[Vo]:"Everyone dislikes novelty,”

[Axil Axil]

Researchers Kevin J. Boudreau, Eva Guinan, Karim R. Lakhani, and Christoph
Riedl recruited 142 world-class researchers from a leading medical school
and randomly assigned them to evaluate several proposals. Sometimes,
faculty were experts in the subject of the submissions they read. Often,
they were experts in other fields. But in all cases, the experiment was
triple-blind: evaluators did not know submitters, submitters did not know
evaluators, and evaluators did not talk to each other.

The researchers found that new ideas — those that remixed information in
surprising ways — got worse scores from everyone, but they were
particularly punished by experts. "Everyone dislikes novelty,” Lakhami
explained to me, but “experts tend to be over-critical of proposals in
their own domain." Knowledge doesn’t just turn us into critical thinkers.
It maybe turns us into *over*-critical thinkers. (In the real world,
everybody has encountered a variety of this: A real or self-proclaimed
expert who's impatient with new ideas, because they challenge his ego,
piercing the armor of his expertise.)

Experts might be particularly biased against new ideas*, but most people
aren't too fond of creativity either, either. In fact, they can be
downright hostile.

A 1999 study found that teachers who claim to enjoy creative children don't
actually enjoy any of the characteristics associated with creativity, such
as non-conformity. A famous 2010 study from the University of Pennsylvania
showed that ordinary people often dismiss new ideas, because their
uncertainty makes us think, and thinking too hard makes us feel
uncomfortable. "People often reject creative ideas even when espousing
creativity as a desired goal," the researchers wrote. People are subtly
prejudiced against novelty, even when they claim to be open to new ways of
thinking.

Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Axil Axil]

Page 28:

*The ash has a different texture than the powder-like fuel by having grains
of different sizes, probably developed from the heat. The grains differ in
element composition, and we would certainly have liked to analyze several
more grains with SIMS, but the limited amount of ash being available to us
didn’t make that possible. The main result from our sample is nevertheless
clear, that the isotopic composition deviates dramatically from the natural
composition for both Li and Ni. *


It is hard to accept the necessity that just a handful of particles were
provided for isotopic analysis.

Just two or three of these grains were nickel particles. It is unwise to
draw any type of pattern from such a small sample.

The testers got everything that they could from industrial heat and that
wasn't near enough for a decent scientific report.

The audience that the testers were aiming their spin at was Elforsk and
their CEO. Why, they want to get up to their ears in well funded LENR
research. Their presentation of data was not for Rossi's benefit or that of
industrial heat; it was for their own benefit and the good of LENR as they
view it through their own interests. For this game of the century,
everybody wants their seat at the table.




On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:19 AM, H Veeder  wrote:

> Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by
> commercially available enriched isotopes?
>
> Most people on this list seem to be very good about raising technical
> objections to criticisms of the calorimetry, but they counter Pomp's claim
> with non-technical arguments about how it would be irrational of Rossi to
> fake the ash.
>
> Harry
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson 
> wrote:
>
>> Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface
>> enrichment.  I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the
>> result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6
>> as
>> compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected
>> in
>> the bulk composition.
>>
>> Read these messages for further details:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has
>> an
>> error, should read ni62, not ni68)
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html
>>
>> -Bob
>>
>>
>> _
>> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:35 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE:
>> [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
>>
>>
>> Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain
>> the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other
>> isotopes?
>> That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are
>> the
>> intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one
>> neutron
>> at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body?
>>
>> _
>> From: Robert Ellefson
>>
>> Jones,
>>
>> I can only give you the assurances that I
>> received from the report itself.  All of the claims I am making are coming
>> from there.  Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the
>> entire sample mass.
>>
>> I do not believe this is indicative of
>> fraud.  I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that
>> results
>> in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and
>> Li-6
>> and results in Ni-62 enrichment.  I put some more thoughts into this
>> message:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html
>>
>>
>> -Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>> From: Jones Beene
>> [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> 
>> Subject: RE: Isotope conversion
>> completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
>>
>> Let me put it this way, if what you say is
>> true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a
>> major
>> problem. Are you certain?
>>
>> ...this information is very important, so
>> please assure us that is true.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>> From: Robert Ellefson
>> First, as I explain in this
>> (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was
>> analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-6

Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[H Veeder]

Thanks!

Harry

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Robert Ellefson 
wrote:

> Harry and Jones,
>
>
>
> I do not believe that the discovery of highly-enriched isotopes is the
> result of fraud.  I think that the variable fractions of isotopes between
> the surface and the bulk of the ash indicates that isotopic enrichment was
> occurring in-situ.  The apparent fact (if true) that the bulk of the nickel
> is 99.3% Ni-62, while it is 98.7% Ni-62 on the surface, along with an even
> larger lithium isotope gradient from surface-to-bulk, demonstrates that we
> are looking at the ash of a nuclear reaction, and not a faked result.  I
> have no idea how Rossi could achieve such gradients in with a
> laboratory-supply feedstock of enriched nickel achieving both the surface
> morphology that the ash grain displayed and the isotope fractionation
> gradient that it displayed.  I highly doubt this would be possible to fake
> even with tremendous effort.
>
>
>
> So, rather than providing evidence of fraud, I very much believe that this
> isotope fractionation gradient clearly indicates that some kind of nuclear
> reaction is taking place in during this experiment.
>
>
>
> -Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* H Veeder Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:20 PM
>
> Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by
> commercially available enriched isotopes?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson 
> wrote:
>
> Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface
> enrichment.  I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the
> result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6
> as
> compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected
> in
> the bulk composition.
>
> Read these messages for further details:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has
> an
> error, should read ni62, not ni68)
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html
>
>

RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Robert Ellefson]

Harry and Jones,

 

I do not believe that the discovery of highly-enriched isotopes is the result 
of fraud.  I think that the variable fractions of isotopes between the surface 
and the bulk of the ash indicates that isotopic enrichment was occurring 
in-situ.  The apparent fact (if true) that the bulk of the nickel is 99.3% 
Ni-62, while it is 98.7% Ni-62 on the surface, along with an even larger 
lithium isotope gradient from surface-to-bulk, demonstrates that we are looking 
at the ash of a nuclear reaction, and not a faked result.  I have no idea how 
Rossi could achieve such gradients in with a laboratory-supply feedstock of 
enriched nickel achieving both the surface morphology that the ash grain 
displayed and the isotope fractionation gradient that it displayed.  I highly 
doubt this would be possible to fake even with tremendous effort.

 

So, rather than providing evidence of fraud, I very much believe that this 
isotope fractionation gradient clearly indicates that some kind of nuclear 
reaction is taking place in during this experiment.

 

-Bob

 

 

From: H Veeder Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:20 PM



Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by 
commercially available enriched isotopes?

 

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson mailto:vortex-h...@e2ke.com> > wrote:

Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface
enrichment.  I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the
result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as
compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in
the bulk composition.

Read these messages for further details:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an
error, should read ni62, not ni68)
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html

Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[H Veeder]

Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by
commercially available enriched isotopes?

Most people on this list seem to be very good about raising technical
objections to criticisms of the calorimetry, but they counter Pomp's claim
with non-technical arguments about how it would be irrational of Rossi to
fake the ash.

Harry

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson 
wrote:

> Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface
> enrichment.  I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the
> result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6
> as
> compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected
> in
> the bulk composition.
>
> Read these messages for further details:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has
> an
> error, should read ni62, not ni68)
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html
>
> -Bob
>
>
> _
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:35 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE:
> [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
>
>
> Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain
> the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes?
> That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are
> the
> intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron
> at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body?
>
> _
> From: Robert Ellefson
>
> Jones,
>
> I can only give you the assurances that I
> received from the report itself.  All of the claims I am making are coming
> from there.  Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the
> entire sample mass.
>
> I do not believe this is indicative of
> fraud.  I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that
> results
> in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and
> Li-6
> and results in Ni-62 enrichment.  I put some more thoughts into this
> message:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html
>
>
> -Bob
>
>
>
> _
> From: Jones Beene
> [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> Subject: RE: Isotope conversion
> completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
>
> Let me put it this way, if what you say is
> true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a
> major
> problem. Are you certain?
>
> ...this information is very important, so
> please assure us that is true.
>
> Jones
>
> From: Robert Ellefson
> First, as I explain in this
> (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was
> analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62.
>
>( see:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html )
>
> Allow me to repeat this crucially-important
> point:   The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62.
>
> Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are
> restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Video of the test

[H Veeder]

I can see it now ...and infrared picture of Rossi on the cover of TIME. lol

Harry

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
>
>> Fig 3 clearly shows a camera in the top-left, with a (temporary?) cable
>> strung from it, aimed directly at the ecat.
>>
>
> The figure 3 caption says those are IR cameras. "Background: reactor, the
> two thermal imagery cameras." They recorded with two IR cameras the whole
> time. An IR camera would catch someone monkeying with the cell just as well
> as a visible light camera would. It would be like hiring a bumble bee as a
> watch dog.
>
> B. . . .
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[H Veeder]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:48 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Especially if they switch to a pulse mode where they are not really
>> heating directly anymore, the pulses are working like an induction stovetop
>
>
> On page 6 there's a photo of the power and harmonic analyzer.  I don't
> know how to read these, but on the left of the display there are pulses,
> two up and then two down.
>
> Eric
>
>
It is worth noting that pulses of a different kind were used in the cooler
version of the Ecat.
They were in the form of pressure pulses of injected H gas.

Harry​

RE: [Vo]:Tommso Dorigo (a very good experimental partice physicist) analysis report

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jack

 

> My opinion is that it makes perfect sense for Rossi to be involved at these 
> points. 

 

I'm pretty much in the same ball camp. I don't have a serious problem with it.

 

I could care less what debunkers have to say about the matter. If Rossi turns 
out to be a scam artist the debunkers can have their day and gloat all they 
want. In the meantime, I wouldn't bet my retirement fund on a debunker's 
conviction that Rossi had to have been playing a shell game with the scientists.

 

So much of this reminds me of the Kubler-Ross model. Kubler-Ross's model 
applies just as well to other human experiences besides how we confront the 
inevitability of death.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model

 

We all go through it. It's just that some go through the stages of denial, 
anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance more obnoxiously than 
others. Regarding how some perceive Rossi: IMO, I think see a lot of denial and 
bargaining going on here. It can get... difficult... when one gets stuck at a 
particular stage of the grieving process. 

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.

[Kevin O'Malley]

Would you find a nuclear PhD  scientist who was a member of the Skeptics
Society to be credible?  How about a Nuke expert who "investigated the
e-cat because it is his duty as a scientist. He also wanted to protect the
University of Bologna’s reputation from a possible fraud."  Would such a
person be credible?  I'm inclined to change my ASSessment of your ASinine
ASSertions based upon your answer (or even your silence).

http://coldfusion3.com/blog/giuseppe-levi-goes-on-record-to-discuss-e-cat

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> I don't find Levi to be credible!  I'm enthusiastic too and want to
> believe, but Levi was a very poor choice to be primary author on the paper.
>
> A scientist with a credible track record would be better than Darden, but
> Levi is not that scientist.
>
> The CEO of Elforsk, even  the Nasa scientist - these are credible folks.
>
> The reality is this paper, coming from Levi, seemed more like an attempt
> to prove that they he didn't screw up on the first one.   Hardly an
> unbiased source.
>
> It should have been different scientists.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:
>>
>> I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated.
>>> Or something crazy like that.
>>>
>>
>> Where did you read that, and what sort of papers did it refer to? I
>> believe I have read that studies in sociology have poor replication rates.
>> That is not true of cold fusion. Many experiments have not been replicated,
>> but that is because no one has tried to replicate them.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's.
>>>
>>
>> This makes no sense. The issue is scientific. A scientist is a better
>> judge of that than a businessman. Furthermore, hundreds of distinguished
>> scientists have published compelling proof that cold fusion is real. You
>> are moving your estimate by several percentage points in response to the
>> opinions of one businessman. Surely, with regard to a scientific subject,
>> the relative weight of peer-reviewed scientific papers by experts should be
>> a hundred times -- or a thousand times -- that of a businessman's opinion!
>> Those papers should be 99.9% of your evaluation, and Darden's opinion would
>> be 0.1%.
>>
>> If you wanted an evaluation of the flight performance of the Boeing
>> Dreamliner airplane, who would you ask? A businessman who invests in
>> aviation? Or a group of 200 experienced professional pilots who have
>> hundreds of hours experience flying the Dreamliner, and thousands of hours
>> flying other aircraft?
>>
>>
>> Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat.   He has complete,
>>> unfettered access.   The same can not be said for Levi.
>>>
>>
>> First, Levi knows what is in the cell. Second, this can be considered a
>> black box test. It makes no difference what is in the cell. The calorimetry
>> proves that whatever it is, it produces orders of magnitude more energy
>> than any chemical fuel, and it works at a high temperature, and high power.
>> So, if the effect can be controlled, it will not only be a practical source
>> of energy, it will be far better than any other sources. That is what
>> matters.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Robert Dorr]

I

f I read the information correctly reactor is only transparent to 
I.R. below a wavelength of about 5 microns ( almost 0% transmissive 
at wavelengths longer than 5 microns) and they used I.R. cameras that 
were sensitive in the range of 7.5 microns and 13 microns. Therefor 
the cameras would never detect any I.R. (of very, very, little <1% ) 
emitted from the inside of the reactor. The reactor was opaque to 
infrared from the interior of the reactor.


Robert Dorr




At 05:41 PM 10/11/2014, you wrote:

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com

...and besides there is the "little" matter of all that excess energy.

"All that excess?"

In fact, here is nothing that can be called scientifically proved excess
energy at all... this is because the experiment is fatally flawed in using a
IR translucent reactor - and failing to coat it with a black coating - which
any grad student would know to do.

Where were the Swedes? Asleep at the wheel?

Apparently, there is an small hermetically sealed ampoule inside the
alumina, containing reactants. This ampoule is inside the larger translucent
tube, and there is net gain from it. We can agree on that.

The calculations of an expert with whom I am corresponding thinks the excess
could be in the range of COP 1.2 to 1.5 based on an assumed size for this
ampoule. It cannot be large. If it were to fill the entire open space, then
OK gain would be larger but far below the claim. Yet this is still gain and
I am overjoyed by that but not by these problems with the isotopes. That
stinks.

Anyway, I would not classify this result as "all that excess"... and in fact
the low COP could explain why these other things (suspicious isotopic
anomalies) have been included in a report that is well below expectations.

I will agree there is some gain, but perhaps half of what is claimed. That
provides "motivation" for fraud - when one is on record as claiming much
more.

Jones







-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14




-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14

Re: [Vo]:Ask questions to the Working Group - ECAT long-term test

[Kevin O'Malley]

I'd like them to address Goat Guy's contentions but I don't understand them
well enough to summarize.  They should invite Goat Guy to send them his
questions.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Quote:
>
> Working group will answer questions!
> The authors of the long term test-report of the hot-cat had offered us the
> possibility to ask them a bunch of questions. Our idea is that YOU can post
> your question to the authors of the report here in this thread.
>
> At the end we will together select which questions (let's say up to 10) we
> will actually send to them.
>
>
> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/722-Ask-questions-to-the-Working-Group-ECAT-long-term-test/
>

RE: [Vo]:Draft Ragone Plot

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Alan,

I just noticed on page 26 that the arrow is missing on the original plate as
well. Sorry if I sounded like it was something you personally forgot to put
in the updated chart.

I wonder... would it be inappropriate to put the missing arrow in there
anyway?

Being a graphic artist myself, sometimes I get compulsive about nit-picky
things like this... the devil is always in the details.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks
 

Re: [Vo]:Draft Ragone Plot

[Jed Rothwell]

That's outstanding!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tommso Dorigo (a very good experimental partice physicist) analysis report

[Jack Cole]

My opinion is that it makes perfect sense for Rossi to be involved at these
points.  He does still want to protect IH's IP.  For him not to be there,
he may have had to disclose things to the researchers he would have
preferred not to.  Additionally, he knows how it all works, and it would be
better to have the expert putting in the fuel and getting it all up and
running.  If Rossi hadn't been there for those parts, and the results were
negative, we would have no way of knowing if the researchers didn't know
how to operate things correctly, or if it didn't work.

I would suspect there was a prior agreement that any opening of the reactor
and starting/stopping the reactor was to be done by him in order to protect
the IP.  That seems perfectly reasonable to me.  The goal of this is not to
prove how it works, but that it does.  It is not to convince all the
scientists and skeptics in the world.  That will not happen until there are
several operating industrial e-cats out there saving money for the
companies that are using them.


On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 4:43 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 11 Oct 2014 12:17:07 -0300:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >The guy is open minded. Helps people with alternative ideas. Let's see
> what
> >he has to say about the new report:
> >
> >
> http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_fusion_a_better_study_on_the_infamous_ecat-146700
>
> While I agree that Rossi's involvement is regrettable, there is still the
> small
> matter of where the excess energy came from, and it does appear to be a
> relatively good match for a nuclear reaction involving the amount of fuel
> that
> was present.
> IOW while Rossi's involvement is a problem, I still tend to believe the
> results.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Draft Ragone Plot

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Alan,

The yellow strip (the bigger of the two) just to the left of orange Methanol
strip. Is that for H2-ICE? You don't have an arrow pointing "H2 ICE" towards
the yellow strip. You appear to have arrows pointing to everything else. I
think it would be a good idea to put an arrow there as well, assuming that
is for H2 ICE. Otherwise, I don't know what the yellow strip is for.

Otherwise, Looks pretty good to me.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks
 

RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

...and besides there is the "little" matter of all that excess energy.

"All that excess?" 

In fact, here is nothing that can be called scientifically proved excess
energy at all... this is because the experiment is fatally flawed in using a
IR translucent reactor - and failing to coat it with a black coating - which
any grad student would know to do. 

Where were the Swedes? Asleep at the wheel?

Apparently, there is an small hermetically sealed ampoule inside the
alumina, containing reactants. This ampoule is inside the larger translucent
tube, and there is net gain from it. We can agree on that.

The calculations of an expert with whom I am corresponding thinks the excess
could be in the range of COP 1.2 to 1.5 based on an assumed size for this
ampoule. It cannot be large. If it were to fill the entire open space, then
OK gain would be larger but far below the claim. Yet this is still gain and
I am overjoyed by that but not by these problems with the isotopes. That
stinks.

Anyway, I would not classify this result as "all that excess"... and in fact
the low COP could explain why these other things (suspicious isotopic
anomalies) have been included in a report that is well below expectations. 

I will agree there is some gain, but perhaps half of what is claimed. That
provides "motivation" for fraud - when one is on record as claiming much
more.

Jones

Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Axil Axil]

Page 28:
It should be stressed, that the quantities of most elements differ
substantially depending on which granule is analyzed. In addition to these
elements there are small quantities of several other elements, but these
can probably be considered as impurities.

I believe the agenda of the testers is to convince the reader of the repost
that nuclear processes are going on and they used this isotopic result from
on single particle to make their case.

Clearly, looking over all of the results analyzing Rossi's powder, this
Ni62 result is an outlier and should not be used to characterize his
reaction.

To draw any conclusions from this Ni62 result is a mistake other then
transmutation is a nuclear based process.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Page 42:
>
> Thus, as expected from the EDS analysis the appearance of the ToF-SIMS
> spectra will differ depending on particle analyzed.
>
>
> A test was done on one particle. It is possible that one particular
> particle (page 53...sample 1 ash) - could have been in a certain position
> that just so happened to produce almost pure Ni62). Transmutation may be a
> very chaotic process.
>
> In figures 6 through 11, I see no Ni62 at all.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> This makes sense to me, thanks - but an important question still remains.
>>
>> Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which
>> were
>> pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this
>> clear.
>>
>> Do you agree that the tested sample in question - should have been fully
>> loaded with the step-wise intermediaries Ni59, Ni60 and Ni61 - as opposed
>> to
>> almost pure Ni63?
>>
>> Jones
>>
>> _
>> From: Robert Ellefson
>>
>> Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs.
>> 92% surface enrichment.  I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the
>> surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an
>> excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation,
>> which is reflected in the bulk composition.
>>
>> Read these messages for further details:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has
>> an
>> error, should read ni62, not ni68)
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html
>>
>> -Bob
>>
>> _
>> From: Jones Beene
>>
>> Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but
>> how
>> do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all
>> other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift...
>> and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would
>> indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body?
>>
>> _
>> From: Robert Ellefson
>>
>> Jones,
>>
>> I can only give you the assurances that I
>> received from the report itself.  All of the claims I am making are coming
>> from there.  Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the
>> entire sample mass.
>>
>> I do not believe this is indicative of
>> fraud.  I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that
>> results
>> in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and
>> Li-6
>> and results in Ni-62 enrichment.  I put some more thoughts into this
>> message:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html
>>
>>
>> -Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>> From: Jones Beene
>> [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: RE: Isotope conversion
>> completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
>>
>> Let me put it this way, if what you say is
>> true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a
>> major
>> problem. Are you certain?
>>
>> ...this information is very important, so
>> please assure us that is true.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>> From: Robert Ellefson
>> First, as I explain in this
>> (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was
>> analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62.
>>
>>( see:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/

Re: [Vo]:Further thoughts regarding ash isotope fractions

[mixent]

In reply to  Robert Ellefson's message of Sat, 11 Oct 2014 16:16:02 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>I am struck by the coincidence of
>62+7=69 here, and wonder if this peak could indicate a reaction product,
>intermediate or final, of Li-7 and Ni-62.
>
>Thanks for any comments folks would care to offer.

If Hydrinohydride is forming Hydronic molecules of Li7 & Ni62, then I suppose in
theory they could fuse with the energy of the reaction primarily being carried
by the proton/electrons from the Hydrinohydride, but this seems a rather far
fetched explanation when Ga69 is known to be present anyway.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Axil Axil]

Page 42:

Thus, as expected from the EDS analysis the appearance of the ToF-SIMS
spectra will differ depending on particle analyzed.


A test was done on one particle. It is possible that one particular
particle (page 53...sample 1 ash) - could have been in a certain position
that just so happened to produce almost pure Ni62). Transmutation may be a
very chaotic process.

In figures 6 through 11, I see no Ni62 at all.




On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
> This makes sense to me, thanks - but an important question still remains.
>
> Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which
> were
> pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this
> clear.
>
> Do you agree that the tested sample in question - should have been fully
> loaded with the step-wise intermediaries Ni59, Ni60 and Ni61 - as opposed
> to
> almost pure Ni63?
>
> Jones
>
> _
> From: Robert Ellefson
>
> Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs.
> 92% surface enrichment.  I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the
> surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an
> excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation,
> which is reflected in the bulk composition.
>
> Read these messages for further details:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has
> an
> error, should read ni62, not ni68)
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html
>
> -Bob
>
> _
> From: Jones Beene
>
> Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how
> do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all
> other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift...
> and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would
> indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body?
>
> _
> From: Robert Ellefson
>
> Jones,
>
> I can only give you the assurances that I
> received from the report itself.  All of the claims I am making are coming
> from there.  Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the
> entire sample mass.
>
> I do not believe this is indicative of
> fraud.  I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that
> results
> in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and
> Li-6
> and results in Ni-62 enrichment.  I put some more thoughts into this
> message:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html
>
>
> -Bob
>
>
>
> _
> From: Jones Beene
> [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: Isotope conversion
> completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
>
> Let me put it this way, if what you say is
> true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a
> major
> problem. Are you certain?
>
> ...this information is very important, so
> please assure us that is true.
>
> Jones
>
> From: Robert Ellefson
> First, as I explain in this
> (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was
> analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62.
>
>( see:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html )
>
> Allow me to repeat this crucially-important
> point:   The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62.
>
> Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are
> restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition.
>
>

Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which were
> pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this
> clear.
>

There was an earlier thread about the possibility of "burn-in," where early
in the test the nickel isotopes incremented up to 62Ni and then reached a
barrier, after which reactions with nickel were not energetically
favorable.  Presumably this would be two-body reactions, incrementing one
isotope each step.  Depending upon how fast such burn occurred, an
implication would seem to be that the nickel was not the entire source of
heat.

Eric

RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

This makes sense to me, thanks - but an important question still remains.

Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which were
pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this
clear.

Do you agree that the tested sample in question - should have been fully
loaded with the step-wise intermediaries Ni59, Ni60 and Ni61 - as opposed to
almost pure Ni63?

Jones

_
From: Robert Ellefson 

Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs.
92% surface enrichment.  I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the
surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an
excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation,
which is reflected in the bulk composition.

Read these messages for further details:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an
error, should read ni62, not ni68)

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html

-Bob

_
From: Jones Beene 

Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how
do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all
other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift...
and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would
indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body?

_
From: Robert Ellefson 

Jones, 

I can only give you the assurances that I
received from the report itself.  All of the claims I am making are coming
from there.  Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the
entire sample mass.

I do not believe this is indicative of
fraud.  I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results
in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6
and results in Ni-62 enrichment.  I put some more thoughts into this
message:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html


-Bob



_
From: Jones Beene
[mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Isotope conversion
completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

Let me put it this way, if what you say is
true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major
problem. Are you certain?

...this information is very important, so
please assure us that is true.

Jones

From: Robert Ellefson 
First, as I explain in this
(rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was
analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62.  

   ( see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html )

Allow me to repeat this crucially-important
point:   The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62.

Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are
restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition.

<>

Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[mixent]

In reply to  Robert Ellefson's message of Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:24:55 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>While this still only represents a small sample of the complete reactor ash,
>I have a difficult time believing that a substantial fractionation of nickel
>isotopes occurred.  I suspect that most of the other fuel elements are not
>appearing in the ash because they migrated elsewhere in the reactor vessel
>and were missed by sample bias, but I have a difficult time imagining how
>the 99.3% Ni62 grain could be the result of isotope fractionation, all
>things considered here.

I agree, and besides there is the "little" matter of all that excess energy.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Robert Ellefson]

Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface
enrichment.  I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the
result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as
compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in
the bulk composition.

Read these messages for further details:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an
error, should read ni62, not ni68)
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html

-Bob


_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE:
[Vo]:Pomp weighs in


Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain
the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes?
That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the
intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron
at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body?

_
From: Robert Ellefson 

Jones, 

I can only give you the assurances that I
received from the report itself.  All of the claims I am making are coming
from there.  Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the
entire sample mass.

I do not believe this is indicative of
fraud.  I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results
in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6
and results in Ni-62 enrichment.  I put some more thoughts into this
message:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html


-Bob



_
From: Jones Beene
[mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 
Subject: RE: Isotope conversion
completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

Let me put it this way, if what you say is
true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major
problem. Are you certain?

...this information is very important, so
please assure us that is true.

Jones

From: Robert Ellefson 
First, as I explain in this
(rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was
analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62.  

   ( see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html )

Allow me to repeat this crucially-important
point:   The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62.

Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are
restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition.

<>

RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Jones Beene]

Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain the great
preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? That does
not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the
intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron
at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body?
_
From: Robert Ellefson 

Jones, 

I can only give you the assurances that I received from the
report itself.  All of the claims I am making are coming from there.  Pages
28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass.

I do not believe this is indicative of fraud.  I believe
this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state
heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in
Ni-62 enrichment.  I put some more thoughts into this message:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html


-Bob



_
From: Jones Beene
[mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Isotope conversion
completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

Let me put it this way, if what you say is
true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major
problem. Are you certain?

...this information is very important, so
please assure us that is true.

Jones

From: Robert Ellefson 
First, as I explain in this
(rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was
analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62.  

   ( see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html )

Allow me to repeat this crucially-important
point:   The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62.

Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are
restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition.

<>

RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Robert Ellefson]

Jones, 

I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself.
All of the claims I am making are coming from there.  Pages 28 and 53
describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass.

I do not believe this is indicative of fraud.  I believe this indicates a
cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating
reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment.
I put some more thoughts into this message:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html


-Bob


_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE:
[Vo]:Pomp weighs in

Let me put it this way, if what you say is
true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major
problem. Are you certain?

...this information is very important, so
please assure us that is true.

Jones

From: Robert Ellefson 
First, as I explain in this
(rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was
analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62.  

   ( see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html )

Allow me to repeat this crucially-important
point:   The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62.

Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are
restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition.

<>

[Vo]:Further thoughts regarding ash isotope fractions

[Robert Ellefson]

The surface analysis of ash residue using ToF-SIMS showed 98.7% Ni-62
enrichment, while the bulk ash contents were found to have 99.3% enriched
Ni-62.  Similarly, the surface-layer enrichment of Li-6 is 92.1%, while the
bulk contains 57.5% Li-6.  

If these figures are accurate, then there exists a gradient between surface
and bulk for both of the elements displaying isotope shifts.This could
be indicative of the difference between steady-state operation of the
reactor vs. the conditions present when the reactor was shutting down.  

If a cyclic reaction is occurring between lower-numbered Ni and Ni62, and
between Li-7 and Li-6, then a condition of reaction starvation could leave
excess Ni-58 and Ni-60 on the surface (0.8% surface vs 0.3% bulk for Ni-58,
0.5% surface vs. 0.3% bulk for Ni-60) of the nickel-dominated grain, and
significant depletion of Li-7 on the surface (7.9% surface vs. 42.5% bulk)
of a lithium-dominated grain.  I believe this inverse isotope fraction
gradient between nickel and lithium is in fact indicative of a cyclic
reaction between these elements.

I am not familiar with the details of ToF-SIMS, and am having difficulty
interpreting the significance of the mass 69 signal.  Is this an instrument
artifact?  This seems implied by the text, since Ga-69 is listed as being
enriched in the ion source.  However, the abundance of 69 varies widely
between various spectrums on pages 46-52.  Would somebody with familiarity
with this instrument be so kind as to explain the significance of this peak?
Is there a chance that mass 69 is appearing as valid signal, as opposed to
an artifact from Ga-69 in the ion source?  I am struck by the coincidence of
62+7=69 here, and wonder if this peak could indicate a reaction product,
intermediate or final, of Li-7 and Ni-62.

Thanks for any comments folks would care to offer.

-Bob Ellefson




  

RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Jones Beene]

Robert,

Whether you know it or not, you may have put another nail in
coffin of any faint hope that this report is valid, and not a fraud. What's
more, in answer to Ransom, it could be a deliberate fraud.

Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the
sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are
you certain?

That is because several months ago, I personally talked to
the person who sold Rossi enriched Ni-62 in what was for all practical
purposes that same purity. The coincidence is stunning.

OK - for the benefit of true believers, let's say that there
is a small chance that Rossi did not arrange some kind of deceit here, and
that although he purchased the same purity material, it also showed up in a
properly tested sample as a matter of pure random coincidence ... (Jon
Stewart pause) ... but please explain to me how any known nuclear reaction
produces virtually pure isotope going all the way from Ni58 to Ni63 in one
step with no intermediary products. 

If that can happen in this Universe, then ok maybe it is a
coincidence that Rossi just happened to buy the same material that turned up
in the tested sample.

Thank you for speaking up, Robert Ellefson. I have not
noticed you on this group before this story broke, but this information is
very important, so please assure us that is true.

Jones

From: Robert Ellefson 

David,

I strongly disagree with the conclusions you have expressed
regarding the ash sample isotope fraction.

First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from
yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting
of 99.3% enriched Ni-62.  

   ( see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html )

Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point:   The
2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62.

Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to
analyzing the surface-layer composition.

While this still only represents a small sample of the
complete reactor ash, I have a difficult time believing that a substantial
fractionation of nickel isotopes occurred.  I suspect that most of the other
fuel elements are not appearing in the ash because they migrated elsewhere
in the reactor vessel and were missed by sample bias, but I have a difficult
time imagining how the 99.3% Ni62 grain could be the result of isotope
fractionation, all things considered here.

-Bob


From: David Roberson 
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:56 AM

That is what I concluded as well when I reread the article
carefully.  The small quantity tested would thus not represent a total
sample in the analysis, so there is no way to ensure that all of the input
nickel was converted into that single 62Ni isotope.

This fact leaves unanswered the question as to whether or
not all of the input nickel was consumed and any discussion about the
concern that the reaction was near its conclusion moot.  We have no way of
knowing whether or not the enhanced nickel is merely remaining on the
surface of the ash sample or throughout its volume.

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Sat, Oct 11, 2014 11:29 am
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson
 wrote:

I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of
material that was taken from within the reactor as ash.  Did they recover
approximately the same amount as was put in?

Approximately 1 gram of fuel was added at the start of the
trial.  At the end of the trial, one (and I think only one) of the
experimenters was present to choose 10 mg from the spent fuel.  From this
smaller sample, they appear to have set aside two (or three?) grains of
different shapes and compositions for analysis.

<>

[Vo]:Draft Ragone Plot

[Alan Fletcher]

http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat2_pics/141011_ragone_20.png

Please double-check my figures and position.

If you want to use it on a website email me and I'll send you a custom version.

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- and the 
defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!) 

RE: [Vo]:Oh dear [redacted] Jennider Oullette again

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Nice shades.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-cat test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

no stage magic possible on that.
>

If it is stage magic, Rossi deserves the Nobel Price in magic.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Tommso Dorigo (a very good experimental partice physicist) analysis report

[mixent]

In reply to  Daniel Rocha's message of Sat, 11 Oct 2014 12:17:07 -0300:
Hi,
[snip]
>The guy is open minded. Helps people with alternative ideas. Let's see what
>he has to say about the new report:
>
>http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_fusion_a_better_study_on_the_infamous_ecat-146700

While I agree that Rossi's involvement is regrettable, there is still the small
matter of where the excess energy came from, and it does appear to be a
relatively good match for a nuclear reaction involving the amount of fuel that
was present.
IOW while Rossi's involvement is a problem, I still tend to believe the results.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Ask questions to the Working Group - ECAT long-term test

[Jed Rothwell]

Quote:

Working group will answer questions!
The authors of the long term test-report of the hot-cat had offered us the
possibility to ask them a bunch of questions. Our idea is that YOU can post
your question to the authors of the report here in this thread.

At the end we will together select which questions (let's say up to 10) we
will actually send to them.

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/722-Ask-questions-to-the-Working-Group-ECAT-long-term-test/

Re: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM,  wrote:

29Si+58Ni => 59Ni + 28Si + 0.526 MeV
> 29Si+59Ni => 60Ni + 28Si + 2.914 MeV
>

Regarding this and the emails that follow -- very interesting.  It seems
that there's a whole slew of possible neutron stripping reactions
available, with different characteristics.  With the right combinations,
you can keep the energy levels pretty manageable (or do the opposite, if
you like).

On a slight tangent, I'm reminded of the Pap engine.  Can you think of any
neutron stripping reactions involving noble gasses? (One I can already
anticipate: deuterium + a noble gas.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Alain Sepeda]

I think you all made the job (respect to Jed BTW, as usual)
1- the window of transparency can be real for some alumina materials, but
not in the wavelength that the IRcam use (>7um)
2- if the IRcam was troubled by the white light, the bright zone would be
much hotter for the IR cam. the IRcam rather consider zone are quite
equivalent, thus it does not see the inside of the reactor, as our eyes do
in the visible spectrum.

job done guys.
kudos to all!

2014-10-11 19:01 GMT+02:00 ChemE Stewart :

> It basically means goat guys theory might be goat F'd...
>
>
> On Saturday, October 11, 2014, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:48 AM, ChemE Stewart 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Especially if they switch to a pulse mode where they are not really
>>> heating directly anymore, the pulses are working like an induction stovetop
>>> where the quickly changing magnetic fields are inducing arcs/currents in
>>> the "secret sauce"
>>
>>
>> That's a pretty cool idea.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Alain Sepeda]

the key argument is that we don't have a theory on how it works, and we
have no idea if Ni62 is active, an ash, or anything...

heat is produced, and this man have to learn calorimetry like Huizenga,
Parks,
and most nuclear physicist who imagine that they are the center of the
world, and disdain what they don't master, chemistry.

2014-10-11 17:25 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker :

> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Robert Lynn <
> robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>- The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism
>>somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion
>>and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive
>>isotopes produced?
>>
>> Regarding the absence of 64Ni in the "after" ash assay -- Pomp seems to
> have overlooked the fact that there are too few data points to conclude
> much in this regard (i.e., n=1).  It's possible that a second sample would
> have shown the same amount as found at the start.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.

[Alain Sepeda]

people should separate the idea that the test was screwed up, debunked,

from the fact that all skeptic claims it is screwed up and debunked...

for now, with the parenthesis of alumina closed (low transmitance at IR cam
wavelength) the test is solid.

note also that the skeptic carefull avoid the kind of euristic they love
when it support their ideas...

they forget that the test was done without inventor presence, in both case,
with freedom to use any instrucment to measure electric of heat parameters,
to touch unplug, rewire...

stage magic is ruled out since first test.

now, just consider that even if the transmittance was higher than what it
is, a hoter reactor bright more...


we can try to explain to skeptics that they are right, to check some
interesting question, but we are not forced to swallow their incompetence
as a reality.

we should not also take as reality their claim of fraud that we cannot
check...
something not refuted is not necessarily true. it is open.



2014-10-11 17:48 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker :

> I don't find Levi to be credible!  I'm enthusiastic too and want to
> believe, but Levi was a very poor choice to be primary author on the paper.
>
> A scientist with a credible track record would be better than Darden, but
> Levi is not that scientist.
>
> The CEO of Elforsk, even  the Nasa scientist - these are credible folks.
>
> The reality is this paper, coming from Levi, seemed more like an attempt
> to prove that they he didn't screw up on the first one.   Hardly an
> unbiased source.
>
> It should have been different scientists.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:
>>
>> I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated.
>>> Or something crazy like that.
>>>
>>
>> Where did you read that, and what sort of papers did it refer to? I
>> believe I have read that studies in sociology have poor replication rates.
>> That is not true of cold fusion. Many experiments have not been replicated,
>> but that is because no one has tried to replicate them.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's.
>>>
>>
>> This makes no sense. The issue is scientific. A scientist is a better
>> judge of that than a businessman. Furthermore, hundreds of distinguished
>> scientists have published compelling proof that cold fusion is real. You
>> are moving your estimate by several percentage points in response to the
>> opinions of one businessman. Surely, with regard to a scientific subject,
>> the relative weight of peer-reviewed scientific papers by experts should be
>> a hundred times -- or a thousand times -- that of a businessman's opinion!
>> Those papers should be 99.9% of your evaluation, and Darden's opinion would
>> be 0.1%.
>>
>> If you wanted an evaluation of the flight performance of the Boeing
>> Dreamliner airplane, who would you ask? A businessman who invests in
>> aviation? Or a group of 200 experienced professional pilots who have
>> hundreds of hours experience flying the Dreamliner, and thousands of hours
>> flying other aircraft?
>>
>>
>> Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat.   He has complete,
>>> unfettered access.   The same can not be said for Levi.
>>>
>>
>> First, Levi knows what is in the cell. Second, this can be considered a
>> black box test. It makes no difference what is in the cell. The calorimetry
>> proves that whatever it is, it produces orders of magnitude more energy
>> than any chemical fuel, and it works at a high temperature, and high power.
>> So, if the effect can be controlled, it will not only be a practical source
>> of energy, it will be far better than any other sources. That is what
>> matters.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Robert Ellefson]

 

David,

 

I strongly disagree with the conclusions you have expressed regarding the
ash sample isotope fraction.

 

First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the
ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3%
enriched Ni-62.  

 

   ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html )

 

Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point:   The 2.13mg ash sample
contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62.

Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the
surface-layer composition.

 

While this still only represents a small sample of the complete reactor ash,
I have a difficult time believing that a substantial fractionation of nickel
isotopes occurred.  I suspect that most of the other fuel elements are not
appearing in the ash because they migrated elsewhere in the reactor vessel
and were missed by sample bias, but I have a difficult time imagining how
the 99.3% Ni62 grain could be the result of isotope fractionation, all
things considered here.

 

-Bob

 

 

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:56 AM



 

That is what I concluded as well when I reread the article carefully.  The
small quantity tested would thus not represent a total sample in the
analysis, so there is no way to ensure that all of the input nickel was
converted into that single 62Ni isotope.

This fact leaves unanswered the question as to whether or not all of the
input nickel was consumed and any discussion about the concern that the
reaction was near its conclusion moot.  We have no way of knowing whether or
not the enhanced nickel is merely remaining on the surface of the ash sample
or throughout its volume.



 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Sat, Oct 11, 2014 11:29 am

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote:

 

I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of material that was
taken from within the reactor as ash.  Did they recover approximately the
same amount as was put in?

 

Approximately 1 gram of fuel was added at the start of the trial.  At the
end of the trial, one (and I think only one) of the experimenters was
present to choose 10 mg from the spent fuel.  From this smaller sample, they
appear to have set aside two (or three?) grains of different shapes and
compositions for analysis.

 

Re: [Vo]:Video of the test

[Alan Fletcher]

At 10:57 AM 10/11/2014, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Alan Fletcher
 wrote:
 


Fig 3 clearly shows a camera in the top-left, with a (temporary?)
cable strung from it, aimed directly at the ecat.


The figure 3 caption says those are IR cameras. "Background:
reactor, the 
two thermal imagery cameras." They recorded with two IR cameras the
whole time. An IR camera would catch someone monkeying with the cell just
as well as a visible light camera would. It would be like hiring a bumble
bee as a watch dog.
No, the IR cameras are on tripods next to the ecat. I'm talking about the
surveillance-looking camera in the corner of the room near the
ceiling.
ISTR someone on vortex said there would be continual video, but I can't
find it on a search.

Re: [Vo]:Video of the test

[Patrick Ellul]

Also one could interpret Rossi's remarks as confidence that there is no
*leaked* video of the test around. He couldn't know for sure what was
happening during the test, whether someone took some video on their phone.
On 12/10/2014 4:57 AM, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
>
>> Fig 3 clearly shows a camera in the top-left, with a (temporary?) cable
>> strung from it, aimed directly at the ecat.
>>
>
> The figure 3 caption says those are IR cameras. "Background: reactor, the
> two thermal imagery cameras." They recorded with two IR cameras the whole
> time. An IR camera would catch someone monkeying with the cell just as well
> as a visible light camera would. It would be like hiring a bumble bee as a
> watch dog.
>
> B. . . .
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Oh dear [redacted] Jennider Oullette again

[Alan Fletcher]

https://plus.google.com/105473622219622697310/posts/P9TFSD2CPDr

Jennifer Ouellette
Shared publicly  -  8:05 AM
 
Oh dear god, Rossi is still pedaling his E-Cat 'cold fusion' device 
"It would be like if I asked you to believe that by putting a dollar bill in a 
special laundry machine and spinning it for half an hour with some special 
detergent the dollar turns into a $1000 note. You are allowed to watch the 
machine as it does its work, but it is me who opens it and extracts the bill 
when it has finished its magic conversion. I doubt you would buy it."  

http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_fusion_a_better_study_on_the_infamous_ecat-146700#.VDlHNfBwojo.google_plusone_share

Larry Rosenthal
9:37 AM
its perfect for kickstarter..  totally corrupt, but perfect

Alan Fletcher
12:29 PM
If I put $1 into a laundry machine,  and it gave me a $3.60 wash and printed a 
blank piece of paper ... sure I'd buy it.

Re: [Vo]:Table 1 Appendix 3

[Alain Sepeda]

We should be careful as contamination, mixing, enrichment, mays trouble the
result... it is not a total analysis but a relative composition.

one possibility is that Li6 is not caused by fission/spallation, but by
fusion

or fusion/decay

why not t+e+t -> li6+2e
or like iwamura 6 deuteron absorption:
p+e+p+e+p+e+p+e+p+e+p->e+li6+e

no gamma required since momentum is null
no neutron that can be thermalized
I don't know if the reaction is exothermic, but it would be logical

why not?
It's based on p-e-p fusion idea coupled with iwamura 2/4/6 deuteron merging
with heavy targets

one question is whether it is a linear reaction à la hydroton,
or a 3D reaction on 3 axis

many electron should participate or the coulomb barrier would block...
geometry is important so momentum before and after is null
I don't see a geometry that works with localized electrons.
however 6p+3e gives li6, assuming that it is 3 electronic orbitals that are
like 8 number null at the center, symmetric like petals, and together
placed on the 3 axis between 3 pairs of protons...

imagine that protons in fact have electrons that are forbidden to go out of
a linear axis (8 shape with the proton in the center), put them in chain
like hidroton, or at 3D crossing and the p-e-p fusion is in fact a
1/2e + p + 1/2e + 1/2e + p+1/2e -> 1/2e + d +1/2e

or (imagine 3D on ascii art)

1/2e + p + 1/2e  [/-\]  1/2e + p + 1/2e   x-axis
1/2e + p + 1/2e  [...]  1/2e + p + 1/2e   y axis
1/2e + p + 1/2e  [\-/]  1/2e + p + 1/2e   z axis

->
1/2e  [/-\]   1/2e   x-axis
1/2e  [li6]   1/2e   y axis
1/2e  [\-/]   1/2e   z axis

if the same idea hold for 2D
1/2e + p + 1/2e  [/-\]  1/2e + p + 1/2e   x-axis
1/2e + p + 1/2e  [\-/]  1/2e + p + 1/2e   z axis
->
1/2e  [/---\]   1/2e   x-axis
1/2e  [he4]   1/2e   z axis

for 1D
if the same idea hold for 2D
1/2e + p + 1/2e  [-]  1/2e + p + 1/2e   x-axis
->
1/2e  [d]   1/2e   x-axis

my vision explains Iwamura observation (I plagiarize/support storms!)
1/2e + d + 1/2e  [/-\]  1/2e + d + 1/2e   x-axis
1/2e + d + 1/2e  [X]  1/2e + d + 1/2e   y axis
1/2e + d + 1/2e  [\-/]  1/2e + d + 1/2e   z axis
1/2e  [/\]   1/2e   x-axis
1/2e  [X+3]   1/2e   y axis
1/2e  [\/]   1/2e   z axis
-> I missed the electrons of the X, so maybe there is an error... maybe the
electrons of the X participate the reaction and have to be delocalized as 6
petal orbitals too, aligned or diagonal with H orbitals


this idea is just an idea ; it is probably wrong but i seriously support
the idea that geometry is important, because it explain by null momentum
that no gamma is produced, by electron absorption, that no neutron is ever
thermalized...
we should also forget about localized particles and round orbitals...

geometry is the key... no neutron and gamma are the symptom

I don't know if it relates to takahashi, or if it is even possible.
is there a forgiving professor there ?

(probably it is the wine shared with Bob Cook at home;)

2014-10-11 4:21 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :

> Table 1 Appendix 3 on page 42 of the Rossi report is the EDS analysis of
> the
> Fuel and Ash with natural abundance comparison. Look particularly at the
> Li-6 counts in the ash.
>
> This Table should tell us what is happening in the reaction, if it can be
> believed but so far, an important detail seems to be overlooked. There
> seems
> to be a lot of lithium 6 showing up in the ash - too much for the source to
> be lithium 7. In other words, there is new lithium coming into the ash from
> some other source, what is that source?
>
> Correction - all we can be sure of is that there is an EDS signal being
> attributed to lithium-6 but it may be relic of incomplete software, since
> all the signals are assigned by what is essentially a library of known
> correlations. For instance, if there was a new isomer or species in this
> reaction, not known previously, then the software would probably assign it
> to the closest near-miss which could be Li-6.
>
> This analysis is open to interpretation of course, since it is based on
> ratios and they state that various particles vary from place to place. But
> in general, if we look at nickel in the ash and in fuel, the total counts
> are nearly identical for nickel in both cases - but the isotopes have
> shifted drastically. Now compare total nickel to total lithium. That ratio
> has shot up 300% in favor of Li - and relative to counts between fuel and
> ash and this is happening at the same time the isotope ratio is shifting.
> But in general, when compared to nickel counts, net lithium counts has
> tripled and most of that is probably in the form of "new" Li-6 (not coming
> from Li-7) or else attributable a new species which the EDS is assigning as
> Li-6.
>
> What is the source of this "new" Li-6 if it is not a relic of
> instrumentation?
>
> The available suspects are aluminum, oxygen and hydrogen
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Air poisoning

[ChemE Stewart]

Maybe Lorentz forces from oscillating magnetic field keeps everything
stirred up

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

On Saturday, October 11, 2014, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Hydrogen movement is a old trick in nuclear reactors
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-moderated_self-regulating_nuclear_power_module
>
> As the temperature goes up, the hydrogen goes away from the site of the
> reaction.  The question for us is how Rossi has engineer passive
> temperature based failsafe control into his reactor by moving hydrogen
> around inside his reactor.
>
> Or did he do it through luckOr has he done it at all...
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Axil Axil  > wrote:
>
>> Another advantage that this conjecture might imply is that the nickel
>> particles will suffer far less isotopic transmutation damage from the
>> gaseous hydrogen if the particles were poisons by air.
>>
>> Is Rossi this clever or are we overestimating his genius?
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jack Cole > > wrote:
>>
>>> This is something I've wondered about with the E-Cat.  Has anyone ever
>>> seen Rossi vacuum the air out of a chamber before adding hydrogen?  I can't
>>> recall a single instance--suggesting he leaves the air in.  It's an
>>> interesting conjecture that the air may actually serve a purpose of putting
>>> the brakes on the reaction.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil >> > wrote:
>>>
 Air poisoning of the reaction has been an iron clad rule in Ni/H
 technology from its beginning. Now Rossi has overcome this poisoning no no.



 One way that this might happen is that the reaction no longer occurs in
 the gas phase where the nitrogen in the air and hydrogen can mix. The
 hydrogen might become chemically bound to any number of elements like
 lithium and/or carbon after it is released from the lithium aluminum
 hydride storage medium leaving the nitrogen floating above it all far from
 the reaction site.



 The reaction might be occurring in solid form with hydrogen bound to
 some other combination of elements. Lithium seems the most likely chemical
 mate for the hydrogen solid state storage system because of the high
 temperatures needed to release the hydrogen from the lithium.



 This implies that the reaction occurs in two parts. The nickel powder
 produces an EMF beam that reaches out from beyond the nickel particle and
 affects the hydride at some considerable distance from the nickel particle.



 When the hydrogen is in gaseous form, the nitrogen poisons it. However
 when the hydrogen becomes chemically bound in a hydride, it can participate
 in the reaction.



 This is a great burnout control technique because temperature rises
 will reduce the intensity of the hydrogen reaction in the solid state.
  This gas poisoning in the gaseous state puts a ceiling on how high
 the temperature of the reactor can go.

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Air poisoning

[Axil Axil]

Hydrogen movement is a old trick in nuclear reactors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-moderated_self-regulating_nuclear_power_module

As the temperature goes up, the hydrogen goes away from the site of the
reaction.  The question for us is how Rossi has engineer passive
temperature based failsafe control into his reactor by moving hydrogen
around inside his reactor.

Or did he do it through luckOr has he done it at all...

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Another advantage that this conjecture might imply is that the nickel
> particles will suffer far less isotopic transmutation damage from the
> gaseous hydrogen if the particles were poisons by air.
>
> Is Rossi this clever or are we overestimating his genius?
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> This is something I've wondered about with the E-Cat.  Has anyone ever
>> seen Rossi vacuum the air out of a chamber before adding hydrogen?  I can't
>> recall a single instance--suggesting he leaves the air in.  It's an
>> interesting conjecture that the air may actually serve a purpose of putting
>> the brakes on the reaction.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Air poisoning of the reaction has been an iron clad rule in Ni/H
>>> technology from its beginning. Now Rossi has overcome this poisoning no no.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One way that this might happen is that the reaction no longer occurs in
>>> the gas phase where the nitrogen in the air and hydrogen can mix. The
>>> hydrogen might become chemically bound to any number of elements like
>>> lithium and/or carbon after it is released from the lithium aluminum
>>> hydride storage medium leaving the nitrogen floating above it all far from
>>> the reaction site.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The reaction might be occurring in solid form with hydrogen bound to
>>> some other combination of elements. Lithium seems the most likely chemical
>>> mate for the hydrogen solid state storage system because of the high
>>> temperatures needed to release the hydrogen from the lithium.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This implies that the reaction occurs in two parts. The nickel powder
>>> produces an EMF beam that reaches out from beyond the nickel particle and
>>> affects the hydride at some considerable distance from the nickel particle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When the hydrogen is in gaseous form, the nitrogen poisons it. However
>>> when the hydrogen becomes chemically bound in a hydride, it can participate
>>> in the reaction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a great burnout control technique because temperature rises will
>>> reduce the intensity of the hydrogen reaction in the solid state.  This
>>> gas poisoning in the gaseous state puts a ceiling on how high the
>>> temperature of the reactor can go.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Air poisoning

[Axil Axil]

Another advantage that this conjecture might imply is that the nickel
particles will suffer far less isotopic transmutation damage from the
gaseous hydrogen if the particles were poisons by air.

Is Rossi this clever or are we overestimating his genius?

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> This is something I've wondered about with the E-Cat.  Has anyone ever
> seen Rossi vacuum the air out of a chamber before adding hydrogen?  I can't
> recall a single instance--suggesting he leaves the air in.  It's an
> interesting conjecture that the air may actually serve a purpose of putting
> the brakes on the reaction.
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Air poisoning of the reaction has been an iron clad rule in Ni/H
>> technology from its beginning. Now Rossi has overcome this poisoning no no.
>>
>>
>>
>> One way that this might happen is that the reaction no longer occurs in
>> the gas phase where the nitrogen in the air and hydrogen can mix. The
>> hydrogen might become chemically bound to any number of elements like
>> lithium and/or carbon after it is released from the lithium aluminum
>> hydride storage medium leaving the nitrogen floating above it all far from
>> the reaction site.
>>
>>
>>
>> The reaction might be occurring in solid form with hydrogen bound to some
>> other combination of elements. Lithium seems the most likely chemical mate
>> for the hydrogen solid state storage system because of the high
>> temperatures needed to release the hydrogen from the lithium.
>>
>>
>>
>> This implies that the reaction occurs in two parts. The nickel powder
>> produces an EMF beam that reaches out from beyond the nickel particle and
>> affects the hydride at some considerable distance from the nickel particle.
>>
>>
>>
>> When the hydrogen is in gaseous form, the nitrogen poisons it. However
>> when the hydrogen becomes chemically bound in a hydride, it can participate
>> in the reaction.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a great burnout control technique because temperature rises will
>> reduce the intensity of the hydrogen reaction in the solid state.  This
>> gas poisoning in the gaseous state puts a ceiling on how high the
>> temperature of the reactor can go.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Air poisoning

[Jack Cole]

This is something I've wondered about with the E-Cat.  Has anyone ever seen
Rossi vacuum the air out of a chamber before adding hydrogen?  I can't
recall a single instance--suggesting he leaves the air in.  It's an
interesting conjecture that the air may actually serve a purpose of putting
the brakes on the reaction.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Air poisoning of the reaction has been an iron clad rule in Ni/H
> technology from its beginning. Now Rossi has overcome this poisoning no no.
>
>
>
> One way that this might happen is that the reaction no longer occurs in
> the gas phase where the nitrogen in the air and hydrogen can mix. The
> hydrogen might become chemically bound to any number of elements like
> lithium and/or carbon after it is released from the lithium aluminum
> hydride storage medium leaving the nitrogen floating above it all far from
> the reaction site.
>
>
>
> The reaction might be occurring in solid form with hydrogen bound to some
> other combination of elements. Lithium seems the most likely chemical mate
> for the hydrogen solid state storage system because of the high
> temperatures needed to release the hydrogen from the lithium.
>
>
>
> This implies that the reaction occurs in two parts. The nickel powder
> produces an EMF beam that reaches out from beyond the nickel particle and
> affects the hydride at some considerable distance from the nickel particle.
>
>
>
> When the hydrogen is in gaseous form, the nitrogen poisons it. However
> when the hydrogen becomes chemically bound in a hydride, it can participate
> in the reaction.
>
>
>
> This is a great burnout control technique because temperature rises will
> reduce the intensity of the hydrogen reaction in the solid state.  This
> gas poisoning in the gaseous state puts a ceiling on how high the
> temperature of the reactor can go.
>

[Vo]:Air poisoning

[Axil Axil]

Air poisoning of the reaction has been an iron clad rule in Ni/H technology
from its beginning. Now Rossi has overcome this poisoning no no.



One way that this might happen is that the reaction no longer occurs in the
gas phase where the nitrogen in the air and hydrogen can mix. The hydrogen
might become chemically bound to any number of elements like lithium and/or
carbon after it is released from the lithium aluminum hydride storage
medium leaving the nitrogen floating above it all far from the reaction
site.



The reaction might be occurring in solid form with hydrogen bound to some
other combination of elements. Lithium seems the most likely chemical mate
for the hydrogen solid state storage system because of the high
temperatures needed to release the hydrogen from the lithium.



This implies that the reaction occurs in two parts. The nickel powder
produces an EMF beam that reaches out from beyond the nickel particle and
affects the hydride at some considerable distance from the nickel particle.



When the hydrogen is in gaseous form, the nitrogen poisons it. However when
the hydrogen becomes chemically bound in a hydride, it can participate in
the reaction.



This is a great burnout control technique because temperature rises will
reduce the intensity of the hydrogen reaction in the solid state.  This gas
poisoning in the gaseous state puts a ceiling on how high the temperature
of the reactor can go.

Re: [Vo]:ONU @ verisoft.com WARNING MESSAGE

[Ron Wormus]

I got them last time I posted.
Ron

--On Saturday, October 11, 2014 10:39 AM -0700 Alan Fletcher 
 wrote:



Is anyone else getting these verisoft messages when you post?  Since I
don't email to ONU directly, I presume it's the vortex mail server
sending a copy to ONU., and I get the message because it's recorded as
"from:" me.

I suppose I could blacklist verisoft 

MDaemon Delivery Status Notification - http://www.altn.com/dsn

--

The attached message had TEMPORARY non-fatal delivery errors.


--
THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY - YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE

--

MDaemon is configured to automatically retry delivery at configured
intervals.  Subsequent attempts to deliver this message are pending.

Failed address:
o...@verisoft.com;batu...@verisoft.com;osman.mu...@verisoft.com

--- Session Transcript ---
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Parsing message

  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  From: a...@well.com
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  To: o...@verisoft.com
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Subject: Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of
Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Size (bytes): 4262
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Message-ID:
<20141011004448.57915421f...@zimbra.well.com>
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Attempting SMTP connection to [verisoft.com]
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Resolving MX records for [verisoft.com] (DNS
Server: 195.175.39.39)...
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Ignoring irrelevant RR, mail2.verisoft.com
P=020
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Ignoring irrelevant RR, mail.verisoft.com
P=010
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  No MX records available; delivering
directly to host
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Attempting SMTP connection to
[verisoft.com:25]
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Resolving A record for [verisoft.com] (DNS
Server: 195.175.39.39)...
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Name server has no valid records of the
requested type for that domain
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: This message is 60 minutes old; it has 0
minutes left in this queue
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Remote queue lifetime exceeded; message
placed in retry queue
--- End Transcript ---

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- and the
defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)

Re: [Vo]:Video of the test

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  wrote:


> Fig 3 clearly shows a camera in the top-left, with a (temporary?) cable
> strung from it, aimed directly at the ecat.
>

The figure 3 caption says those are IR cameras. "Background: reactor, the
two thermal imagery cameras." They recorded with two IR cameras the whole
time. An IR camera would catch someone monkeying with the cell just as well
as a visible light camera would. It would be like hiring a bumble bee as a
watch dog.

B. . . .

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ONU @ verisoft.com WARNING MESSAGE

[Jed Rothwell]

Bill B. needs to manually remove this person from the list. Apparently
there is something wrong with the address, or it is defunct.

- Jed

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> Is anyone else getting these verisoft messages when you post?  Since I
> don't email to ONU directly, I presume it's the vortex mail server sending
> a copy to ONU., and I get the message because it's recorded as "from:" me.
>
> I suppose I could blacklist verisoft 
>
> MDaemon Delivery Status Notification - http://www.altn.com/dsn
> --
>
> The attached message had TEMPORARY non-fatal delivery errors.
>
> --
> THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY - YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE
> --
>
> MDaemon is configured to automatically retry delivery at configured
> intervals.  Subsequent attempts to deliver this message are pending.
>
> Failed address: o...@verisoft.com;batu...@verisoft.com;osman.mumcu@
> verisoft.com
>
> --- Session Transcript ---
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Parsing message  pd5427218.msg>
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  From: a...@well.com
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  To: o...@verisoft.com
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Subject: Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of
> Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Size (bytes): 4262
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Message-ID: <20141011004448.57915421F445@
> zimbra.well.com>
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Attempting SMTP connection to [verisoft.com]
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Resolving MX records for [verisoft.com] (DNS
> Server: 195.175.39.39)...
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Ignoring irrelevant RR, mail2.verisoft.com
> P=020
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Ignoring irrelevant RR, mail.verisoft.com
> P=010
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  No MX records available; delivering directly
> to host
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Attempting SMTP connection to [verisoft.com:25]
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Resolving A record for [verisoft.com] (DNS
> Server: 195.175.39.39)...
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Name server has no valid records of the
> requested type for that domain
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: This message is 60 minutes old; it has 0 minutes
> left in this queue
>  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Remote queue lifetime exceeded; message placed
> in retry queue
> --- End Transcript ---
>
> (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- and the defkalion
> hyperion -- Hi, google!)
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi is puzzled by particle transmutation

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  wrote:

At 09:13 AM 10/11/2014, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>  We give Rossi too much credit in our assessment of his control and
>> understanding of his reactor. He is just feeling his way along like the
>> rest of us.
>>
>
> I'm sure that by now he can do mass spectrometry of his ashes any time he
> wants . . .


Yes, I expect he has a lot more data to work with than we do.



> I still think it might be a selection artifact. The team selected a few
> milligrams of the powder, and then the analyzer selected ONE particle of
> the ash. There's probably a range of efficiencies in the particles as a
> whole.


That sounds plausible. I wish they had looked at more particles. Apparently
IH prevented them from doing this. That's what Lewan said.



> This particular one might have been hyper-active and burned up all its Ni.
> Others might not have "ignited" at all.
>

Assuming the Storms NAE theory is correct, I think it is likely.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:ONU @ verisoft.com WARNING MESSAGE

[Jones Beene]

Yes- I keep putting them in the spam file but the filter does not block
verisoft, for whatever reason.

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher Subject: 

Is anyone else getting these verisoft messages when you post?  Since 
I don't email to ONU directly, I presume it's the vortex mail server 
sending a copy to ONU., and I get the message because it's recorded 
as "from:" me.

I suppose I could blacklist verisoft 

MDaemon Delivery Status Notification - http://www.altn.com/dsn
--

The attached message had TEMPORARY non-fatal delivery errors.

--
THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY - YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE
--

MDaemon is configured to automatically retry delivery at configured
intervals.  Subsequent attempts to deliver this message are pending.

Failed address:
o...@verisoft.com;batu...@verisoft.com;osman.mu...@verisoft.com

--- Session Transcript ---
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Parsing message 

  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  From: a...@well.com
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  To: o...@verisoft.com
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Subject: Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory 
of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Size (bytes): 4262
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Message-ID: 
<20141011004448.57915421f...@zimbra.well.com>
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Attempting SMTP connection to [verisoft.com]
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Resolving MX records for [verisoft.com] 
(DNS Server: 195.175.39.39)...
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Ignoring irrelevant RR, mail2.verisoft.com
P=020
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Ignoring irrelevant RR, mail.verisoft.com
P=010
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  No MX records available; delivering 
directly to host
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Attempting SMTP connection to [verisoft.com:25]
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Resolving A record for [verisoft.com] (DNS 
Server: 195.175.39.39)...
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Name server has no valid records of the 
requested type for that domain
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: This message is 60 minutes old; it has 0 
minutes left in this queue
  Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Remote queue lifetime exceeded; message 
placed in retry queue
--- End Transcript ---

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- and the 
defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!) 

[Vo]:ONU @ verisoft.com WARNING MESSAGE

[Alan Fletcher]

Is anyone else getting these verisoft messages when you post?  Since 
I don't email to ONU directly, I presume it's the vortex mail server 
sending a copy to ONU., and I get the message because it's recorded 
as "from:" me.


I suppose I could blacklist verisoft 

MDaemon Delivery Status Notification - http://www.altn.com/dsn
--

The attached message had TEMPORARY non-fatal delivery errors.

--
THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY - YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE
--

MDaemon is configured to automatically retry delivery at configured
intervals.  Subsequent attempts to deliver this message are pending.

Failed address: o...@verisoft.com;batu...@verisoft.com;osman.mu...@verisoft.com

--- Session Transcript ---
 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Parsing message 


 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  From: a...@well.com
 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  To: o...@verisoft.com
 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Subject: Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory 
of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Size (bytes): 4262
 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Message-ID: 
<20141011004448.57915421f...@zimbra.well.com>

 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Attempting SMTP connection to [verisoft.com]
 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Resolving MX records for [verisoft.com] 
(DNS Server: 195.175.39.39)...

 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Ignoring irrelevant RR, mail2.verisoft.com P=020
 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Ignoring irrelevant RR, mail.verisoft.com P=010
 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  No MX records available; delivering 
directly to host

 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Attempting SMTP connection to [verisoft.com:25]
 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Resolving A record for [verisoft.com] (DNS 
Server: 195.175.39.39)...
 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: *  Name server has no valid records of the 
requested type for that domain
 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: This message is 60 minutes old; it has 0 
minutes left in this queue
 Sat 2014-10-11 04:46:08: Remote queue lifetime exceeded; message 
placed in retry queue

--- End Transcript ---

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- and the 
defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!) 

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[ChemE Stewart]

To me, the width/continuity of the dark lines seems much more consistent
then the light colored areas so I would say the dark areas are wires

On Saturday, October 11, 2014, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> At 09:02 AM 10/11/2014, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>> The two pictures on page 25 of the 54 page report can be zoomed to a high
>> resolution by using the control key of your keyboard and the wheel on your
>> mouse if you are using a new windows computer running with high screen
>> resolution.
>>
>
> I zoomed and did screen captures :
>
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat2_pics/141011_lugano_fig2.jpg
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat2_pics/141011_lugano_fig12a.jpg
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat2_pics/141011_lugano_fig12b.jpg
>
> It's impossible to tell whether the heater coils are dark or light.
>
> In the last hotcat test the heater coils themselves were a tight spiral
> which was then strung  lengthways : now it appears to be a tight spiral
> coiled as loose spirals down the tube.
>
> I think that there is most likely a ceramic insert holding these
> resistors, so the "shadows" could represent different thermal zones rather
> than being illuminated/shadowed.
>
> But I'm just guessing. Too little information to proceed.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi is puzzled by particle transmutation

[Alan Fletcher]

At 09:13 AM 10/11/2014, Axil Axil wrote:

We give Rossi too much credit in our assessment of his control and 
understanding of his reactor. He is just feeling his way along like 
the rest of us.


I'm sure that by now he can do mass spectrometry of his ashes any 
time he wants, so he should have a slightly clearer view. Maybe it's 
just a candle to help him navigate, while we are completely in the dark.


I still think it might be a selection artifact. The team selected a 
few milligrams of the powder, and then the analyzer selected ONE 
particle of the ash. There's probably a range of efficiencies in the 
particles as a whole. This particular one might have been 
hyper-active and burned up all its Ni. Others might not have "ignited" at all.

Re: [Vo]:Video of the test

[Steve High]

One thing is for sure-Rossi is still Rossi- and his shortcomings that
derive from being a genius mad scientist were painstakingly and lovingly
compiled in Lewan's book. I have reason to expect that his Industrial Heat
handlers will keep him more or less pointed in the right direction. It is
emblematic of Rossi's mad scientist psyche that he would think it the
proper thing for his enterprise for him to proclaim that his potential
comings and goings during the test were not being video-monitored. His
appreciation of the value of credibility is simply swamped by his
instinctive need to keep the snakes and clowns away from his baby. I hope
there are people at Industrial Heat who will understand that the unexpected
features of this new test will require much further explanation in order to
smooth the way for acceptance of the E Cat

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> Rossi insists that there was no video of the test:
>
> THERE IS NO ANY VIDEO FOOTAGE REGARDING THE LUGANO TEST; IF SOME IS
> AROUND, IT IS A FALSE PRODUCTION. THE CHARGE HAS BEEN PUT AND EXTRACTED BY
> THE COMMETTEE
>
> Fig 3 clearly shows a camera in the top-left, with a (temporary?) cable
> strung from it, aimed directly at the ecat.
>
> If I'd been in charge I would have had multiple cameras on Rossi at all
> times he intervened.
>
> (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- and the defkalion
> hyperion -- Hi, google!)
>

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Alan Fletcher]

At 09:02 AM 10/11/2014, Axil Axil wrote:
The two pictures on page 25 of the 54 page report can be zoomed to a 
high resolution by using the control key of your keyboard and the 
wheel on your mouse if you are using a new windows computer running 
with high screen resolution.


I zoomed and did screen captures :

http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat2_pics/141011_lugano_fig2.jpg
http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat2_pics/141011_lugano_fig12a.jpg
http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat2_pics/141011_lugano_fig12b.jpg

It's impossible to tell whether the heater coils are dark or light.

In the last hotcat test the heater coils themselves were a tight 
spiral which was then strung  lengthways : now it appears to be a 
tight spiral coiled as loose spirals down the tube.


I think that there is most likely a ceramic insert holding these 
resistors, so the "shadows" could represent different thermal zones 
rather than being illuminated/shadowed.


But I'm just guessing. Too little information to proceed.

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:48 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

Especially if they switch to a pulse mode where they are not really heating
> directly anymore, the pulses are working like an induction stovetop


On page 6 there's a photo of the power and harmonic analyzer.  I don't know
how to read these, but on the left of the display there are pulses, two up
and then two down.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[ChemE Stewart]

It basically means goat guys theory might be goat F'd...

On Saturday, October 11, 2014, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:48 AM, ChemE Stewart  > wrote:
>
> Especially if they switch to a pulse mode where they are not really
>> heating directly anymore, the pulses are working like an induction stovetop
>> where the quickly changing magnetic fields are inducing arcs/currents in
>> the "secret sauce"
>
>
> That's a pretty cool idea.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[David Roberson]

That is what I concluded as well when I reread the article carefully.  The 
small quantity tested would thus not represent a total sample in the analysis, 
so there is no way to ensure that all of the input nickel was converted into 
that single 62Ni isotope.

This fact leaves unanswered the question as to whether or not all of the input 
nickel was consumed and any discussion about the concern that the reaction was 
near its conclusion moot.  We have no way of knowing whether or not the 
enhanced nickel is merely remaining on the surface of the ash sample or 
throughout its volume.

IIRC the amount of material tested in the actual mass spectrometry instrument 
is extremely tiny.  Remember how difficult it was to seperate out any 
significant amount of uranium isotopes during the Manhattan Project and you can 
appreciate how little would be obtained in a small scale test.

For the above reasons I conclude that the mere fact that the metals on the 
surfaces are transformed to such a degree as being quite important.  There 
remains hidden other possibilities within the bulk of the ash that may become 
exposed with further, time consuming analysis.  I only hope that someone is 
pursuing this avenue in order for a thorough understanding of the reactions 
taking place.  This energy source is of great importance and needs any amount 
of attention that can be directed towards its development.  Ultimately, a clear 
understanding of exactly what is taking place within the fuel will be required.

Dave 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Oct 11, 2014 11:29 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in



On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of material that was 
taken from within the reactor as ash.  Did they recover approximately the same 
amount as was put in?




Approximately 1 gram of fuel was added at the start of the trial.  At the end 
of the trial, one (and I think only one) of the experimenters was present to 
choose 10 mg from the spent fuel.  From this smaller sample, they appear to 
have set aside two (or three?) grains of different shapes and compositions for 
analysis.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:48 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

Especially if they switch to a pulse mode where they are not really heating
> directly anymore, the pulses are working like an induction stovetop where
> the quickly changing magnetic fields are inducing arcs/currents in the
> "secret sauce"


That's a pretty cool idea.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[ChemE Stewart]

Especially if they switch to a pulse mode where they are not really heating
directly anymore, the pulses are working like an induction stovetop where
the quickly changing magnetic fields are inducing arcs/currents in the
"secret sauce"

http://www.finecooking.com/videos/induction-cooktop-action.aspx

Rossi is a Chef!

On Saturday, October 11, 2014, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Right...
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, ChemE Stewart  > wrote:
>
>> If it has a COP > 1 you might expect that, right
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 11, 2014, Axil Axil > > wrote:
>>
>>> Page 25:
>>> The resistors appear to glow intensely in the parts lying outside the
>>> caps, whereas inside the reactor body they seem to shade an underlying
>>> emission of light. This may be explained if we consider that the main
>>> source of energy inside the reactor body is actually the charge, and that
>>> it is emitting more light than the resistors.
>>>
>>> This makes sense to me. It is amazing that the powder is hotter than the
>>> heating wires.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Eric Walker 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

 You can see the dark wires as clear as day.
>

 Yes.  And now where does it say in the report that the team conducting
 the trial determined that current was flowing through them?

 Eric


>>>
>

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Brad Lowe]

When talking about the resistor heaters... Remember that Rossi repeats
that his E-Cat requires AC and can't run (directly) with DC. The
current on the three phases of electricity going in is different. But
it sounded like the phase and frequency going into the reactor matches
that from the mains. (Hard to tell without the PCE data.) Why is
3-phase always used.. and is it inductive heating or just some
electromagnetic stimulation...
- Brad





On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:31 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
> If it has a COP > 1 you might expect that, right
>
>
> On Saturday, October 11, 2014, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>> Page 25:
>> The resistors appear to glow intensely in the parts lying outside the
>> caps, whereas inside the reactor body they seem to shade an underlying
>> emission of light. This may be explained if we consider that the main source
>> of energy inside the reactor body is actually the charge, and that it is
>> emitting more light than the resistors.
>>
>> This makes sense to me. It is amazing that the powder is hotter than the
>> heating wires.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 You can see the dark wires as clear as day.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.  And now where does it say in the report that the team conducting
>>> the trial determined that current was flowing through them?
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.

[Lennart Thornros]

Ransom, I agree with you.
I have experienced Tom D's situation. It is no sense in supporting
something one even suspect is a fraud and it is even less sensible to try
to save a bad investment by support a fraud (it will eventually be seen
through).
The fact is they have proven COP larger than 1 even with the most 'evil'
assumption of the material and chemistry involved. I think fraud is just
evil talk. It remains that the procedure still contains unknown and Rossi
sits on the know how of all or part of what is unknown to us. As Peter
Gluck says in his blog - Rossi's  et al's operation is not a charity, they
need to protect their business before they bother about merits in the
academical world.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Ransom Wuller  wrote:

> Jed:
>
>
>
> The problem is the issue is NOT scientific.  The issue is actually rather
> simple at this point.  Is a very juvenile fraud being perpetrated or not.
> The latest test leaves little to talk about scientifically (notwithstanding
> the issue associated with the alumina) making the issue of fraud the only
> legitimate reason to discard the results. And skeptics are essentially
> doing just that for that very reason.
>
>
>
> IH and Darden, after owning the process for 18 months or so, could hardly
> be expected to be ignorant of a juvenile fraud.  They are either complicit
> at this point or their isn’t fraud.  If there isn’t fraud there is no
> legitimate basis for ignoring or questioning the results.  There probably
> isn’t anyway.  However, Darden’s interview is significant because he
> validates his view that the Ecat is real in the face of fraud allegations.
> I think what Blaze is saying and I agree is that Darden’s statements
> diminish the likelihood of fraud and would allow us to refocus on the
> science which seems strongly supportive of a cold fusion reaction.
>
>
>
> As to the issue of fraud, Darden is much more important than results which
> possibly could have been manipulated by Rossi.
>
>
>
> Ransom
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:43 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.
>
>
>
> Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:
>
>
>
> I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated.  Or
> something crazy like that.
>
>
>
> Where did you read that, and what sort of papers did it refer to? I
> believe I have read that studies in sociology have poor replication rates.
> That is not true of cold fusion. Many experiments have not been replicated,
> but that is because no one has tried to replicate them.
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's.
>
>
>
> This makes no sense. The issue is scientific. A scientist is a better
> judge of that than a businessman. Furthermore, hundreds of distinguished
> scientists have published compelling proof that cold fusion is real. You
> are moving your estimate by several percentage points in response to the
> opinions of one businessman. Surely, with regard to a scientific subject,
> the relative weight of peer-reviewed scientific papers by experts should be
> a hundred times -- or a thousand times -- that of a businessman's opinion!
> Those papers should be 99.9% of your evaluation, and Darden's opinion would
> be 0.1%.
>
>
>
> If you wanted an evaluation of the flight performance of the Boeing
> Dreamliner airplane, who would you ask? A businessman who invests in
> aviation? Or a group of 200 experienced professional pilots who have
> hundreds of hours experience flying the Dreamliner, and thousands of hours
> flying other aircraft?
>
>
>
>
>
> Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat.   He has complete,
> unfettered access.   The same can not be said for Levi.
>
>
>
> First, Levi knows what is in the cell. Second, this can be considered a
> black box test. It makes no difference what is in the cell. The calorimetry
> proves that whatever it is, it produces orders of magnitude more energy
> than any chemical fuel, and it works at a high temperature, and high power.
> So, if the effect can be controlled, it will not only be a practical source
> of energy, it will be far better than any other sources. That is what
> matters.
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8365 - Release Date: 10/11/14
>

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Axil Axil]

Right...

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> If it has a COP > 1 you might expect that, right
>
>
> On Saturday, October 11, 2014, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Page 25:
>> The resistors appear to glow intensely in the parts lying outside the
>> caps, whereas inside the reactor body they seem to shade an underlying
>> emission of light. This may be explained if we consider that the main
>> source of energy inside the reactor body is actually the charge, and that
>> it is emitting more light than the resistors.
>>
>> This makes sense to me. It is amazing that the powder is hotter than the
>> heating wires.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
>>> You can see the dark wires as clear as day.

>>>
>>> Yes.  And now where does it say in the report that the team conducting
>>> the trial determined that current was flowing through them?
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Page 25:
> The resistors appear to glow intensely in the parts lying outside the
> caps, whereas inside the reactor body they seem to shade an underlying
> emission of light.
>

What this sentence says to me is that the team assumed that the two were
the same.  My question is whether they were able prior to that to determine
that the three wires coming in from the three phase power were the same as
the wire or wires that are masking out part of the interior.  In order to
do that they would either have to had to ask Rossi or opened up the device
and verified the connection themselves.

My main reason for wondering is that I would have expected the three
Inconel chords to be more tightly wound and to take up more surface area
within the cylinder, and to visibly glow in the manner of what is being
masked rather than whatever is doing the masking.  But that was just an
initial impression and could be mistaken.


> This may be explained if we consider that the main source of energy inside
> the reactor body is actually the charge, and that it is emitting more light
> than the resistors. ... This makes sense to me. It is amazing that the
> powder is hotter than the heating wires.
>

This is a possibility.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Axil Axil]

I looked into the diffusion of tritium from reactor pipes and discovered
that oxygen, carbon, moly, and silicon can slow hydrogen diffusion by 20
orders of magnitude. You might wonder why all of these elements were
present in the fuel load. Rossi is very cleaver.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sorry – but this reactor is made of alumina – which is a proton
>> conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but
>> you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of
>> hydrogen after startup.
>>
>
> Please see the section "Diffusion Barrier to Oxygen and Hydrogen" from
> this link, shared earlier on Vortex (sorry, I forget who shared it):
>
> http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560
>
> From the article:
>
> The alpha-Al2O3 oxide structure, once formed, serves as a nearly perfect
>> diffusion barrier for oxygen and hydrogen.
>
>
> I'm guessing the fact that alumina can be made a near perfect barrier to
> the diffusion of hydrogen is one of the reasons it was chosen (another is
> that it appears to be refractory).  It would seem to be premature to assume
> that hydrogen quickly escapes.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[ChemE Stewart]

If it has a COP > 1 you might expect that, right

On Saturday, October 11, 2014, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Page 25:
> The resistors appear to glow intensely in the parts lying outside the
> caps, whereas inside the reactor body they seem to shade an underlying
> emission of light. This may be explained if we consider that the main
> source of energy inside the reactor body is actually the charge, and that
> it is emitting more light than the resistors.
>
> This makes sense to me. It is amazing that the powder is hotter than the
> heating wires.
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Eric Walker  > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Axil Axil > > wrote:
>>
>> You can see the dark wires as clear as day.
>>>
>>
>> Yes.  And now where does it say in the report that the team conducting
>> the trial determined that current was flowing through them?
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Axil Axil]

Page 25:
The resistors appear to glow intensely in the parts lying outside the caps,
whereas inside the reactor body they seem to shade an underlying emission
of light. This may be explained if we consider that the main source of
energy inside the reactor body is actually the charge, and that it is
emitting more light than the resistors.

This makes sense to me. It is amazing that the powder is hotter than the
heating wires.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> You can see the dark wires as clear as day.
>>
>
> Yes.  And now where does it say in the report that the team conducting the
> trial determined that current was flowing through them?
>
> Eric
>
>

[Vo]:Video of the test

[Alan Fletcher]

Rossi insists that there was no video of the test:

THERE IS NO ANY VIDEO FOOTAGE REGARDING THE LUGANO TEST; IF SOME IS 
AROUND, IT IS A FALSE PRODUCTION. THE CHARGE HAS BEEN PUT AND 
EXTRACTED BY THE COMMETTEE


Fig 3 clearly shows a camera in the top-left, with a (temporary?) 
cable strung from it, aimed directly at the ecat.


If I'd been in charge I would have had multiple cameras on Rossi at 
all times he intervened.


(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- and the 
defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!) 

RE: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

This is a helpful analogy.  I was wondering why the emissivity of alumina was 
an issue.  I take it this sort of issue is resolved by coating the thing device 
being measured in a black refractory coating.

 

 

Exactamundo. Any undergrad engineering student could see that the alumina needs 
to be coated with a black refractory coating.

 

That these guys did not see this --- hmm, that does not inspire confidence.

 

[Vo]:Rossi is puzzled by particle transmutation

[Axil Axil]

Andrea Rossi
October 9th, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Herb Gillis:
We are studying the analysis; while for Li we had theorized it and we
understand well the results, the results related to Ni are puzzling us.
I have an idea, but there is much to study upon.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

We give Rossi too much credit in our assessment of his control and
understanding of his reactor. He is just feeling his way along like the
rest of us.

RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Jones Beene]

Please read the paper. Levi says the tube is sintered.

 

Sintered alumina would have about 6% porosity. It will not contain hydrogen at 
high or low temperature.

 

However, it is unclear as to whether the fuel was admitted already inside a 
separate hermetically sealed ampoule.

 

If so, that could be a situation which could work. The problem there is the 
surface area of that ampoule is what should be used as the IR emitter surface 
for emissivity - and it would be at least 20 times less than the number which 
was used.

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

Sorry – but this reactor is made of alumina – which is a proton conductor. Beta 
alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use 
any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after startup.

 

Please see the section "Diffusion Barrier to Oxygen and Hydrogen" from this 
link, shared earlier on Vortex (sorry, I forget who shared it):

 

http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560

 

>From the article:

 

The alpha-Al2O3 oxide structure, once formed, serves as a nearly perfect 
diffusion barrier for oxygen and hydrogen.

 

I'm guessing the fact that alumina can be made a near perfect barrier to the 
diffusion of hydrogen is one of the reasons it was chosen (another is that it 
appears to be refractory).  It would seem to be premature to assume that 
hydrogen quickly escapes.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

You can see the dark wires as clear as day.
>

Yes.  And now where does it say in the report that the team conducting the
trial determined that current was flowing through them?

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.

[Ransom Wuller]

Jed:

 

The problem is the issue is NOT scientific.  The issue is actually rather 
simple at this point.  Is a very juvenile fraud being perpetrated or not.  The 
latest test leaves little to talk about scientifically (notwithstanding the 
issue associated with the alumina) making the issue of fraud the only 
legitimate reason to discard the results. And skeptics are essentially doing 
just that for that very reason.

 

IH and Darden, after owning the process for 18 months or so, could hardly be 
expected to be ignorant of a juvenile fraud.  They are either complicit at this 
point or their isn’t fraud.  If there isn’t fraud there is no legitimate basis 
for ignoring or questioning the results.  There probably isn’t anyway.  
However, Darden’s interview is significant because he validates his view that 
the Ecat is real in the face of fraud allegations.  I think what Blaze is 
saying and I agree is that Darden’s statements diminish the likelihood of fraud 
and would allow us to refocus on the science which seems strongly supportive of 
a cold fusion reaction.

 

As to the issue of fraud, Darden is much more important than results which 
possibly could have been manipulated by Rossi.  

 

Ransom

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.

 

Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:

 

I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated.  Or 
something crazy like that.

 

Where did you read that, and what sort of papers did it refer to? I believe I 
have read that studies in sociology have poor replication rates. That is not 
true of cold fusion. Many experiments have not been replicated, but that is 
because no one has tried to replicate them.

 

 

Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's.

 

This makes no sense. The issue is scientific. A scientist is a better judge of 
that than a businessman. Furthermore, hundreds of distinguished scientists have 
published compelling proof that cold fusion is real. You are moving your 
estimate by several percentage points in response to the opinions of one 
businessman. Surely, with regard to a scientific subject, the relative weight 
of peer-reviewed scientific papers by experts should be a hundred times -- or a 
thousand times -- that of a businessman's opinion! Those papers should be 99.9% 
of your evaluation, and Darden's opinion would be 0.1%.

 

If you wanted an evaluation of the flight performance of the Boeing Dreamliner 
airplane, who would you ask? A businessman who invests in aviation? Or a group 
of 200 experienced professional pilots who have hundreds of hours experience 
flying the Dreamliner, and thousands of hours flying other aircraft?

 

 

Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat.   He has complete, unfettered 
access.   The same can not be said for Levi.

 

First, Levi knows what is in the cell. Second, this can be considered a black 
box test. It makes no difference what is in the cell. The calorimetry proves 
that whatever it is, it produces orders of magnitude more energy than any 
chemical fuel, and it works at a high temperature, and high power. So, if the 
effect can be controlled, it will not only be a practical source of energy, it 
will be far better than any other sources. That is what matters.

 

- Jed

 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8365 - Release Date: 10/11/14

Re: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not
> know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an
> area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the
> filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in
> intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1
> over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong
> contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to
> be factual.
>

This is a helpful analogy.  I was wondering why the emissivity of alumina
was an issue.  I take it this sort of issue is resolved by coating the
thing device being measured in a black refractory coating.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Axil Axil]

The two pictures on page 25 of the 54 page report can be zoomed to a
high resolution by using the control key of your keyboard and the wheel on
your mouse if you are using a new windows computer running with high screen
resolution.

You can see the dark wires as clear as day.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> The dark wire is thinner than the bright shadows so I think that the wire
>> is casting the shadow.
>>
>
> Maybe.  Do you have a closeup that you're looking at?  The details in the
> image I see in the writeup are hard to make out. The dark lines could be
> due to an additional loop of Inconel wire through which no current is
> flowing (e.g., to provide an additional layer of packing).   Without
> further information, I would not readily conclude that the dark lines are
> the same ones as the wire exiting from the left into the alumina tube,
> although it's a possibility.
>
> If I were editing the paper prior to release, I'd either strike the
> speculative comment about the "shadows" or I'd ask the contributor to
> provide more details to back it up.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[torulf.greek]

So its may be possible the main energy source is pep>D and associated
reactions. This may also gives D for neutron striping reactions.


Torulf. 

On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:42:26 -0700, Eric Walker  wrote: 


On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Sorry - but this
reactor is made of alumina - which is a proton conductor. Beta alumina
is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use any
form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after
startup. 
 Please see the section "Diffusion Barrier to Oxygen and
Hydrogen" from this link, shared earlier on Vortex (sorry, I forget who
shared it): 

http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560 [2] 

From
the article: 
 The alpha-Al2O3 oxide structure, once formed, serves as a
nearly perfect diffusion barrier for oxygen and hydrogen. 

I'm guessing
the fact that alumina can be made a near perfect barrier to the
diffusion of hydrogen is one of the reasons it was chosen (another is
that it appears to be refractory). It would seem to be premature to
assume that hydrogen quickly escapes. 

Eric 
  

Links:
--
[1]
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net
[2]
http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560

Re: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Why would you say Levi knows what's in the cell?  They specifically say
they don't know in the report.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> I don't find Levi to be credible!  I'm enthusiastic too and want to
> believe, but Levi was a very poor choice to be primary author on the paper.
>
> A scientist with a credible track record would be better than Darden, but
> Levi is not that scientist.
>
> The CEO of Elforsk, even  the Nasa scientist - these are credible folks.
>
> The reality is this paper, coming from Levi, seemed more like an attempt
> to prove that they he didn't screw up on the first one.   Hardly an
> unbiased source.
>
> It should have been different scientists.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:
>>
>> I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated.
>>> Or something crazy like that.
>>>
>>
>> Where did you read that, and what sort of papers did it refer to? I
>> believe I have read that studies in sociology have poor replication rates.
>> That is not true of cold fusion. Many experiments have not been replicated,
>> but that is because no one has tried to replicate them.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's.
>>>
>>
>> This makes no sense. The issue is scientific. A scientist is a better
>> judge of that than a businessman. Furthermore, hundreds of distinguished
>> scientists have published compelling proof that cold fusion is real. You
>> are moving your estimate by several percentage points in response to the
>> opinions of one businessman. Surely, with regard to a scientific subject,
>> the relative weight of peer-reviewed scientific papers by experts should be
>> a hundred times -- or a thousand times -- that of a businessman's opinion!
>> Those papers should be 99.9% of your evaluation, and Darden's opinion would
>> be 0.1%.
>>
>> If you wanted an evaluation of the flight performance of the Boeing
>> Dreamliner airplane, who would you ask? A businessman who invests in
>> aviation? Or a group of 200 experienced professional pilots who have
>> hundreds of hours experience flying the Dreamliner, and thousands of hours
>> flying other aircraft?
>>
>>
>> Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat.   He has complete,
>>> unfettered access.   The same can not be said for Levi.
>>>
>>
>> First, Levi knows what is in the cell. Second, this can be considered a
>> black box test. It makes no difference what is in the cell. The calorimetry
>> proves that whatever it is, it produces orders of magnitude more energy
>> than any chemical fuel, and it works at a high temperature, and high power.
>> So, if the effect can be controlled, it will not only be a practical source
>> of energy, it will be far better than any other sources. That is what
>> matters.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Robert Lynn 
wrote:

>
> more magic involved? fusion + fission transmutations that release copious
> neutrinos with no gammas, betas, neutrons or alphas?
>

Apart from a few suggestions here and there, the main reactions that have
been considered in the isotope threads are Ni(7Li,6Li)Ni reactions.  These
yield 6Li daughters and kinetic energy, and little kinetic energy per
nucleon, relatively speaking. See:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98050.html

At the highest energy of 4.14 MeV, the energy per nucleon is ~ 0.6 MeV.  At
the lowest, 0.57 MeV, the average per nucleon is ~ 95 keV.  There would be
little in the way of neutrinos, gammas, neutrons or alphas.  There might be
some betas.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.

[Blaze Spinnaker]

I don't find Levi to be credible!  I'm enthusiastic too and want to
believe, but Levi was a very poor choice to be primary author on the paper.

A scientist with a credible track record would be better than Darden, but
Levi is not that scientist.

The CEO of Elforsk, even  the Nasa scientist - these are credible folks.

The reality is this paper, coming from Levi, seemed more like an attempt to
prove that they he didn't screw up on the first one.   Hardly an unbiased
source.

It should have been different scientists.


On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:
>
> I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated.  Or
>> something crazy like that.
>>
>
> Where did you read that, and what sort of papers did it refer to? I
> believe I have read that studies in sociology have poor replication rates.
> That is not true of cold fusion. Many experiments have not been replicated,
> but that is because no one has tried to replicate them.
>
>
>
>> Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's.
>>
>
> This makes no sense. The issue is scientific. A scientist is a better
> judge of that than a businessman. Furthermore, hundreds of distinguished
> scientists have published compelling proof that cold fusion is real. You
> are moving your estimate by several percentage points in response to the
> opinions of one businessman. Surely, with regard to a scientific subject,
> the relative weight of peer-reviewed scientific papers by experts should be
> a hundred times -- or a thousand times -- that of a businessman's opinion!
> Those papers should be 99.9% of your evaluation, and Darden's opinion would
> be 0.1%.
>
> If you wanted an evaluation of the flight performance of the Boeing
> Dreamliner airplane, who would you ask? A businessman who invests in
> aviation? Or a group of 200 experienced professional pilots who have
> hundreds of hours experience flying the Dreamliner, and thousands of hours
> flying other aircraft?
>
>
> Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat.   He has complete,
>> unfettered access.   The same can not be said for Levi.
>>
>
> First, Levi knows what is in the cell. Second, this can be considered a
> black box test. It makes no difference what is in the cell. The calorimetry
> proves that whatever it is, it produces orders of magnitude more energy
> than any chemical fuel, and it works at a high temperature, and high power.
> So, if the effect can be controlled, it will not only be a practical source
> of energy, it will be far better than any other sources. That is what
> matters.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
>
> Sorry – but this reactor is made of alumina – which is a proton conductor.
> Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would
> never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen
> after startup.
>

Please see the section "Diffusion Barrier to Oxygen and Hydrogen" from this
link, shared earlier on Vortex (sorry, I forget who shared it):

http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560

>From the article:

The alpha-Al2O3 oxide structure, once formed, serves as a nearly perfect
> diffusion barrier for oxygen and hydrogen.


I'm guessing the fact that alumina can be made a near perfect barrier to
the diffusion of hydrogen is one of the reasons it was chosen (another is
that it appears to be refractory).  It would seem to be premature to assume
that hydrogen quickly escapes.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of material that was
> taken from within the reactor as ash.  Did they recover approximately the
> same amount as was put in?
>

Approximately 1 gram of fuel was added at the start of the trial.  At the
end of the trial, one (and I think only one) of the experimenters was
present to choose 10 mg from the spent fuel.  From this smaller sample,
they appear to have set aside two (or three?) grains of different shapes
and compositions for analysis.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Robert Lynn 
wrote:
>
>
>- The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow
>converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and
>fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes
>produced?
>
> Regarding the absence of 64Ni in the "after" ash assay -- Pomp seems to
have overlooked the fact that there are too few data points to conclude
much in this regard (i.e., n=1).  It's possible that a second sample would
have shown the same amount as found at the start.

Eric

[Vo]:Tommso Dorigo (a very good experimental partice physicist) analysis report

[Daniel Rocha]

The guy is open minded. Helps people with alternative ideas. Let's see what
he has to say about the new report:

http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_fusion_a_better_study_on_the_infamous_ecat-146700

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

[Vo]:what the Rossi Report cannot tell

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Friends,

It is equally important to know what is in the Report as what i is missing
from it, due to natural causes, as I try to show here:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/if-990-milligrams-of-ash-sample-could.html

The story will continue with a DIALOGUE.

Peter.

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.

[Jed Rothwell]

Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:

I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated.  Or
> something crazy like that.
>

Where did you read that, and what sort of papers did it refer to? I believe
I have read that studies in sociology have poor replication rates. That is
not true of cold fusion. Many experiments have not been replicated, but
that is because no one has tried to replicate them.



> Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's.
>

This makes no sense. The issue is scientific. A scientist is a better judge
of that than a businessman. Furthermore, hundreds of distinguished
scientists have published compelling proof that cold fusion is real. You
are moving your estimate by several percentage points in response to the
opinions of one businessman. Surely, with regard to a scientific subject,
the relative weight of peer-reviewed scientific papers by experts should be
a hundred times -- or a thousand times -- that of a businessman's opinion!
Those papers should be 99.9% of your evaluation, and Darden's opinion would
be 0.1%.

If you wanted an evaluation of the flight performance of the Boeing
Dreamliner airplane, who would you ask? A businessman who invests in
aviation? Or a group of 200 experienced professional pilots who have
hundreds of hours experience flying the Dreamliner, and thousands of hours
flying other aircraft?


Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat.   He has complete,
> unfettered access.   The same can not be said for Levi.
>

First, Levi knows what is in the cell. Second, this can be considered a
black box test. It makes no difference what is in the cell. The calorimetry
proves that whatever it is, it produces orders of magnitude more energy
than any chemical fuel, and it works at a high temperature, and high power.
So, if the effect can be controlled, it will not only be a practical source
of energy, it will be far better than any other sources. That is what
matters.

- Jed

[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Pearls Before Swine does a double-blind physics paper review

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2014/10/11

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

The dark wire is thinner than the bright shadows so I think that the wire
> is casting the shadow.
>

Maybe.  Do you have a closeup that you're looking at?  The details in the
image I see in the writeup are hard to make out. The dark lines could be
due to an additional loop of Inconel wire through which no current is
flowing (e.g., to provide an additional layer of packing).   Without
further information, I would not readily conclude that the dark lines are
the same ones as the wire exiting from the left into the alumina tube,
although it's a possibility.

If I were editing the paper prior to release, I'd either strike the
speculative comment about the "shadows" or I'd ask the contributor to
provide more details to back it up.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-cat test

[Alain Sepeda]

his objection on triac can be ignored.
powermeter are designed for much more complex waveform than triphase triac.
they can manage polyphase synchronous rectifiers.
PCE830 analyse harmonics up to number 99, band with is many kHz...
moreover the testers brought other instruments, and had total and exclusive
control on the wiring and positioning... no stage magic possible on that.

my guess  about the alumina  transmissivity point is that I cannot laugh at
it because I'm not competent enough.

I just suspect that colorimetry , even when not precise propose a monotoous
relation between temperature and color, assuming the material don't change.

only point is transmittance change , for example by changing the source of
heat (as if you change from e 100W white bulb to a 100W red bulb).

anyway my wildcard argument is that you don't let 7 physicist attacked by a
herd of mindguard, alone with your stage magic, you magic hat and you magic
rabbits, during 32 days...

even if it is an error, it cannot be  stage magic.
and if it is not stage magic, it cannot be an error from the data we have.


2014-10-11 0:05 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :

>   *From:* Foks0904
>
>
>
> I find it funny that anonymous GoatGuy is literally one of the best-read
> "skeptics" out there and get's so much play, but in my view he deserves it
> because he's pretty good and the "skeptical" community generally sucks.
> Still don't think his objections discredit the report, but I wouldn't mind
> seeing them answered.
>
>
>
> You’re right about GoatGuy, which makes me wonder who he is. Do you know?
>
>
>
> From other posts, it would appear that he is from Berkeley, likes wine and
> has little patience with the bogosity of gullible true-believers … but he
> does not have the demeanor of a physics professor.
>
>
>
> I suspect that if and when good data comes along, he will not be too
> stubborn to change his views on LENR or Rossi. All of his objections that I
> have seen are valid, whereas almost none of Mary Yugo’s are … except the
> ones George has borrowed from GG.
>
>
>
> Experiment rules - but only if one can trust the data. That is what is so
> disappointing about this report, which quite frankly is less convincing
> then the one that preceded it. Instead of remedying those errors, most of
> them were repeated as if the authors were unaware of the prior criticism,
> and new ones were added.
>
>
>
> Too bad, as there was great anticipation for this report - and it would
> have not been hard to do it right - but that would have required getting
> rid of Levi as a starting point, and maybe Rossi needed to have an inside
> man.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.

[Blaze Spinnaker]

I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated.  Or
something crazy like that.

Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's.  It's pretty much
that simple. For Tom Darden to say something is real versus Levi are to
entirely different matters.

Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat.   He has complete,
unfettered access.   The same can not be said for Levi.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:
>
>
>> *Our* company.
>>
>> Exciting times!
>>
>
>
>> He's not relying on some report by a bunch of scientists.   Tom Darden is
>>> no fool,  He's yale graduate / head of a billion dollar hedge fund.
>>>
>>
> I am curious Mr. Spinnaker. Why are you so impressed by the opinions of
> industrialists and capitalists such as Mr. Darden? You seem to find this
> more impressive than "some report by a bunch of scientists." I say that
> because you raise your magical probability in response to Darden's comments
> while you seem to ignore thousands of reports by scientists.
>
> Darden may be a fine gentleman and well-educated but what on earth makes
> you think his opinion is more valuable, more relevant or reliable than,
> say, the considered professional judgement of Prof. Heinz Gerischer,
> Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry?
>
> At present, cold fusion can only be detected and understood by
> experimental laboratory science. It makes no sense to suggest that Darden
> is not "relying" on "some report by a bunch of scientists." There is no
> other evidence for cold fusion. The only way anyone can judge whether it
> exists or not is to look at "some report" by "scientists."
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:About Goat Guy theory of Alumina transparency and emissivity change on E-ca test

[Axil Axil]

The dark wire is thinner than the bright shadows so I think that the wire
is casting the shadow.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> It could just as well be that the resistive wires are what are bright and
> the gaps between them are where it gets darker.
>
> If this were the case, won't there be a double dark shadow cast on either
> side of the wire with the bright wire in between.
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>>
>> The "shadows" of the wires in figs 12 are problematic ... but we don't
>>> have enough information to figure out if they are actually the result of
>>> light, or if they represent zones of different thermal conductivity, as in
>>> the first independent test (which had a steel outer cylinder).
>>>
>>
>> I've thought about this, too.  In both this report and the previous one,
>> there was the suggestion that the inside of the E-Cat is so radiant that
>> the resistive wires are darker and conceal some of this, creating shadows
>> of sorts.  On the basis of the photos that have been provided, there's no
>> reason to conclude this.  It could just as well be that the resistive wires
>> are what are bright and the gaps between them are where it gets darker.
>> Perhaps if one is able to get close to an operating E-Cat there is enough
>> parallax to see where the wires are in relation to whatever is behind them.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>