to go easy on him because he does not speak the 
English language very well ?
 
Give me a break. Intentional deceit is immoral. 
 
Many observers would say that Rossi should have just closed down his blog, 
remained silent until October, and maintained some semblance of integrity. 

 
Instead he has apparently chosen to stay in the headlines – sop-up the praises 
and adulation and then intentionally mislead other researchers: thus to impede 
the ability of finding out the truth, which sadly - he may not know.
 
Jones

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:47:05 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
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. IMHO, in order for the quark property to
be reflected in the Boltzmann distribution of the fission products, a
rearrangement of the constituent quarks on there level would have had to
take place: just like what happens after the big bang.**

I don't think you need quark soup for this. I think Baryon soup will do. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:30:42 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]


On 04/11/2011 08:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com
 mailto:thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:

 ROSSI ENRICHES HIS NICKEL!


 Wow! That is a revelation. He _has_ learned from Piantelli.

 It is surprising he can do this for 10% of the cost of nickel.

It's also surprising that the nickel analyzed in Sweden didn't show any
signs of enrichment.

So, have we decided that Rossi handed them a phony sample, or is the
enrichment just so slight that it doesn't show up?

Or is there really no enrichment taking place?

As Rossi gets backed into a corner, he gives the answers that will keep people
happy while he continues his project. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 And then, when carrying out this ruse – he gets caught in obvious lies -
 instead of condemnation, you want to go easy on him because he does not
 speak the English language very well ?



I have experienced worse misunderstandings and miscommunication with Arata
in English AND IN Japanese -- and so have other Japanese researchers. Arata
is a genius who cannot make himself clear long enough to order sushi. He
gave a whole lecture in Japanese without once getting to the point described
by the abstract and title. It was one digression after another.

There are smart people who have trouble communicating. Harrison, the
inventor the chronometer, is a famous example. His inability to express
himself set back progress in that field for 10 or 20 years, killing
thousands of mariners.

- Jed

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread