Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
So Ni micropowder mixed with a dielectric micropowder, hydrogen and argon mixture under elevated pressure and temperature and a Champion spark plug... I think i saw a big old ground wire connected to the reactor to prevent a shocking discovery On Monday, January 30, 2012, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ni62 and Ni64 enrichment is an assumption. I will now be pleased to offer another possible reason for a catalyst change. My theory of operation regarding the Rossi reaction indicates that the job of the catalyst is to produce Rydberg atoms so that they can be used as feedstock in the production of H+; protons. Proton loading on or near the micro powder surface must be as high as can be managed. Patch electrostatic charge on the surface of the Micro powder strips the high orbiting electron from the Rydberg H. Most elements will produce Rydberg atoms if properly excited but the way that these elements are excited will differ based on their quantum mechanical configurations. There are excellent indications that Rossi’s catalyst uses heat as the excitant. The alkaline family having a electronic low work function at its surface, heat excitation will produce Rydberg atoms. But in contrast, other elements may be more appropriately excited by radio frequency stimulation (another alkaline family member), or spark electric discharge (argon, or anther noble gas), or laser irradiation (calcium, nitrogen, beryllium, magnesium … a few among many). I have always through that heat was a poor choice for a Rydberg atom stimulant because of the counterproductive feedback disadvantages heat control provides. Some stimulant that can be turned off and on easily and immediately without feedback disadvantage would be a better systems choice overall especially if regulated in real time by a computerize control system. Maybe now that the basic Rossi based system is well understood and ready for production, it might be time to take the next design step in product improvement with a more controllable and predictable systems design. The people in RD might need something new to hold their interest a while longer. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Two problems with that assessment, Robert. First, look at fission reactors as metaphor. 235U is found in a similar ratio to 64Ni in the natural metal (slightly less), and yet a fission reactor using natural U will not work reliably over time, without heavy water – or unless the U has been enriched to about triple its natural abundance. It would take a few volumes of information to explain why this is the case, employing random walks and Monte Carlo statistics and other boring background – and yet, the situation is only metaphorical anyway. But this is a very strong metaphor and the message for both kinds of reactors could be the same: There is a minimum level of the active reactant needed for reliable reaction rates to occur over time. The second possible error is to assume this minimum level (needed for continuity) applies to the situation where 64Ni transmutes into 65Cu - as is generally thought and promoted by Rossi and Focardi. That could be the case, but OTOH it seems clearly false that any transmutation has occurred - since the ash should be radioactive, and Rossi admits it is not. (and the Swedes turned up no radioactivity either). No radioactive ash, no nickel to copper transmutation. I have presented what I think is a strong case for “proton average mass depletion” as the source of excess energy in Ni-H reactions - in past postings. The connection of “proton mass depletion” to 64Ni would be that this metal isotope is the heaviest in all of nature, compared to the most common isotope. Since it is anomalously heavy, and the proton becomes anomalous light after giving up some of its mass – is there a cross connection there? It is a stretch for sure – but QCD can then be employed to explain bosonic transfer and the depletion of one wrt the other. That is fodder for another long posting. From: Robert Lynn
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So Ni micropowder mixed with a dielectric micropowder, hydrogen and argon mixture under elevated pressure and temperature and a Champion spark plug... Plus, possibly, potassium. (And alliteration and assonance.) T
RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
This thread on isotopic enrichment of nickel, from a couple of weeks ago, is being revived in light of the recent mention from DGT that they are still trying different catalysts . . which is about as close to an admission that they do not really know Rossi's secret, as we will get at this time. It is almost imperative, if progress is going to continue on this without Rossi for information or disinformation, to learn the results of the so-called Swedish analysis, assuming it will be a full isotopic analysis with ratios. Maybe that will not happen, but assuming that DGT has tried all of the 'usual suspects' (i.e. Mills' catalysts) and is not satisfied with the results (which is strongly indicated by the current state of affairs), then by process of elimination, it is looking like the 'secret sauce' is indeed enrichment in heavy nickel. This is defined herein as the crude enrichment of nickel in the two heaviest isotopes, 64Ni and 62Ni by simple ultracentrifuge techniques, using electroless nickel (liquid) as the feedstock. If this is true, then enrichment would also explain why Mills has not reached Rossi's robust results despite a twenty year head start. He simply did not think it was possible to do it. I realize that Peter, who is an expert on isotopic enrichment, of the traditional precision variety - has discounted this possibility of enrichment, due to cost. But perhaps he has not considered that this application does not demand any kind of precision, and simply going from less than 1% 64Ni to ten times that level, mas o menos, could make an enormous improvement in ongoing stability of the reaction. Or else Rossi's major breakthrough is another way to accomplish the same enrichment and that will be the subject of a patent which is still not published (filed in the last 18 months). Much of this speculation is still based on the fact that 64Ni is a singularity in being the heaviest natural isotope (in terms of the ratio of excess mass, compared to the mass of the most common isotope of the element) of any metal in the periodic table. Only deuterium is higher and it is not a metal. Jones From prior thread: The most interesting set of facts that can come out of the Swedish analysis (if we the public do get to see the report) is IF the fuel is enriched in 64Ni but the copper in the ash is natural ratio. That will essentially mean that some kind of non-transmutation reaction is occurring but with energy at the level of nuclear. This would also explain the low gamma signature and the lack of radioactive copper, which MUST be there if nickel transmutes. The fact that 64Ni is the heaviest isotope in the periodic table based on the criterion of percentage increase over the most common natural isotope cannot be overlooked. There is a way to fit all of these disparate parts into one model - and it is the non-quark proton mass model which is evolving from my improvement to Nyman's work found in: http://dipole.se/ In this paper, simulations made with two different kinds of physics software both show the following: 1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the time. 2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other most of the time. 3. However, it is occasionally possible for two protons to approach each other with the right speed and *quark alignment* so that they latch onto each other (strong force) instead of repel. IOW quark placement will overcome Coulomb repulsion in standard physics and QED plus QM entanglement can alter that quark alignment. with a little help. No magic required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right conclusion however. He opines the protons will fuse, which is forbidden for fermions in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated by strong force attraction can still be strongly gainful, as Rossi demonstrates. The Ni64 connection to it all is the final piece of the puzzle but I will await the Swedes on connecting all the dots. * It could easily be the case that Rossi has found that nickel with ~10% 64Ni and ~15% 62Ni works well, and that this enrichment ratio need not be precise but can be obtained from electroless Ni feedstock with one pass in an ultra-centrifuge, and that the lower weight feedstock is more valuable than natural, so that it all fits together nicely. * I have no problem with any of those premises standing alone, but it is all of them together that seems unlikely. Stranger things have happened. * That could be Rossi's main secret, for all we know, and he may have learned this from his contacts in DoE where, yes, they do fund precisely this kind of thing.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This thread on isotopic enrichment of nickel, from a couple of weeks ago, is being revived in light of the recent mention from DGT that they are still “trying different catalysts” … ** ** … which is about as close to an admission that they do not really know Rossi’s secret, as we will get at this time. It is almost imperative, if progress is going to continue on this without Rossi for information or disinformation, to learn the results of the so-called Swedish analysis, assuming it will be a full isotopic analysis with ratios. ** ** Maybe that will not happen, but assuming that DGT has tried all of the ‘usual suspects’ (i.e. Mills’ catalysts) and is not satisfied with the results (which is strongly indicated by the current state of affairs), then by process of elimination, it is looking like the ‘secret sauce’ is indeed “enrichment in heavy nickel”. ** ** This is defined herein as the crude enrichment of nickel in the two heaviest isotopes, 64Ni and 62Ni by simple ultracentrifuge techniques, using electroless nickel (liquid) as the feedstock. If this is true, then enrichment would also explain why Mills has not reached Rossi’s robust results despite a twenty year head start. He simply did not think it was possible to do it. ** ** I realize that Peter, who is an expert on isotopic enrichment, of the traditional precision variety - has discounted this possibility of enrichment, due to cost. But perhaps he has not considered that this application does not demand any kind of precision, and simply going from less than 1% 64Ni to ten times that level, mas o menos, could make an enormous improvement in ongoing stability of the reaction. ** ** Or else Rossi’s major breakthrough is another way to accomplish the same enrichment and that will be the subject of a patent which is still not published (filed in the last 18 months). ** ** Much of this speculation is still based on the fact that 64Ni is a singularity in being the heaviest natural isotope (in terms of the ratio of excess mass, compared to the mass of the most common isotope of the element) of any metal in the periodic table. Only deuterium is higher and it is not a metal. * * Jones ** ** From prior thread: The most interesting set of facts that can come out of the Swedish analysis (if we the public do get to see the report) is IF the fuel is enriched in 64Ni but the copper in the ash is natural ratio. ** ** That will essentially mean that some kind of non-transmutation reaction is occurring but with energy at the level of nuclear. This would also explain the low gamma signature and the lack of radioactive copper, which MUST be there if nickel transmutes. The fact that 64Ni is the heaviest isotope in the periodic table based on the criterion of “percentage increase over the most common natural isotope” cannot be overlooked. ** ** There is a way to fit all of these disparate parts into one model – and it is the “non-quark proton mass” model which is evolving from my improvement to Nyman’s work found in: http://dipole.se/ ** ** In this paper, simulations made with two different kinds of physics software both show the following: 1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the time. 2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other most of the time. 3. However, it is occasionally possible for two protons to approach each other with the right speed and **quark alignment** so that they latch onto each other (strong force) instead of repel… ** ** IOW quark placement will overcome Coulomb repulsion in standard physics and QED plus QM entanglement can alter that quark alignment… with a little help. ** ** No magic required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right conclusion however. He opines the protons will fuse, which is forbidden for fermions in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated by strong force attraction can still be strongly gainful, as Rossi demonstrates. The Ni64 connection to it all is the final piece of the puzzle but I will await the Swedes on connecting all the dots. ** ** ** ** **Ø **It could easily be the case that Rossi has found that nickel with ~10% 64Ni and ~15% 62Ni works well, and that this enrichment ratio need not be precise but can be obtained from electroless Ni feedstock with one pass in an ultra-centrifuge, and that the lower weight feedstock is more valuable than natural, so that it all fits together nicely. ** ** **Ø **I have no problem with any of those premises standing alone, but it is all of them together that seems unlikely. Stranger things have happened. ** ** **Ø **That could be Rossi’s main secret, for all we know, and he may have learned
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Jones, There was some conjecture that even sputtering can accomplish a crude form of enrichment. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:39 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment This thread on isotopic enrichment of nickel, from a couple of weeks ago, is being revived in light of the recent mention from DGT that they are still trying different catalysts ... ... which is about as close to an admission that they do not really know Rossi's secret, as we will get at this time. It is almost imperative, if progress is going to continue on this without Rossi for information or disinformation, to learn the results of the so-called Swedish analysis, assuming it will be a full isotopic analysis with ratios. Maybe that will not happen, but assuming that DGT has tried all of the 'usual suspects' (i.e. Mills' catalysts) and is not satisfied with the results (which is strongly indicated by the current state of affairs), then by process of elimination, it is looking like the 'secret sauce' is indeed enrichment in heavy nickel. This is defined herein as the crude enrichment of nickel in the two heaviest isotopes, 64Ni and 62Ni by simple ultracentrifuge techniques, using electroless nickel (liquid) as the feedstock. If this is true, then enrichment would also explain why Mills has not reached Rossi's robust results despite a twenty year head start. He simply did not think it was possible to do it. I realize that Peter, who is an expert on isotopic enrichment, of the traditional precision variety - has discounted this possibility of enrichment, due to cost. But perhaps he has not considered that this application does not demand any kind of precision, and simply going from less than 1% 64Ni to ten times that level, mas o menos, could make an enormous improvement in ongoing stability of the reaction. Or else Rossi's major breakthrough is another way to accomplish the same enrichment and that will be the subject of a patent which is still not published (filed in the last 18 months). Much of this speculation is still based on the fact that 64Ni is a singularity in being the heaviest natural isotope (in terms of the ratio of excess mass, compared to the mass of the most common isotope of the element) of any metal in the periodic table. Only deuterium is higher and it is not a metal. Jones From prior thread: The most interesting set of facts that can come out of the Swedish analysis (if we the public do get to see the report) is IF the fuel is enriched in 64Ni but the copper in the ash is natural ratio. That will essentially mean that some kind of non-transmutation reaction is occurring but with energy at the level of nuclear. This would also explain the low gamma signature and the lack of radioactive copper, which MUST be there if nickel transmutes. The fact that 64Ni is the heaviest isotope in the periodic table based on the criterion of percentage increase over the most common natural isotope cannot be overlooked. There is a way to fit all of these disparate parts into one model - and it is the non-quark proton mass model which is evolving from my improvement to Nyman's work found in: http://dipole.se/ In this paper, simulations made with two different kinds of physics software both show the following: 1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the time. 2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other most of the time. 3. However, it is occasionally possible for two protons to approach each other with the right speed and *quark alignment* so that they latch onto each other (strong force) instead of repel... IOW quark placement will overcome Coulomb repulsion in standard physics and QED plus QM entanglement can alter that quark alignment... with a little help. No magic required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right conclusion however. He opines the protons will fuse, which is forbidden for fermions in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated by strong force attraction can still be strongly gainful, as Rossi demonstrates. The Ni64 connection to it all is the final piece of the puzzle but I will await the Swedes on connecting all the dots. Ø It could easily be the case that Rossi has found that nickel with ~10% 64Ni and ~15% 62Ni works well, and that this enrichment ratio need not be precise but can be obtained from electroless Ni feedstock with one pass in an ultra-centrifuge, and that the lower weight feedstock is more valuable than natural, so that it all fits together nicely. Ø I have no problem with any of those premises standing alone, but it is all of them together that seems unlikely. Stranger things have happened. Ø That could be Rossi's main secret, for all we know, and he may have learned this from his contacts in DoE where, yes, they do fund precisely this kind of thing.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Well, I sent the following inquires, I just found 1 lab. If you want to help me: Please, I would like to know the prices of enriched Nickel 62 and Nickel 64 to 20% and 50% purity. If possible, I would like to know how the costs of a mixture of Ni 62 and 64 at 20% and 50% purity, at natural isotope proportion of Ni62/Ni64, but excluding the other stable isotopes as impurity. Thanks. I don't know if I expressed myself correctly. But I really would like to know. Isotopes are of fundamental importance in nuclear physics and if LENR is really nuclear, I would expect it to present a great influence of the isotope as well. 2012/1/30 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This thread on isotopic enrichment of nickel, from a couple of weeks ago, is being revived in light of the recent mention from DGT that they are still “trying different catalysts” … ** ** … which is about as close to an admission that they do not really know Rossi’s secret, as we will get at this time. It is almost imperative, if progress is going to continue on this without Rossi for information or disinformation, to learn the results of the so-called Swedish analysis, assuming it will be a full isotopic analysis with ratios. ** ** Maybe that will not happen, but assuming that DGT has tried all of the ‘usual suspects’ (i.e. Mills’ catalysts) and is not satisfied with the results (which is strongly indicated by the current state of affairs), then by process of elimination, it is looking like the ‘secret sauce’ is indeed “enrichment in heavy nickel”. ** ** This is defined herein as the crude enrichment of nickel in the two heaviest isotopes, 64Ni and 62Ni by simple ultracentrifuge techniques, using electroless nickel (liquid) as the feedstock. If this is true, then enrichment would also explain why Mills has not reached Rossi’s robust results despite a twenty year head start. He simply did not think it was possible to do it. ** ** I realize that Peter, who is an expert on isotopic enrichment, of the traditional precision variety - has discounted this possibility of enrichment, due to cost. But perhaps he has not considered that this application does not demand any kind of precision, and simply going from less than 1% 64Ni to ten times that level, mas o menos, could make an enormous improvement in ongoing stability of the reaction. ** ** Or else Rossi’s major breakthrough is another way to accomplish the same enrichment and that will be the subject of a patent which is still not published (filed in the last 18 months). ** ** Much of this speculation is still based on the fact that 64Ni is a singularity in being the heaviest natural isotope (in terms of the ratio of excess mass, compared to the mass of the most common isotope of the element) of any metal in the periodic table. Only deuterium is higher and it is not a metal. * * Jones ** ** From prior thread: The most interesting set of facts that can come out of the Swedish analysis (if we the public do get to see the report) is IF the fuel is enriched in 64Ni but the copper in the ash is natural ratio. ** ** That will essentially mean that some kind of non-transmutation reaction is occurring but with energy at the level of nuclear. This would also explain the low gamma signature and the lack of radioactive copper, which MUST be there if nickel transmutes. The fact that 64Ni is the heaviest isotope in the periodic table based on the criterion of “percentage increase over the most common natural isotope” cannot be overlooked. ** ** There is a way to fit all of these disparate parts into one model – and it is the “non-quark proton mass” model which is evolving from my improvement to Nyman’s work found in: http://dipole.se/ ** ** In this paper, simulations made with two different kinds of physics software both show the following: 1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the time. 2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other most of the time. 3. However, it is occasionally possible for two protons to approach each other with the right speed and **quark alignment** so that they latch onto each other (strong force) instead of repel… ** ** IOW quark placement will overcome Coulomb repulsion in standard physics and QED plus QM entanglement can alter that quark alignment… with a little help. ** ** No magic required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right conclusion however. He opines the protons will fuse, which is forbidden for fermions in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated by strong force attraction can still be strongly gainful, as Rossi demonstrates. The Ni64 connection to it all is the final piece of the puzzle but I will
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Jones, if they don't know Rossis catalyst - why do they allow independent parties to test the reactor? They seem to be pretty sure about what they are doing. Perhaps they are just trying to optimize the reaction? Wolf This thread on isotopic enrichment of nickel, from a couple of weeks ago, is being revived in light of the recent mention from DGT that they are still trying different catalysts ... ... which is about as close to an admission that they do not really know Rossi's secret, as we will get at this time. It is almost imperative, if progress is going to continue on this without Rossi for information or disinformation, to learn the results of the so-called Swedish analysis, assuming it will be a full isotopic analysis with ratios. Maybe that will not happen, but assuming that DGT has tried all of the 'usual suspects' (i.e. Mills' catalysts) and is not satisfied with the results (which is strongly indicated by the current state of affairs), then by process of elimination, it is looking like the 'secret sauce' is indeed enrichment in heavy nickel. This is defined herein as the crude enrichment of nickel in the two heaviest isotopes, 64Ni and 62Ni by simple ultracentrifuge techniques, using electroless nickel (liquid) as the feedstock. If this is true, then enrichment would also explain why Mills has not reached Rossi's robust results despite a twenty year head start. He simply did not think it was possible to do it. I realize that Peter, who is an expert on isotopic enrichment, of the traditional precision variety - has discounted this possibility of enrichment, due to cost. But perhaps he has not considered that this application does not demand any kind of precision, and simply going from less than 1% 64Ni to ten times that level, mas o menos, could make an enormous improvement in ongoing stability of the reaction. Or else Rossi's major breakthrough is another way to accomplish the same enrichment and that will be the subject of a patent which is still not published (filed in the last 18 months). Much of this speculation is still based on the fact that 64Ni is a singularity in being the heaviest natural isotope (in terms of the ratio of excess mass, compared to the mass of the most common isotope of the element) of any metal in the periodic table. Only deuterium is higher and it is not a metal. ** Jones From prior thread: The most interesting set of facts that can come out of the Swedish analysis (if we the public do get to see the report) is IF the fuel is enriched in 64Ni but the copper in the ash is natural ratio. That will essentially mean that some kind of non-transmutation reaction is occurring but with energy at the level of nuclear. This would also explain the low gamma signature and the lack of radioactive copper, which MUST be there if nickel transmutes. The fact that 64Ni is the heaviest isotope in the periodic table based on the criterion of percentage increase over the most common natural isotope cannot be overlooked. There is a way to fit all of these disparate parts into one model -- and it is the non-quark proton mass model which is evolving from my improvement to Nyman's work found in: http://dipole.se/ In this paper, simulations made with two different kinds of physics software both show the following: 1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the time. 2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other most of the time. 3. However, it is occasionally possible for two protons to approach each other with the right speed and **quark alignment** so that they latch onto each other (strong force) instead of repel... IOW quark placement will overcome Coulomb repulsion in standard physics and QED plus QM entanglement can alter that quark alignment... with a little help. No magic required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right conclusion however. He opines the protons will fuse, which is forbidden for fermions in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated by strong force attraction can still be strongly gainful, as Rossi demonstrates. The Ni64 connection to it all is the final piece of the puzzle but I will await the Swedes on connecting all the dots. ØIt could easily be the case that Rossi has found that nickel with ~10% 64Ni and ~15% 62Ni works well, and that this enrichment ratio need not be precise but can be obtained from electroless Ni feedstock with one pass in an ultra-centrifuge, and that the lower weight feedstock is more valuable than natural, so that it all fits together nicely. ØI have no problem with any of those premises standing alone, but it is all of them together that seems unlikely. Stranger things have happened. ØThat could be Rossi's main secret, for all we know, and he may have learned this from his contacts in DoE where, yes, they do fund precisely this kind of thing.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
maybe the problem is not reaction efficiency. it seems they have a working reactor, with a COP 20 as they propose to check in the test. (assuming they are normal serious business they won't lie. and their communication looks that they prefer to silent than to lie) and it seem celani recently says that defkalion succeed in raising the temperature of the reaction from 400C to 600C. so maybe their research is in a catalyst that works at higher (for high efficienty electricity), or lower temperature (for easy starting and warming water) 2012/1/30 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net This thread on isotopic enrichment of nickel, from a couple of weeks ago, is being revived in light of the recent mention from DGT that they are still “trying different catalysts” …
RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
From: Roarty, Francis X * * There was some conjecture that even sputtering can accomplish a crude form of enrichment. I can't see nickel sputtering making a significant difference in enrichment at all. Is there any real evidence? Even a faction of a percent gain is doubtful from sputtering, and anything less than a ten-fold (order of magnitude) increase is not going to help very much IMO. The interesting thing about ultra-centrifugation of electroless nickel however is the synergy of in situ deposition. Imagine using the cylindrical reactor itself as the holder for perhaps 500 grams of electroless nickel (along with a heavier metal that can be leached-out to give Casimir cavities). This would be in a situation where you want to plate out 10 grams onto the wall of that reactor which is also enriched 10 fold in 64Ni. IOW nearly a full gram of 64Ni is plated out. Your centrifuge is custom designed to take the entire reactor cylinder as a cartridge, and spins it for long enough to make the enrichment - following which added heat does the plate-out. 490 grams of the original electroless nickel is then removed and exchanged with the supplier for 500 grams of new plus cash for handling. IOW the 'spent' feedstock has not lost its value for every other customer (for typical plating purposes) - and we know that millions of kg of electroless nickel are used in this market. However ... red flag alert. Yes - it is clear that this plan is an expedient and is NOT sustainable - and only works if there is lots of demand for the depleted electroless nickel, compared to the amount that is needed for this kind of reactor. But that is not a huge concern now, at least not for a few years down the road. If the E-Cat were successful, by then Rossi would own all the nickel mines anyway :-) At least he would have if he done this correctly from the start and were using DGT's money now. Please excuse the (intended) oversimplification of a complex issue... Obviously this is all completely speculative. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
It extremely unlikely that Ni enrichment is being employed, regardless of Rossi's claims. Even without knowledge of the mechanism for LENR how would a hydrogen atom ever know if it was interacting with Ni 62 or Ni 64? The coulomb barrier is identical for both. But assuming that only one Ni isotope is useful for LENR then from Rossi's claims purity does not seem important (Rossi only talks about enriching, not purifying). The cheapest answer to reduced reactivity would still remain to simply make a larger reactor with more normal Ni powder in it - Rossi's claimed power densities are already high enough that making the reactor 10 times bigger volume is of no real consequence. This would have further advantages in reduced reaction rate (kW/gram Ni), less issues with hot-spots and it would probably also give longer periods between powder replacement. On 30 January 2012 18:00, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Roarty, Francis X * * There was some conjecture that even sputtering can accomplish a crude form of enrichment. I can't see nickel sputtering making a significant difference in enrichment at all. Is there any real evidence? Even a faction of a percent gain is doubtful from sputtering, and anything less than a ten-fold (order of magnitude) increase is not going to help very much IMO. The interesting thing about ultra-centrifugation of electroless nickel however is the synergy of in situ deposition. Imagine using the cylindrical reactor itself as the holder for perhaps 500 grams of electroless nickel (along with a heavier metal that can be leached-out to give Casimir cavities). This would be in a situation where you want to plate out 10 grams onto the wall of that reactor which is also enriched 10 fold in 64Ni. IOW nearly a full gram of 64Ni is plated out. Your centrifuge is custom designed to take the entire reactor cylinder as a cartridge, and spins it for long enough to make the enrichment - following which added heat does the plate-out. 490 grams of the original electroless nickel is then removed and exchanged with the supplier for 500 grams of new plus cash for handling. IOW the 'spent' feedstock has not lost its value for every other customer (for typical plating purposes) - and we know that millions of kg of electroless nickel are used in this market. However ... red flag alert. Yes - it is clear that this plan is an expedient and is NOT sustainable - and only works if there is lots of demand for the depleted electroless nickel, compared to the amount that is needed for this kind of reactor. But that is not a huge concern now, at least not for a few years down the road. If the E-Cat were successful, by then Rossi would own all the nickel mines anyway :-) At least he would have if he done this correctly from the start and were using DGT's money now. Please excuse the (intended) oversimplification of a complex issue... Obviously this is all completely speculative. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Wolf - How can you say that DGT is sure - when they do not even have calorimetry set up on any reactor ? That does not inspire confidence that they are as far along as we had thought. If they simply used the Thermacore formula of 1993, except for going to nano nickel - then they would show plenty of gain, but perhaps it is less than Rossi. Maybe they are optimizing and that explains the situation, but can they get there - without isotopic enrichment ? Moreover, the 20-1 which has been mentioned - could be puffery to the extent that yes, it happened, and yes it represents the best gain they have ever seen . but only over 60 seconds. That is technically not a lie. .when in fact the average gain could be in the range of Thermacore or lower - maybe COP = 3 or so. That would win a Nobel prize, but they have bigger fish to fry (so to speak). Yes, they do seem to be considerably more honest than Rossi or Mills, but it is always a sliding scale at the level of RD when things change on a daily basis - and they desperately need outside money, so 'puffery' is to be expected. A staff of 40 - is way more than Mills' staff of a dozen or so, and RM has burned through $60 million or more. If DGT needs cash, then puffery helps, and the same goes for AR, so we cannot be too critical as long as they do let independent experts in to have a look, with few restrictions (which is more than Rossi or Mills has done). Give them a little time, but keep in mind that perhaps they are not as far along as we thought. From: Wolf Fischer Jones, if they don't know Rossi's catalyst - why do they allow independent parties to test the reactor? They seem to be pretty sure about what they are doing. Perhaps they are just trying to optimize the reaction? Wolf
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
From: Roarty, Francis X There was some conjecture that even sputtering can accomplish a crude form of enrichment. I can't see nickel sputtering making a significant difference in enrichment at all. Is there any real evidence? Jones, The discussion was regarding the Soret effect : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47143.html Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment From: Roarty, Francis X There was some conjecture that even sputtering can accomplish a crude form of enrichment. I can't see nickel sputtering making a significant difference in enrichment at all. Is there any real evidence? Even a faction of a percent gain is doubtful from sputtering, and anything less than a ten-fold (order of magnitude) increase is not going to help very much IMO. The interesting thing about ultra-centrifugation of electroless nickel however is the synergy of in situ deposition. Imagine using the cylindrical reactor itself as the holder for perhaps 500 grams of electroless nickel (along with a heavier metal that can be leached-out to give Casimir cavities). This would be in a situation where you want to plate out 10 grams onto the wall of that reactor which is also enriched 10 fold in 64Ni. IOW nearly a full gram of 64Ni is plated out. Your centrifuge is custom designed to take the entire reactor cylinder as a cartridge, and spins it for long enough to make the enrichment - following which added heat does the plate-out. 490 grams of the original electroless nickel is then removed and exchanged with the supplier for 500 grams of new plus cash for handling. IOW the 'spent' feedstock has not lost its value for every other customer (for typical plating purposes) - and we know that millions of kg of electroless nickel are used in this market. However ... red flag alert. Yes - it is clear that this plan is an expedient and is NOT sustainable - and only works if there is lots of demand for the depleted electroless nickel, compared to the amount that is needed for this kind of reactor. But that is not a huge concern now, at least not for a few years down the road. If the E-Cat were successful, by then Rossi would own all the nickel mines anyway :) At least he would have if he done this correctly from the start and were using DGT's money now. Please excuse the (intended) oversimplification of a complex issue... Obviously this is all completely speculative. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
From: Roarty, Francis X * There was some conjecture that even sputtering can accomplish a crude form of enrichment. I can't see nickel sputtering making a significant difference in enrichment at all. Is there any real evidence? Jones, The discussion was regarding the Soret effect : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47143.html OK- but thermophoresis involves massive amounts of time with materials held at high and nearly molten temperature, in order to effect minuscule changes. With sputtering, the high temperature is over in millisecond. There is simply not enough time to significantly enrich nickel, IMO. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Two problems with that assessment, Robert. First, look at fission reactors as metaphor. 235U is found in a similar ratio to 64Ni in the natural metal (slightly less), and yet a fission reactor using natural U will not work reliably over time, without heavy water - or unless the U has been enriched to about triple its natural abundance. It would take a few volumes of information to explain why this is the case, employing random walks and Monte Carlo statistics and other boring background - and yet, the situation is only metaphorical anyway. But this is a very strong metaphor and the message for both kinds of reactors could be the same: There is a minimum level of the active reactant needed for reliable reaction rates to occur over time. The second possible error is to assume this minimum level (needed for continuity) applies to the situation where 64Ni transmutes into 65Cu - as is generally thought and promoted by Rossi and Focardi. That could be the case, but OTOH it seems clearly false that any transmutation has occurred - since the ash should be radioactive, and Rossi admits it is not. (and the Swedes turned up no radioactivity either). No radioactive ash, no nickel to copper transmutation. I have presented what I think is a strong case for proton average mass depletion as the source of excess energy in Ni-H reactions - in past postings. The connection of proton mass depletion to 64Ni would be that this metal isotope is the heaviest in all of nature, compared to the most common isotope. Since it is anomalously heavy, and the proton becomes anomalous light after giving up some of its mass - is there a cross connection there? It is a stretch for sure - but QCD can then be employed to explain bosonic transfer and the depletion of one wrt the other. That is fodder for another long posting. From: Robert Lynn It extremely unlikely that Ni enrichment is being employed, regardless of Rossi's claims. Even without knowledge of the mechanism for LENR how would a hydrogen atom ever know if it was interacting with Ni 62 or Ni 64? The coulomb barrier is identical for both.
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
From Jones Beene * I can't see nickel sputtering making a significant difference in enrichment at all. Is there any real evidence? Jones, I think Thermophoresis and Soret effect may be enhanced due to trajectory motion along a single axis. I also suspect that the molten alloy in motion is still subject to dispersion forces that oppose the formation of Casimir geometry but may somehow contribute to enrichment - [snip] or electrophoresis and diffusiophoresis in colloidal suspensions,[/snip] Fran Thermophoresis in colloidal suspensions R Piazza1 and A Parola2 http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-8984/20/15/153102/pdf/0953-8984_20_15_153102.pdf 1 Dipartimento di Chimica, Materiali e Ingegneria Chimica, Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy 2 Dipartimento di Fisica e Matematica, Universit`a dell'Insubria, 22100 Como, Italy E-mail: roberto.pia...@polimi.it and alberto.par...@mi.infm.it Received 19 December 2007, in final form 21 February 2008 Published 25 March 2008 Online at stacks.iop.org/JPhysCM/20/153102 Abstract Thermophoresis is particle motion induced by thermal gradients. Akin to other driven transport processes, such as the Soret effect in simple fluid mixtures, or electrophoresis and diffusiophoresis in colloidal suspensions, it is, both experimentally and theoretically, a challenging subject. Rather than being a comprehensive recollection, this review aims to be a critical re-examination of the experimental and theoretical tools used to investigate thermophoresis, and of some recent relevant results that may unravel novel aspects of colloid solvation forces. The perspectives of thermophoresis as a tool for particle manipulation in microfluidics are also emphasized. _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment From: Roarty, Francis X * There was some conjecture that even sputtering can accomplish a crude form of enrichment. I can't see nickel sputtering making a significant difference in enrichment at all. Is there any real evidence? Jones, The discussion was regarding the Soret effect : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47143.html OK- but thermophoresis involves massive amounts of time with materials held at high and nearly molten temperature, in order to effect minuscule changes. With sputtering, the high temperature is over in millisecond. There is simply not enough time to significantly enrich nickel, IMO.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Ni62 and Ni64 enrichment is an assumption. I will now be pleased to offer another possible reason for a catalyst change. My theory of operation regarding the Rossi reaction indicates that the job of the catalyst is to produce Rydberg atoms so that they can be used as feedstock in the production of H+; protons. Proton loading on or near the micro powder surface must be as high as can be managed. Patch electrostatic charge on the surface of the Micro powder strips the high orbiting electron from the Rydberg H. Most elements will produce Rydberg atoms if properly excited but the way that these elements are excited will differ based on their quantum mechanical configurations. There are excellent indications that Rossi’s catalyst uses heat as the excitant. The alkaline family having a electronic low work function at its surface, heat excitation will produce Rydberg atoms. But in contrast, other elements may be more appropriately excited by radio frequency stimulation (another alkaline family member), or spark electric discharge (argon, or anther noble gas), or laser irradiation (calcium, nitrogen, beryllium, magnesium … a few among many). I have always through that heat was a poor choice for a Rydberg atom stimulant because of the counterproductive feedback disadvantages heat control provides. Some stimulant that can be turned off and on easily and immediately without feedback disadvantage would be a better systems choice overall especially if regulated in real time by a computerize control system. Maybe now that the basic Rossi based system is well understood and ready for production, it might be time to take the next design step in product improvement with a more controllable and predictable systems design. The people in RD might need something new to hold their interest a while longer. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Two problems with that assessment, Robert. ** ** First, look at fission reactors as metaphor. 235U is found in a similar ratio to 64Ni in the natural metal (slightly less), and yet a fission reactor using natural U will not work reliably over time, without heavy water – or unless the U has been enriched to about triple its natural abundance. ** ** It would take a few volumes of information to explain why this is the case, employing random walks and Monte Carlo statistics and other boring background – and yet, the situation is only metaphorical anyway. But this is a very strong metaphor and the message for both kinds of reactors could be the same: ** ** *There is a minimum level of the active reactant needed for reliable reaction rates to occur over time. * ** ** The second possible error is to assume this minimum level (needed for continuity) applies to the situation where 64Ni transmutes into 65Cu - as is generally thought and promoted by Rossi and Focardi. That could be the case, but OTOH it seems clearly false that any transmutation has occurred - since the ash should be radioactive, and Rossi admits it is not. (and the Swedes turned up no radioactivity either). No radioactive ash, no nickel to copper transmutation. ** ** I have presented what I think is a strong case for “proton average mass depletion” as the source of excess energy in Ni-H reactions - in past postings. The connection of “proton mass depletion” to 64Ni would be that this metal isotope is the heaviest in all of nature, compared to the most common isotope. Since it is anomalously heavy, and the proton becomes anomalous light after giving up some of its mass – is there a cross connection there? ** ** It is a stretch for sure – but QCD can then be employed to explain bosonic transfer and the depletion of one wrt the other. That is fodder for another long posting. ** ** *From:* Robert Lynn ** ** It extremely unlikely that Ni enrichment is being employed, regardless of Rossi's claims. Even without knowledge of the mechanism for LENR how would a hydrogen atom ever know if it was interacting with Ni 62 or Ni 64? The coulomb barrier is identical for both. ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
There was never any hard evidence it had been moved. Terry ( I think) remarked on voretx a day or so after the test that a tractor trailer drove off with it as if someone witnessed the departure, but he was really just extrapolating. Harry On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:46 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi lied about the BBB being shipped to a secret customer. He never told Lewan it shipped. You expect me to believe Lewans doesn't read Rossi blog. The news the BBB that shipped to the secret customer was all over the internet. Lewans knew Rossi had told a very big and dirty lie to the whole world. He also knew the Rossi I went there to do the install statement was a lie. Yet he remained silent. Surly he knew this would not remain a secret for long? Lewans made a bad value call to keep quiet.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: There was never any hard evidence it had been moved. Terry ( I think) remarked on voretx a day or so after the test that a tractor trailer drove off with it as if someone witnessed the departure, but he was really just extrapolating. I was kinda joking in response to the ireport article. Here's my post in response to yours from back then: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-696792 an 'iReport' about the eCat posted on CNN. OMG! But I suspect the world will wait a long time for the A.P. story. It appears, at least, that we've all been cheated of progress once again. The test was for a customer - his first name was Colonel - who immediately hooked up the 20-ft container it was placed in and drove it away. So, he just wrote AR a check and hooked the container up to his F250 and drove away? So, there wasn't a single investigative reporter who hopped on their Vespa and followed him? Are we to believe that it now resides in that vast warehouse next to the Lost Ark of the Covenant? This is artistic! end T
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
ahh thanks for that reminder! So in a sense I added to the lie. Sorry folks. Harry (Damn that talking dog!) harry On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: There was never any hard evidence it had been moved. Terry ( I think) remarked on voretx a day or so after the test that a tractor trailer drove off with it as if someone witnessed the departure, but he was really just extrapolating. I was kinda joking in response to the ireport article. Here's my post in response to yours from back then: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-696792 an 'iReport' about the eCat posted on CNN. OMG! But I suspect the world will wait a long time for the A.P. story. It appears, at least, that we've all been cheated of progress once again. The test was for a customer - his first name was Colonel - who immediately hooked up the 20-ft container it was placed in and drove it away. So, he just wrote AR a check and hooked the container up to his F250 and drove away? So, there wasn't a single investigative reporter who hopped on their Vespa and followed him? Are we to believe that it now resides in that vast warehouse next to the Lost Ark of the Covenant? This is artistic! end T
[Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
As mentioned in prior posting - Ni-64 costs about $3 per gram from a medical supplier. We checked the ones near Rossi's former lab in NH and no one remembers him or the name Leonardo (LTI, or EON). The reason for checking was to see if Rossi started out this way first before finding a less expensive solution. As for the present - Rossi claims to enrich in Ni-64 himself - not by buying an enriched isotope. This is unlikely but possible. The first relevant fact is that over two-thirds of natural nickel is the 58Ni, which has very high nuclear stability - but there is also a ~1% isotope 64Ni which is 6 a.m.u. or ~11% heavier and has different NMR properties. Since nickel can be obtained in liquid form as feedstock and then resold with the heavier isotopes removed, and since the feedstock is possibly more valuable with heavier isotopes removed, it is possible to do it yourself with an ultra-centrifuge, and possibly in combination with NMR techniques for the net differential manufacturing cost. This is especially true if you simply want enrichment in 62 and 64 and can work with a nickel supplier and starting with electroless nickel can also make nanostructuring much simpler, so it could be a double benefit. I do not think Rossi is that sophisticated, but don't forget that his backers for 10 years at least were high up in DoE. That could also be the source of enriched isotope. If the Swedes ever do release the mass-spec analysis- maybe we will know if this Ni-64 business is one more Rossi lie, or not. It probably is. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
You are giving the number for a high purity isotope, like 99.99%. In other thread, I was talking about an extremely dirty mixture of Ni62+Ni64 and a bunch of other isotopes, no problem if it is 50% of other stuff. 2012/1/21 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net As mentioned in prior posting - Ni-64 costs about $3 per gram from a medical supplier. We checked the ones near Rossi's former lab in NH and no one remembers him or the name Leonardo (LTI, or EON). The reason for checking was to see if Rossi started out this way first before finding a less expensive solution. As for the present - Rossi claims to enrich in Ni-64 himself - not by buying an enriched isotope. This is unlikely but possible. The first relevant fact is that over two-thirds of natural nickel is the 58Ni, which has very high nuclear stability - but there is also a ~1% isotope 64Ni which is 6 a.m.u. or ~11% heavier and has different NMR properties. Since nickel can be obtained in liquid form as feedstock and then resold with the heavier isotopes removed, and since the feedstock is possibly more valuable with heavier isotopes removed, it is possible to do it yourself with an ultra-centrifuge, and possibly in combination with NMR techniques for the net differential manufacturing cost. This is especially true if you simply want enrichment in 62 and 64 and can work with a nickel supplier and starting with electroless nickel can also make nanostructuring much simpler, so it could be a double benefit. I do not think Rossi is that sophisticated, but don't forget that his backers for 10 years at least were high up in DoE. That could also be the source of enriched isotope. If the Swedes ever do release the mass-spec analysis- maybe we will know if this Ni-64 business is one more Rossi lie, or not. It probably is. Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Thanks for reposting that information. So, if the fuel or ash from an E-Cat contained excess 64-Ni, that would be compelling evidence that he really does have a new and revolutionary means of enriching Nickel isotopes, since it seems unlikely that he would have the resources to spike his samples with $30,000/g material. That make me even more eager to see the detailed isotopic analysis that Sven Kullander said would be available before Christmas. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:44 PM Subject: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment As mentioned in prior posting - Ni-64 costs about $3 per gram from a medical supplier. We checked the ones near Rossi's former lab in NH and no one remembers him or the name Leonardo (LTI, or EON). The reason for checking was to see if Rossi started out this way first before finding a less expensive solution. As for the present - Rossi claims to enrich in Ni-64 himself - not by buying an enriched isotope. This is unlikely but possible. The first relevant fact is that over two-thirds of natural nickel is the 58Ni, which has very high nuclear stability - but there is also a ~1% isotope 64Ni which is 6 a.m.u. or ~11% heavier and has different NMR properties. Since nickel can be obtained in liquid form as feedstock and then resold with the heavier isotopes removed, and since the feedstock is possibly more valuable with heavier isotopes removed, it is possible to do it yourself with an ultra-centrifuge, and possibly in combination with NMR techniques for the net differential manufacturing cost. This is especially true if you simply want enrichment in 62 and 64 and can work with a nickel supplier and starting with electroless nickel can also make nanostructuring much simpler, so it could be a double benefit. I do not think Rossi is that sophisticated, but don't forget that his backers for 10 years at least were high up in DoE. That could also be the source of enriched isotope. If the Swedes ever do release the mass-spec analysis- maybe we will know if this Ni-64 business is one more Rossi lie, or not. It probably is. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
The trouble is, if only 64Ni is converted into Copper (and/or Iron?), and the ash is 30% Copper, then wouldn't there have to be 30% 64Ni in the fuel? Otherwise, where is the Copper coming from? And if Rossi can convert less than 1% 64Ni into at least 30%, and 64Ni is going for $30,000/g, I think he found a much better money maker than selling E-Cats. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment You are giving the number for a high purity isotope, like 99.99%. In other thread, I was talking about an extremely dirty mixture of Ni62+Ni64 and a bunch of other isotopes, no problem if it is 50% of other stuff.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
You mean Cu 65 and Cu63. That's the ash. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Thanks for reposting that information. So, if the fuel or ash from an E-Cat contained excess 64-Ni, that would be compelling evidence that he really does have a new and revolutionary means of enriching Nickel isotopes, since it seems unlikely that he would have the resources to spike his samples with $30,000/g material. That make me even more eager to see the detailed isotopic analysis that Sven Kullander said would be available before Christmas. -- *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:44 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment As mentioned in prior posting - Ni-64 costs about $3 per gram from a medical supplier. We checked the ones near Rossi's former lab in NH and no one remembers him or the name Leonardo (LTI, or EON). The reason for checking was to see if Rossi started out this way first before finding a less expensive solution. As for the present - Rossi claims to enrich in Ni-64 himself - not by buying an enriched isotope. This is unlikely but possible. The first relevant fact is that over two-thirds of natural nickel is the 58Ni, which has very high nuclear stability - but there is also a ~1% isotope 64Ni which is 6 a.m.u. or ~11% heavier and has different NMR properties. Since nickel can be obtained in liquid form as feedstock and then resold with the heavier isotopes removed, and since the feedstock is possibly more valuable with heavier isotopes removed, it is possible to do it yourself with an ultra-centrifuge, and possibly in combination with NMR techniques for the net differential manufacturing cost. This is especially true if you simply want enrichment in 62 and 64 and can work with a nickel supplier and starting with electroless nickel can also make nanostructuring much simpler, so it could be a double benefit. I do not think Rossi is that sophisticated, but don't forget that his backers for 10 years at least were high up in DoE. That could also be the source of enriched isotope. If the Swedes ever do release the mass-spec analysis- maybe we will know if this Ni-64 business is one more Rossi lie, or not. It probably is. Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
. That make me even more eager to see the detailed isotopic analysis that Sven Kullander said would be available before Christmas. -- *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:44 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment As mentioned in prior posting - Ni-64 costs about $3 per gram from a medical supplier. We checked the ones near Rossi's former lab in NH and no one remembers him or the name Leonardo (LTI, or EON). The reason for checking was to see if Rossi started out this way first before finding a less expensive solution. As for the present - Rossi claims to enrich in Ni-64 himself - not by buying an enriched isotope. This is unlikely but possible. The first relevant fact is that over two-thirds of natural nickel is the 58Ni, which has very high nuclear stability - but there is also a ~1% isotope 64Ni which is 6 a.m.u. or ~11% heavier and has different NMR properties. Since nickel can be obtained in liquid form as feedstock and then resold with the heavier isotopes removed, and since the feedstock is possibly more valuable with heavier isotopes removed, it is possible to do it yourself with an ultra-centrifuge, and possibly in combination with NMR techniques for the net differential manufacturing cost. This is especially true if you simply want enrichment in 62 and 64 and can work with a nickel supplier and starting with electroless nickel can also make nanostructuring much simpler, so it could be a double benefit. I do not think Rossi is that sophisticated, but don't forget that his backers for 10 years at least were high up in DoE. That could also be the source of enriched isotope. If the Swedes ever do release the mass-spec analysis- maybe we will know if this Ni-64 business is one more Rossi lie, or not. It probably is. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
No, that's not how it is. Those isotopes are too pure, that's why they are expensive. In this case, they need much less processing, just enough to reduce the quantity of other isotopes than Ni62 and 64. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com The trouble is, if only 64Ni is converted into Copper (and/or Iron?), and the ash is 30% Copper, then wouldn't there have to be 30% 64Ni in the fuel? Otherwise, where is the Copper coming from? And if Rossi can convert less than 1% 64Ni into at least 30%, and 64Ni is going for $30,000/g, I think he found a much better money maker than selling E-Cats. -- *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:47 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment You are giving the number for a high purity isotope, like 99.99%. In other thread, I was talking about an extremely dirty mixture of Ni62+Ni64 and a bunch of other isotopes, no problem if it is 50% of other stuff. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Right. The Copper (of any isotope) is supposedly transmuted from one either 62Ni or 64Ni. Natural Nickel is about 3.6% 62Ni and about 0.9% 64Ni. So, the active ingredients in the fuel make up less than 5% of the total. However, the ash contains (according to Rossi) up to 30% Copper. Where does all that Copper come from, unless Rossi is converting about 25% of the existing 58Ni into one or more of the rarer isotopes? Since one module contains (IIRC) about 100g of fuel, that means that Rossi claims to be able to convert about 25g of that into rarer isotopes for something on the order of $1 (since he said a refueling will cost about $10, and the cost of enriching the fuel adds about 10% to the cost). Reducing the cost of a gram of 64Ni from $30,000 to $0.04 is quite an achievement! From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment You mean Cu 65 and Cu63. That's the ash. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Thanks for reposting that information. So, if the fuel or ash from an E-Cat contained excess 64-Ni, that would be compelling evidence that he really does have a new and revolutionary means of enriching Nickel isotopes, since it seems unlikely that he would have the resources to spike his samples with $30,000/g material. That make me even more eager to see the detailed isotopic analysis that Sven Kullander said would be available before Christmas.
RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Yes, we need to know four things from Sweden: the ratio of Ni isotopes in both the fuel and ash, and the ratio of copper isotopes in both the fuel and ash. That will tell volumes, when compared to natural ratios. If the copper in the ash is natural isotopic ratio - as I suspect, then that will mean it did NOT come from nickel transmutation, but instead by electrolytic migration (or else was part of the nickel alloy). Note: Celani has had his best success with Ni-Cu alloy so copper is not necessarily evidence of a nuclear reaction unless it is a non-natural ratio. It simply cannot appear as a natural ratio and also be derived from nickel transmutation. This analysis is difficult to do precisely, and it does not surprise anyone that it is taking longer than expected. From: John Milstone So, if the fuel or ash from an E-Cat contained excess 64-Ni, that would be compelling evidence that he really does have a new and revolutionary means of enriching Nickel isotopes, since it seems unlikely that he would have the resources to spike his samples with $30,000/g material. That make me even more eager to see the detailed isotopic analysis that Sven Kullander said would be available before Christmas.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Why to 0.04$? To 100$ would be a great thing too. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Right. The Copper (of any isotope) is supposedly transmuted from one either 62Ni or 64Ni. Natural Nickel is about 3.6% 62Ni and about 0.9% 64Ni. So, the active ingredients in the fuel make up less than 5% of the total. However, the ash contains (according to Rossi) up to 30% Copper. Where does all that Copper come from, unless Rossi is converting about 25% of the existing 58Ni into one or more of the rarer isotopes? Since one module contains (IIRC) about 100g of fuel, that means that Rossi claims to be able to convert about 25g of that into rarer isotopes for something on the order of $1 (since he said a refueling will cost about $10, and the cost of enriching the fuel adds about 10% to the cost). Reducing the cost of a gram of 64Ni from $30,000 to $0.04 is quite an achievement! -- *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:19 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment You mean Cu 65 and Cu63. That's the ash. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Thanks for reposting that information. So, if the fuel or ash from an E-Cat contained excess 64-Ni, that would be compelling evidence that he really does have a new and revolutionary means of enriching Nickel isotopes, since it seems unlikely that he would have the resources to spike his samples with $30,000/g material. That make me even more eager to see the detailed isotopic analysis that Sven Kullander said would be available before Christmas. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
From: John Milstone * Reducing the cost of a gram of 64Ni from $30,000 to $0.04 is quite an achievement! As Daniel implies, that is not the correct comparison. It could easily be the case that Rossi has found that nickel with ~10% 64Ni and ~15% 62Ni works well, and that this enrichment ratio need not be precise but can be obtained from electroless Ni feedstock with one pass in an ultra-centrifuge, and that the lower weight feedstock is more valuable than natural, so that it all fits together nicely. I have no problem with any of those premises standing alone, but it is all of them together that seems unlikely. Stranger things have happened. That could be Rossi's main secret, for all we know, and he may have learned this from his contacts in DoE where, yes, they do fund precisely this kind of thing. That would also explain why it is not in his patent application, as well. If he had discovered it - and did not patent, then he is a bigger fool than ever imagined. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
I think this is the crucial step, really, if Rossi claims are somehow to be believed. Taking your figures to Celani's experiment, he would get peaks of hundreds of watts and piantelli in the same range of Rossi, that is, around thousands of watts. 2012/1/21 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *From:* John Milstone ** ** That could be Rossi’s main secret, for all we know, and he may have learned this from his contacts in DoE where, yes, they do fund precisely this kind of thing. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
There is only one cheap method to separate or enrich significantly the Ni isotopes: by persuasion, convincing them to separate. Rossi is sometimes, rarely telling things that are not true. But are interesting, beyond any doubt. On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* John Milstone ** ** **Ø **Reducing the cost of a gram of 64Ni from $30,000 to $0.04 is quite an achievement! ** ** As Daniel implies, that is not the correct comparison. ** ** It could easily be the case that Rossi has found that nickel with ~10% 64Ni and ~15% 62Ni works well, and that this enrichment ratio need not be precise but can be obtained from electroless Ni feedstock with one pass in an ultra-centrifuge, and that the lower weight feedstock is more valuable than natural, so that it all fits together nicely. ** ** I have no problem with any of those premises standing alone, but it is all of them together that seems unlikely. Stranger things have happened. ** ** That could be Rossi’s main secret, for all we know, and he may have learned this from his contacts in DoE where, yes, they do fund precisely this kind of thing. ** ** That would also explain why it is not in his patent application, as well. If he had discovered it – and did not patent, then he is a bigger fool than ever imagined. ** ** Jones -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
I don't really see the reason why not enriching Ni62 - Ni64 to 20% would be very expensive.That's a purity level 500-5000 lower than those that leave only one isotope pure. 2012/1/21 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com There is only one cheap method to separate or enrich significantly the Ni isotopes: by persuasion, convincing them to separate. Rossi is sometimes, rarely telling things that are not true. But are interesting, beyond any doubt. On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* John Milstone ** ** **Ø **Reducing the cost of a gram of 64Ni from $30,000 to $0.04 is quite an achievement! ** ** As Daniel implies, that is not the correct comparison. ** ** It could easily be the case that Rossi has found that nickel with ~10% 64Ni and ~15% 62Ni works well, and that this enrichment ratio need not be precise but can be obtained from electroless Ni feedstock with one pass in an ultra-centrifuge, and that the lower weight feedstock is more valuable than natural, so that it all fits together nicely. ** ** I have no problem with any of those premises standing alone, but it is all of them together that seems unlikely. Stranger things have happened.* *** ** ** That could be Rossi’s main secret, for all we know, and he may have learned this from his contacts in DoE where, yes, they do fund precisely this kind of thing. ** ** That would also explain why it is not in his patent application, as well. If he had discovered it – and did not patent, then he is a bigger fool than ever imagined. ** ** Jones -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
True, but the $0.04/gram is, roughly, what you get when you work from Rossi's statements (i.e. 100g and $10 per load, 10% cost is enhancement of the catalyst, we need 30% of the rare isotopes in order to have enough material to make an ash with 30% Copper). The point is that it's too low a cost to allow for any significant processing, especially if Rossi is going to have 1 million E-Cats per year, needing refueling every 6 months. No matter how you look at it, if the conversion is from 62Ni and 64Ni into 63Cu and 65Cu, you need to enrich the 62Ni from ~3.5% to almost 25%, and the 64Ni from ~0.9% to 11%, just to end up with 30% Copper containing natural isotopic ratios. I certainly understand why the $30,000/g price for very pure, single isotopic material is more than what is needed by Rossi, but a few pennies per gram seems low for any processing of this sort. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment Why to 0.04$? To 100$ would be a great thing too.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Do you know of any way to enrich Nickel, or any other metal, for a few pennies per gram? Either there is some known way to do this, or Rossi has made a major breakthrough (with really, really dangerous WMD overtones), or Rossi is lying. I have yet to hear of any enrichment method that is within several orders of magnitude of what Rossi *must* have, if he's really selling 100g of fuel for $10. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment I don't really see the reason why not enriching Ni62 - Ni64 to 20% would be very expensive.That's a purity level 500-5000 lower than those that leave only one isotope pure.
RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
The most interesting set of facts that can come out of the Swedish analysis (if we the public do get to see the report) is IF the fuel is enriched in 64Ni but the copper in the ash is natural ratio. That will essentially mean that some kind of non-transmutation reaction is occurring but with energy at the level of nuclear. This would also explain the low gamma signature and the lack of radioactive copper, which MUST be there if nickel transmutes. The fact that 64Ni is the heaviest isotope in the periodic table based on the criterion of percentage increase over the most common natural isotope cannot be overlooked. There is a way to fit all of these disparate parts into one model - and it is the non-quark proton mass model which is evolving from my improvement to Nyman's work found in: http://dipole.se/ In this paper, simulations made with two different kinds of physics software both show the following: 1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the time. 2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other most of the time. 3. However, it is occasionally possible for two protons to approach each other with the right speed and *quark alignment* so that they latch onto each other (strong force) instead of repel. IOW quark placement will overcome Coulomb repulsion in standard physics and QED plus QM entanglement can alter that quark alignment. with a little help. No magic required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right conclusion however. He opines the protons will fuse, which is forbidden for fermions in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated by strong force attraction can still be strongly gainful, as Rossi demonstrates. The Ni64 connection to it all is the final piece of the puzzle but I will await the Swedes on connecting all the dots. * It could easily be the case that Rossi has found that nickel with ~10% 64Ni and ~15% 62Ni works well, and that this enrichment ratio need not be precise but can be obtained from electroless Ni feedstock with one pass in an ultra-centrifuge, and that the lower weight feedstock is more valuable than natural, so that it all fits together nicely. * I have no problem with any of those premises standing alone, but it is all of them together that seems unlikely. Stranger things have happened. * That could be Rossi's main secret, for all we know, and he may have learned this from his contacts in DoE where, yes, they do fund precisely this kind of thing.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
What Rossi does cannot be done with heavier radioactive elements. Their weight difference is too small. Nickel is one of the elements with the highest range of stable isotopes. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Do you know of any way to enrich Nickel, or any other metal, for a few pennies per gram? Either there is some known way to do this, or Rossi has made a major breakthrough (with really, really dangerous WMD overtones), or Rossi is lying. I have yet to hear of any enrichment method that is within several orders of magnitude of what Rossi *must* have, if he's really selling 100g of fuel for $10. -- *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:18 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment I don't really see the reason why not enriching Ni62 - Ni64 to 20% would be very expensive.That's a purity level 500-5000 lower than those that leave only one isotope pure. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Please tell me what Rossi does! Or do we all agree that there is no commonly known method to do what Rossi says he's doing? Nickel has a large number of stable isotopes, but they can't be used interchangeably to transmute into the stable isotopes (and *only* the stable isotopes) of Copper, can they? To end up with an ash containing 30% Copper in its natural isotope ratio (as has been reported), you must start out with the companion Nickel isotopes greatly enriched from their natural isotope ratios. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment What Rossi does cannot be done with heavier radioactive elements. Their weight difference is too small. Nickel is one of the elements with the highest range of stable isotopes.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
I guess the problem of transmutation is another issue, not restricted to Rossi. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Please tell me what Rossi does! Or do we all agree that there is no commonly known method to do what Rossi says he's doing? Nickel has a large number of stable isotopes, but they can't be used interchangeably to transmute into the stable isotopes (and *only* the stable isotopes) of Copper, can they? To end up with an ash containing 30% Copper in its natural isotope ratio (as has been reported), you must start out with the companion Nickel isotopes greatly enriched from their natural isotope ratios. -- *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:31 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment What Rossi does cannot be done with heavier radioactive elements. Their weight difference is too small. Nickel is one of the elements with the highest range of stable isotopes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
From: John Milstone * I have yet to hear of any enrichment method that is within several orders of magnitude of what Rossi *must* have, if he's really selling 100g of fuel for $10. Then why even attempt to believe it? Yes that one is absolutely false beyond any reasonable doubt - and yes Rossi often lies, and yes we are left to sort through a mountain of lies to find glimmers of truth on almost every point. That is what frustrates all of us in this pursuit, but this is intolerable for the more vocal skeptics. Bottom line: if you cannot deal with it - then take a break and come back in 3-6 months and see what has happened in your absence and despite Rossi's notorious dishonesty. It may happen via DGT, or someone else, or it may not happen. Otherwise, be content to transpose the values to something within reason a few orders of magnitude higher, say - something like 100 g for $1000 or more. It is still a bargain if it works. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
So, you're saying that Jed Rothwell is wrong when he has stated repeatedly that he has never caught Rossi lying about his work? That's really the basis of everything Rothwell is claiming: Although Rossi lies about all sorts of other things, we can trust what he says about his science. In other words, you're saying that Rossi lies about *everything* and we should just believe him anyway. That's nothing even remotely like the scientific method. That's called blind faith. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:45 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment From: John Milstone * I have yet to hear of any enrichment method that is within several orders of magnitude of what Rossi *must* have, if he's really selling 100g of fuel for $10. Then why even attempt to believe it? Yes that one is absolutely false beyond any reasonable doubt - and yes Rossi often lies, and yes we are left to sort through a mountain of lies to find glimmers of truth on almost every point.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
I continue to be reminded of a (Isaac Asimov?) science fiction story I read as a child where a group of scientists are shown a film of what they are told is an anti gravity machine, which takes off, flies a bit then blows up. They are told that the inventer, the only person who knew how it worked, was killed. They then spend six months(?) working together and produce a new anti-gravity machine. They are then told that the film was a fake and there was no such inventor. On 21/01/2012 19:45, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone * I have yet to hear of any enrichment method that is within several orders of magnitude of what Rossi *must* have, if he's really selling 100g of fuel for $10. Then why even attempt to believe it? Yes that one is absolutely false beyond any reasonable doubt - and yes Rossi often lies, and yes we are left to sort through a mountain of lies to find glimmers of truth on almost every point. That is what frustrates all of us in this pursuit, but this is intolerable for the more vocal skeptics. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
One complicating issue when we try to understand Rossi is that his system design is in constant flux. It changes constantly. This is one reason why Rossi’s statements are so inconsistent over time. For example, in the January timeframe last year, he was using 100 grams of powder in his reactor. But he greatly reduced the amount of powder in this reaction vessel to 10 grams when he cut his COP to 6 in go to a very small walnut sized reaction chamber. Rossi never defines his statement in the context of past system development, because that development is confidential. If you want to understand Rossi, you need to deduce the current state of system design he is working under within the context of past designs. This is a lot of work in this effort and few if any of the Rossi fans will do this. Jones is right. We need to wait for Rossi’s design to stabilize and determine the extent of his honesty in that stabilized context. On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.comwrote: So, you're saying that Jed Rothwell is wrong when he has stated repeatedly that he has never caught Rossi lying about his work? That's really the basis of everything Rothwell is claiming: Although Rossi lies about all sorts of other things, we can trust what he says about his science. In other words, you're saying that Rossi lies about *everything* and we should just believe him anyway. That's nothing even remotely like the scientific method. That's called blind faith. -- *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:45 PM *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment From: John Milstone *I have yet to hear of any enrichment method that is within several orders of magnitude of what Rossi *must* have, if he's really selling 100g of fuel for $10. Then why even attempt to believe it? Yes that one is absolutely false beyond any reasonable doubt - and yes Rossi often lies, and yes we are left to sort through a mountain of lies to find glimmers of truth on almost every point.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As mentioned in prior posting - Ni-64 costs about $3 per gram from a medical supplier. We checked the ones near Rossi's former lab in NH and no one remembers him or the name Leonardo (LTI, or EON). The reason for checking was to see if Rossi started out this way first before finding a less expensive solution.SNIP Sorry, I didn't see this response before asking the same question in another string. Disregard the question I asked there.
RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Ha! If that group of scientists had Defkalion in their name, then it would be a fitting segue to another Sci-Fi story, no? -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer I continue to be reminded of a (Isaac Asimov?) science fiction story I read as a child where a group of scientists are shown a film of what they are told is an anti gravity machine, which takes off, flies a bit then blows up. They are told that the inventor, the only person who knew how it worked, was killed. They then spend six months(?) working together and produce a new anti-gravity machine. They are then told that the film was a fake and there was no such inventor.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I continue to be reminded of a (Isaac Asimov?) science fiction story I read as a child where a group of scientists are shown a film of what they are told is an anti gravity machine, which takes off, flies a bit then blows up. They are told that the inventer, the only person who knew how it worked, was killed. They then spend six months(?) working together and produce a new anti-gravity machine. They are then told that the film was a fake and there was no such inventor. I remember that one! Was it Asimov? OMG, now I'm going to spend the rest of the night on google trying to find out which novella that was from. T
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I continue to be reminded of a (Isaac Asimov?) science fiction story I read as a child where a group of scientists are shown a film of what they are told is an anti gravity machine, which takes off, flies a bit then blows up. They are told that the inventer, the only person who knew how it worked, was killed. They then spend six months(?) working together and produce a new anti-gravity machine. They are then told that the film was a fake and there was no such inventor. I remember that one! Was it Asimov? OMG, now I'm going to spend the rest of the night on google trying to find out which novella that was from. Found it!!! It was Raymond F. Jones, author of This Island Earth and Forbidden Planet. The story is Noise Level and here is Stan Deyo talking about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBXmB1OLwMk Thanks, Nigel! T
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Found it!!! It was Raymond F. Jones, author of This Island Earth and Forbidden Planet. You know, of course, that Giuseppe Levi starred in the movie This Island Earth. T attachment: levi.JPG
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: You know, of course, that Giuseppe Levi starred in the movie This Island Earth. He actually built an inteROSSitor to get the part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interocitor http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047577/ T
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Ew! We are all being PUNished. Anyone who understands these references needs to see the Mystery Science Theater 3000 movie, which poked fun at This Island Earth. From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: You know, of course, that Giuseppe Levi starred in the movie This Island Earth. He actually built an inteROSSitor to get the part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interocitor http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047577/ T
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:09 PM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: Ew! We are all being PUNished. Not all. Just you uninformed newbies. I originally published this in April when we went over all things you are rehashing. T
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:09 PM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: Ew! We are all being PUNished. Not all. Just you uninformed newbies. I originally published this in April when we went over all things you are rehashing. No, silly, April 4th, three days later. T
RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Terry sez: You know, of course, that Giuseppe Levi starred in the movie This Island Earth. OMG! The resemblance is striking. What does this really mean! Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:19 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear! All your BBBs are belong to us! T
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: So, you're saying that Jed Rothwell is wrong when he has stated repeatedly that he has never caught Rossi lying about his work? No, the Ni claims are not based on Rossi's own work, and they are mostly theoretical. We discussed this at length. I made it clear I do not believe those claims. I do not know what to make of them. That's really the basis of everything Rothwell is claiming: Although Rossi lies about all sorts of other things, we can trust what he says about his science. That is not even close to what I say. You do not understand what I said. You have not read the literature. You are not contributing anything. If you keep up this blather I will be pleased to add you to my kill file. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I continue to be reminded of a (Isaac Asimov?) science fiction story I read as a child where a group of scientists are shown a film of what they are told is an anti gravity machine, which takes off, flies a bit then blows up. They are told that the inventer, the only person who knew how it worked, was killed. They then spend six months(?) working together and produce a new anti-gravity machine. They are then told that the film was a fake and there was no such inventor. Nigel, this thought actually occurred to me a while back and it has an interesting credibility. Everyone thinks that Steve Jobs created the iPad; but, it was not SJ. It was actually Gene Roddenberry. He also created the cell phone and many other devices which are not yet created. We all look forward to teleportation; but, that one might belong to Alfred Bester. Along these lines, one might think that nuclear weapons belong to HG Wells in The World Set Free in 1914. And what of the yet to happen (or not) alien invasion? Cold fusion certainly does not belong to the Spiderman II. How far back in science fiction does that one go? There is a strange thing being touted lately called Quantum Jumping (Google it). If you are not happy with your reality, jump to another. Actually, this is an idea that occurred to me in my youth back in the 70s (thanks to some mushrooms growing in cow dung in south Georgia). Every time we are faced with a decision, both choices are created; but, we choose the path to take. It has a basis in string theory. Ask Leonard Susskind. It does explain the paradox of free will versus predetermination. T
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On 22/01/2012 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com mailto:john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: So, you're saying that Jed Rothwell is wrong when he has stated repeatedly that he has never caught Rossi lying about his work? No, the Ni claims are not based on Rossi's own work, and they are mostly theoretical. We discussed this at length. I made it clear I do not believe those claims. I do not know what to make of them. That's really the basis of everything Rothwell is claiming: Although Rossi lies about all sorts of other things, we can trust what he says about his science. That is not even close to what I say. You do not understand what I said. You have not read the literature. You are not contributing anything. If you keep up this blather I will be pleased to add you to my kill file. - Jed Rossi lied about the BBB being shipped to a secret customer. He lied again when he stated he was attending the secret install site to help the secret customer do the install. There was no translation issue here. Rossi deliberately lied at least twice about the biggest event in his life and in the history of LENR. Would this not suggest Rossi has lied about a lot of other, not so important to him things? What happened to the private sale to a customer in the NE of the US that was to be made public? There is only one BBB in his factory and it ain't working. Is this just another lie that Rossi created to keep the PR machine he has created rolling along? Remember when he receiver negative feedback about the home E-Cat, like there is no capacity to do running hot water? That problem is magically fixed a few days later with Rossi announcing they have just made another amazing development and the home E-Cat can now do on demand running hot water. The guy says what his public wants to hear. He may think he can make this happen but makes statements that are at best highly misleading and are in reality just knee jerk statements to keep the potential buyers happy. He just doesn't tell the truth which of course calls into question all his data. How can anyone trust data generated by a man who lies on demand and who refuses to let anyone do an independent Black Box test? I'm sure there are lots of qualified labs that would do this and would let Rossi be present to ensure they did not try to find out how the reactor worked. I realize you do not want to see LENR die, but surly even you see it is time to cut Rossi adrift until he does real independent tests, which he has refused to do. Instead he says, trust me it works. With Rossi being caught out as a serial liar and refusing to allow independent testing for fear of exposing his trade secret (a fear which can easily be overcome), any serious independent person would conclude the E-Cat can't deliver what he claims it can and this is all a scam. I agree LENR reactions can be made to work but not at the level Rossi claims to have achieved. The man has been caught lying on multiple occasions. Not just little white lies but really big and important whopper lies. He has conned you and all the rest of the want to believe types. Wake up Jed before he drags you down as well. Shaun
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi lied about the BBB being shipped to a secret customer. He never told Lewan it shipped. Lewan knew it was in the workshop the whole time. Rossi made no effort to cover this up. So if was a lie, it was pointless, and not covered up. I would call that careless blabbing, not exactly lying. He has a habit of saying whatever nonsense pops into his head. So do many prominent skeptics, such as Robert Park. He lied again when he stated he was attending the secret install site to help the secret customer do the install. Maybe. Maybe not. There is often installation work to be done before the equipment arrives. Who knows? It is his business. He can say anything he wants about it. He often says strange and contradictory stuff. I made a whole compendium of it. You should learn to ignore that, or take it in stride. Don't get all worked up about it. It has no bearing on the scientific validity of his claims, which have been established independently. So what if he lies as much as Edison did? Why should anyone give a damn about it? There was no translation issue here. Rossi deliberately lied at least twice about the biggest event in his life and in the history of LENR. I would not call this the biggest events in the history of LENR. Anyway, it is ongoing. I expect he did sell the gadget, and he will install it eventually. Things like this are often delayed. Nothing to get worked up about. Would this not suggest Rossi has lied about a lot of other, not so important to him things? Who cares if he has? It is irrelevant. It has no effect on the validity of independently replicated claims. I cannot understand this obsession with personality and Rossi's personal life! Are you going to talk about his sex life or his tax returns next?!? The guy is not running for political office. He is not bucking to become the Pope. So stop worrying his personality and his personal life. If you don't trust him, don't sign a contract with him. I wouldn't. What happened to the private sale to a customer in the NE of the US that was to be made public? Who gives a damn? It is none of your business. He may think he can make this happen but makes statements that are at best highly misleading and are in reality just knee jerk statements to keep the potential buyers happy. If I were a potential buyer, I would not be happy with Rossi and his statements. I would be about as unhappy as a buyer can be. He just doesn't tell the truth which of course calls into question all his data. No, it doesn't. His data has been independently confirmed by other people. Highly skilled, trustworthy people. Anyway, he doesn't exactly lie. He just spouts off and says things he does not mean. I have known many people like that. Once you discover you are dealing with such a person, you should stop getting upset. Take it in stride. Verify everything they say. If you invite them into your house, hide the silverware and valuables. The man has been caught lying on multiple occasions. Not just little white lies but really big and important whopper lies. He has conned you and all the rest of the want to believe types. Wake up Jed before he drags you down as well. Oh bullshit. He can't con other people's thermocouples, or replications thousands of miles away from him, in labs he has never been to. He has no supernatural powers. Stop with the dramatic potboiler thriller scenarios. This is real life. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Ask Leonard Susskind. Who he is: http://fora.tv/2007/01/24/Cosmic_Landscape T
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On 22/01/2012 12:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Oh bullshit. He can't con other people's thermocouples, or replications thousands of miles away from him, in labs he has never been to. He has no supernatural powers. Stop with the dramatic potboiler thriller scenarios. This is real life. - Jed Maybe I missed it. When did anyone do an independent test of one of Rossi's devices? A test were Rossi did not start up the reactor, was not at the controls during the test run, did not select and place the various test devices, did not design the test setup, did not define the test protocol nor conduct the test? I can't seem to find such a test. In every test it seems he did all these things himself, even refusing to allow others to bring their own test equipment. Rossi lied about the BBB shipping at least 3 times that I can find in writing as well as verbally in interviews. If you think the news that a 500 kW self sustaining LENR reactor had been tested and shipped to the happy customer is not the biggest piece of news since 1989, then what was bigger? Fact the facts, Rossi lied about the single biggest event in the history of Cold Fusion. The BBB never shipped. If Lewans knew it had not shipped and never made that fact public, well then he has a few questions to answer about why he covered it up. Especially when Rossi proclaimed to the world It is gone when asked if the BBB had been shipped to the secret customer. Then said on several occasions he was attending the secret customer's US install site to do the install. We now know he never did the install trip to the secret customers site as the BBB never moved. So he lied again. Where do his lies stop and the truth start? He lied about the biggest event in LENR history, so why not lie about a lot of other smaller stuff? So Lewans has now admitted knowing about the lie. Why did he keep quiet? Doesn't he know his journalistic reputation is now in question as are now all his reports. His is clearly biased. Who will believe what he write about Rossi anymore? Lewans will not be the last person who will come forward with information they withheld. Information which would have cast serious doubt on Rossi and his Ecat. Jed I do believe there are working LENR generators out there. And maybe yes Rossi's does work somewhat but not to the level he claims. There is not one scrap of independent data that supports his output, COP and Life After Death claims. NONE. That you don't find that of concern, is of itself a concern. There is no way it will be UL certified and on sale in the US this year no matter what Rossi says. Anyone who knows how product certification process works will know that. Especially as he has now claimed his reactor does produce 511 keV gammas. Just they don't escape as are self shielded by a secret LENR reaction that has no proven theory. You really think UL will just roll over and give their blessing for domestic Ecat sales? Never happen. No way. Fairy tale stuff. Why then you ask is Rossi making these fairy tale statements? Well maybe his bank balance is low, he needs funds and is selling licenses to raise more money based on his order book? You remember the 10,000 pre Ecat orders he claims he has. We have first hand information from Ian Bryce of the Australian Skeptics on the Sol Millin Ecat fund raising meeting he attended, which sure seems to back up the view that Rossi is indirectly engaged in low level investor based fund raising despite what he may claim. I mean what is another lie to Rossi when he lied about the biggest event in the history of LENR? I don't include the 1989 Ponds and Fleischmann announcement as that was not a lie. I don't want to associate their outstanding achievement with that of Rossi. Oh did I mention that at the Sol Millin BNE meeting they were taking Ecat preorders and quoting a price of $1,000 to $1,500 for a 10 kW home unit. Slide show from the meeting. http://www.byronnewenergy.com/wiki/UserData/Mullum%20Presentation%20ver%201.1.6.2.bne.ppt Web site. http://www.byronnewenergy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page Shaun
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
The Ni claims are based on Rossi's comments in his blog. Rossi claims to be enhancing the Nickel fuel, and it's obvious from his comments that he's referring to changing the natural isotope ratios. Based on Rossi's statements, he *must* be doing this for no more than a few cents per gram. Based on the responses to my original question, no one has a clue how Rossi might be doing this, and apparently even his most feverish supporters believe it's a lie on Rossi's part. Sorry if I mis-stated your position on Rossi's lies. I had understood your position to be that Rossi only lies about things other than the technical issues related to the E-Cat. I guess even you accept that Rossi lies about *everything*. You are, of course, free to add me to your kill file. I will continue to read your comments, even though they are usually based on nothing more than argument by authority. John From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: So, you're saying that Jed Rothwell is wrong when he has stated repeatedly that he has never caught Rossi lying about his work? No, the Ni claims are not based on Rossi's own work, and they are mostly theoretical. We discussed this at length. I made it clear I do not believe those claims. I do not know what to make of them. That's really the basis of everything Rothwell is claiming: Although Rossi lies about all sorts of other things, we can trust what he says about his science. That is not even close to what I say. You do not understand what I said. You have not read the literature. You are not contributing anything. If you keep up this blather I will be pleased to add you to my kill file. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
That might have some value if Lewan mentioned it *before* this issue blew up in Rossi's face. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi lied about the BBB being shipped to a secret customer. He never told Lewan it shipped.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
*From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:46 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi lied about the BBB being shipped to a secret customer. He never told Lewan it shipped. You expect me to believe Lewans doesn't read Rossi blog. The news the BBB that shipped to the secret customer was all over the internet. Lewans knew Rossi had told a very big and dirty lie to the whole world. He also knew the Rossi I went there to do the install statement was a lie. Yet he remained silent. Surly he knew this would not remain a secret for long? Lewans made a bad value call to keep quiet.
