Re: [Vo]:Cu isotopes, nanopores, mu metal, deflation fusion
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:12:17 -0800: Hi, [snip] to the interaction of the strong force. This loss of potential energy does not prevent electron capture of the now energetically trapped electron, if capture occurs very fast, because that electron initially has the kinetic energy necessary. ^ It isn't clear why kinetic energy is necessary. Uh ... why do you say necessary. ...because that's the word you used yourself here above. It *is* there. As the potential energy of the system, the field energy, is lost, the kinetic energy + relativistic mass of the electron (and hydrogen nucleus, because in relativistic orbitals they rotate about each other) makes up for it. [snip] I am left wondering (literally) where the energy comes from during normal beta decay for the electron to escape the nucleus. The only conclusion I can come to it that conversion of a neutron to a proton results in 28 MeV more, The amount is stochastic, it isn't a fixed 28 MeV. ...yes I realize that, but I used it because you used it, and I didn't want to further complicate matters. Well, then, you can't buy the trapping part either ...which as I have previously suggested, I'm not sure I do, though I must admit to finding it somewhat confusing. - so you are left having to explain why heavy element LENR provides neither the enthalpy nor the high energy signatures that would be expected, and why branching ratios change for cold fusion D+D--He, etc, etc., etc. You can no longer explain LENR. It is an experimental fact that stable nuclei have heat. See: E. Melby et al, Observation of Thermodynamical Properties in the 162Dy, 166Er, and 172Yb Nuclei , Phys. Rev. Lett. 83/16 (October 1999): 3150 - p. 3153, the basis for [snip] This paper pertains to excited nuclei. I see no implication that heat exists when the nucleus is not excited, or that the temperature exceeds that which might be explained by the excitation energy. (IOW no sign of ZPE energy). Quote: The experiments were carried out with 45 MeV 3He-projectiles at the Oslo Cyclotron Laboratory (OCL). (Which projectiles supplied the excitation energy in this case). [snip] C. A. Chatzidimitriou-Dreismann et al,Anomalous Deep Inelastic Neutron Scattering from Liquid H2O-D2O: Evidence of Nuclear Quantum Entanglement,Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2839 - 2842 (1997), http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v79/i15/p2839_1 The fact that, when H2O is looked at fast enough, it is H1.5O, meaning 1/4 of the time a proton disappears, is just too much linked to cold fusion to ignore! Even though the disappearance is only attoseconds in duration, it must be repeated frequently i a water molecule to have such a probability. If time spent tunneling were the reason for disappearing H (which I presume is what you are implying here), then it would imply that tunneling is not instantaneous, i.e. that your previous statement about wavefunction collapse just being there is in doubt. [snip] You can look the energetics another way. When, in hot fusion, a naked proton is forced into a Ni nucleus to the radius where 28 MeV (for example) is released upon its departure if fissioned, then that energy was in the form of kinetic energy a priori. Once the proton binds to the nucleus by the strong force, that a priori kinetic energy is gone - it is now in the form of potential energy, the field energy of the new nucleus. It is locked in, no longer available, lost, in either hot or cold fusion. Agreed. However the implication is that the binding nuclear force is *large enough to prevent the proton from leaving again*, which in turn implies that it actually supplied 28+6 MeV (e.g.) when binding the proton. The extra six MeV being the difference between the total binding energy of the initial nucleus and that of the final one. Now when an electron and a proton enter the nucleus together, the work done in overcoming the Coulomb barrier presented to the proton is done by the electron, since its attractive electrical force to the target nucleus exactly balances the repulsive electrical force exerted on the proton (IOW they enter as a neutral ensemble). However the nuclear binding energy of the reaction remains the same (i.e. 28+6 MeV), so there is 28+6 MeV available to the electron, of which 28 MeV is needed to overcome the Coulomb force, and escape, with 6 MeV left over once it is free. (If this is wrong, then at least you may see the cause of my confusion (see also below) ;) (Another possibility might be that in hot fusion one shoots a proton up a high hill till it falls over the top and lands in a shallow crater at high elevation with a slight plop as it binds with the nucleus. However if this were so, then it would only require the return of that slight plop energy to a nucleus in order to free the proton and retrieve the full 28 MeV in repulsive Coulomb energy, and I doubt
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
On 2011-04-14 01:16, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] We could organize this info in a Wiki, with categories: Materials, Operation method, Performance characteristics . . . [...] This is a good idea and I was thinking exactly about it yesterday when I sent that list to the group. The end result should be interesting. If there's enough interest I might even resume my information collecting task from JONP. By the way, all info previously listed was from the JONP thread: JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS CONFERENCE from page 1 to page 8. There are loads of information in older threads too, in which for some reason from time to time questions from new users and answers by Rossi appear. I know that well because I enabled RSS feeds for new comments on that blog. There's definitely more activity than meets the eye. In order to get RSS feeds for JONP thread comments you have to append feed=rss2 to thread URLs. For example: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360feed=rss2 Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi addresses Ni enrichment issue
On 2011-04-12 17:00, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not think he is more unwilling than usual. Sorry for replying here only now. The reason behind what I've written is that I'm noticing as time passes that the amount of Can't answer and Already answered answers on his blog has been increasing as of late. The latter especially looks like a convenient way to avoid addressing new issues to me. From now on I think people should try focusing on ineludible simple single questions. We should also watch for deletion of older answers that might have given too much information (and regarding this I'm realizing just now that I should have kept them all copy / pasted in a safe place as they appeared on his blog). Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]: DNA can detect spin states...
Spintronics-website is broken, so is there an actual url for this? (Preferably newsreporting article) On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: FYI: Professor Ron Naaman from the Weizmann Institute in Israel and scientists in Germany discovered that biological molecules in DNA can detect spin states in atoms. The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. The DNA was exposed to electrons - and the DNA molecules reacted strongly with electrons at one spin, and hardly at all with electrons with a different spin. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Rossi addresses Ni enrichment issue
SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: The reason behind what I've written is that I'm noticing as time passes that the amount of Can't answer and Already answered answers on his blog has been increasing as of late. The latter especially looks like a convenient way to avoid addressing new issues to me. I think he is just tired of answering the same questions over and over again. I would be! It is partly his fault that people ask the same thing. If he would organize his web site better or upload an FAQ people would look up the answers instead asking again. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
Horace, Not problematic at all! That is exactly what my theory predicts. The energy deficits of deflation fusion prevent isomers form forming and thus (large) gammas. The combination of strong force reactions with large energy deficits followed by weak reactions when feasible makes for non-radioactive products too. Well, yes the energy production involving zero point energy is the best part about it for me! but the problem is the following weak reaction and the fast electron. How does a fast electron not produce gamma radiation? Is there an example of beta decay that does not register on a sensitive meter? My unsophisticated meters pick up beta decays from bananas! And I've noticed that several vorticians including Robin seem to overlook that a fast electron (from a deep hydrino reaction) should easily show up. Nothing in the form of detectable radiation (notwithstanding Rossi's assurance to the contrary) has turned up in sophisticated testing in Bologna AFAIK. If you look at Levi's CV and papers (sparse to being with) - he is an instrument specialist ! We can pretty much be certain that there were no appreciable weak force reactions in that demo since his probe was under the shielding. Perhaps I missed something, which is not hard to do with so much information coming in from all directions in 2011. Having said that, I think you are definitely on the right track. I will only be a matter of time before Larsen incorporates what he likes about it into his theory, if he hasn't already :-) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat CATALYST Speculation Thread
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: More probably this means that the catalyst is in homogeneous i.e. liquid phase- a solution or a melt which covers the Ni powder (it happens at 350-450 deg Celsius) Peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not understand what this means. Someone should please rewrite works in a homogeneous phase with nickel powder. Does that mean the powder is homogeneous? What is a homogeneous phase? Probably, single isotope. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com I had away assumed that the Rossi catalyst was a core in shell (homogenous) nanopowder with a NiO core and a Fe2O3 surface cover. This wording from Rossi now tells me that the catalyst is an admixture ( heterogeneous) of two separate nanopowders, one nanopowder being NiO and the other separate and distinct nanopowder being Fe2O3. These two powders are in surface contact with each other in a well blended mixture.
[Vo]:Casimir version of twin paradox explains missing Gamma radiation
The missing Gamma radiation in the Rossi demo and comments by Focardi has me revisiting the assumed lack of isolation between dimensions. We know from the twin paradox that People and objects in different inertial frame are locally unaware of their vector angle between time and space and any resulting time dilations can only be perceived by comparison to a different inertial frame. If we rewrite the twin paradox using tiny pico scale twins and instead of using deep gravity wells to provide equivalent acceleration (increased vacuum energy density) we instead use Casimir cavities to create a Tall gravity hill/warp (decreased vacuum energy density) we get the “Casimir version of twin paradox”. In this version of the paradox we have one twin that remains at our normal energy density outside the cavity (the reference twin”) and the other twin who ventures deep into the tiniest geometry where energy density is far less than outside the cavity due to suppression. If the “Casimir twin” remains in the low density environment for 10 years before returning from the cavity he will find his “reference” twin hasn’t aged and only a few minutes have elapsed from the reference twins perspective. Effectively the Casimir twins metabolism and lab equipment were operating much faster down in the cavity from our perspective. Any test waveforms or chemical reactions performed while inside the cavity are equally slowed down during the return leg back to our reference energy density. If gamma radiation is produced inside the cavity it must also be slowed down as it transitions upward in energy density. My point is the Gamma radiation must translate to lower less harmful Frequency from our perspective just as the Casimir twin’s aging process must decline back toward normal as he “comes back up” – this gamma radiation was not created at our rate of time outside the cavity – it was created at a much lower energy density and therefore will become “slow gamma” as it “comes up” to our energy density. This is what Focardi is referring to when he says hole deep enough and “ if it was shallower there would also be neutrons”. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: ANSWER: THE PUMP IS A PERISTALTIC PUMP. THE FLOW OF WATER HAS BEEN MEASURED BEFORE TURNING ON THE REACTOR BY THE PROFESSORS WHO MADE THE TEST, BY OPENING THE CIRCUIT AND CHRONOMETRING THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT FILLED UP A RESERVOIR OF 1 LITER. Note that the flow rate was measured before the pump was connected to the reactor. If the reactor itself contained some mechanical restriction that reduced the flow rate, then the actual flow during the test would have been less. This is another reason why the output flow should be collected. I think this refers to the Jan. 14 test. What Rossi is saying here is that they left the reservoir on a weight scale (as you see in the photos), and they measured the total reduction in weight over the course of the run. This method is as good as collecting the output flow. You could not easily collect the flow in this test because it was steam. Probably a mixture of steam and hot water by the time it reached the sink. The only way to collect is would be to sparge it into a tank of cold water, which you weigh before and after. You also measure the temperature of the tank before and after to determine total enthalpy. As I said at the time, I wish they had done that. But it takes a lot of effort and heavy containers of water. It is easier to do in a factory using a steel drum and fork lift, which is what they do at Hydrodynamics. After the test, they drive the steel drum full of ~80°C water out into the parking lot and dump it. It is kind of dangerous. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
Horace Let's look at 58Ni specifically which is over 2/3 of all nickel * The energy deficits for Ni are all huge. For example (energy deficits in square brackets): 58Ni28 + p* -- 59Cu29 * + 3.419 MeV [-6.329 MeV] -- 59Ni28 + neutrino + ~2.6 MeV Ok, as I interpret your theory, part of the large 6.3 MeV deficit could conceivably function as 'makeup' for zero point energy already removed from the Rossi device by another mechanism, but let's not go into that other mechanism for now. This is the part I like, even if you do not interpret it this way. However, there is a problem with converting a deflated proton into a neutron without a neutrino, even with an energy deficit. It is almost like saying that part of this deficit takes the place of the missing neutrino, and it is the same neutrino that shows up on the other side of the equation, so it cannot be 'borrowed' in the QM sense since the arrow of time goes the other way. Anyway, even if we can get past that one, the next problem resolves to the 59Ni and that large amount of 'real' energy 2.6 MeV. Even if most of the energy were carried away by the neutrino, most of the time - in practice there is always secondary gamma or bremsstrahlung from weak force reactions, which should have shown up. Is there an example in nature of a radiation-free weak force reaction? And even if there is one which can be tailored for this, the third problem is the 59Ni remaining in the ash. This isotope is commonly used in medicine IIRC, with a well-known Auger emission cascade on EC which Levi would have immediately recognized. This is the most problematic of all, given Rossi's lack of radioactivity in the ash. What am I missing to tie up these lose ends ? Jones BTW - did you ever have a look at the Nyman paper ? http://dipole.se/ Go down to Strong Force between Two Protons. I think it has relevance to deflated protons in a reaction that does not involve nickel. Simulations made with two different kinds of physics software both show the following: 1) Two protons placed closely together [IRH] will repel each other most of the time. 2) Two protons shot at each other will repel each other most of the time. 3) However, it is occasionally possible to shoot protons at each other with the right speed and quark positions so that they latch on to each other - held in place for an indeterminate time by the Strong Force. Added to Nyman's work is this: 4) The two protons have negative binding energy, so many things could happen. 5) This is where the 'quark soup' metaphor may come into play At any rate - everyone can probably guess that what I am struggling with is to find any possible nuclear reaction of protons, especially a deficit energy reaction of deflated protons, that can never result in gammas, but can operate to level a zero point field imbalance. This probably means the ash must be dark matter of some type.
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
I wrote: I think this refers to the Jan. 14 test. What Rossi is saying here is that they left the reservoir on a weight scale (as you see in the photos), and they measured the total reduction in weight over the course of the run. This method is as good as collecting the output flow. Okay, that is not what Rossi is saying, but that is what he said elsewhere. What he said here is: CHRONOMETRING THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT FILLED UP A RESERVOIR OF 1 LITER. Pretty sure that means: Measuring the time it takes for the water to fill a 1 liter container. They did that as well as keeping track of the weight of water lost from the reservoir. They could only do that at the end of the hose before steam generation began. It is a good idea to measure key parameters using a variety of methods. Chronometering is not standard English but perhaps it is how you say this in Italian. The meaning is clear. Google finds 107 examples of this word in English documents. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Is it nuclear, or is it Memorex?
Robin, Harry, Just to clarify some of my ramblings... My use of the term alchemy was an oversimplified reference to the desire to transmute common elements into valuable elements... i.e. the desire to transmute lead into gold. The point I was trying to imply is that the old-world alchemical (almost ritualistic) pursuit of creating gold from common elements is, in a sense, metaphorically equivalent to the new-world pursuit of generating lots of clean cheap excess heat, or energy. I would even go so far as to speculate here that what Rossi seems to be doing with his e-cat reactors is analogous to an alchemical ritual - in the sense that if you follow the recipe to the letter, and in the right sequence, it would seem that you can end up generating lots of heat. No one yet knows why these ritualistic sequences-of-events work in the manner that they do. That's what rituals are really good at doing: Producing a desired result, particularly when the fundamental physics that might scientifically explain what's happening remains (a present) a baffling mystery. Alas, I've often noted that some of the metaphors I conjure up occasionally cause more confusion than their intended purpose. Win a few metaphors... lose a few metaphors. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]: DNA can detect spin states...
Esa: Here's a different 'laymans' article: http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=20812.php Here's the article abstract on the Science website: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6019/894 In electron-transfer processes, spin effects normally are seen either in magnetic materials or in systems containing heavy atoms that facilitate spin-orbit coupling. We report spin-selective transmission of electrons through self-assembled monolayers of double-stranded DNA on gold. By directly measuring the spin of the transmitted electrons with a Mott polarimeter, we found spin polarizations exceeding 60% at room temperature. The spin-polarized photoelectrons were observed even when the photoelectrons were generated with unpolarized light. The observed spin selectivity at room temperature was extremely high as compared with other known spin filters. The spin filtration efficiency depended on the length of the DNA in the monolayer and its organization. -Mark _ From: Esa Ruoho [mailto:esaru...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: DNA can detect spin states... Spintronics-website is broken, so is there an actual url for this? (Preferably newsreporting article) On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: FYI: Professor Ron Naaman from the Weizmann Institute in Israel and scientists in Germany discovered that biological molecules in DNA can detect spin states in atoms. The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. The DNA was exposed to electrons - and the DNA molecules reacted strongly with electrons at one spin, and hardly at all with electrons with a different spin. -Mark
[Vo]:Hanno Essén: follow up experiment next week
Hello group, In answer to a question from a concerned person regarding water flow measurements during the last Rossi E-cat test/demonstration, Hanno Essén added, perhaps unconsciously, that there will be a follow-up experiment next week. Here's the original email as posted by him on an italian discussion forum (some personal info omitted): * * * Hello I remember clearly that there was no adjusting of the pump during the experiment. There was a tank of distilled water on the floor below the pump. Unfortunately its refilling and weight etc were not checked. These things will be better checked in a follow up experiment next week. Best regards Hanno Essén Citerar xx x @: Dear Prof. Hanno Essén, since there wasn't a flowmeter recording the flow some skeptics here in Italy claims that the water flow was changed during the test, from 6.47 kg/h to 3 kg/h during the kick observed at 60 degrees and another half at around 97 degrees. Do you remember if there was a water tank around the pump, the size of the tank and how many times was refilled? It's possibile to exclude a 3 kg/h flow because the water level of the tank was consistent with a 6 kg/h flow? Thank you. Hanno Essén Docent Studierektor KTH Mekanik * * * Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion.
Quality control in cold fusion. Cold fusion has suffered from little or no quality control on the materials used in its reactions. I believe that Rossi’s big accomplishment is bringing quality control to the fabrication of his materials. After Rossi finally discovered what factors made his catalyst work, he established a specification that optimized those factors in the production of all subsequent materials. Nanoparticle characterization is the mechanism that he would have used to meet this quality control specification. Nanoparticle characterization is required to establish quality control over nanoparticle synthesis and to insure each separate nanoparticle meets performance specifications. The surface coating of nanoparticles is crucial to determining their properties. In particular, the surface coating can regulate stability and dictate reaction performance. For example, when NiO Nanoparticles are fabricated in their billions some are functional, some don’t work and some are great. This find granularity is not possible in the manufacturing of rods or plates that have be the standard in cold fusion material formats. When Rossi moved his product to a nano-technology format, he gained the advantage of being able to impose a rigid quality discipline. Fully automated nanoparticle characterization is the process that looks at the size shape and surface characteristics of each individual NiO Nanoparticle to determine if that particle is optimized for catalytic operation. In this process, each nanoparticle is individually tested for activity, and if acceptable is then selected. All below grade material is rejected and recycled back for refabrication where it restarts at the beginning of the processing cycle. This precise control of quality of the Rossi catalyst is what makes the Cat-E stand out above its competition.
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
I've answered some of the arguments to the Torello fake in the latest version : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v318.php The Jan/Feb experiment reports say they did NOT check the end of the outlet pipe. The March experiment says they DID make a visual check. I did the calculations on heat leakage from the outer HOT compartment to the inner COLD tube -- for a thick rubber tube, it's at most 80W, out of the 300W input. This fake is plausible enough that it MUST be checked against -- specifically, by measuring the output temperature and steam dryness OUTSIDE of the eCAT. Cut-and paste from 3.18 follows, but the format may be erratic : 1.1. Arguments about the Torelli Fake Rothwell Okay, what insulator would you use inside the pipe? You need something thin enough to allow the water through and yet effective at 1 L/s with a 31°C temperature difference for the apparent 130 kW heat in the Feb. 10 test. The duration of the 130kW was unspecified, so I'll stick with the March experiment. If we use the above diagram, with a 3 cm diameter outer section, and put a 1cm diameter bypass through the device, with a diversion ratio of 1/16 to 15/16 (roughly equal to the given power ratio). The bypass tube could be rubber (a reasonable insulator). Thermal Conductivity : watts / m.K Rubber is 0.16 : Area A = 2 * 3.1415 * 0.500 * 100.000 = 314.1500 cm2 Thickness Y : 0.500 cm dT = 100 - 20 = 80.000 k of rubber = 0.160 Watts = k * dT * A / Y = 0.160 * 80.000 * 0.03141500 / 0.005 = 80.4224 Even this value could be handled in the fake, which had 300W of electrical power available. : the amount of water diverted would have to take this loss into account. Since the water would warm up as it passes through the reactor the average dT would actually be less than that just calculated. The bypass could be engineered to minimise this loss. It could be arranged to be in contact with the outer wall, so the effective transfer area would be reduced. Wrap it in a (waterproofed) Silica Aerogel (0.004 to 0.04) and the problem goes away. Why wouldn't Levi et al. notice that they cannot insert thermocouples more than a faction of the way into the hose? (If they could insert it and it did not penetrate the barrier, it would block the middle channel.) They didn't insert it into the hose. They inserted it into the instrument port. The above diagram shows the bypass tube in the center of the chimney. It could be at the side (or even hidden by a false wall near the instrument port). Stephen A. Lawrence : Vortex It's totally ruled out if the effluent is observed to be steam and the output temperature is claimed to be roughly 100C. Whether wet steam or dry steam, if it's coming out as steam, then the outlet temperature is at least 100C, and the placement of the temperature probe is irrelevant. During the first test, back in ... uh ... January?, the effluent was observed to be steam during at least part of the run, and this effect couldn't have been an issue. The probe was always placed in the outer Hot compartment. Nobody reported in January that they checked for steam coming OUT of the hose. Nobody reported in February that they measured the temperature of the water coming out of the hose. Rothwell However, in this test, the outlet temperature is measured in the chimney. That is large enough to implement this trick fairly easily, with steam passing the thermocouple, well insulated from the stream of cold water. However, the outlet tube would be close to tap water temperature, which would be a dead giveaway. I am assuming someone had the sense to hold a hand near it or touch it for a moment. I would do that the moment I saw the test. To make the black tube hot, you have to imagine there is barrier within the hose that allows a thin layer of steam to pass on the outside at a high temperature without being cooled by the water in the center. It is moving at 1.7 ml/s. From the photo I suppose that hose is 1 cm OD and 0.8 cm ID, which is to say a volume of 0.5 cm^3 per centimeter of hose. So if the water is liquid, it is moving about 4 cm per second. It would cool down a short distance from the chimney. Real steam moving out of that hose would reach a lot farther than 4 cm per second, and heat the entire hose. There would still be a lot of steam coming out of the end of the hose in the bathroom. The output tube used in March is considerably thicker than 1 cm. Looks about 2 cm at least. The fake I'm proposing does have a coaxial tube for some arbitrary distance in the output hose, so the outside of the hose will indeed feel hot. The thermal conductivity analysis above could be aplied here. Thinking aloud here ... first see how long it takes for the diverted water to go through the tube. flow 6.470 L/Hr = 1.797 cc/sec Hot: 0.112 cc/sec Cold: 1.685 cc/sec inner tube radius : 0.500 cm length : 100.000 cm volume : 78.538 cc time in reactor : 46.613 secs
Re: [Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion.
Perhaps you are right regarding Rossi's quality control efforts, but I want to ask you- on what basis are you speaking about NiO and not Ni? As regarding Pd based clasical LENR/CF a total characterization of say Pd cathodes is much too complex- beyond what is called usually quality controll. Terrible difficulties of describing metallurgy, morphology, granularity etc.We have to appreciate the heroic efforts and work of so many good scientists, I think peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Quality control in cold fusion. Cold fusion has suffered from little or no quality control on the materials used in its reactions. I believe that Rossi’s big accomplishment is bringing quality control to the fabrication of his materials. After Rossi finally discovered what factors made his catalyst work, he established a specification that optimized those factors in the production of all subsequent materials. Nanoparticle characterization is the mechanism that he would have used to meet this quality control specification. Nanoparticle characterization is required to establish quality control over nanoparticle synthesis and to insure each separate nanoparticle meets performance specifications. The surface coating of nanoparticles is crucial to determining their properties. In particular, the surface coating can regulate stability and dictate reaction performance. For example, when NiO Nanoparticles are fabricated in their billions some are functional, some don’t work and some are great. This find granularity is not possible in the manufacturing of rods or plates that have be the standard in cold fusion material formats. When Rossi moved his product to a nano-technology format, he gained the advantage of being able to impose a rigid quality discipline. Fully automated nanoparticle characterization is the process that looks at the size shape and surface characteristics of each individual NiO Nanoparticle to determine if that particle is optimized for catalytic operation. In this process, each nanoparticle is individually tested for activity, and if acceptable is then selected. All below grade material is rejected and recycled back for refabrication where it restarts at the beginning of the processing cycle. This precise control of quality of the Rossi catalyst is what makes the Cat-E stand out above its competition. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps you are right regarding Rossi's quality control efforts, but I want to ask you- on what basis are you speaking about NiO and not Ni? As regarding Pd based clasical LENR/CF a total characterization of say Pd cathodes is much too complex- beyond what is called usually quality controll. Terrible difficulties of describing metallurgy, morphology, granularity etc.We have to appreciate the heroic efforts and work of so many good scientists, I think peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Quality control in cold fusion. Cold fusion has suffered from little or no quality control on the materials used in its reactions. I believe that Rossi’s big accomplishment is bringing quality control to the fabrication of his materials. After Rossi finally discovered what factors made his catalyst work, he established a specification that optimized those factors in the production of all subsequent materials. Nanoparticle characterization is the mechanism that he would have used to meet this quality control specification. Nanoparticle characterization is required to establish quality control over nanoparticle synthesis and to insure each separate nanoparticle meets performance specifications. The surface coating of nanoparticles is crucial to determining their properties. In particular, the surface coating can regulate stability and dictate reaction performance. For example, when NiO Nanoparticles are fabricated in their billions some are functional, some don’t work and some are great. This find granularity is not possible in the manufacturing of rods or plates that have be the standard in cold fusion material formats. When Rossi moved his product to a nano-technology format, he gained the advantage of being able to impose a rigid quality discipline. Fully automated nanoparticle characterization is the process that looks at the size shape and surface characteristics of each individual NiO Nanoparticle to determine if that particle is optimized for catalytic operation. In this process, each nanoparticle is individually tested for activity, and if acceptable is then selected. All below grade material is rejected and recycled back for refabrication where it restarts at the beginning of the processing cycle. This precise control of quality of the Rossi catalyst is what makes the Cat-E stand out above its competition. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com I posted basis for NiO in the spculations thread as per Piantelli's work. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44574.html Regards
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
Dear Jed, In most European languages (e.g. German, Dutch, Italian, French, Spanish) 100,000 mg means actually 100.000 mg and vice versa. It is the English language that is in this case the odd one out, which causes sometime hilarious conversions! B.t.w. Rossi would otherwise probably have written 100 gr. i.s.o. 100,000 mg. Kind regards, MoB On 13-4-2011 23:34, Jed Rothwell wrote: SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: You made me remember that a few weeks ago I started writing down (or more like, copy/pasting) a list of questions answered by Rossi on his blog . . . Yikes, what a lot of work! When he refuses to answer that may be as telling as when he answers. Some of these responses are contradictory, and some have to be wrong. He says there milligrams of nickel. Really? Like 100,000 mg? I weigh 81 million milligrams. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Not problematic at all! That is exactly what my theory predicts. The energy deficits of deflation fusion prevent isomers form forming and thus (large) gammas. The combination of strong force reactions with large energy deficits followed by weak reactions when feasible makes for non-radioactive products too. On Apr 14, 2011, at 5:26 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Well, yes the energy production involving zero point energy is the best part about it for me! but the problem is the following weak reaction and the fast electron. Ironic! That's a part Robin finds objectionable. Everyone brings their own perspective to the theory, and that makes communication difficult. Communication is most difficult with people who have their own pet theory of LENR. How does a fast electron not produce gamma radiation? Keep in mind the fast electron is trapped, it can not escape the nucleus. The electron is initially trapped in the composite nucleus. When it is outside the nucleus it does not radiate, because spin flipping is required to get the spin for the photon. Its kinetic energy can be expected to be thermalized in the nucleus, with near light speed hops between hadrons. The thermalization can be expected to extract kinetic energy from both the hadrons and the electron, via the cooling mechanism of photon emission. Those hops involve spin flips and photon generation. This process is similar to, but the exact reverse of, the process of electron tile jumping on graphine. See: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/is-space-like-a- chessboard-199015.aspx It is also similar to the quantum mechanism by which nuclei radiate in nuclear magnetic resonance applications. The electron and the particles it interacts with are massive, due to high gammas. The radiation energy available to the photon from this process are small. Also, the electron inside a nucleus is highly shielded, so much of the radiation results in nuclear heat, which is kept in balance by interaction of nuclear particles with the zero point field. It is notable the hydrogen nucleus, be it protium or deuterium, has significant kinetic energy in the pre-fusion deflated state as well - a kinetic energy nearly matching that of the electron, which has a similar mass due to a high gamma. In the case of Ni-P fusion, both the proton and electron contribute to the initial nuclear heat, but it is the interaction with the electron that causes the radiation. This radiation comes in small incremental chunks of energy, not in large increments that result from nuclear isomer state changes. Is there an example of beta decay that does not register on a sensitive meter? What beta decay? My theory predicts only electron capture when the large deficit is present. The electron does not even have the energy to escape. Yet another electron release, if that were energetically feasible, would result in a similarly but even further de-energized nucleus. When electron capture occurs post deflation fusion, there is not even the x-ray emission due to electron orbital adjustments, or the possible resulting auger electron. That is because the electron being captured is *from outside the orbitals of the heavy atom. When the neutral deflated hydrogen tunnels into the Ni nucleus, it does so from outside the Ni atom. There are no adjustments to the electron cloud necessary to accommodate the tunneling. This is part of what makes the tunneling so probable, the hopping rate so high. There is no electrostatic energy barrier, no energy required to distort the lattice, and magnetic energy provides the energy to enable the tunneling event. My unsophisticated meters pick up beta decays from bananas! And I’ve noticed that several vorticians including Robin seem to overlook that a fast electron (from a deep hydrino reaction) should easily show up. Nothing in the form of detectable radiation (notwithstanding Rossi’s assurance to the contrary) has turned up in sophisticated testing in Bologna AFAIK. My understanding is small counts of radiation have been detected at start-up and power down in at least the initial demo, as well as up to a day later in the fuel. This is not important to the bulk of the reactions required to produce the observed enthalpy though, nor critical to whether my theory applies. If you look at Levi’s CV and papers (sparse to being with) – he is an instrument specialist ! We can pretty much be certain that there were no appreciable weak force reactions in that demo since his probe was under the shielding. Not according to my theory. According to my theory there may be small amounts of radiation detected, due to the stochastic nature of the energy deficit, but in the bulk no high energy radiation will be produced because to the large energy deficits prevent it.
RE: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
Thanks for the explication. I was not aware that an electron could be trapped like that, but as you say - everyone looks at the shadows on the cave wall from a different perspective. -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner How does a fast electron not produce gamma radiation? Keep in mind the fast electron is trapped, it can not escape the nucleus. The electron is initially trapped in the composite nucleus. When it is outside the nucleus it does not radiate, because spin flipping is required to get the spin for the photon. Its kinetic energy can be expected to be thermalized in the nucleus, with near light speed hops between hadrons. The thermalization can be expected to extract kinetic energy from both the hadrons and the electron, via the cooling mechanism of photon emission. Those hops involve spin flips and photon generation. This process is similar to, but the exact reverse of, the process of electron tile jumping on graphine. See: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/is-space-like-a- chessboard-199015.aspx It is also similar to the quantum mechanism by which nuclei radiate in nuclear magnetic resonance applications. The electron and the particles it interacts with are massive, due to high gammas. The radiation energy available to the photon from this process are small. Also, the electron inside a nucleus is highly shielded, so much of the radiation results in nuclear heat, which is kept in balance by interaction of nuclear particles with the zero point field. It is notable the hydrogen nucleus, be it protium or deuterium, has significant kinetic energy in the pre-fusion deflated state as well - a kinetic energy nearly matching that of the electron, which has a similar mass due to a high gamma. In the case of Ni-P fusion, both the proton and electron contribute to the initial nuclear heat, but it is the interaction with the electron that causes the radiation. This radiation comes in small incremental chunks of energy, not in large increments that result from nuclear isomer state changes.
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: In most European languages (e.g. German, Dutch, Italian, French, Spanish) 100,000 mg means actually 100.000 mg and vice versa. I am reviewing these statements. I now think he meant there are milligram level amounts of nuclear-active Ni. There is about ~100 g of Ni, but most of it is inert. He says that is the best they can do with present technology. It is awesome that 100 g of any material can produce 15 kW to 130 kW. If only a tiny fraction of it -- a few milligrams -- is active, that goes beyond awesome. It is either scary or unbelievable. What would happen if you managed to activate, let us say, 1 ton of the stuff? That would produce the kind of power you want for an interstellar space probe. Storms also says that most of material is inert in his new paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why we should continue studying other modes of cold fusion (in a few years)
Rossi now says the minimum power of his device is 2.5 kW. If that is true, it would be a good idea to study other materials such as Pd-D. I believe they can be made much smaller than this, probably down to the milliwatt level. (As things stand, researchers have difficulty making them work _above_ that level.) The goal would be to build smaller devices for high-value niche applications such as portable computer power supplies and implanted medical devices. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan describes his own background
There are some interesting new remarks here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Response_by_Mats_Lewan This is a look at the mindset of a reporter describing the Rossi story and cold fusion in general. Here is a witty quote: You know, I’m a journalist. I’m looking for news. Let’s say a blinking space-craft from a remote galaxy reportedly dropped down in Central Park one day. Then I wouldn’t actually look for quotes from people saying: “well, I and my family have been living here for many years, and my ancestors generations before me, and no one has ever seen any space-craft land in Central Park. It’s really unlikely”. That’s not the news. That’s the consensus that has always been there, for ages. What I’m interested in is a Fairly Well Documented Testimony by Highly Qualified People. Then of course the consensus part also has to be reported. I did that. But a quote... well, again I don’t see the point. One of the Wikipedia editors is objecting strenuously. This is one of the people who kick me out of Wikipedia and ban my ISP from time to time, after I sneak in and write snide comments such as these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion#This_Article I determined that there is not a single accurate technical statement in this article. The rule at Wikipedia is that anyone who points out such defects must be banned immediately. The other rule is you are not allowed to edit an article if you know anything about the subject. I told Mats Lewan they will soon throw him out for that reason. See: Lore Sjöberg, The Wikipedia FAQK – Wired, April 2006 http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670 The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: 'Experts are scum.' - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why we should continue studying other modes of cold fusion (in a few years)
The power of an Rossi devices is proportional to the quantity of active NI (NAE) if 50 grams give X, 5 grams will give approximately X/10 watts. See e.g. Steve Krivit's writing about Piantelli- small generators. From practical reasons, Rossi does not manufacture generators smaller than 2.5 kW but I don't see any reasons they cannot be much smaller. Anyway, I will be very happy to see reliable Pd D based generators at any W value. I ma not so well informed- who, where is near to this accomplishment- even at the milliwatts level? peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi now says the minimum power of his device is 2.5 kW. If that is true, it would be a good idea to study other materials such as Pd-D. I believe they can be made much smaller than this, probably down to the milliwatt level. (As things stand, researchers have difficulty making them work * above* that level.) The goal would be to build smaller devices for high-value niche applications such as portable computer power supplies and implanted medical devices. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion.
Piantelii is my good friend but I do not remember that he has worked with nickel oxide. The problem with NiO is that it will be reduced with H2 and the formed water will build a great pressure in the cell. Not a problem that cannot be solved- e.g. the Cincinnati zircoanium group cell I have worked with was also at a high pressure and we had no accidents. But why NiO? peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Perhaps you are right regarding Rossi's quality control efforts, but I want to ask you- on what basis are you speaking about NiO and not Ni? As regarding Pd based clasical LENR/CF a total characterization of say Pd cathodes is much too complex- beyond what is called usually quality controll. Terrible difficulties of describing metallurgy, morphology, granularity etc.We have to appreciate the heroic efforts and work of so many good scientists, I think peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Quality control in cold fusion. Cold fusion has suffered from little or no quality control on the materials used in its reactions. I believe that Rossi’s big accomplishment is bringing quality control to the fabrication of his materials. After Rossi finally discovered what factors made his catalyst work, he established a specification that optimized those factors in the production of all subsequent materials. Nanoparticle characterization is the mechanism that he would have used to meet this quality control specification. Nanoparticle characterization is required to establish quality control over nanoparticle synthesis and to insure each separate nanoparticle meets performance specifications. The surface coating of nanoparticles is crucial to determining their properties. In particular, the surface coating can regulate stability and dictate reaction performance. For example, when NiO Nanoparticles are fabricated in their billions some are functional, some don’t work and some are great. This find granularity is not possible in the manufacturing of rods or plates that have be the standard in cold fusion material formats. When Rossi moved his product to a nano-technology format, he gained the advantage of being able to impose a rigid quality discipline. Fully automated nanoparticle characterization is the process that looks at the size shape and surface characteristics of each individual NiO Nanoparticle to determine if that particle is optimized for catalytic operation. In this process, each nanoparticle is individually tested for activity, and if acceptable is then selected. All below grade material is rejected and recycled back for refabrication where it restarts at the beginning of the processing cycle. This precise control of quality of the Rossi catalyst is what makes the Cat-E stand out above its competition. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com I posted basis for NiO in the spculations thread as per Piantelli's work. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44574.html Regards -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is awesome that 100 g of any material can produce 15 kW to 130 kW. If only a tiny fraction of it -- a few milligrams -- is active, that goes beyond awesome. Well, there *is* this stuff called antimatter. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
On Apr 14, 2011, at 6:35 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace I wrote: Let’s look at 58Ni specifically which is over 2/3 of all nickel The energy deficits for Ni are all huge. For example (energy deficits in square brackets): 58Ni28 + p* -- 59Cu29 * + 3.419 MeV [-6.329 MeV] -- 59Ni28 + neutrino + ~2.6 MeV Jones writes: Ok, as I interpret your theory, part of the large 6.3 MeV “deficit” could conceivably function as ‘makeup’ for zero point energy already removed from the Rossi device by another mechanism, but let’s not go into that other mechanism for now. This is the part I like, even if you do not interpret it this way. My theory is exactly the opposite. The 6.3 MeV deficit that results from the neutral entity tunneling is made up in part (but not in each case precisely, due to the stochastic nature of the process) by energy from the zero point field. If and when the Coulombic potential energy of the new nucleus is released by fissioning, that Coulombic potential energy is recovered, and a net energy will have been produced from the vacuum. This is why I say the overall process is not energy conservative. However, there is a problem with converting a deflated proton into a neutron without a neutrino, I never implied to my knowledge that no neutrino would be produced in the electron capture process. even with an energy deficit. Yes, there is an overall energy deficit, but the electron initially retains its kinetic energy, which can be used for a weak reaction. Not only that but, and this is an aside comment, the temperature of the Ni nucleus is maintained at about 1 MeV by the zero point field, so sufficient kinetic energy remains available to the electron while it remains within the compound nucleus. The probability of a weak reaction for an electron that remains in a nucleus is of course vastly greater than that for orbital electrons which only occasionally, and with very brief duration, transit the nucleus, i.e. in a QM interpretation have a very small probability of being observed in the nucleus. It is almost like saying that part of this deficit takes the place of the missing neutrino, and it is the same neutrino that shows up on the other side of the equation, so it cannot be ‘borrowed’ in the QM sense since the arrow of time goes the other way. Again, I explicitly say a neutrino is produced. (Actually, due to a consistent typo when I replaced v in my paper with the neutrino symbol, I accidentally replaced all of them with an erroneous anti- neutrino symbol. It was corrected in my article here I think: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=179). I could really use a good editor! When a weak reaction follows the strong reaction in deflation fusion there is very little energy released. There are no orbital x-rays or auger electrons, the radiating time of the electron in the nucleus is cut short, its kinetic energy is used in the formation of the neutron, and carried off by the neutrino. This lack of high energy signatures and significant enthalpy is highly characteristic of LENR transmutation reactions. This probably accounts for a lack of research into this area, because it is of little use in providing energy, and because the effects can not even be detected unless they are specifically looked for in the ash. The enthalpy producing reactions in Rossi's case are only: 62Ni28 + p* -- 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-3.415 MeV] 64Ni28 + p* -- 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-1.985 MeV] Anyway, even if we can get past that one, the next problem resolves to the 59Ni and that large amount of ‘real’ energy 2.6 MeV. Even if most of the energy were carried away by the neutrino, most of the time – in practice there is always secondary gamma or bremsstrahlung from weak force reactions, which should have shown up. You refer here to ordinary nuclear reactions, which are irrelevant. Is there an example in nature of a radiation-free weak force reaction? Yes, heavy element LENR. This fact is one of the strong validating points for my theory. Among others stated in my article: There is thus (1) no need to explain how a sub-ground state hydrogen is formed in a lattice, (2) no need for large sub-ground state binding energies to overcome the Coulomb barrier, (3) no need to explain how neutrons in the lattice are generated en mass and yet not readily detectable directly or through neutron activation of materials in the lattice, or (4) to explain how the high energy barriers of high mass lattice elements are also defeated. There is also (5) no further need to explain why there is a lack of high energy gamma signatures or to (6) explain how MeV magnitudes of reaction energy is carried off by phonons or through simultaneous action of large bodies of lattice atoms, or why (7) large numbers of high kinetic energy particles are not detected or why (8) readily
Re: [Vo]:Why we should continue studying other modes of cold fusion (in a few years)
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: From practical reasons, Rossi does not manufacture generators smaller than 2.5 kW but I don't see any reasons they cannot be much smaller. I do not see any reason either, but a few days ago he said the minimum size is 2.5 kW. I do not think he meant it would be impractical; I gather he meant it is impossible. He probably has a reason for saying that. We will see whether that reason is valid or invalid. Rossi says many things which seem strange or baseless; i.e. without a reason. Many people have concluded that he does not really mean what he says; he is playing some sort of mind game; or a deception similar to what Ching-Wu Chu was accused of doing when he told people his formula had Yb (ytterbium) instead of Y (yttrium). I recommend you reserve judgement and not try to read his mind. I do not know why he says these things, and more to the point, I do not know whether these things are true or false. Nobody knows. It is likely they are mixture of true and false. Rossi has a highly original, bold, and idiosyncratic world view. He also has idiosyncratic ways of expressing himself. So does Arata. As I said, he often makes up strange new words to describe concepts that already have conventional words. Such people often discover new facts about nature that seem crazy to the rest of us. They also often make gigantic mistakes, that we would never make because we are too timid, and too conventional. We can too easily jump to the conclusion that such people are dissembling. It is better to reserve judgement and reach no conclusions for now. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion.
Not sure if this helps or not, but many metal oxide surfaces present a Lawandy-type dielectric for accumulation of ultra dense hydrogen IRH. This has been seen on zirconia, iron-oxide and nickel-oxide. This paper by Miley is very important. www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHclusterswi.pdf From: Peter Gluck Pianteli is my good friend but I do not remember that he has worked with nickel oxide. The problem with NiO is that it will be reduced with H2 and the formed water will build a great pressure in the cell. Not a problem that cannot be solved- e.g. the Cincinnati zirconium group cell I have worked with was also at a high pressure and we had no accidents. But why NiO?
Re: [Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion.
Piantelii stated he will hide the secret of Ni-H reaction, even from a good friend. Rossi has denied every mode of Ni catalytic activity except oxides. NiO-H has a role in many hydrogen based catalytic reactions with a highly reactive nano-particle surface. And oxide based nano-particle catalysts are the next big thing in chemistry. NiO provides a possible evolutionary transition between what Piantelii did and what Rossi is doing; from a Ni bar surface treatment to nano-particles. Lipid based fabrication and production of Fe2O3 is indicated in Rossi’s patent; Ni2O3 is compatible with Fe2O3. This is consistent and compatible with Ni2O3 formation in Piantelii’s annealing process. Piantelii surface treatment of his nickel bar suggests Ni2O3 oxide formation where annealing is important. Ni2O3 formation on NiO can be judged by a color shift from green to black/green on the surface of a Nickel bar. Piantelii stated that he can tell if a bar will work by looking at it. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Piantelii is my good friend but I do not remember that he has worked with nickel oxide. The problem with NiO is that it will be reduced with H2 and the formed water will build a great pressure in the cell. Not a problem that cannot be solved- e.g. the Cincinnati zircoanium group cell I have worked with was also at a high pressure and we had no accidents. But why NiO? peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Perhaps you are right regarding Rossi's quality control efforts, but I want to ask you- on what basis are you speaking about NiO and not Ni? As regarding Pd based clasical LENR/CF a total characterization of say Pd cathodes is much too complex- beyond what is called usually quality controll. Terrible difficulties of describing metallurgy, morphology, granularity etc.We have to appreciate the heroic efforts and work of so many good scientists, I think peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Quality control in cold fusion. Cold fusion has suffered from little or no quality control on the materials used in its reactions. I believe that Rossi’s big accomplishment is bringing quality control to the fabrication of his materials. After Rossi finally discovered what factors made his catalyst work, he established a specification that optimized those factors in the production of all subsequent materials. Nanoparticle characterization is the mechanism that he would have used to meet this quality control specification. Nanoparticle characterization is required to establish quality control over nanoparticle synthesis and to insure each separate nanoparticle meets performance specifications. The surface coating of nanoparticles is crucial to determining their properties. In particular, the surface coating can regulate stability and dictate reaction performance. For example, when NiO Nanoparticles are fabricated in their billions some are functional, some don’t work and some are great. This find granularity is not possible in the manufacturing of rods or plates that have be the standard in cold fusion material formats. When Rossi moved his product to a nano-technology format, he gained the advantage of being able to impose a rigid quality discipline. Fully automated nanoparticle characterization is the process that looks at the size shape and surface characteristics of each individual NiO Nanoparticle to determine if that particle is optimized for catalytic operation. In this process, each nanoparticle is individually tested for activity, and if acceptable is then selected. All below grade material is rejected and recycled back for refabrication where it restarts at the beginning of the processing cycle. This precise control of quality of the Rossi catalyst is what makes the Cat-E stand out above its competition. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com I posted basis for NiO in the spculations thread as per Piantelli's work. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44574.html Regards -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Why we should continue studying other modes of cold fusion (in a few years)
I am an engineer have 40 years practice in chemical industry and I was professor of Management of Technology for 3 years in a school of Ecomanagement for directors, managers. Therefore I am not ready to believe such an statement - why exactly 2.5 Kw and not 1.8 or 3.2? I am sure Rossi can manufacture even *bonsai kittens* (do you remember the hoax?) but this is not an essential question. I have a vivid empathy for Rossi , he has solved a vital problem at a really high level. He has lots of problems- development, patent with no connection with the prior art, secrecy, the danger of competion, the bad publicity of cold fusion,scale-up, lack of theory, denialism of new energy, the possibility of reverse engineering of his devices and so on.You have shown that his commercial development strategy is perhaps not optimal. I think it is my/our duty to help the technology and to understand the position of the man Rossi. peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: From practical reasons, Rossi does not manufacture generators smaller than 2.5 kW but I don't see any reasons they cannot be much smaller. I do not see any reason either, but a few days ago he said the minimum size is 2.5 kW. I do not think he meant it would be impractical; I gather he meant it is impossible. He probably has a reason for saying that. We will see whether that reason is valid or invalid. Rossi says many things which seem strange or baseless; i.e. without a reason. Many people have concluded that he does not really mean what he says; he is playing some sort of mind game; or a deception similar to what Ching-Wu Chu was accused of doing when he told people his formula had Yb (ytterbium) instead of Y (yttrium). I recommend you reserve judgement and not try to read his mind. I do not know why he says these things, and more to the point, I do not know whether these things are true or false. Nobody knows. It is likely they are mixture of true and false. Rossi has a highly original, bold, and idiosyncratic world view. He also has idiosyncratic ways of expressing himself. So does Arata. As I said, he often makes up strange new words to describe concepts that already have conventional words. Such people often discover new facts about nature that seem crazy to the rest of us. They also often make gigantic mistakes, that we would never make because we are too timid, and too conventional. We can too easily jump to the conclusion that such people are dissembling. It is better to reserve judgement and reach no conclusions for now. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Why we should continue studying other modes of cold fusion (in a few years)
I wrote: Rossi has a highly original, bold, and idiosyncratic world view. He also has idiosyncratic ways of expressing himself. So does Arata. By the way, that would be true of Rossi even in the unlikely event he turns out to be a con man with a fake device. No con man in history has done anything like this. If his device is fake, he is both a genius at deception, and a lunatic. He would be a genius because he has fooled so many professionals, including the chairman of the Skeptics Society. There are a few scattered reports of people making fake perpetual motion machines in the 19th century that fooled some experts. As I recall, after one of the fakers died they found air hoses in the legs of the table the machine was on. I have never heard of anything like that happening after 1900. He would be a lunatic because he is paying the people at U. Bologna to open the cell. Perhaps he only says he will allow this, and he will prevent it at the last minute. But if he does let them open it, that will instantly reveal whatever trick he is using. There is no place else to hide a trick. (Except for the Tarallo Water Diversion Fake in the chimney, which can be ruled out in a few seconds by any half-awake observer, by holding a hand over the outlet tube.) Arata is a certified genius but I think he is also a faker, by the way. He claims that he discovered cold fusion in the 1940s, which I doubt. He claims that Fleischmann, Pons, McKubre and all other researchers are making elementary errors, and he alone has discovered real cold fusion. If he believes that he is unbalanced, and if he does not believe it, he is lying. I cannot tell what he thinks. Perhaps he is saying these things because he is old and suffering from senile dementia, but I gather he was saying similar stuff years ago when he was still making vital contributions to the field. This is distressing. It is unseemly. I describe it only to warn the reader that you must separate the claim from the person making that claim. Do not judge Arata, Rossi, or anyone else based on your impression of their personalities. Look at objective facts that have been experimentally confirmed by independent observers. Until January, there were no independently confirmed facts about Rossi, so I had no reason to believe him. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
On Apr 14, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Thanks for the explication. You're welcome. I was not aware that an electron could be trapped like that, but as you say - everyone looks at the shadows on the cave wall from a different perspective. Yes. The trapping energy is described quantitatively in the THE LOST FIELD ENERGY section, pp. 3-4 of http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf If deflated quarks are involve the initial energy deficit can be much higher, the incremental deficit being of a differing nature, that being the energetics of the involved hadron. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Hanno Essén: follow up experiment next week
What forum was this on? From: SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, April 14, 2011 9:00:32 AM Subject: [Vo]:Hanno Essén: follow up experiment next week Hello group, In answer to a question from a concerned person regarding water flow measurements during the last Rossi E-cat test/demonstration, Hanno Essén added, perhaps unconsciously, that there will be a follow-up experiment next week. Here's the original email as posted by him on an italian discussion forum (some personal info omitted): * * * Hello I remember clearly that there was no adjusting of the pump during the experiment. There was a tank of distilled water on the floor below the pump. Unfortunately its refilling and weight etc were not checked. These things will be better checked in a follow up experiment next week. Best regards Hanno Essén Citerar xx x @: Dear Prof. Hanno Essén, since there wasn't a flowmeter recording the flow some skeptics here in Italy claims that the water flow was changed during the test, from 6.47 kg/h to 3 kg/h during the kick observed at 60 degrees and another half at around 97 degrees. Do you remember if there was a water tank around the pump, the size of the tank and how many times was refilled? It's possibile to exclude a 3 kg/h flow because the water level of the tank was consistent with a 6 kg/h flow? Thank you. Hanno Essén Docent Studierektor KTH Mekanik * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion.
i would not ask the secrets of a good friend. But about his performances yes! And therefore I knew that Ni-H works, therefore Rossi's E-Cat is real and..works. Catalitically active oxides work at the interface with the real catalyst in heterogeneous catalysis. Do you say NiO is not reduced to Ni and water in the conditions of the E-cat? My guess is that Rossi has a very good method of activation of Ni , this can-as I already said comprise an additive. But this additive is a promoter, not the catalyst per se. Despite the fact that I was one of the first to say that cold fusion is similar to catalysis and has to learn from catalysis- http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf I don't think that Rossi has a non-nickel catalyst. Catalysing what? For the time given showing that you are original and different, even more than you really are. Vederemo! Peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Piantelii stated he will hide the secret of Ni-H reaction, even from a good friend. Rossi has denied every mode of Ni catalytic activity except oxides. NiO-H has a role in many hydrogen based catalytic reactions with a highly reactive nano-particle surface. And oxide based nano-particle catalysts are the next big thing in chemistry. NiO provides a possible evolutionary transition between what Piantelii did and what Rossi is doing; from a Ni bar surface treatment to nano-particles. Lipid based fabrication and production of Fe2O3 is indicated in Rossi’s patent; Ni2O3 is compatible with Fe2O3. This is consistent and compatible with Ni2O3 formation in Piantelii’s annealing process. Piantelii surface treatment of his nickel bar suggests Ni2O3 oxide formation where annealing is important. Ni2O3 formation on NiO can be judged by a color shift from green to black/green on the surface of a Nickel bar. Piantelii stated that he can tell if a bar will work by looking at it. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Piantelii is my good friend but I do not remember that he has worked with nickel oxide. The problem with NiO is that it will be reduced with H2 and the formed water will build a great pressure in the cell. Not a problem that cannot be solved- e.g. the Cincinnati zircoanium group cell I have worked with was also at a high pressure and we had no accidents. But why NiO? peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Perhaps you are right regarding Rossi's quality control efforts, but I want to ask you- on what basis are you speaking about NiO and not Ni? As regarding Pd based clasical LENR/CF a total characterization of say Pd cathodes is much too complex- beyond what is called usually quality controll. Terrible difficulties of describing metallurgy, morphology, granularity etc.We have to appreciate the heroic efforts and work of so many good scientists, I think peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Quality control in cold fusion. Cold fusion has suffered from little or no quality control on the materials used in its reactions. I believe that Rossi’s big accomplishment is bringing quality control to the fabrication of his materials. After Rossi finally discovered what factors made his catalyst work, he established a specification that optimized those factors in the production of all subsequent materials. Nanoparticle characterization is the mechanism that he would have used to meet this quality control specification. Nanoparticle characterization is required to establish quality control over nanoparticle synthesis and to insure each separate nanoparticle meets performance specifications. The surface coating of nanoparticles is crucial to determining their properties. In particular, the surface coating can regulate stability and dictate reaction performance. For example, when NiO Nanoparticles are fabricated in their billions some are functional, some don’t work and some are great. This find granularity is not possible in the manufacturing of rods or plates that have be the standard in cold fusion material formats. When Rossi moved his product to a nano-technology format, he gained the advantage of being able to impose a rigid quality discipline. Fully automated nanoparticle characterization is the process that looks at the size shape and surface characteristics of each individual NiO Nanoparticle to determine if that particle is optimized for catalytic operation. In this process, each nanoparticle is individually tested for activity, and if acceptable is then selected. All below grade material is rejected and recycled back for refabrication where it restarts at the beginning of the processing cycle. This precise control of quality of the Rossi catalyst is what makes the Cat-E stand out above
Re: [Vo]:Hanno Essén: follow up experiment next week
On 2011-04-14 21:33, noone noone wrote: What forum was this on? This one: http://www.energeticambiente.it/fusione-fredda-e-trasmutazioni-nucleari-bassa-energia/ There are a few regularly updated threads scattered around there about Rossi's E-Cat. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Why we should continue studying other modes of cold fusion (in a few years)
It is really esential to not mix the points of view. For example I wnt to continue surfing and discussing but is is past 23.00 and will sleep. See you tomorrow. peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: Rossi has a highly original, bold, and idiosyncratic world view. He also has idiosyncratic ways of expressing himself. So does Arata. By the way, that would be true of Rossi even in the unlikely event he turns out to be a con man with a fake device. No con man in history has done anything like this. If his device is fake, he is both a genius at deception, and a lunatic. He would be a genius because he has fooled so many professionals, including the chairman of the Skeptics Society. There are a few scattered reports of people making fake perpetual motion machines in the 19th century that fooled some experts. As I recall, after one of the fakers died they found air hoses in the legs of the table the machine was on. I have never heard of anything like that happening after 1900. He would be a lunatic because he is paying the people at U. Bologna to open the cell. Perhaps he only says he will allow this, and he will prevent it at the last minute. But if he does let them open it, that will instantly reveal whatever trick he is using. There is no place else to hide a trick. (Except for the Tarallo Water Diversion Fake in the chimney, which can be ruled out in a few seconds by any half-awake observer, by holding a hand over the outlet tube.) Arata is a certified genius but I think he is also a faker, by the way. He claims that he discovered cold fusion in the 1940s, which I doubt. He claims that Fleischmann, Pons, McKubre and all other researchers are making elementary errors, and he alone has discovered real cold fusion. If he believes that he is unbalanced, and if he does not believe it, he is lying. I cannot tell what he thinks. Perhaps he is saying these things because he is old and suffering from senile dementia, but I gather he was saying similar stuff years ago when he was still making vital contributions to the field. This is distressing. It is unseemly. I describe it only to warn the reader that you must separate the claim from the person making that claim. Do not judge Arata, Rossi, or anyone else based on your impression of their personalities. Look at objective facts that have been experimentally confirmed by independent observers. Until January, there were no independently confirmed facts about Rossi, so I had no reason to believe him. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Why we should continue studying other modes of cold fusion (in a few years)
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: I am an engineer have 40 years practice in chemical industry and I was professor of Management of Technology for 3 years in a school of Ecomanagement for directors, managers. Therefore I am not ready to believe such an statement . . . That's good. A person with years of practical experience should not believe those statements. You should also refrain from dismissing those statements. It is a mistake to dismiss a claim made by a person who has demonstrated a 130 kW a cold fusion reactor. Assuming the claim is real, that person has one of the most original and astounding intellects in history, so you should take him seriously. Just withhold judgement and wait to see how things pan out. Put the minimum 2.5 kW assertion into a list of things you do not believe yet, but you take into consideration when pondering the nature of the device. By the way, a couple of people off line have suggested to me that Rossi may not be such a genius. He may be just lucky. He is a tinkerer who happened to twist the knobs the right way. People used to say that about Edison. I disagree. There are far too many permutations for that to be the case. Think about how many potential catalyst materials exist, and how many elements and combinations of elements you might add as dopants, in varying quantities. Think about the range of temperatures you might select, and the various ways to operate the machine. If Rossi was merely twisting dials, he could keep doing that for hundreds of years and never hit the right combination. This is like randomly selecting chess moves and expecting to win against a Grandmaster (nature, hiding her secrets). He might stumble over a way to improve an important parameter, such as power density. But he could not go on devise a machine that has high power density, stability, controllability and the other parameters he has mastered. He has mastered these things, make no mistake. He is as far ahead of the competition as the Wright Brothers were in 1904. To get a sense of what he has done, think of how difficult it has been for for brilliant people such as Storms, McKubre and Fleischmann to improve these parameters one at a time, by inches. Rossi has various theories and models he depends on. Perhaps these theories are invalid. Perhaps they will turn out to be preposterous. In that case, he is relying on fine-tuned observational abilities and an intuitive sense about what to do next to enhance the reaction. That is also a kind of genius. It is the genius of an artist or master artisan. It is what led ancient people to invent things like Damascus steel, which defied the understanding of modern metallurgists until recently. It transformed the world many times before modern science began. There is no reason to think it has lost its power now. We should have as much awe for this mode of discovery as we have for the more modern, rational modes. If it turns out Rossi has no valid science-based idea how he accomplished this, that will not detract from his achievement. On the contrary, it makes it even more astounding. - Jed
[Vo]:take a look to 22passi...
interesting anti E-cat at Daniele's blog.. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion.
On Apr 14, 2011, at 8:16 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: As regarding Pd based clasical LENR/CF a total characterization of say Pd cathodes is much too complex- beyond what is called usually quality controll. Terrible difficulties of describing metallurgy, morphology, granularity etc.We have to appreciate the heroic efforts and work of so many good scientists, I think peter Yes, the the efforts by many were heroic and admirable. Some of the best electrochemists in the world have worked on LENR, including Bockris and Fleischmann himself. Extremely clean sealed experiments have been performed. I recall experiments with single crystals of pure Pd. Despite rigorously clean experiments, no practical method was found. On the other hand, comparatively dirty open cell codeposition experiments produced more reliable results. I think this is due to the variability of the lattice conditions required to create some small amount of effective environments. For this reason, I think impurities are probably key, and the highly variable internal conditions of metallic glasses should be useful. As to Rossi, his quality control rested with the only person with the skills to produce his nickel catalyst mix, an old man in his 80's working away on an old machine. My imagination sees this happening in a poorly lit room somewhere in a decaying rustic European building. That's the way it should be in the film version anyway. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion.
Horace sez: ... As to Rossi, his quality control rested with the only person with the skills to produce his nickel catalyst mix, an old man in his 80's working away on an old machine. My imagination sees this happening in a poorly lit room somewhere in a decaying rustic European building. That's the way it should be in the film version anyway. 8^) ...a decaying rustic European building out in the country. A barn. With an occasional pigeon dropping added to the mixture. Ah! The catalyst! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
FW: [Vo]: DNA can detect spin states...
?MIGHT the notion that the ubiquitous/all permeating 'Super-M-Brane' IS the HyperSpaceTorsion Transversal CarrierWave as a COMPRESSED DATA SHEET tend to possibly indicate that this hyper-compressed-data/TORSION-ENERGY-DENSE Super-M-Data Matrix may impinge upon and thereby dictate/replicate certain DNA QUASI-MANDATES upon the EVOLUTIONARY-PATTERN-TRENDS more or less harmoniously-sychronistically across the multi-dimensional infinitude? Meaning that DNA-evolutionary harmonic consistency across mega-distances could be expected. And since ANY POINT OF 'LIFE upon the 'Super-M-Brane' Carrier/Torsion-Wave indicates that the QUALITY OF ENERGY AS SENTIENCE permeates the INFINITE ALL. Another word the Super-M-Brane is NOTHING if not the ubiquitous continuance of OMNI-SENTIENCE and thusly the spontaneous outgrowth of PLANETARY-SENTIENTS etc. In short/DNA PROGRAMMING eg. LIFE is the RULE and hardly the EXCEPTION; and a certain harmonics of pattern-DNA-resonance might make DISTANT EXOTIC FORMS maybe not quite so as 'bizarely possibly exotic' as we might have SCI-FY guessed but even so that LIFE might be EXTREMELY MORE COMMON than we had guessed at as well. . . . Jack Harbach O'Sullivan Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:35:24 +0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]: DNA can detect spin states... From: esaru...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Spintronics-website is broken, so is there an actual url for this? (Preferably newsreporting article) On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: FYI: Professor Ron Naaman from the Weizmann Institute in Israel and scientists in Germany discovered that biological molecules in DNA can detect spin states in atoms. The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. The DNA was exposed to electrons - and the DNA molecules reacted strongly with electrons at one spin, and hardly at all with electrons with a different spin. -Mark
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Hanno Essén: follow up experiment next week
I found it! Mind if I post the link? From: SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, April 14, 2011 9:00:32 AM Subject: [Vo]:Hanno Essén: follow up experiment next week Hello group, In answer to a question from a concerned person regarding water flow measurements during the last Rossi E-cat test/demonstration, Hanno Essén added, perhaps unconsciously, that there will be a follow-up experiment next week. Here's the original email as posted by him on an italian discussion forum (some personal info omitted): * * * Hello I remember clearly that there was no adjusting of the pump during the experiment. There was a tank of distilled water on the floor below the pump. Unfortunately its refilling and weight etc were not checked. These things will be better checked in a follow up experiment next week. Best regards Hanno Essén Citerar xx x @: Dear Prof. Hanno Essén, since there wasn't a flowmeter recording the flow some skeptics here in Italy claims that the water flow was changed during the test, from 6.47 kg/h to 3 kg/h during the kick observed at 60 degrees and another half at around 97 degrees. Do you remember if there was a water tank around the pump, the size of the tank and how many times was refilled? It's possibile to exclude a 3 kg/h flow because the water level of the tank was consistent with a 6 kg/h flow? Thank you. Hanno Essén Docent Studierektor KTH Mekanik * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:take a look to 22passi...
On 2011-04-14 22:02, Peter Gluck wrote: interesting anti E-cat at Daniele's blog.. Here's a link to his blog (in Italian) for the clueless: http://22passi.blogspot.com/ By the way, I've read much worse things (mean, irrational, plain ignorant, etc) around from people discrediting Rossi's work. General news mainstream websites (there are some which featured one or two stories about the E-Cat) also generally contain marvelous examples of that among user comments. That shows how regarded is cold fusion outside certain small groups, though. Hopefully this will change if the E-Cat will prove to work as intended without leaving any room for doubt. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Hanno Essén: follow up experiment next week
On 2011-04-14 22:16, noone noone wrote: I found it! Mind if I post the link? It's a public website after all, go ahead. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion.
I should have noted some of my comments on metallic glasses can be found here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41599.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43171.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg29520.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg33409.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg33409.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41982.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38428.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:24:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] 15 kW for 18 hours at 5 MeV / reaction equates to 120 mg of Nickel. IOW the amount that would actually react is 120 mg. Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: In most European languages (e.g. German, Dutch, Italian, French, Spanish) 100,000 mg means actually 100.000 mg and vice versa. I am reviewing these statements. I now think he meant there are milligram level amounts of nuclear-active Ni. There is about ~100 g of Ni, but most of it is inert. He says that is the best they can do with present technology. It is awesome that 100 g of any material can produce 15 kW to 130 kW. If only a tiny fraction of it -- a few milligrams -- is active, that goes beyond awesome. It is either scary or unbelievable. What would happen if you managed to activate, let us say, 1 ton of the stuff? That would produce the kind of power you want for an interstellar space probe. Storms also says that most of material is inert in his new paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf - Jed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:The Best Way to Avoid Infringement
Concerning my ZPE inventions. I have been advised by an attorney that the best protection from infringement is to start by issuing inexpensive licenses that expire. Make it cheaper to pay for a license than for a lawsuit to try, perhaps unsuccessfully to steal it. These licenses can be renewed for ever-increasing amounts as resources build to more aggressively charge for licenses, because at that point you can out-litigate most comers and can settle, making special arrangements whenever there is danger of an adverse ruling. In this manner you can build preferable precedents. My only hesitation in taking this device is, ironically, it is better for the public to charge almost as much for the payments on the device as they are already paying for energyPlease listen!!! If they immediately have virtually free energy, but no new goods and services have been already developed, the economy will feel the extra money; this will cause inflation. In other words, people will simply take the money they were already spending on energy and have to spend that same-amount more on all the other things they are already buying. Instead, if they are making payments on their home generator. There is an end in sight---they will eventually have free energy. Meanwhile new goods and services will be created as the bulk of their payments is reinvested in creating entirely new products and services. They will get the money back almost immediately as the economy grows. My technology leads to inexpensive, rapid Space Travel, inexpensive mineral resources from Space. Oil producing nations can switch to industries that use now-cheap plastic. Plastic will become as cheap or cheaper than what we pay for petroleum now. One of my goals is to replace today's throwaway economy with truly durable goods to take the strain off of the environment. Automation is the next big advance. The energy money can help finance a way to make sure that everyone gains equity in the auto-fabricators since any remaining need for labor is completely outstripped by the supply. So many or most of us can work far less and have far more---even those in the third world. We can produce unlimited food, underground or in skyscrapers, now that the power is cheap. Check out my system to cut special interests completely out of politics. ScottWm. Scott Smithz-pec.yolasite.com Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:24:36 +0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why we should continue studying other modes of cold fusion (in a few years) From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I am an engineer have 40 years practice in chemical industry and I was professor of Management of Technology for 3 years in a school of Ecomanagement for directors, managers. Therefore I am not ready to believe such an statement - why exactly 2.5 Kw and not 1.8 or 3.2? I am sure Rossi can manufacture even bonsai kittens (do you remember the hoax?) but this is not an essential question. I have a vivid empathy for Rossi , he has solved a vital problem at a really high level. He has lots of problems- development, patent with no connection with the prior art, secrecy, the danger of competion, the bad publicity of cold fusion,scale-up, lack of theory, denialism of new energy, the possibility of reverse engineering of his devices and so on.You have shown that his commercial development strategy is perhaps not optimal.I think it is my/our duty to help the technology and to understand the position of the man Rossi. peter On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: From practical reasons, Rossi does not manufacture generators smaller than 2.5 kW but I don't see any reasons they cannot be much smaller. I do not see any reason either, but a few days ago he said the minimum size is 2.5 kW. I do not think he meant it would be impractical; I gather he meant it is impossible. He probably has a reason for saying that. We will see whether that reason is valid or invalid. Rossi says many things which seem strange or baseless; i.e. without a reason. Many people have concluded that he does not really mean what he says; he is playing some sort of mind game; or a deception similar to what Ching-Wu Chu was accused of doing when he told people his formula had Yb (ytterbium) instead of Y (yttrium). I recommend you reserve judgement and not try to read his mind. I do not know why he says these things, and more to the point, I do not know whether these things are true or false. Nobody knows. It is likely they are mixture of true and false. Rossi has a highly original, bold, and idiosyncratic world view. He also has idiosyncratic ways of expressing himself. So does Arata. As I said, he often makes up strange new words to describe concepts that already have conventional words. Such people often discover new facts about nature that seem crazy to the rest of us. They also often make gigantic mistakes,
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: 15 kW for 18 hours at 5 MeV / reaction equates to 120 mg of Nickel. IOW the amount that would actually react is 120 mg. I gather you are suggesting that much of the Ni will eventually react, but in the 18-hour experiment only 120 mg did react. The rest is unburned fuel if you will. It will eventually . . . do what? Transmute into copper? I wonder what keeps the whole shebang from going off at once? A catalyst is a material that promotes a reaction, and is then freed up to promote it again. Catalysts are not used up. So perhaps it is a misnomer to call this a catalyst. Perhaps only some of it transmutes, some of the time, and the rest is used over and over again to promote light element fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:26:38 -0700: Hi, [snip] How does a fast electron not produce gamma radiation? Is there an example of beta decay that does not register on a sensitive meter? My unsophisticated meters pick up beta decays from bananas! And I've noticed that several vorticians including Robin seem to overlook that a fast electron (from a deep hydrino reaction) should easily show up. Nothing in the form of detectable radiation (notwithstanding Rossi's assurance to the contrary) has turned up in sophisticated testing in Bologna AFAIK. If you look at Levi's CV and papers (sparse to being with) - he is an instrument specialist ! We can pretty much be certain that there were no appreciable weak force reactions in that demo since his probe was under the shielding. Aluminum foil will stop beta radiation (and look how thin it is). Fast electrons are not very penetrating which may go some way toward explaining why Rossi said that you could detect radiation in some places but not others, and he provided a hole for the detector where he thought some would be detected, but not too much. OTOH fast electrons will create X-rays, with the outliers in the bremsstrahlung having an energy equal to the maximum electron energy. Nevertheless, only about 1% of fast electrons create x-rays, and many of these will have energy considerably less than the maximum. That could be what the lead shielding is for. Note also that any solid or liquid will stop fast electrons, including copper, stainless steel, Nickel powder, and water. Most of the energy ends up as heat. These substances will also absorb some of the x-rays. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:35:56 -0700: Hi, [snip] Anyway, even if we can get past that one, the next problem resolves to the 59Ni and that large amount of 'real' energy 2.6 MeV. Even if most of the energy were carried away by the neutrino, most of the time - in practice there is always secondary gamma or bremsstrahlung from weak force reactions, which should have shown up. Is there an example in nature of a radiation-free weak force reaction? If you look at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Ni-59%20EC you will see that the decay of Ni-59 involves electron capture (with no visible signature because the energy is all carried by the neutrino) 6.3 times out of 10. The remaining 3.7 times out of 10 it goes as positron decay. However the half life of the reaction is 76000 years, so there aren't all that many decays/second to start with. If you now combine this with the possibility that the reaction with Ni58 may be rare/slow to begin with, resulting in very little Ni59 even being present, then the lack of observed radiation from Ni59 may not be all that surprising. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:35:56 -0700: Hi, [snip] This isotope is commonly used in medicine IIRC, with a well-known Auger emission cascade on EC which Levi would have immediately recognized. This is the most problematic of all, given Rossi's lack of radioactivity in the ash. ...that's something I missed. :] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
Hello group, A human translation in English of the interview to Sergio Focardi linked here several days ago has been posted on Daniele Passerini's 22passi blog: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/sergio-focardi-father-of-ni-h-cold.html By request of the original interviewers and because the translation itself, in addition to being quite lengthy might still be subject to small changes, I'm not copy/pasting it here this time. Excerpts of it for discussion purposes should be ok, though. Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Aluminum foil will stop beta radiation (and look how thin it is). Sure - and stopping the electron produces bremsstrahlung - easily detected, and you seem to be underestimating the capability of detectors. Fast electrons are not very penetrating which may go some way toward explaining why Rossi said that you could detect radiation in some places but not others, and he provided a hole for the detector where he thought some would be detected, but not too much. Many things Rossi has said indicate he is not skilled in radiation detection, and that may be why he chose Levi, who is an expert. Nevertheless, only about 1% of fast electrons create x-rays, and many of these will have energy considerably less than the maximum. 1% is huge. Even inexpensive meters are sensitive enough to detect them at far less percentage. The CRT is a good example - they are not particularly high voltage to being with (35 kV) and all electrons are stopped, most by phosphors, but still the old CRTs produce X-rays in the one mR/h range which is 100 times more than good detectors can register. One of the reasons no one wants them anymore. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 09:09 PM 4/12/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I've updated http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v317.php to include a fake which was actually proposed back in February : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42228.html Although not likely I rate it as NOT ELIMINATED by ANY of the experiments or reports. If people will recall, my position is that it's impossible to completely eliminate, at this point, all possible modes of fakery. Because we are not at this point yet -- it will take wide, independent confirmation to be absolutely certain -- we shouldn't bet the farm on Rossi. I do know that serious research effort is now being diverted into work to investigate the nickel-hydrogen system, as a result of Rossi, but it's being done with eyes wide open, I hope. Anyone investing in this should carefully consider the risks. But in the other direction, I see people, such as the administrator TenOfAllTrades, on Wikipedia, and I suspect he's a scientist, coming out confidently with assertions that this is bogus, and attempting to impeach the Swedish reporter, etc. Bogus is unlikely at this point, the modes and mechanisms for fakery have become difficult enough that relying on them would be foolish, and these scientists are only betting on what we already know is an error, the supposed impossibility of LENR, which was never a scientific belief, it was politics and assumption and arrogance, from the beginning. I'll say it, Rossi is probably real. But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to totally avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, we'd fool ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people. A loss.
RE: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
Robin, Very little ??? No way !!! You and Horace seem to making the same error with the 59Ni situation in cherry picking data. LOTS of copper was seen in the Swedish test. An incredible percentage, since Rossi says no copper is added. We're talking grams of copper converted from nickel, if Rossi is to believed. If much of it is going back to nickel, as in Horace's reaction, then there should be grams of radioactive nickel as well ! The long half life means it should be VERY evident. There should be massive radioactivity from any such reaction, and yet there is none. Jones -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:35:56 -0700: Hi, Anyway, even if we can get past that one, the next problem resolves to the 59Ni and that large amount of 'real' energy 2.6 MeV. Even if most of the energy were carried away by the neutrino, most of the time - in practice there is always secondary gamma or bremsstrahlung from weak force reactions, which should have shown up. Is there an example in nature of a radiation-free weak force reaction? If you look at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Ni-59%20EC you will see that the decay of Ni-59 involves electron capture (with no visible signature because the energy is all carried by the neutrino) 6.3 times out of 10. The remaining 3.7 times out of 10 it goes as positron decay. However the half life of the reaction is 76000 years, so there aren't all that many decays/second to start with. If you now combine this with the possibility that the reaction with Ni58 may be rare/slow to begin with, resulting in very little Ni59 even being present, then the lack of observed radiation from Ni59 may not be all that surprising. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
Robin FYI, If you look at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Ni-59%20EC you will see that the decay of Ni-59 involves electron capture Correct - as I had already mentioned. (with no visible signature because the energy is all carried by the neutrino) 6.3 times out of 10. The remaining 3.7 times out of 10 it goes as positron decay. What? EC does leave a definite signature. Where did you get the no visible signature? The captured electron comes from an inner orbital and there is an Auger Cascade which follows. An Auger cascade is actually a more recognizable signature than beta decay. Jones
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
I assume this part is accurately translated: So there were two parallel lines of research: on one side, the deuterium and palladium people, who never got anything . . . I have heard he feels that way. Maybe he means they have made little progress toward technology, which is true, but I get the impression he has the same attitude as Arata or Steve Jones: I'm right; everyone else is wrong. He and Rossi have done great work and made immortal contributions to science and human progress. Why should he be such a petty jerk? Why lie about other people's research? Rossi is very gracious toward others, Fleischmann especially. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'll say it, Rossi is probably real. I would say almost certainly real. But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to totally avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, we'd fool ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people. A loss. Well said. I agree. - Jed
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]: Sergio Focardi, the father of Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
Isn't it ironic in a way, since you have said before that Arata shares a similar level of vanity ? Arata probably considers himself the father of nanoparticle LENR . without which, Ni-H might not be possible. . so who's you daddy ? From: Jed Rothwell So there were two parallel lines of research: on one side, the deuterium and palladium people, who never got anything . . . I have heard he feels that way. Maybe he means they have made little progress toward technology, which is true, but I get the impression he has the same attitude as Arata or Steve Jones: I'm right; everyone else is wrong.
RE: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
At 07:54 PM 4/14/2011, Jones Beene wrote: The long half life means it should be VERY evident. There should be massive radioactivity from any such reaction, and yet there is none. Whatever is allowing the nuclear reaction may also accelerate the decay of unstable elements; LENR is fairly well known, from P-F class experiments, to result in only stable isotopes, and my guess is that this is a consequence of the reaction environment, such as a Bose-Einstein condensate or other cluster that allows fusion. In the case of BEC fusion, such as Takahashi's TSC theory, whatever takes place inside the BEC is like in a black box. When the box is opened, there are only the final products and what happened inside is not discoverable. The energy released is distributed, perhaps, among all the products, and they will all be stable. Trying to guess what's going on in the Rossi work is hazardous, there is way too little information. But some are going to do it anyway, trying to develop independent experimental approaches. The prize could be enormous. If someone figures out what Rossi is doing and is first to patent it Rosse could suddenly regret all his secrecy.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
There is a lot of meat in this report. Read it carefully. A lot of food for thought. And for gossip! Focardi clearly says that the Cu isotopes are NOT natural. This contradicts Essen, as noted here. Mass spectroscopy can be tricky, that's all I know. I have seen many similar disagreements about isotopes. (By the way, many people have suggested that enhancing one isotope or another in the catalyst might boost the reaction. That idea has been around for years.) Focardi says some things that are supposed to be confidential. I will leave it to the reader to find those bits, as an exercise. He's got a big mouth. I'll bet this ruffles some feathers! I enjoy the big mouth but I wish his ego was smaller, and his attitude more gracious. Sigh . . . Rossi was smart not to tell him what the two magic elements are. He would have blabbed 'em. He says, I don't want to know. I'll bet there's a lot of other stuff in this article Rossi wishes Focardi did not know. I advise readers to save a copy in case they decide to delete it. As in so many other reports from these people, there are claims that seem outlandish to me, being far wrong on the scale of nuclear versus chemical reactions. They remind of someone who told me he could see bubbles of helium rising from a cathode. He did not realize that the energy produced by one visible bubble would be enough to blow him and most of the neighborhood to smithereens. Focardi says: . . . the latest application has nickel inside it, then the hydrogen is supplied by electrolysis, so that … because you cannot keep a hydrogen tank at home, of course, it’s dangerous. Instead we generated it from water by electrolysis. So, the device kept on working [in heat after death], and I thought to myself: I guess I’m going to have to use a hammer to stop it. Until one day Rossi told me “I stopped it!”. And how did you do that?. He said: I cut the power to the electrolysis, obviously. Right! All you have to do is run the electrolysis from a separate power source. You cut the power off there, and once the hydrogen is used up, the device stops by itself. Oh, yeah? How long does that take? I would believe it if they said they opened the valve and degassed it, or inserted nitrogen. But cutting off the hydrogen supply and leaving pressure intact would leave enough hydrogen to run for a couple of years, I suppose. Maybe I'm missing something? How long would it take if Mills is correct? Does this rapid falling off in the reaction indicate that the hydrogen is consumed much faster than in a conventional nuclear reaction? And they never thought to degas it before that? Hmm m m . . . If they had called me on the phone, that's the first thing I would have suggested. Followed by a thermal shock. (BTW, I don't know why the response I just posted came out a new thread.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reversible chemistry
Using the decay equation: N(t)=N0 * 2^(-t/t_0.5) where N0 = number of atoms initially, N(t) = number of atoms remaining after time t, and t_0.5 is the half life, we see that the proportion of atoms remaining after time t, R(t) is given by: R(t) = N(t)/N0 = 2^(-t/t_0.5) and the proportion consumed C(t) is thus: C(1) = 1 - R(t) = 1 - 2^(-t/t_0.5) If t=1 year, and t_0.5 = 76000 years, then C(1 year) = 1 - 2^((1 y)/(76000 y) = 9.12 x 10^-6 Given the logarithmic curve is flat up front, and 1 year = 5.26x10^5 min, we have the approximation: C(1 min) = C(1 year)/(5.26x10^5) = 9.12x10^-6 / 5.26x10^5 C(1 min) = 1.734 x10^-11 A mole of material with the given decay rate will produce radiation at a dpm/mol rate Cm where: Cm = Na * 1.734 x10^-11 / min = (6.022x10^23 / mol)*(1.734 x10^-11) Cm = 1.044x10^13 dpm/mol = 1.74x10^11 Bq/mol If Rossi's experiment produced 3 grams of copper, it should produce about 7/3 as much 59Ni, or about 7 grams of 59Ni. Using 59 g/mol, the 7 grams is 7/59 = 0.1186 mol, so represents (1.74x10^11 Bq/mol)(0.1186 mol) = 2.03x10^10 Bq, Using a counting efficiency even as low as 0.01, there should be a count rate of about 2x10^8 / s. That would be unmistakable, to say the least! My intuition on this earlier was wrong because I am used to very small proportions of isotopes of an element being radioactive. This is pure stuff. It pays to do the math! So, you are right Jones, if 59Ni is present then it should be evident! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion.
Horace's comments indicate that a lot of overlapping RD from many sources can be relevant to LENR, even without Arata's work being specifically featured. BTW - Takahashi made a presentation on his Arata replications at the American Chemical Society meeting in Anaheim CA recently (last month). The paper is not yet up on the LENR-CANR site, but it probably will be - since others are there . but anyway he stated explicitly in his presentation that Brian Ahern's nanopowders outperformed anything they had tested. These are based on oxidized glassy metals, as in the Arata formula. I doubt seriously that Rossi did this unless it too was inadvertent - which means that his results may be less than optimum - if that is remotely possible. . not to mention that Rossi may indeed be the luckiest man on earth . or else he is the real John Titor, from the year 2036 :-) Na-Nu Na-Nu and Warm Regards, JB From: Horace Heffner Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quality control in cold fusion. I should have noted some of my comments on metallic glasses can be found here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41599.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43171.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg29520.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg33409.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg33409.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41982.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38428.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]: Sergio Focardi, the father of Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Isn’t it ironic in a way, since you have said before that Arata shares a similar level of vanity ? Yup. I would hate to bring those two together. Arata probably considers himself the father of nanoparticle LENR … without which, Ni-H might not be possible. I think everyone would acknowledge he is the father of nanoparticle LENR. That's what I don't get about these people. Everyone in cold fusion acknowledges that Arata has made vital contributions. They have told him that, giving him awards and special sessions. Same in other fields. Both Emperors gave him medals. The Welding Institute established an award in his name: http://www.iiw-iis.org/TheIIW/Recognition/Pages/Arata.aspx I am sure he deserves every honor! That's not my point. You would think that person whose ego has been stroked by so many people would feel a sense of magnanimity . . . or noblesse oblige, or a sense that he has made it to top and there no need to step on anyone else or denigrate them to make himself look better. Yet the praise heaped upon him seems to make him less secure, and more anxious for more homage. He is like one of these rock stars, like Michael Jackson, that wretched man. Arthur C. Clarke had a tremendous ego. He and his friends joked about it. He used to send out circulars titled EGOgram. He was anxious to amass recognition and awards, and he loved to drop names. He, too, deserved every award that came his way. But he was the polar opposite of Arata in personality. He was the nicest, friendliest person you would ever want to meet. (We never did meet, but I spoke with him on the phone.) He would never put on airs or boast. He loved animals and children. He grew up on a farm and was good with horses. His biographer McAleer described his egomania, and he did not mind a bit. It was an authorized biography. He told me he learned a lot from it. I reminded him that it described his habit in youth of keeping a record of orgasms in his diary, and proudly pointing out to all and sundry that he exceeded the Kinsey report averages. He was taken aback. He had completely forgotten that and thought it was hysterical. Evidently the book was not too carefully authorized since he had overlooked that. But he was a the last person in the world who would worry about appearing . . . undignified, I guess you would call it. He and Chris Tinsley were the funniest people I have ever known. Cold fusion has attracted a cast of characters, that's for sure. Rossi tops them all. The news and the buzz he generates, the mind-boggling claims he makes, and the aura of the unexpected he emanates is stronger than the field strength generated by #2 through #10 strange-aura researchers tied together. THAT is quite an accomplishment in this business. He is also a sweet fellow. Kind of aggravating at times, but who isn't? I do not think he intends for every word in his blog to be taken seriously. He has a devious sense of humor. - Jed
[Vo]:[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of Ni-H Cold-Fusion\ [English translation]
Jed wrote [snip] Focardi says some things that are supposed to be confidential. I will leave it to the reader to find those bits, as an exercise. He's got a big mouth. I'll bet this ruffles some feathers![/snip] Focardi says and then there's this chemical compound. The issue came up during that demonstration because, when some people tried to measure the gamma rays, Rossi objected, because by measuring the gamma rays they would have also measured the gamma rays emitted by this secret compound, and so they would have understood what it was, what was in it. He is revealing that it is a chemical compound that emits gamma rays.. That it participates in the nuclear reaction? Fran
Re: [Vo]:The Best Way to Avoid Infringement
In reply to Wm. Scott Smith's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:13:42 -0700: Hi, [snip] If they immediately have virtually free energy, but no new goods and services have been already developed, the economy will feel the extra money; this will cause inflation. If I understand inflation correctly, then it's when the price goes up without a matching increase in actual value (price may also be the price of labor). However when something actually gets cheaper to produce (energy), then the consequence is real growth, not inflation. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of Ni-H Cold-Fusion [English translation]
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:50:39 -0400: Hi, [snip] How long would it take if Mills is correct? Does this rapid falling off in the reaction indicate that the hydrogen is consumed much faster than in a conventional nuclear reaction? It well may. If a fast cloning process is responsible for the energy, then it should stop pretty much instantly upon removal of Hydrogen supply. However with Hydrogen dissolved in a Nickel powder, removal of the external supply wouldn't immediately remove all the Hydrogen from the reactor. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Sergio Focardi, the father of Ni-H Cold-Fusion\ [English translation]
In reply to francis 's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:26:42 -0400: Hi, Not necessarily. It could be producing an x-ray spectrum due to stimulation by ionizing radiation produced elsewhere. [snip] Jed wrote [snip] Focardi says some things that are supposed to be confidential. I will leave it to the reader to find those bits, as an exercise. He's got a big mouth. I'll bet this ruffles some feathers![/snip] Focardi says and then there's this chemical compound. The issue came up during that demonstration because, when some people tried to measure the gamma rays, Rossi objected, because by measuring the gamma rays they would have also measured the gamma rays emitted by this secret compound, and so they would have understood what it was, what was in it. He is revealing that it is a chemical compound that emits gamma rays.. That it participates in the nuclear reaction? Fran Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
