Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Russ George wrote: C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, > there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be > so pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes.

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

The most highly enriched 64Ni available is 99%, more commonly available 64Ni is 93%, thus 1%-7% of said Ni would seem likely to be the other isotopes of Ni. Few would indulge an isotope analysis without having sufficient resolution and sensitivity to measure tenth’s of a percent of neighbor Ni

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

An instrument capable of resolving the isotopes of Ni, including the Lugano 64Ni, will have the sensitivity to see very small amounts of any and all Ni isotopes. No one is suggesting the provided 64Ni signature is due to ‘salted’ Ni, rather that such a pure signal in the absence of trace

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

On the contrary ... The planted particle benefits from being larger than the typical nickel fuel particle as part of a plan which makes it likely to be tested. Having enriched isotope already inside the tube prior to the loading is not enough, and you want to make sure it gets noticed at

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

The Ni62 ash particle is unlikely to be a plant because it is a huge paticle(600 by 1000 microns) far larger than any fuel particle in the fuel load and it was melted onto the surface of the center of alumina tube. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

From: Russ George Ø Ø C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number is bogus by gross error or

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that

[Vo]:Lithium Ion Failure

I built a Lithium Ion Bicycle kit about 3 years ago. Its a Magic Pie with a 48 volt battery and 2KW controller. I have about 1000 miles on it. I took the bike out this spring and the battery was not holding much a charge. It's $600 to replace the 10AH battery. Maybe I can just replace a cell

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

Industrialization failure would not be a surprise at all, with a report saying it is leaking, melting, breaking from all side... If so, the interest if IH is simply to keep the report secret and work on improving the reliability until they can deliver a reactor that work , in the industrial way,

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Russ and others-- A. Renoir went through the same kind of attacks when he started painting in the 1870’s. The art critics were vicious. Nevertheless one of the large paintings (Au Moulin de la Galette) he made early on (which now occupies a prominent position in the Impressionists Wing of

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Jones etal.-- I agree with Alain and Lennart for what its worth. I doubt the potential salting of the Lugano reactor with Ni-64 had much to do with the excess heat that was apparently observed and believed to have been produced by the Swedes and Italians involved. In addition I consider the

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

Jones Beene wrote: > It is beyond reasonable doubt that Rossi “salted” the reactor with > enriched isotope and did not tell anyone. > This is not beyond doubt. There is no evidence for it. People who know a great deal about mass spectroscopy tell me that it is difficult to

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

One simple explanation regarding the persistent babble about Rossi ‘real or unreal’ might be that it is led by petulant groupies, trolls and wanna-be competitors. It is a perfect match for the banality that surrounded ‘The Beatles’ when they became famous, unending pompous posturing by those

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

Jones, why is it so " beyond reasonable doubt" it can be many honest explanations as well.. I understand the reasons to debate the Lugano report from an academic / scientific point of view. I do not understand why it is important to find out if the insufficiency is caused on purposeful

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

From: alain.coetmeur@gmail * saying it is a fraud seems not fair for me. Lugano report is visibly insufficient, unlike anything manufactured to look good... Alain - I should have been more specific. It is beyond reasonable doubt that Rossi “salted” the reactor with enriched isotope

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

saying it is a fraud seems not fair for me. Lugano report is visibly insufficient, unlike anything manufactured to look good. Fraud looks perfect, that is a rule, and even a way to detect it. it is easier to make a fake report that looks perfect than to make a good one that looks fair. There is

[Vo]:INFO AND THE FIRST TWO PAPERS OF THE 2nd DAY OF FRENCH LENR SYMPOSIUM

just published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-21-2016-info-two-papers-from-french.html What will happen tomorrow??? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Adrian-- I tend to agree with you about the establishment knowing a lot about LENR. For example, if you assume Ed Storms was involved with the Establishment via LANL and listen carefully to his recent on-line interview, Ed notes that LANL was making tritium early, on apparently with D and H

Re: [Vo]:Disproving Piantelli's H- LENR causation theory

The LENR theory must cover the high temperature case that starts at 1500C with the hot cat, cove the reactor meltdown when concrete and iron rebar vaporize, and goes to 7000C for plasma based systems such as http://newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf The H- ion is meta stable but at what

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

For the record, this comment did not come from me. I do not waste time on Rossi’s absurd blog for one thing. One the contrary, in my opinion there is no valid proof of any large energy anomaly from Rossi which is not fully explained by Thermacore’s earlier and better work - nor is it

RE: [Vo]:Disproving Piantelli's H- LENR causation theory

Using astrophysics observations which are effectively plasma physics observations to explain solid state physics is a stretch to say the least. Surely the density of the active ecology makes a very big difference to the behavior of the atoms. From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com]

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

have seen it earlier, OK, dear Adrian! Peter On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:50 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Peter Gluck, > From Rossi's blog. > > Jones > March 20, 2016 at 8:15 AM > > DR Rossi – interesting comment on Vortex-L by a ashfield could you comment > on this: > > There

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

Peter Gluck, From Rossi's blog. Jones March 20, 2016 at 8:15 AM DR Rossi – interesting comment on Vortex-L by a ashfield could you comment on this: There must be an important clue in the new E-Cat X being so small – 100 Watts. This would make a conventional control system for a large plant

Re: [Vo]:Disproving Piantelli's H- LENR causation theory

I think this has to be discussed with Prof Piantelli Peter On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > In astrophysics, the photometric H band, centered at 1.65 µm, falls in a > very special place, at or near the flux maximum in the energy distributions > of nearly

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

thanks, dear Adrian please help Ego Out with new ideas! Peter On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 5:15 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Peter, you are welcome to publish it. > I sent that comment on 3/16/2016 and don't know why it took so long to be > posted. > I would now add a couple of