Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
He meant that only 62 and 64 transmutes. So, he maximizes their quantity to increase the energy density. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:34:07, thorium breeder said: Can rossi achieve do it yourself isotopic separation? That ties in to the missing detailed isotopic analysis that Sven Kullander promised before Christmas. I've been trying to find prices for specific Nickel isotopes, and no one seems to be publishing their prices online. Does anyone here know (or can find out) how much a gram of enriched 61Ni (for example) costs? Rossi claims to be enriching his Nickel fuel for no more than pennies a gram (otherwise, he couldn't be selling the 100g per 10KW E-Cat for $10). Rossi claims that the enrichment of Nickel is not part of the operation of the E-Cat. ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=23#comment-101088) Rossi also claims that the ash will have returned to the natural isotopic ratios, so maybe testing the ash is a waste of time ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=1#comment-32104) Hopefully, Kullander has been testing the pre-processed fuel as well as the resulting ash. Certainly, one or the other of those will show compelling evidence of some LENR process going on (or not). If, has been rumored, 30% of the fuel transmutes into either Copper or Iron, it would be worth knowing whether the resulting particles contained mixtures of the various elements (which would be consistent with real transmutation) or whether each particle consisted of only one element (which would not). -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Rossi is a dodgy character, but that does not mean that it isn't working. There are a lot of others out there with Impeccable professional scientific reputations who are getting high-level outputs from similar Ni-H systems. Eg Brillioun Energy reported 2x gain in February last year at relatively low temperatures of just 120°C http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brillouin_Second_Round_Data.pdf. There are also Miley, Arata, Ahern, Focardi, Piantelli, Celani that I can think of off the top of my head who have announced pretty sizeable power outputs recently, and now no doubt hundreds of unknown others who are working like crazy to improve on their performance and then apply for Patents. The only reason that we are not seeing more publicly noticeable activity is that in commercial RD the only time you publicise anything is when you are looking for funding, and as soon as you can show a potential investor that you are getting commercially viable levels of performance in LENR you will rapidly have all the money you need and will go deathly silent to gain any commercial advantage you can. While Rossi's buffoonish dog-and-pony show has been playing out in the public eye in the absence of much corroborating activity from others I am quite sure that this is just the calm before the storm (like military build up before war) while myriad serious players are rapidly advancing the field in silence. No doubt they will start to become visible in next year as patents applications start to surface and commercial products are announced. It has become evident that a key requirement is to run the reactors at elevated temperatures and pressures (which is where Brillouin are headed for example), but it is expensive and tricky to set up and do testing and calorimetry at higher temperatures and pressures (beyond means of most amateurs). Until Rossi announced there was not much money or interest in working in that regime, so in spite of his erratic behaviour bringing LENR into some public disrepute again we can at least be thankful to him for increasing the number of people working in what appears to be the most commercially promising area for LENR. On 21 January 2012 07:32, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: On 21/01/2012 5:46 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:33 PM, thorium breeder thorium.bree...@gmail.com mailto:thorium.breeder@gmail.**comthorium.bree...@gmail.com wrote: I ask the wisdom of the crowd for a sanity check. Can rossi achieve do it yourself isotopic separation? One of the more far out of Rossi's claims, made clearly and at least twice in his misnamed blog (JONP), was that he can do (nickel) isotope separation on the cheap. Of course, that's immensely unlikely. He was asked how he does it and of course he said it was proprietary. It ranks up there with the self destruct system and the private homes and factories which are currently heated by E-cats but of course we can't see them or talk to the owners. In the latest video interview, you know the one with the unmoved BBB, the BBB that Rossi said was GONE to the customer but later said was never was GONE, there is a factor heater just behind the right door of BBB. A NORMAL LPG BASED SPACE HEATER. There is no heating in his lab either. What a crock. Thanks to Dick Smith and Ian Bryce we now know how his scam works. They suck in gullible green investors through his licensees doing investor presentations. Talks to them via Skype to help the licensee get them over the line and signing the cheques. Bet there was a shill or 2 in the audience that night, who would sign over fake cheques so as to get the others to do likewise and not miss out. Shaun
RE: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Good point Robert, and let me leave this for Milstone. You might fool some of these guys on occasion, but not all of them for many hours as to the main contention - that there is/was a bona fide thermal anomaly (when the P-in became negligible). They were invited for a number of reasons (non-threatening, as competitors) but one would be hard pressed to find a dozen PhDs anywhere who would sacrifice their reputation for a nut-case like Rossi. Here is a list of Scientists who attended the October test: Prof. Petterson, Roland - Uppsala University Prof. Campari, Enrico (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Bonetti, Ennio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Levi, Giuseppe (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Clauzon, Pierre (CNAM-CEA Paris) Dott. Bianchini David (Univ. Bologna) Ing. Swanson Paul D. (Space and Naval Warfare Systems- US Navy) Prof. Focardi, Sergio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Stremmenos, Christos (Univ. Atene) Prof. Jobson, Edward (Univ. Goteborg) Ing. Vandevalle Koen (Belgio) Dr Enrico, Billi (Fisico, Ricercatore, CINA) This list does not include technicians and other faculty. From: Robert Lynn Rossi is a dodgy character, but that does not mean that it isn't working. There are a lot of others out there with Impeccable professional scientific reputations who are getting high-level outputs from similar Ni-H systems. Eg Brillioun Energy reported 2x gain in February last year at relatively low temperatures of just 120°C http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brillouin_Second_Round_Data.pdf. There are also Miley, Arata, Ahern, Focardi, Piantelli, Celani that I can think of off the top of my head who have announced pretty sizeable power outputs recently, and now no doubt hundreds of unknown others who are working like crazy to improve on their performance and then apply for Patents. The only reason that we are not seeing more publicly noticeable activity is that in commercial RD the only time you publicise anything is when you are looking for funding, and as soon as you can show a potential investor that you are getting commercially viable levels of performance in LENR you will rapidly have all the money you need and will go deathly silent to gain any commercial advantage you can. While Rossi's buffoonish dog-and-pony show has been playing out in the public eye in the absence of much corroborating activity from others I am quite sure that this is just the calm before the storm (like military build up before war) while myriad serious players are rapidly advancing the field in silence. No doubt they will start to become visible in next year as patents applications start to surface and commercial products are announced. It has become evident that a key requirement is to run the reactors at elevated temperatures and pressures (which is where Brillouin are headed for example), but it is expensive and tricky to set up and do testing and calorimetry at higher temperatures and pressures (beyond means of most amateurs). Until Rossi announced there was not much money or interest in working in that regime, so in spite of his erratic behaviour bringing LENR into some public disrepute again we can at least be thankful to him for increasing the number of people working in what appears to be the most commercially promising area for LENR. On 21 January 2012 07:32, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: On 21/01/2012 5:46 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:33 PM, thorium breeder thorium.bree...@gmail.com mailto:thorium.bree...@gmail.com wrote: I ask the wisdom of the crowd for a sanity check. Can rossi achieve do it yourself isotopic separation? One of the more far out of Rossi's claims, made clearly and at least twice in his misnamed blog (JONP), was that he can do (nickel) isotope separation on the cheap. Of course, that's immensely unlikely. He was asked how he does it and of course he said it was proprietary. It ranks up there with the self destruct system and the private homes and factories which are currently heated by E-cats but of course we can't see them or talk to the owners. In the latest video interview, you know the one with the unmoved BBB, the BBB that Rossi said was GONE to the customer but later said was never was GONE, there is a factor heater just behind the right door of BBB. A NORMAL LPG BASED SPACE HEATER. There is no heating in his lab either. What a crock. Thanks to Dick Smith and Ian Bryce we now know how his scam works. They suck in gullible green investors through his licensees doing investor presentations. Talks to them via Skype to help the licensee get them over the line and signing the cheques. Bet there was a shill or 2 in the audience that night, who would sign over fake cheques so as to get the others to do likewise and not miss out. Shaun attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
I understood that. So then, to make his numbers work, he must bump up those specific isotopes (3.6% and 0.9%) so that they make up around 35% (to explain the 30% Copper and/or Iron he claims to be in the ash, with the natural ratios of Nickel remaining). IIRC, Rossi claims a total of 100g per module, which would mean he would have to create about 35g of those specific isotopes for each $10 charge (what he claims to be able to sell a 6-month supply of fuel for). He also claims that the cost of doing this enrichment is about 10% of the cost of the raw Nickel. This works out to producing specific isotopes of 62Ni and/or 64Ni for about $0.03/gram. According to this page (the first one I found), Nickel nanopowder is about $0.02 - $0.04 per gram: http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/427027861/nickel_powder.html?s=p I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to find the going rate for specific isotopes of Nickel. I'll bet it costs A LOT more than $0.03/gram. I have to believe that someone on the Vortex can get a ballpark figure for purified 62Ni and 64Ni. Meanwhile, the technology to produce kilogram quantities of specific enriched isotopes for pennies a gram is, I suspect, worth far more than the market for space heaters. Funny that Rossi would disregard that aspect of his operation. There's also the fact that several unfriendly countries are devoting significant portions of their national economy on being able to do this exact process with Uranium. If there is any chance that the process can be adapted for something other than Nickel, then it would have, um, explosive consequences should it fall into unfriendly hands. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here He meant that only 62 and 64 transmutes. So, he maximizes their quantity to increase the energy density.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Have any of these people reported any signs of the E-Cat actually working during the October 28th test? Or did they simply accept the write-up produced by Rossi and the unknown consultant for the secret company. I find it interesting that with all the intense interest in this story, it appears that no one has found a any signs of Domenico Fioravanti existing prior to his appearance at Rossi's October 28th show. usually a distinguished engineer and military man would leave some trace of his existence behind: professional organizations, newspaper clippings of promotions, something. AFAIK, no one has found one shred of evidence that this man exists. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Good point Robert, and let me leave this for Milstone. You might fool some of these guys on occasion, but not all of them for many hours as to the main contention - that there is/was a bona fide thermal anomaly (when the P-in became negligible). They were invited for a number of reasons (non-threatening, as competitors) but one would be hard pressed to find a dozen PhDs anywhere who would sacrifice their reputation for a nut-case like Rossi. Here is a list of Scientists who attended the October test: Prof. Petterson, Roland - Uppsala University Prof. Campari, Enrico (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Bonetti, Ennio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Levi, Giuseppe (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Clauzon, Pierre (CNAM-CEA Paris) Dott. Bianchini David (Univ. Bologna) Ing. Swanson Paul D. (Space and Naval Warfare Systems- US Navy) Prof. Focardi, Sergio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Stremmenos, Christos (Univ. Atene) Prof. Jobson, Edward (Univ. Goteborg) Ing. Vandevalle Koen (Belgio) Dr Enrico, Billi (Fisico, Ricercatore, CINA) This list does not include technicians and other faculty.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Just because GM is selling a real electric car doesn't mean that Tilley was legitimate. (http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Tilley/) Just because there are real companies selling real solar power systems doesn't mean that Greg Watson (apparently AKA Aussie Guy E-Cat) and his Sun Cube was legit. (http://www.citronresearch.com/index.php/2008/03/18/) Even if legitimate researchers are seeing interesting results, that doesn't necessarily mean that Rossi is legit. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Rossi is a dodgy character, but that does not mean that it isn't working. There are a lot of others out there with Impeccable professional scientific reputations who are getting high-level outputs from similar Ni-H systems. Eg Brillioun Energy reported 2x gain in February last year at relatively low temperatures of just 120°C http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brillouin_Second_Round_Data.pdf. There are also Miley, Arata, Ahern, Focardi, Piantelli, Celani that I can think of off the top of my head who have announced pretty sizeable power outputs recently, and now no doubt hundreds of unknown others who are working like crazy to improve on their performance and then apply for Patents.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
In the specific case of Rossi, he wants to exclude nickel below 62, but purity is not a necessity, but an optimazation. So, if he roughly excludes most of what is bellow 62, that is good enough. Given that most of Ni is 58 and 60, he can determine a threshold of, say, Z=62, more or less, and roughly separates around this value. It doesn't need to bu pure and the weight difference is quite big, about the same of what is needed to separte boron 10 from 11, even so, not so precise. I think you should look for the costs of enrich boron estimate from there. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com I understood that. So then, to make his numbers work, he must bump up those specific isotopes (3.6% and 0.9%) so that they make up around 35% (to explain the 30% Copper and/or Iron he claims to be in the ash, with the natural ratios of Nickel remaining). IIRC, Rossi claims a total of 100g per module, which would mean he would have to create about 35g of those specific isotopes for each $10 charge (what he claims to be able to sell a 6-month supply of fuel for). He also claims that the cost of doing this enrichment is about 10% of the cost of the raw Nickel. This works out to producing specific isotopes of 62Ni and/or 64Ni for about $0.03/gram. According to this page (the first one I found), Nickel nanopowder is about $0.02 - $0.04 per gram: http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/427027861/nickel_powder.html?s=p I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to find the going rate for specific isotopes of Nickel. I'll bet it costs A LOT more than $0.03/gram. I have to believe that someone on the Vortex can get a ballpark figure for purified 62Ni and 64Ni. Meanwhile, the technology to produce kilogram quantities of specific enriched isotopes for pennies a gram is, I suspect, worth far more than the market for space heaters. Funny that Rossi would disregard that aspect of his operation. There's also the fact that several unfriendly countries are devoting significant portions of their national economy on being able to do this exact process with Uranium. If there is any chance that the process can be adapted for something other than Nickel, then it would have, um, explosive consequences should it fall into unfriendly hands. -- *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:42 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here He meant that only 62 and 64 transmutes. So, he maximizes their quantity to increase the energy density. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Just Levi and the AP reporter, which were the only ones that were present in the day but not together with Danielle Passerini, outside the warehouse. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Have any of these people reported any signs of the E-Cat actually working during the October 28th test? Or did they simply accept the write-up produced by Rossi and the unknown consultant for the secret company. I find it interesting that with all the intense interest in this story, it appears that no one has found a any signs of Domenico Fioravanti existing prior to his appearance at Rossi's October 28th show. usually a distinguished engineer and military man would leave some trace of his existence behind: professional organizations, newspaper clippings of promotions, something. AFAIK, no one has found one shred of evidence that this man exists. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Good point Robert, and let me leave this for Milstone. You might fool some of these guys on occasion, but not all of them for many hours as to the main contention - that there is/was a bona fide thermal anomaly (when the P-in became negligible). They were invited for a number of reasons (non-threatening, as competitors) but one would be hard pressed to find a dozen PhDs anywhere who would sacrifice their reputation for a nut-case like Rossi. Here is a list of Scientists who attended the October test: Prof. Petterson, Roland - Uppsala University Prof. Campari, Enrico (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Bonetti, Ennio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Levi, Giuseppe (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Clauzon, Pierre (CNAM-CEA Paris) Dott. Bianchini David (Univ. Bologna) Ing. Swanson Paul D. (Space and Naval Warfare Systems- US Navy) Prof. Focardi, Sergio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Stremmenos, Christos (Univ. Atene) Prof. Jobson, Edward (Univ. Goteborg) Ing. Vandevalle Koen (Belgio) Dr Enrico, Billi (Fisico, Ricercatore, CINA) This list does not include technicians and other faculty. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
I wasn't aware that either one actually reported any first-hand observations (but maybe I missed it). In particular, I thought that the AP reporter didn't report anything, which caused considerable consternation among those who hoped that this test, and reporting by the AP would finally convince the nay-sayers. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Just Levi and the AP reporter, which were the only ones that were present in the day but not together with Danielle Passerini, outside the warehouse. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Have any of these people reported any signs of the E-Cat actually working during the October 28th test? Or did they simply accept the write-up produced by Rossi and the unknown consultant for the secret company. I find it interesting that with all the intense interest in this story, it appears that no one has found a any signs of Domenico Fioravanti existing prior to his appearance at Rossi's October 28th show. usually a distinguished engineer and military man would leave some trace of his existence behind: professional organizations, newspaper clippings of promotions, something. AFAIK, no one has found one shred of evidence that this man exists. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Good point Robert, and let me leave this for Milstone. You might fool some of these guys on occasion, but not all of them for many hours as to the main contention - that there is/was a bona fide thermal anomaly (when the P-in became negligible). They were invited for a number of reasons (non-threatening, as competitors) but one would be hard pressed to find a dozen PhDs anywhere who would sacrifice their reputation for a nut-case like Rossi. Here is a list of Scientists who attended the October test: Prof. Petterson, Roland - Uppsala University Prof. Campari, Enrico (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Bonetti, Ennio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Levi, Giuseppe (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Clauzon, Pierre (CNAM-CEA Paris) Dott. Bianchini David (Univ. Bologna) Ing. Swanson Paul D. (Space and Naval Warfare Systems- US Navy) Prof. Focardi, Sergio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Stremmenos, Christos (Univ. Atene) Prof. Jobson, Edward (Univ. Goteborg) Ing. Vandevalle Koen (Belgio) Dr Enrico, Billi (Fisico, Ricercatore, CINA) This list does not include technicians and other faculty. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
But he was there inside, you didn't see him or Levi with the people that were outside or briefly visited the facilities. But this is not the only strange thing. The results from the Swedish professors should be out 1 month ago, but nothing happened. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com I wasn't aware that either one actually reported any first-hand observations (but maybe I missed it). In particular, I thought that the AP reporter didn't report anything, which caused considerable consternation among those who hoped that this test, and reporting by the AP would finally convince the nay-sayers. -- *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:44 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Just Levi and the AP reporter, which were the only ones that were present in the day but not together with Danielle Passerini, outside the warehouse. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Have any of these people reported any signs of the E-Cat actually working during the October 28th test? Or did they simply accept the write-up produced by Rossi and the unknown consultant for the secret company. I find it interesting that with all the intense interest in this story, it appears that no one has found a any signs of Domenico Fioravanti existing prior to his appearance at Rossi's October 28th show. usually a distinguished engineer and military man would leave some trace of his existence behind: professional organizations, newspaper clippings of promotions, something. AFAIK, no one has found one shred of evidence that this man exists. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Good point Robert, and let me leave this for Milstone. You might fool some of these guys on occasion, but not all of them for many hours as to the main contention - that there is/was a bona fide thermal anomaly (when the P-in became negligible). They were invited for a number of reasons (non-threatening, as competitors) but one would be hard pressed to find a dozen PhDs anywhere who would sacrifice their reputation for a nut-case like Rossi. Here is a list of Scientists who attended the October test: Prof. Petterson, Roland - Uppsala University Prof. Campari, Enrico (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Bonetti, Ennio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Levi, Giuseppe (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Clauzon, Pierre (CNAM-CEA Paris) Dott. Bianchini David (Univ. Bologna) Ing. Swanson Paul D. (Space and Naval Warfare Systems- US Navy) Prof. Focardi, Sergio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Stremmenos, Christos (Univ. Atene) Prof. Jobson, Edward (Univ. Goteborg) Ing. Vandevalle Koen (Belgio) Dr Enrico, Billi (Fisico, Ricercatore, CINA) This list does not include technicians and other faculty. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
OK, does anyone have a ballpark figure for isotopically enriched Boron? I agree that it seems reasonable that the difficulty of separating the isotopes of Boron and Nickel would be comparable (but I don't know). The only problem using Boron as an analogy is that the raw material is almost 150 times as expensive as Nickel. That might make any direct comparison doubtful. I've found several companies selling isotopically enriched Nickel, but none of them provide a price online. And, I'm very reluctant to start calling/writing these companies looking for such information, since I don't want to get on any more Government lists than I'm already on. As Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory said (paraphrasing), It seems that if you hack in to a National Defense super-computer, and try to buy Uranium-235 on Craigslist, the NSA calls your Mother! From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here In the specific case of Rossi, he wants to exclude nickel below 62, but purity is not a necessity, but an optimazation. So, if he roughly excludes most of what is bellow 62, that is good enough. Given that most of Ni is 58 and 60, he can determine a threshold of, say, Z=62, more or less, and roughly separates around this value. It doesn't need to bu pure and the weight difference is quite big, about the same of what is needed to separte boron 10 from 11, even so, not so precise. I think you should look for the costs of enrich boron estimate from there.
RE: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
From: John Milstone * Even if legitimate researchers are seeing interesting results, that doesn't necessarily mean that Rossi is legit. No, but the blind skepticism and often silly remarks of Milstone, Yugo and Cude do not mean anything at all. They have demonstrated no understanding of the subject matter, refuse to read the archives or LENR/CANR, nor can they make use useful comments about the legitimate research, so why should anyone here care what they think? I do not care in the least, but neither do I think that Rossi is legit with his current present business plan. He jumped the gun by two years. To each his own - but please do not burden us with yet another Yugo-esque rehash of a previous rehash. We know by now that you do not think Rossi is legit, and no one cares - no one who matters that is. Come back in 6-9 months, and then renew you criticism - if this has not moved forward significantly. Rossi may have been premature and sloppy in testing, but Ni-H is the next big thing in the World Economy. Rossi has demonstrated that the Thermacore results of the early nineties, validated by NASA in 1996, were the biggest missed opportunity in all of modern science. Jones
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
The price of the enrichment will be much more expansive than the raw material. But to what extent, I don't know. But, the quantity that has to be separated of Ni is smaller than the one of boron given that they have a natural proportion of 5/1 of B10 to B11 against 20/1 of Ni 62+64, although in the case of the ecat, it doesn't have to be very pure. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com OK, does anyone have a ballpark figure for isotopically enriched Boron? I agree that it seems reasonable that the difficulty of separating the isotopes of Boron and Nickel would be comparable (but I don't know). The only problem using Boron as an analogy is that the raw material is almost 150 times as expensive as Nickel. That might make any direct comparison doubtful. I've found several companies selling isotopically enriched Nickel, but none of them provide a price online. And, I'm very reluctant to start calling/writing these companies looking for such information, since I don't want to get on any more Government lists than I'm already on. As Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory said (paraphrasing), It seems that if you hack in to a National Defense super-computer, and try to buy Uranium-235 on Craigslist, the NSA calls your Mother! -- *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:40 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here In the specific case of Rossi, he wants to exclude nickel below 62, but purity is not a necessity, but an optimazation. So, if he roughly excludes most of what is bellow 62, that is good enough. Given that most of Ni is 58 and 60, he can determine a threshold of, say, Z=62, more or less, and roughly separates around this value. It doesn't need to bu pure and the weight difference is quite big, about the same of what is needed to separte boron 10 from 11, even so, not so precise. I think you should look for the costs of enrich boron estimate from there. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Rossi may have been premature and sloppy in testing, but Ni-H is “the next big thing” in the World Economy. Rossi has demonstrated that the Thermacore results of the early nineties, validated by NASA in 1996, were the biggest missed opportunity in all of modern science. Yes but . . . It wasn't exactly missed. As I pointed out, Srinivasan and other devoted a lot of effort to this system. It isn't their fault they failed. They did not overlook it in any sense; they were unable to replicate. Ed Storms devoted a terrific amount of effort to replicating Case, another gas-loaded system with promise. He is a skilled person. But he failed to get any heat out of it. McKubre suspects Storms cleaned up the catalyst too much with his automated technique. Furthermore, Rossi has make tremendous contributions to improving the technique, despite his sloppiness. You can be sloppy and still make valuable contributions. Case was notoriously sloppy. Some people who are careful, methodical, and the opposite of sloppy yet they end up contributing little or nothing. As I have said several times, Rossi's business affairs, his blog and his personal predilections have no bearing at all on the scientific validity of his claims, or the importance of his claims. I cannot understand why so many people commenting here are unable to understand this! In a science forum, once you know the effect is real, you should put aside all discussion of the person. It is irrelevant and distracting. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
I would like to thank everyone for the response and ask a few more questions if I may. Don`t even tankless water heaters explode everyday in America? Has any one seen a water heater explode? Does the rossi water heater contain toxic nickel nano particles? Can we put his fraud behind us and focus on nuclear contamination issues? If rossi is calming new LENR would it stand to reason new radiation? Would homeland security seize any nuclear device at the border or has rossi thought of that and moved the material already?
RE: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
From: Jed Rothwell * Yes but . . . It wasn't exactly missed. As I pointed out, Srinivasan and other devoted a lot of effort to this system. It isn't their fault they failed. They did not overlook it in any sense; they were unable to replicate. Yes but as I pointed out thereafter - they did not fail and their report says they did not fail, got significant overunity and wanted to continue - and all you could counter with, is some kind of personal revelation or recollection from Srinivasan, which is not in the record and cannot be checked out. Besides which, this episode happened slightly before the NASA Glenn validation. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
thorium breeder thorium.bree...@gmail.com wrote: Don`t even tankless water heaters explode everyday in America? Tankless heater are rare, but anyway, see: http://www.nationalboard.org/SiteDocuments/E-Publications/nb_235.pdf Since 1990, there have been more than 30,000 boiler and pressure vessel accidents in the United States. Has any one seen a water heater explode? I have not seen one explode but I have the results of explosions. My uncle's house in Bermuda was leveled by one. Does the rossi water heater contain toxic nickel nano particles? So he says. But there is dangerous stuff everywhere in modern life. You would not want to break open a battery and eat it. Can we put his fraud behind us and focus on nuclear contamination issues? There is no evidence of fraud. Rossi has been independently tested and replicated, so there is no reason to suspect fraud. If rossi is calming new LENR would it stand to reason new radiation? No. Please learn something about cold fusion. Would homeland security seize any nuclear device at the border or has rossi thought of that and moved the material already? No, because they do not believe this is real. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
*Does the rossi water heater contain toxic nickel nano particles?* ** I don’t think so. The nickel is granulated in the micro size range. The negative biological activity of nickel particles in this size range may not be harmful. *Can we put his fraud behind us and focus on nuclear contamination issues?* * * *If rossi is calming new LENR would it stand to reason new radiation?* ** The Rossi technology holds promise to remediate nuclear waste produced by current nuclear technology. This boon to our civilization alone warrants interest in the quantum mechanical clockwork that underpins the NiH reaction. *If rossi is calming new LENR would it stand to reason new radiation?* ** *Would homeland security seize any nuclear device at the border or has rossi thought of that and moved the material already?* ** The cold fusion reaction produces radiation that ranges from soft X-Rays to the infrared. Anyone can produce transmutation in their own home by electric arching pure carbon electrodes and pure water; and transmutation occurs in certain living systems. This type of reaction should not be of concern to nuclear regulators since it occuence is so pervasive in the natural world. On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, thorium breeder thorium.bree...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to thank everyone for the response and ask a few more questions if I may. Don`t even tankless water heaters explode everyday in America? Has any one seen a water heater explode? Does the rossi water heater contain toxic nickel nano particles? Can we put his fraud behind us and focus on nuclear contamination issues? If rossi is calming new LENR would it stand to reason new radiation? Would homeland security seize any nuclear device at the border or has rossi thought of that and moved the material already?
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Yes but as I pointed out thereafter - they did not fail and their report says they did not fail, got significant overunity and wanted to continue - Naturally they wanted to continue, especially in view of their success with Arata and Case, and with Patterson's results. You can't blame them because they could not get funding. Not getting funding is not the same as neglecting. and all you could counter with, is some kind of personal revelation or recollection from Srinivasan . . . He said that during a lecture at an ICCF conference. . . . which is not in the record and cannot be checked out. Of course it can be checked out. Ask him! Besides which, this episode happened slightly before the NASA Glenn validation. Yes. I was talking about the 1990s and the period you characterize as neglect. It was more a case of not having the people and the money to do it. Piantelli was plugging away at the Ni-H system the whole time. It was never forgotten. There are dozens of promising techniques that should have been followed up on. They still should be. It is not a foregone conclusion that this is the best method of doing cold fusion. Mizuno and others may have discovered better methods. Getting back to your earlier message, cold fusion as a whole, including the Ni-H technique, constitute the biggest missed opportunity in all of modern science. I couldn't agree more. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Do either of these methods of transmutation work with the various isotopes of Nickel? Are either of them able to produce the kilogram quantities, for pennies a gram, that Rossi would require? From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Anyone can produce transmutation in their own home by electric arching pure carbon electrodes and pure water; and transmutation occurs in certain living systems.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
*Do either of these methods of transmutation work with the various isotopes of Nickel?* Yes… *Are either of them able to produce the kilogram quantities, for pennies a gram, that Rossi would require?* I think that Rossi coats micro particles of nickel he buys COTS. During the tubule resurfacing process of these micro particles, he uses heavy nickel in a very thin nano-sized surface cover. Even through the percentage of heavy nickel will be low, it will be in a critical location: on the particles surface where the reaction is most probable to take place. On the whole, the enrichment of nickel may be very low or even non detectable in an post run isotopic survey. I speculate that the cross section of proton tunneling into nickel is increased with the proportion of heavy neutron rich nickel isotopes. It’s a probability thing. Reaction performance is increased in the neutron rich heavy nickel isotopes, but the reaction still occurs in light nickel with a lowered cross section. On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 1:11 PM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.comwrote: Do either of these methods of transmutation work with the various isotopes of Nickel? Are either of them able to produce the kilogram quantities, for pennies a gram, that Rossi would require? -- *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:02 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Anyone can produce transmutation in their own home by electric arching pure carbon electrodes and pure water; and transmutation occurs in certain living systems.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Another issue with Rossi's claim of isotope enrichment is how he accomplishes it. He's never commented on that though he was asked. Where is his plant for the enrichment? What technology does he use? Can he afford a farm of gas centrifuges? A high intensity laser setup? Who runs it? Indeed, to do what he claims, Rossi would have to own a huge industrial complex. But nothing like that has ever been seen.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, thorium breeder thorium.bree...@gmail.com wrote: Has any one seen a water heater explode? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rXwcDkobUY T
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
You don't need to do a great effort to enrich to a few percent an element with an isotope variation of 10% of mass from the less stable to the most stable isotope. This is not like uranium enrichment. 2012/1/21 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com Another issue with Rossi's claim of isotope enrichment is how he accomplishes it. He's never commented on that though he was asked. Where is his plant for the enrichment? What technology does he use? Can he afford a farm of gas centrifuges? A high intensity laser setup? Who runs it? Indeed, to do what he claims, Rossi would have to own a huge industrial complex. But nothing like that has ever been seen. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
have to be very pure. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com OK, does anyone have a ballpark figure for isotopically enriched Boron? I agree that it seems reasonable that the difficulty of separating the isotopes of Boron and Nickel would be comparable (but I don't know). The only problem using Boron as an analogy is that the raw material is almost 150 times as expensive as Nickel. That might make any direct comparison doubtful. I've found several companies selling isotopically enriched Nickel, but none of them provide a price online. And, I'm very reluctant to start calling/writing these companies looking for such information, since I don't want to get on any more Government lists than I'm already on. As Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory said (paraphrasing), It seems that if you hack in to a National Defense super-computer, and try to buy Uranium-235 on Craigslist, the NSA calls your Mother! -- *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:40 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here In the specific case of Rossi, he wants to exclude nickel below 62, but purity is not a necessity, but an optimazation. So, if he roughly excludes most of what is bellow 62, that is good enough. Given that most of Ni is 58 and 60, he can determine a threshold of, say, Z=62, more or less, and roughly separates around this value. It doesn't need to bu pure and the weight difference is quite big, about the same of what is needed to separte boron 10 from 11, even so, not so precise. I think you should look for the costs of enrich boron estimate from there. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: The price of the enrichment will be much more expansive than the raw material. But to what extent, I don't know. But, the quantity that has to be separated of Ni is smaller than the one of boron given that they have a natural proportion of 5/1 of B10 to B11 against 20/1 of Ni 62+64, although in the case of the ecat, it doesn't have to be very pure. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com OK, does anyone have a ballpark figure for isotopically enriched Boron? I agree that it seems reasonable that the difficulty of separating the isotopes of Boron and Nickel would be comparable (but I don't know). The only problem using Boron as an analogy is that the raw material is almost 150 times as expensive as Nickel. That might make any direct comparison doubtful. I've found several companies selling isotopically enriched Nickel, but none of them provide a price online. And, I'm very reluctant to start calling/writing these companies looking for such information, since I don't want to get on any more Government lists than I'm already on. As Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory said (paraphrasing), It seems that if you hack in to a National Defense super-computer, and try to buy Uranium-235 on Craigslist, the NSA calls your Mother! -- *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:40 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here In the specific case of Rossi, he wants to exclude nickel below 62, but purity is not a necessity, but an optimazation. So, if he roughly excludes most of what is bellow 62, that is good enough. Given that most of Ni is 58 and 60, he can determine a threshold of, say, Z=62, more or less, and roughly separates around this value. It doesn't need to bu pure and the weight difference is quite big, about the same of what is needed to separte boron 10 from 11, even so, not so precise. I think you should look for the costs of enrich boron estimate from there. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
I speculate that the cross section of proton tunneling into nickel is increased with the proportion of heavy neutron rich nickel isotopes. It’s a probability thing. Reaction performance is increased in the neutron rich heavy nickel isotopes, but the reaction still occurs in light nickel with a lowered cross section. Could you point me to the ENDF cross section sigma probability thing you speak of this really interests me? http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/nuc/sigma.htm
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: You don't need to do a great effort to enrich to a few percent an element with an isotope variation of 10% of mass from the less stable to the most stable isotope. This is not like uranium enrichment. I am not familiar with modern methods of isotope enrichment. How would he alter the natural composition of nickel isotopes in an industrial size amount cheaply? What method do you think he would use? How do we know he's trying for the 10% variation? What about the smaller ones?
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
See my post on the Soret effect and Thermophoresis. On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: You don't need to do a great effort to enrich to a few percent an element with an isotope variation of 10% of mass from the less stable to the most stable isotope. This is not like uranium enrichment. I am not familiar with modern methods of isotope enrichment. How would he alter the natural composition of nickel isotopes in an industrial size amount cheaply? What method do you think he would use? How do we know he's trying for the 10% variation? What about the smaller ones?
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
The neutron based ENDF cross sections you are familiar with is not applicable to proton pair entanglement based tunneling. This is a new area of nuclear physics and quantum mechanics that is just being explored. Tragically, the technology and attitudes currently vitrified in nuclear physics will absolutely exclude and prevent exploration of any new ideas including proton based fusion and thorium breeders. As a proponent of an outlayer technology, your closed minded attitude is surprising. One should always treat the ideas of others as one themselves wish their ideas to be treated. On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:59 PM, thorium breeder thorium.bree...@gmail.comwrote: I speculate that the cross section of proton tunneling into nickel is increased with the proportion of heavy neutron rich nickel isotopes. It’s a probability thing. Reaction performance is increased in the neutron rich heavy nickel isotopes, but the reaction still occurs in light nickel with a lowered cross section. Could you point me to the ENDF cross section sigma probability thing you speak of this really interests me? http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/nuc/sigma.htm
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Mister Rothwell I do appreciate your response as an expert in cold fusion. Could you clarify the nuclear cycle taking place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle Has anyone given the fuel cycle data to the real fusor guys at fusor.net? http://www.fusor.net/board/index.php?site=fusor If rossi is calming new LENR would it stand to reason new radiation? No. Please learn something about cold fusion. Are you saying mater is converted to energy without a radiation thermalisation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung Is the conspiracy against cold fusion because of proliferation or lack of decay chain?
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
On 1/21/12, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The neutron based ENDF cross sections you are familiar with is not applicable to proton pair entanglement based tunneling. This is a new area of nuclear physics and quantum mechanics that is just being explored. do you mean to tell me that in all the collider data up to and including the LHC is wrong? Tragically, the technology and attitudes currently vitrified in nuclear physics will absolutely exclude and prevent exploration of any new ideas including proton based fusion and thorium breeders. vitrified? Are you claiming decay chains, cross section data or physics its self is changing? As a proponent of an outlayer technology, your closed minded attitude is surprising. One should always treat the ideas of others as one themselves wish their ideas to be treated. I just wanted to know moar, asked some questions, and got answers. From two of the bigest names in cold fusion axil rothwell. Thank you for your time this weekend it was a pleasure.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
On 21/01/2012 5:03 PM, thorium breeder wrote: Is the rossi heater multi-level marketing in the digital age? You just got a hole in one.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
On 21/01/2012 5:12 PM, Phil Wilson wrote: On 21/01/2012 5:03 PM, thorium breeder wrote: Is the rossi heater multi-level marketing in the digital age? You just got a hole in one. You got that right. Wonder what happens when the E-Cat hits 451 deg F? Bury baby burn? Bring it on! Shaun
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:33 PM, thorium breeder thorium.bree...@gmail.com wrote: I ask the wisdom of the crowd for a sanity check. Can rossi achieve do it yourself isotopic separation? One of the more far out of Rossi's claims, made clearly and at least twice in his misnamed blog (JONP), was that he can do (nickel) isotope separation on the cheap. Of course, that's immensely unlikely. He was asked how he does it and of course he said it was proprietary. It ranks up there with the self destruct system and the private homes and factories which are currently heated by E-cats but of course we can't see them or talk to the owners.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
On 21/01/2012 5:46 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:33 PM, thorium breeder thorium.bree...@gmail.com mailto:thorium.bree...@gmail.com wrote: I ask the wisdom of the crowd for a sanity check. Can rossi achieve do it yourself isotopic separation? One of the more far out of Rossi's claims, made clearly and at least twice in his misnamed blog (JONP), was that he can do (nickel) isotope separation on the cheap. Of course, that's immensely unlikely. He was asked how he does it and of course he said it was proprietary. It ranks up there with the self destruct system and the private homes and factories which are currently heated by E-cats but of course we can't see them or talk to the owners. In the latest video interview, you know the one with the unmoved BBB, the BBB that Rossi said was GONE to the customer but later said was never was GONE, there is a factor heater just behind the right door of BBB. A NORMAL LPG BASED SPACE HEATER. There is no heating in his lab either. What a crock. Thanks to Dick Smith and Ian Bryce we now know how his scam works. They suck in gullible green investors through his licensees doing investor presentations. Talks to them via Skype to help the licensee get them over the line and signing the cheques. Bet there was a shill or 2 in the audience that night, who would sign over fake cheques so as to get the others to do likewise and not miss out. Shaun
