Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV ReportAs Rossi has stated several times, no report willconvince the true ckeptics, only the sale of working E-Cats.

[Peter Gluck]

thanks, I have already written to this address a few days ago, he does not
answer. Tom Darden is the Boss, I could not go to ICFF-19 so I have not met
him.
It is disturbing to watch the "divide and conquer" tactics of New Energy
Times going without any answer and the overspeculations of the mass of
LENR-ists
Actually it is more about the technology than about companies Ih could
say something to make the situation more clear- and we to get the ERV
report's essential facts
The next stage of attacks will be against the ERV- real tsunamies of mud
to be euphemistic but this will be just trolling routine .

Peter

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Patrick Ellul 
wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> Their email address, as given by Rossi himself: jvau...@industrialheat.co
> Best regards
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Peter Gluck 
> wrote:
>
>> dear Adrian,
>> 'has IH answered? Can you send me their e-mail address? I will also try.
>>
>> peter
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:02 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> M apologies for the mangled title.
>>> I started typing on the subject line in error & deleted it, but somehow
>>> it reappeared.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Patrick
>
> www.tRacePerfect.com
> The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
> The quickest puzzle ever!
>



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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV ReportAs Rossi has stated several times, no report willconvince the true ckeptics, only the sale of working E-Cats.

[Patrick Ellul]

Hi Peter,
Their email address, as given by Rossi himself: jvau...@industrialheat.co
Best regards

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> dear Adrian,
> 'has IH answered? Can you send me their e-mail address? I will also try.
>
> peter
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:02 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> M apologies for the mangled title.
>> I started typing on the subject line in error & deleted it, but somehow
>> it reappeared.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>



-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV ReportAs Rossi has stated several times, no report willconvince the true ckeptics, only the sale of working E-Cats.

[Peter Gluck]

dear Adrian,
'has IH answered? Can you send me their e-mail address? I will also try.

peter

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:02 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> M apologies for the mangled title.
> I started typing on the subject line in error & deleted it, but somehow it
> reappeared.
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:The LENR triad and zinc volatility

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Tue, 29 Mar 2016 22:18:31 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>It is possible that a suitable environment could stimulate electron capture
>without leading to competing positron emission, e.g., through a surplus of
>electrons passing through the nucleus.
[snip]
I don't think double positron emission is possible in this case. The total
energy available is only about 1.09 MeV, and double positron emission implies 4
x 511 keV gammas when the positrons annihilate. That's about 2 MeV, which isn't
available. Single positron emission combined with 1 EC may be possible.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Fw: new message

[Rich Murray]

Hey!



Open message 



Rich Murray



---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Video shows how superior animal intelligence is compared to artificial intelligence

[Ken Deboer]

Jed,
That movie is terrific. And also hilarious.   The reaction of the monkey is
exactly the same as all of has seen many times in humans.  It is getting
absolutely untenable anymore to deny the lack of sentience in some of the
animal world with profound implications for humanity.  I'm quite
familiar with de Waal work and others, especially with bonobos and
chimpanzees.  Interestingly, bonobos are closer in DNA homology to humans
than even gorillas are.  thanks for the post.

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is the full video that segment is taken from:
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals?language=en
>
>

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Video shows how superior animal intelligence is compared to artificial intelligence

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is the full video that segment is taken from:

http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals?language=en

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's 3rd party is really not a 3rd party at all

[Axil Axil]

Just want to deduce the background of the third party. For a year long test
the third party would be somebody living locally or at short commuting
distance. This means someone who worked at the TVA.

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Axi, what's your point? You are not making any sense.
>
> 2016-03-30 16:05 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil :
>
>>
>> *"has also due experience in certification of plants?"*
>>
>> *By act, the only people authorized to certify nuclear plants are those
>> employed directly by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC).*
>>
>> *Act* means the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 919) including any
>> amendments thereto.
>>
>>
>> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/full-text.html#part050-0001
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Video shows how superior animal intelligence is compared to artificial intelligence

[Jed Rothwell]

Returning to this off-topic subject --

Here is an astounding video showing the behavior of a Capuchin monkey. She
gets upset because she is treated unfairly.

The concept of "sentience" in A.I. has been defined as being self-aware.
That is, being aware that you are an individual; that other living animals
are not you; and that they also have thoughts and feelings. I have no doubt
this monkey is sentient by this definition. She is jealous and upset, so
she knows that the other monkey is an individual like herself. She has a
sense of fairness, or morality. This is a complex, abstract, advanced
concept.

Based on this kind of evidence, I believe that animals are more intelligent
than people have given them credit for in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL45pVdsRvE

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's 3rd party is really not a 3rd party at all

[Daniel Rocha]

Axi, what's your point? You are not making any sense.

2016-03-30 16:05 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil :

>
> *"has also due experience in certification of plants?"*
>
> *By act, the only people authorized to certify nuclear plants are those
> employed directly by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC).*
>
> *Act* means the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 919) including any
> amendments thereto.
>
>
> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/full-text.html#part050-0001
>
>
>
-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's 3rd party is really not a 3rd party at all

[Axil Axil]

*"has also due experience in certification of plants?"*

*By act, the only people authorized to certify nuclear plants are those
employed directly by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC).*

*Act* means the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 919) including any
amendments thereto.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/full-text.html#part050-0001


On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *March 29, 2016 at 10:58 PM
> Dr
> Andrea Rossi:Can you give us the characteristics of the ERV ?1- age2-
> education3- professional experience4- has also due experience in
> certification of plants?5- who paid his work and all his expenses ?Thank
> you if you can answer,RegardsRexAndrea RossiMarch 29, 2016 at 11:40 PM
> Rex:I
> think I can answer without NDA violation to your questions. Here are the
> answers:1- around 50- 552- Doctorate in Nuclear Engineering3- Nuclear power
> plants4- yes5- fifty-fifty Leonardo Corporation and Industrial HeatWarm
> Regards,A.R.*
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV ReportAs Rossi has stated several times, no report willconvince the true ckeptics, only the sale of working E-Cats.

[a.ashfield]

M apologies for the mangled title.
I started typing on the subject line in error & deleted it, but somehow 
it reappeared.

RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

Jones, I agree that there are many tantalizing characteristics of Zn as a 
possible catalyst material….My point is only that based on other measurements 
of AP's fuel, it is not plausible that 64Zn can be responsible for for the high 
ICP-MS reading for 64Ni in his Sochi reported analyses.  
Bob,
There are few possibilities to explain mass-64 other than zinc, or the 
intentional adding of 64Ni… or the natural enrichment via ore from Kamacite 
meteorite – which was the start of this thread.
The Ni isotope is prohibitively expensive, and Parkhomov had no reason not to 
admit to its presence, if it was there. Instead he says it was 64Zn. 
That seems logical to me. Sherlock’s old adage is “eliminate all other factors, 
and the one which remains must be the truth.” 
The 66Zn which “should have been seen” but wasn’t is not evidence that 64Zn was 
also absent, when the person with the most knowledge about the testing thinks 
it explains things. The presumed error then becomes overlooking 66Zn.  
 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's 3rd party is really not a 3rd party at all

[H LV]

If IH and Leonardo Corp. paid a company/organization to send a
salaried employee to do the test
I would consider that more independent.


Harry

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Lennart Thornros  wrote:
> Daniel,
> I disagree with you.
> Arms-length distance can be obtained using an agreement.
> It is like the bank makes an appraisal of your home, when you are selling
> it.
> The whole idea is that it should be a third party.
> I can see that the payment creates a financial connection, which could sway
> the outcome.
> Therefore it is important that they have chosen a third party with good
> reputation.
> I think that is much of a third party you can ask for.
> Nobody will do the evaluation for free.
>
> The whole debate about the credibility of the players involved is pathetic.
> We will know the outcome of the report within a few days.
> In any case I am sure that the report will not be so detailed as would be
> required from a scientific point of view.
> There are business reasons for creating the report and that is it.
> They want to help the value of IH shares and perhaps Leonardo's ditto.
> They want to open for the marketing of the product.
>
> I do believe the report is positive because they are business people.
> If the result showed no valuable (from business point) data, they would have
> cancelled the evaluation long time ago.
> Who wants to pay for an expensive consultant when you know that the result
> is useless?
> Unfortunately the publicized part of the report will leave many here
> disappointed as I doubt much 'evidence' of LENR will be given.
> It is another wait coming up for the marketing and sales of the product.
>
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>>
>> So, the 3rd party was partially paid by Leonardo Corporation. If it were
>> paid by Industrial Heat only, I am not even sure if I'd give it a pass.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's 3rd party is really not a 3rd party at all

[Lennart Thornros]

Daniel,
I disagree with you.
Arms-length distance can be obtained using an agreement.
It is like the bank makes an appraisal of your home, when you are selling
it.
The whole idea is that it should be a third party.
I can see that the payment creates a financial connection, which could sway
the outcome.
Therefore it is important that they have chosen a third party with good
reputation.
I think that is much of a third party you can ask for.
Nobody will do the evaluation for free.

The whole debate about the credibility of the players involved is pathetic.
We will know the outcome of the report within a few days.
In any case I am sure that the report will not be so detailed as would be
required from a scientific point of view.
There are business reasons for creating the report and that is it.
They want to help the value of IH shares and perhaps Leonardo's ditto.
They want to open for the marketing of the product.

I do believe the report is positive because they are business people.
If the result showed no valuable (from business point) data, they would
have cancelled the evaluation long time ago.
Who wants to pay for an expensive consultant when you know that the result
is useless?
Unfortunately the publicized part of the report will leave many here
disappointed as I doubt much 'evidence' of LENR will be given.
It is another wait coming up for the marketing and sales of the product.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Daniel Rocha 
wrote:

> So, the 3rd party was partially paid by Leonardo Corporation. If it were
> paid by Industrial Heat only, I am not even sure if I'd give it a pass.
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, I agree that there are many tantalizing characteristics of Zn as a
possible catalyst material.

My point is only that based on other measurements of AP's fuel, it is not
plausible that 64Zn can be responsible for for the high ICP-MS reading for
64Ni in his Sochi reported analyses.

This also means that it is unlikely that there was any significant amount
of Zn in AP's fuel - probably less than 0.01 atom%.  So, for Zn to be a
catalyzing agent responsible for the LENR activity in the AP2 experiment,
the Zn would have to be extremely active catalyst to have such utility at
the reported analysis level of <0.01 atom%.  In a 1 gram fuel charge, the
Zn contamination would amount to <0.1 mg.

If we go back... In the Swedish analysis of Rossi's eCat powder, no Zn was
found.  In the Lugano SIMs fuel and ash analyses, there was no m=64
material reported.

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> You seem to be hung up on the impossibility of 7% zinc contamination and
> OK - you are probably correct on that point, as far as it goes… BUT…
> consider this.
>
>
>
> Zinc has a surprisingly low boiling point of 907C and the typical
> glow-tube reactor does not produce excess heat unless it gets well above
> that temperature. This is probably not coincidental.
>
>
>
> The key feature of this type of hot reactor is that it vaporizes a few
> selected metals which are catalysts for hydrogen densification – notably
> lithium, potassium and zinc. Of that list – only zinc has its Rydberg
> multiple for ionization potential at the lowest possible level – 27.2 eV.
>
>
>
> Next, consider the implications of “single atom catalysis”. This is one of
> the hottest topics today in catalysis. See the Yang article:
>
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar300361m
>
>
>
> Single atom catalysis (SAC) is ultra-efficient: compared to nanopowder it
> is several million times more efficient, due to surface area per unit of
> mass. SAC does not require vapor-phase, but that is the easiest way to get
> the single atom – as an unsupported vapor. For zinc, just as for lithium or
> potassium, once it becomes a vapor, it becomes a SAC for hydrogen
> densification.
>
>
>
> A few milligrams of lithium or a few milligrams of zinc is sufficient and
> the two together are synergetic since zinc operates in the lowest Rydberg
> regime whereas either lithium or potassium operate at the 3x multiple of
> 81.6 eV which is significantly more difficult to access, even at 1200 C.
>
>
>
> In short, zinc boosts either lithium or potassium for hydrogen
> densification, but potassium and lithium do not help each other.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> First of all, it is reasonable to presume that any Zn contamination would
> have a natural isotopic ratio.  The natural abundance for 64Ni is 0.9%.
> So, for the reported 4.4% of m=64 to be 64Zn + natural 64Ni, there would
> have to be a 64Zn contamination of about 3.5 atom%.  64Zn is about 50%
> natural isotopic ratio for Zn, so there would have to be about 7 atom%
> concentration of Zn in the Ni powder for this to be the answer for the
> measured concentration at m=64.  This would be a huge contamination.
>
>
>
> Just to play devil's advocate, the contamination would not need to have
> been in the pure nickel powder.  It could have come from another source,
> and somehow gotten into the fuel mixture.  The 7 atom% concentration would
> thus be for the composite fuel mixture.  (I will have to trust your
> calculation! My number for both zinc isotopes together was ~ 3.5 atom%.)
>  The composite fuel mixture appears to have been what was measured in
> the laser-atomic emission spectrometry assay [1].
>
>
> I believe laser atomic emission spectroscopy is also a bulk measurement
> like ICP-MS (-probably done as a flame measurement), so it would be a
> measure of the composite composition as you suggest.
>
>
>
> Also, Parkhomov's jar of Ni powder claimed it to be 99.9% Ni.  Even if all
> of the 0.1% were Zn, that would only mean 0.05atom% of 64Zn to contaminate
> the 64Ni measurement.  That would be consistent with the non-measurement of
> Zn in the EDS and the low value for Zn atomic percent reported by laser
> atomic emission spectroscopy in the same Sochi presentation.
>
>
>
> Perhaps you are referring to an EDS assay that was reported elsewhere and
> not in the slides.  The one in the slides (SEM-EDS) was of Rossi's reactor.
>
>
>
> On page 11 of the Sochi report, there is an EDS of Parkhomov's AP2 fuel.
> EDS would measure the particles on the surface and at the points selected.
> There was analysis of the Ni powder particles and the LAH particles.  Of
> course, none showed any Zn.
>
>
>
> ICP-MS is a bulk measurement.  1-2 mg of Ni powder would be dissolved in
> acid, diluted, and then introduced into the ionization chamber.  So the 7%
> concentration of Zn could not be just a tiny spot on a particle, it would
> have to be 7% of the entire sample mass digested in the acid.  When MF

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's 3rd party is really not a 3rd party at all

[Daniel Rocha]

So, the 3rd party was partially paid by Leonardo Corporation. If it were
paid by Industrial Heat only, I am not even sure if I'd give it a pass.

[Vo]:Rossi's 3rd party is really not a 3rd party at all

[Daniel Rocha]

*March 29, 2016 at 10:58 PM
Dr
Andrea Rossi:Can you give us the characteristics of the ERV ?1- age2-
education3- professional experience4- has also due experience in
certification of plants?5- who paid his work and all his expenses ?Thank
you if you can answer,RegardsRexAndrea RossiMarch 29, 2016 at 11:40 PM
Rex:I
think I can answer without NDA violation to your questions. Here are the
answers:1- around 50- 552- Doctorate in Nuclear Engineering3- Nuclear power
plants4- yes5- fifty-fifty Leonardo Corporation and Industrial HeatWarm
Regards,A.R.*

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

Re: [Vo]:more patience. anticipating the ERvVReport results

[H LV]

from
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-30-2016-lenr-how-much-more-patience.html


"Very important is the power densities range W/grams fuel here I think
1000 will be a typical or minimal value. Anyway this will learn us to
define a genuine Rossi Effect Replication. It is not " You have a
bird, I have a bird" issue. Size and weight of the birds matters.
There is not OK if, in Europe, you have a bustard I have a robin, or
in the US you have a fat turkey and I have a humming bird."

This might be related to the unsettled question of whether coconuts
can migrate. ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_9kDO3q0w

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV ReportAs Rossi has stated several times, no report willconvince the true ckeptics, only the sale of working E-Cats.

[a.ashfield]

As Rossi has stated several times, no report will convince the true 
skeptic, only the sale of working E-Cats.


I have emailed Industrial Heat asking them whether they endorsed the ERV 
report, or were going to make a statement about the one year test of the 
1 MW plant.  I have not yet received a reply.


It probably doesn't matter.  I have a friend who, if carrying a domestic 
e-cat dropped on his foot, would explain that the pain was not real.

RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

You seem to be hung up on the impossibility of 7% zinc contamination and OK - 
you are probably correct on that point, as far as it goes… BUT… consider this. 

 

Zinc has a surprisingly low boiling point of 907C and the typical glow-tube 
reactor does not produce excess heat unless it gets well above that 
temperature. This is probably not coincidental.

 

The key feature of this type of hot reactor is that it vaporizes a few selected 
metals which are catalysts for hydrogen densification – notably lithium, 
potassium and zinc. Of that list – only zinc has its Rydberg multiple for 
ionization potential at the lowest possible level – 27.2 eV.

 

Next, consider the implications of “single atom catalysis”. This is one of the 
hottest topics today in catalysis. See the Yang article:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar300361m

 

Single atom catalysis (SAC) is ultra-efficient: compared to nanopowder it is 
several million times more efficient, due to surface area per unit of mass. SAC 
does not require vapor-phase, but that is the easiest way to get the single 
atom – as an unsupported vapor. For zinc, just as for lithium or potassium, 
once it becomes a vapor, it becomes a SAC for hydrogen densification.

 

A few milligrams of lithium or a few milligrams of zinc is sufficient and the 
two together are synergetic since zinc operates in the lowest Rydberg regime 
whereas either lithium or potassium operate at the 3x multiple of 81.6 eV which 
is significantly more difficult to access, even at 1200 C.

 

In short, zinc boosts either lithium or potassium for hydrogen densification, 
but potassium and lithium do not help each other.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

First of all, it is reasonable to presume that any Zn contamination would have 
a natural isotopic ratio.  The natural abundance for 64Ni is 0.9%.  So, for the 
reported 4.4% of m=64 to be 64Zn + natural 64Ni, there would have to be a 64Zn 
contamination of about 3.5 atom%.  64Zn is about 50% natural isotopic ratio for 
Zn, so there would have to be about 7 atom% concentration of Zn in the Ni 
powder for this to be the answer for the measured concentration at m=64.  This 
would be a huge contamination.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, the contamination would not need to have been in 
the pure nickel powder.  It could have come from another source, and somehow 
gotten into the fuel mixture.  The 7 atom% concentration would thus be for the 
composite fuel mixture.  (I will have to trust your calculation! My number for 
both zinc isotopes together was ~ 3.5 atom%.)  The composite fuel mixture 
appears to have been what was measured in the laser-atomic emission 
spectrometry assay [1].


I believe laser atomic emission spectroscopy is also a bulk measurement like 
ICP-MS (-probably done as a flame measurement), so it would be a measure of the 
composite composition as you suggest. 

 

Also, Parkhomov's jar of Ni powder claimed it to be 99.9% Ni.  Even if all of 
the 0.1% were Zn, that would only mean 0.05atom% of 64Zn to contaminate the 
64Ni measurement.  That would be consistent with the non-measurement of Zn in 
the EDS and the low value for Zn atomic percent reported by laser atomic 
emission spectroscopy in the same Sochi presentation.

 

Perhaps you are referring to an EDS assay that was reported elsewhere and not 
in the slides.  The one in the slides (SEM-EDS) was of Rossi's reactor.

 

On page 11 of the Sochi report, there is an EDS of Parkhomov's AP2 fuel.  EDS 
would measure the particles on the surface and at the points selected.  There 
was analysis of the Ni powder particles and the LAH particles.  Of course, none 
showed any Zn. 

 

ICP-MS is a bulk measurement.  1-2 mg of Ni powder would be dissolved in acid, 
diluted, and then introduced into the ionization chamber.  So the 7% 
concentration of Zn could not be just a tiny spot on a particle, it would have 
to be 7% of the entire sample mass digested in the acid.  When MFMP tested the 
powder it received from Parknomov (ICP-MS), it was found to have the normal, 
natural concentration of 64Ni.

 

For the ICP-MS assay in the slides, I take it the fuel and ash will have been 
dissolved, and that the composite powder, a prominent part of which was nickel, 
but not by any means all nickel, will have been analyzed.  Or are you 
explaining that it was the pure nickel powder from the jar whose label was 
shown earlier in the thread that was analyzed in the ICP-MS?  If it was the 
fuel and not the pure nickel from the jar that was analyzed in the ICP-MS 
assay, it is easy to imagine there having been zinc impurity present.

 

For ICP-MS, the sample, whatever is being tested, must be dissolved in an acid. 
Ni and Zn (if present) would probably dissolve in the same digesting fluid.  I 
don't know if, for the fuel, the Ni powder and LAH were separately digested of 
if a whole sample of the fuel was analyzed at once (may have required multiple 
runs with different digesting fluids).  O

[Vo]:more patience. anticipating the ERvVReport results

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-30-2016-lenr-how-much-more-patience.html

in which sense LENR can be a Nuclear Eunuch but a wonderful industrious
worker?

I think there will me more interesting news today, if it is the case I will
come back to you.
Let's wait united and divided an Armageddon is inevitable.

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Axil Axil]

Regarding:

"Temperatures in the cell range from 150°C - 5000°C. (Rossi agrees he said
this previously 2/10/2011) This has to be a misunderstanding. Ni melts at
1453°C.

Standard module consumed 500 W control current and produced 4 kW in 2010.
(7/14/2010)

Over the course of development, 37 devices have “blown up.” (Rossi,
4/23/2011)"


Rossi stated this in a patent application. He wanted to cover the condition
of reactor meltdown where the reactor went into a vapor stage, The nature
of reactor meltdown was not understood at that time so a contradiction was
assumed regarding the melting point of nickel. There was no contradiction
as it turned out.

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Randy Wuller  wrote:

> It seems to me there is only one issue which will determine the
> significance of this test, was IH controlling it and will they be reporting
> the results.  If so, all the speculation about Rossi being a fraud is
> nonsense and a figment of imagination.
>
>
>
> If IH wasn’t’ involved and didn’t control the test and won’t support the
> results then the speculation is correct and not nonsense.
>
>
>
> The ability to test a device over a year under the circumstances would
> have to be child’s play.
>
>
>
> So we have to wait to see if IH speaks to the test.
>
>
>
> Ransom
>
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:33 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report
>
>
>
> *From:* Alain Sepeda
>
> There is no absolute third party as interest and incentive connect…[snip]… The
> only conspiracy is a consensus… This is not a conspiracy but a
> groupthink, mutual assured delusion as Benabou name it.
>
> Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> Rossi's definition of 3rd party is somewhat exotic.
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I am overjoyed to see that a few others who have studied this ongoing
> tragi-comedy are stepping up to the soap-box to label it as a staged
> rabble-rousing embarrassment … being closer to entertainment than to
> science.
>
> It is reminiscent of a recreation of “Waiting for Godot” with Rossi’s
> hapless fan-club believing that an existential magician will appear to
> save the masses from the devil’s excrement -- in the face of doubt from
> the dreaded intelligentsia, their so-called patho-skeptics.
>
> MAD or “mutually assured delusion” is a better descriptor for those who
> do not want to break it down into the teachable moment that it will morph
> into – a few days after the new wears off the so called “third party report”
> - and the stink rises.
>
> My sincere hope is that there is a grain of truth in the otherwise phony 
> results,
> and that the year-long effort was not a complete work of fiction.
> However, that stance is an extreme minority view: that Rossi can be both
> con-artist-deluxe and misunderstood genius inventor, at the same time.
>
> He is a one-of-a-kind, no matter what the bottom line happens to be. Six
> years ago, before his almost complete disregard for the truth was exposed,
> we labeled Rossi as the “most interesting man in the world” and that
> descriptor has a little more mileage on it, but my guess is that the house
> of cards is about to implode, and Rossi’s fan-boys will go back to waiting
> for Godot.
>

RE: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Randy Wuller]

It seems to me there is only one issue which will determine the significance of 
this test, was IH controlling it and will they be reporting the results.  If 
so, all the speculation about Rossi being a fraud is nonsense and a figment of 
imagination.

 

If IH wasn’t’ involved and didn’t control the test and won’t support the 
results then the speculation is correct and not nonsense.

 

The ability to test a device over a year under the circumstances would have to 
be child’s play.  

 

So we have to wait to see if IH speaks to the test.

 

Ransom

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

 

From: Alain Sepeda

There is no absolute third party as interest and incentive connect…[snip]… The 
only conspiracy is a consensus… This is not a conspiracy but a groupthink, 
mutual assured delusion as Benabou name it.

Daniel Rocha wrote:

Rossi's definition of 3rd party is somewhat exotic. 

Gentlemen,

I am overjoyed to see that a few others who have studied this ongoing 
tragi-comedy are stepping up to the soap-box to label it as a staged 
rabble-rousing embarrassment … being closer to entertainment than to science. 

It is reminiscent of a recreation of “Waiting for Godot” with Rossi’s hapless 
fan-club believing that an existential magician will appear to save the masses 
from the devil’s excrement -- in the face of doubt from the dreaded 
intelligentsia, their so-called patho-skeptics. 

MAD or “mutually assured delusion” is a better descriptor for those who do not 
want to break it down into the teachable moment that it will morph into – a few 
days after the new wears off the so called “third party report” - and the stink 
rises.

My sincere hope is that there is a grain of truth in the otherwise phony 
results, and that the year-long effort was not a complete work of fiction. 
However, that stance is an extreme minority view: that Rossi can be both 
con-artist-deluxe and misunderstood genius inventor, at the same time. 

He is a one-of-a-kind, no matter what the bottom line happens to be. Six years 
ago, before his almost complete disregard for the truth was exposed, we labeled 
Rossi as the “most interesting man in the world” and that descriptor has a 
little more mileage on it, but my guess is that the house of cards is about to 
implode, and Rossi’s fan-boys will go back to waiting for Godot.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Bob Higgins]

See below ...

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> First of all, it is reasonable to presume that any Zn contamination would
>> have a natural isotopic ratio.  The natural abundance for 64Ni is 0.9%.
>> So, for the reported 4.4% of m=64 to be 64Zn + natural 64Ni, there would
>> have to be a 64Zn contamination of about 3.5 atom%.  64Zn is about 50%
>> natural isotopic ratio for Zn, so there would have to be about 7 atom%
>> concentration of Zn in the Ni powder for this to be the answer for the
>> measured concentration at m=64.  This would be a huge contamination.
>>
>
> Just to play devil's advocate, the contamination would not need to have
> been in the pure nickel powder.  It could have come from another source,
> and somehow gotten into the fuel mixture.  The 7 atom% concentration would
> thus be for the composite fuel mixture.  (I will have to trust your
> calculation! My number for both zinc isotopes together was ~ 3.5 atom%.)
>  The composite fuel mixture appears to have been what was measured in
> the laser-atomic emission spectrometry assay [1].
>

I believe laser atomic emission spectroscopy is also a bulk measurement
like ICP-MS (-probably done as a flame measurement), so it would be a
measure of the composite composition as you suggest.

>
> Also, Parkhomov's jar of Ni powder claimed it to be 99.9% Ni.  Even if all
>> of the 0.1% were Zn, that would only mean 0.05atom% of 64Zn to contaminate
>> the 64Ni measurement.  That would be consistent with the non-measurement of
>> Zn in the EDS and the low value for Zn atomic percent reported by laser
>> atomic emission spectroscopy in the same Sochi presentation.
>>
>
> Perhaps you are referring to an EDS assay that was reported elsewhere and
> not in the slides.  The one in the slides (SEM-EDS) was of Rossi's reactor.
>

On page 11 of the Sochi report, there is an EDS of Parkhomov's AP2 fuel.
EDS would measure the particles on the surface and at the points selected.
There was analysis of the Ni powder particles and the LAH particles.  Of
course, none showed any Zn.

>
> ICP-MS is a bulk measurement.  1-2 mg of Ni powder would be dissolved in
>> acid, diluted, and then introduced into the ionization chamber.  So the 7%
>> concentration of Zn could not be just a tiny spot on a particle, it would
>> have to be 7% of the entire sample mass digested in the acid.  When MFMP
>> tested the powder it received from Parknomov (ICP-MS), it was found to have
>> the normal, natural concentration of 64Ni.
>>
>
> For the ICP-MS assay in the slides, I take it the fuel and ash will have
> been dissolved, and that the composite powder, a prominent part of which
> was nickel, but not by any means all nickel, will have been analyzed.  Or
> are you explaining that it was the pure nickel powder from the jar whose
> label was shown earlier in the thread that was analyzed in the ICP-MS?  If
> it was the fuel and not the pure nickel from the jar that was analyzed in
> the ICP-MS assay, it is easy to imagine there having been zinc impurity
> present.
>

For ICP-MS, the sample, whatever is being tested, must be dissolved in an
acid. Ni and Zn (if present) would probably dissolve in the same digesting
fluid.  I don't know if, for the fuel, the Ni powder and LAH were
separately digested of if a whole sample of the fuel was analyzed at once
(may have required multiple runs with different digesting fluids).
Obviously for the ash, the entire ash sample would have to be used - but
perhaps with multiple runs having different digesting fluids.  Zn impurity
is more likely in the ash because it could have been contaminated by the
reactor vessel.  However, for AP2, the fuel was in a SS can inside alumina
and Parkhomov sealed the ends of the long tube with epoxy, not his homemade
alumina cement that may have contained ZnO.

One possible opportunity for contamination is Parkhomov's mixing process.
He mixed the Ni and LAH in a ceramic mortar and pestle.  Could this mortar
and pestle have also been used in preparation of his homemade alumina
cement on a prior occasion?  Possibly.  Yet it is hard to imagine even that
producing a 7% Zn contamination of his fuel.  I think 7% would have to be
an intentional inclusion if that were the explanation (which I think is not
the explanation).

>
> According to the slides, the ICP-MS assay was done by the Vernadsky
> Institute.  I take it there was a second ICP-MS assay done by MFMP?  Or are
> the two the same?
>

MFMP had ICP-MS analysis done for the Ni powder that was supplied to Bob
Greenyer by Parkhomov.  The isotopic ratio was found to be natural.  We
have asked if what he supplied to Bob Greenyer was also what was analyzed
for AP2 - no answer yet.

>
> The 64Ni concentration is inconsistent with the explanation of Zn
>> contamination.  I have asked Bob Greenyer to review this with Parkhomov and
>> arrive at a less flip answer.
>>
>> For now, we simply cannot trust the m=64 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> However, that stance is an extreme minority view: that Rossi can be both
> con-artist-deluxe and misunderstood genius inventor, at the same time.
>
If that's a minority view, people need to study history. Many inventors
have fit that description. Thomas Edison and Steve Jobs are famous examples.



> Six years ago, before his almost complete disregard for the truth was
> exposed, we labeled Rossi as the “most interesting man in the world” and
> that descriptor has a little more mileage on it . . .
>
I was one of the people called him that. (Based on the Don Equis beer ads.)
I still think he is one of the most interesting men in the world. But I
knew he was prone to exaggeration and contradiction right from the start.
Here at Vortex in 2011 we compiled a list of his statements. We found many
examples of contradictory statements.

Let me append that list to this message. It is a stroll down memory lane.
You can see that Rossi has never been a reliable source of information.
That does not necessarily mean he is lying. Some people with wild and vivid
imaginations are this way. You might say they are crazy, or you might say
they are creative. I cannot tell the difference.

- Jed


NOTES ON ROSSI DEVICE

Compiled in 2011 by people on Vortex



This list is not comprehensive. These are items I thought are significant.

Sources are sometimes shown in parentheses after the item. SL = Shirakawa
List, Focardi = Focardi radio interview, April 5, 2011, Essen and Kullander
= report published in NyTeknik, 4/3/2011


Some items are marked “CONTRADICTION” at the end, where two or more
statements appear to contradict one another.


To avoid confusion, the term “turn off” here refers to turning on or off
the resistance heaters used to control the reactor. “Quench” means stop the
reaction itself.


There may be important comments in Italian in SL that I do not understand.


Calorimetry is not addressed in detail here, since it has been discussed
elsewhere.


All statements by Rossi and Focardi are reported here, regardless of
whether I or others suspect they may not be true.


Questions from me are shown in square brackets.



DEVICE CHARACTERISTICS

The volume of the 15 kW reactor cell is about 1 liter. The smaller 4 kW
reactor cell volume is ~50 ml.

During the Feb. 10 test, the 15 kW reactor was operated for about “a while”
at ~130 kW (Levi). (It might have been ~18 minutes – source lost.)

Smaller devices are safer to operate.

The 1 MW (thermal) device will be made of many smaller ones ganged
together. It was originally planned to be made up of 50 modules of 20 kW
each (Rossi, 3/26/2010), then later ~130 10 kW units, where 30 were held in
standby to replace or augment older ones as the power decreased. As of
April 2011 they now plan to use ~300 units.

Power density for a module as a whole, including the container, is 1 W/cm3.
(Rossi, 3/28/2010)

These cells (“modules” - Rossi) are designed to be connected in series and
in parallel. (SL)

Maintenance and operation is similar to that of a conventional boiler. (SL
“normal boiler” comment)

A 20 kW module has a volume of 20 L and weighs 30 kg. (Rossi, 3/26/2010)

The minimum power of the e-Cat reactor unit is presently 2.5 kW, with the
present design and engineering. Smaller units may be engineered in the
future.

These cells are made of stainless steel. In the mini-Rossi unit, the
stainless steel cells are inside a larger copper pipe. Cooling water flows
around the walls of the cell.

The device does not produce gamma rays except for a slight increase over
background (Rossi, SL) The device produced a large burst of gamma rays when
it started up. (Celani) CONTRADICTION

The device produces 100 keV and 300 keV particles. (Rossi, NyTeknik,
3/18/2011)

There is no ionizing radiation detected outside the reactor. (6/13/2010)

The device produces no radioactive nuclear ash. At least, no radioactive
nuclear ash is found the day after the machine is operated (Rossi,
NyTeknik, 3/18/2011). There may be intermediate radioactive products during
operation.  “We are not able to know which instable atoms are produced
DURING the operation of the reactor, but we can analyze the composition of
the powders left AFTER the operations: in such powders we do not find
instable elements.” (SL)

The device requires 1-cm thick lead shielding, presumably for safety. It
was designed by Focardi. (6/13/2010).

The control box contains 5 simple PLCs controlling the resistance heaters,
and weighs ~7 kg. (Levi)



DEVICE OPERATING PROCEDURES

Minimal operating temperature is 400°C. (SL)

The optimal operating temperature is 600°C. (Source unknown)

 H gas pressure in the cell is 25 bar (~360 psi) (Essen and Kullander)

The effect is triggered with resistance heaters. There are five in the 15
kW device.

The reaction is modulated with the resistance heaters.

The resistance heaters are used at high power to trigger the reaction, then
power is reduced to maintain the reaction. In the F

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Craig Haynie]

This won't be resolved completely until Rossi sells a few of these things.

Craig


On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> Thanks for the thought provoking post… I agree.
>
> Group think and consensus can be more powerful, more widespread and more
> damaging than any planned or determined conspiracy. People identify with
> and feel part of a social/political group or organisation and go along with
> what they think their peers think. Sometimes even when they sense it is
> wrong they will even go along with it if they feel it is the easy course or
> if they benefit in some way, financially, or through peer group acceptance.
> To some extent they can avoid feelings of responsibility or guilt too by
> feeling they go along with the consensus and do not disrupt established
> ways of thinking.
>
> When I see group think I want to look deeper, and find what is hidden
> behind the assumptions. Almost always i find the group thinking is based on
> wrong assumptions and incomplete or incorrect information.
>
> But perhaps I'm also guilty of my own kind of group think. I tend to seek
> out places and other people who I feel ask questions and look deeper too.
>
> hmmm i need to think about that.
>
>
>
> --
> From: alain.sep...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:28:51 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
>
> On the opposite for a conspiracy theorist, in general, there is no 3rd
> party, except himself.
> Anyone who disagree with the conclusion is considered part of the giant
> conspiracy.
>
> There is no absolute third party as interest and incentive connect, in
> both positive and negative direction, all players.
> NB: people forget often the non-third party player who have incentive not
> to accept reality (eg: an academic of an UL who would prefer to pretend
> uncertainty while there is none, just to save his reputation, or avoid he
> have been wrong before - see Tajmar and EmDrive )
>
> however if nobody is totally third party, the fact to participate to a
> fraud, ask for a really high level in commitment with the fraudster, and
> increase the chance of leak for each new member in the conspiracy.
>
> My conclusion is that there is no conspiracy except when public,
> authorities, powerful actors, reference actors, ask for it and punish the
> traitors.
> The only conspiracy is a consensus. there is public whistleblowers who are
> ignored, and mindguards who punish them to challenge the public consensus.
> This is not a conspiracy but a groupthink, mutual assured delusion as
> Benabou name it.
>
> now apply my theory to LENR domain, or to other subject, and things get
> clearer...
>
> 2016-03-30 3:27 GMT+02:00 Daniel Rocha :
>
>
> Rossi's definition of 3rd party is somewhat exotic.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Stephen Cooke]

Thanks for the thought provoking post… I agree. 
Group think and consensus can be more powerful, more widespread and more 
damaging than any planned or determined conspiracy. People identify with and 
feel part of a social/political group or organisation and go along with what 
they think their peers think. Sometimes even when they sense it is wrong they 
will even go along with it if they feel it is the easy course or if they 
benefit in some way, financially, or through peer group acceptance. To some 
extent they can avoid feelings of responsibility or guilt too by feeling they 
go along with the consensus and do not disrupt established ways of thinking.
When I see group think I want to look deeper, and find what is hidden behind 
the assumptions. Almost always i find the group thinking is based on wrong 
assumptions and incomplete or incorrect information. 
But perhaps I'm also guilty of my own kind of group think. I tend to seek out 
places and other people who I feel ask questions and look deeper too.
hmmm i need to think about that.


From: alain.sep...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:28:51 +0200
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

On the opposite for a conspiracy theorist, in general, there is no 3rd party, 
except himself.Anyone who disagree with the conclusion is considered part of 
the giant conspiracy.
There is no absolute third party as interest and incentive connect, in both 
positive and negative direction, all players.NB: people forget often the 
non-third party player who have incentive not to accept reality (eg: an 
academic of an UL who would prefer to pretend uncertainty while there is none, 
just to save his reputation, or avoid he have been wrong before - see Tajmar 
and EmDrive )
however if nobody is totally third party, the fact to participate to a fraud, 
ask for a really high level in commitment with the fraudster, and increase the 
chance of leak for each new member in the conspiracy.
My conclusion is that there is no conspiracy except when public, authorities, 
powerful actors, reference actors, ask for it and punish the traitors.The only 
conspiracy is a consensus. there is public whistleblowers who are ignored, and 
mindguards who punish them to challenge the public consensus. This is not a 
conspiracy but a groupthink, mutual assured delusion as Benabou name it.
now apply my theory to LENR domain, or to other subject, and things get 
clearer...
2016-03-30 3:27 GMT+02:00 Daniel Rocha :

Rossi's definition of 3rd party is somewhat exotic.


  

RE: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Jones Beene]

From: Alain Sepeda
There is no absolute third party as interest and incentive connect…[snip]… The 
only conspiracy is a consensus… This is not a conspiracy but a groupthink, 
mutual assured delusion as Benabou name it.

Daniel Rocha wrote:
Rossi's definition of 3rd party is somewhat exotic. 

Gentlemen,
I am overjoyed to see that a few others who have studied this ongoing 
tragi-comedy are stepping up to the soap-box to label it as a staged 
rabble-rousing embarrassment … being closer to entertainment than to science. 

It is reminiscent of a recreation of “Waiting for Godot” with Rossi’s hapless 
fan-club believing that an existential magician will appear to save the masses 
from the devil’s excrement -- in the face of doubt from the dreaded 
intelligentsia, their so-called patho-skeptics. 

MAD or “mutually assured delusion” is a better descriptor for those who do not 
want to break it down into the teachable moment that it will morph into – a few 
days after the new wears off the so called “third party report” - and the stink 
rises.

My sincere hope is that there is a grain of truth in the otherwise phony 
results, and that the year-long effort was not a complete work of fiction. 
However, that stance is an extreme minority view: that Rossi can be both 
con-artist-deluxe and misunderstood genius inventor, at the same time. 

He is a one-of-a-kind, no matter what the bottom line happens to be. Six years 
ago, before his almost complete disregard for the truth was exposed, we labeled 
Rossi as the “most interesting man in the world” and that descriptor has a 
little more mileage on it, but my guess is that the house of cards is about to 
implode, and Rossi’s fan-boys will go back to waiting for Godot.