Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
I agree with Bob about the validity of the patent. Unfortunately I believe all patents are ending up in this dilemma. The amount of information is so enormous that it is going to be very hard to defend any patent. In addition there is no way one can get any positive earnings out of the patent only. One need organization, leadership and marketing much more than the patent. If I were in Rossi's position I would stop spending money on protection (patents) and concentrate on developing a commercial product. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: > If I were Rossi or IH, I would worry more about the validity of his patent > due to prior art. There is so much ART that is described over the years in > online forums, particularly in Vortex-L, that a search used by any would be > patent busting organization would likely turn up amazing prior art public > disclosure for many of the things in his claims. If I were hired to bust a > patent, that's where I would begin. > > I don't think any controlling patent will survive for the basic LENR > mechanisms due to prior art public disclosures (not necessarily by the > inventors). The valuable patents will be for the machines that utilize > LENR in the future. > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > >> What you say is interesting and possibly explains something of the >> economic considerations relating to nickel that go into the E-Cat. What >> caught my interest in the lack of detail about nickel in the patent >> application cited below went back to the earlier thread on the reliability >> of the Lugano isotope assays. If they were intentionally compromised, and >> were nonetheless used as evidence in the patent application, this would >> have endangered the patent, once granted, if there was a patent suit. >> >> In other words, the lack of mention is a small piece of circumstantial >> evidence in support of your hunch that 62Ni was added before the blank run >> for no obvious operational reason (e.g., so that the ash analysis would be >> compromised). Not a smoking gun by any means, but interesting nonetheless. >> >
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
If I were Rossi or IH, I would worry more about the validity of his patent due to prior art. There is so much ART that is described over the years in online forums, particularly in Vortex-L, that a search used by any would be patent busting organization would likely turn up amazing prior art public disclosure for many of the things in his claims. If I were hired to bust a patent, that's where I would begin. I don't think any controlling patent will survive for the basic LENR mechanisms due to prior art public disclosures (not necessarily by the inventors). The valuable patents will be for the machines that utilize LENR in the future. On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > What you say is interesting and possibly explains something of the > economic considerations relating to nickel that go into the E-Cat. What > caught my interest in the lack of detail about nickel in the patent > application cited below went back to the earlier thread on the reliability > of the Lugano isotope assays. If they were intentionally compromised, and > were nonetheless used as evidence in the patent application, this would > have endangered the patent, once granted, if there was a patent suit. > > In other words, the lack of mention is a small piece of circumstantial > evidence in support of your hunch that 62Ni was added before the blank run > for no obvious operational reason (e.g., so that the ash analysis would be > compromised). Not a smoking gun by any means, but interesting nonetheless. >
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
I wrote: > In other words, the lack of mention is a small piece of circumstantial > evidence in support of your hunch that 62Ni was added before the blank run > for no obvious operational reason (e.g., so that the ash analysis would be > compromised). Not a smoking gun by any means, but interesting nonetheless. I gather your hunch is that the subsequent natural nickel offered as the "fuel" is what would not have had an operational basis. But the general idea still holds. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
What you say is interesting and possibly explains something of the economic considerations relating to nickel that go into the E-Cat. What caught my interest in the lack of detail about nickel in the patent application cited below went back to the earlier thread on the reliability of the Lugano isotope assays. If they were intentionally compromised, and were nonetheless used as evidence in the patent application, this would have endangered the patent, once granted, if there was a patent suit. In other words, the lack of mention is a small piece of circumstantial evidence in support of your hunch that 62Ni was added before the blank run for no obvious operational reason (e.g., so that the ash analysis would be compromised). Not a smoking gun by any means, but interesting nonetheless. > On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:26, Bob Higgins wrote: > > Faced with a working reaction and attempting to optimize it, I am sure Rossi > would have explored the reactivity of the individual isotopes of Ni. In the > process, he may have found that 62Ni was optimum. I would be surprised if he > found out that it was the only isotope that was active. > > Just to put it in perspective, I got a quote from Trace Sciences for 1 gram > of isotopically enriched 62Ni to >95% (natural is 3.6%). The quote was > $11,300.00. While I am sure that this price could come down in purchase of > any significant quantity, it will not be as cheap as Rossi's original > promises. > > It would be far cheaper to just put in more fuel (Ni and LAH) to get the > power you need from the existing 3.6% of the 62Ni in the natural powder.
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
Faced with a working reaction and attempting to optimize it, I am sure Rossi would have explored the reactivity of the individual isotopes of Ni. In the process, he may have found that 62Ni was optimum. I would be surprised if he found out that it was the only isotope that was active. Just to put it in perspective, I got a quote from Trace Sciences for 1 gram of isotopically enriched 62Ni to >95% (natural is 3.6%). The quote was $11,300.00. While I am sure that this price could come down in purchase of any significant quantity, it will not be as cheap as Rossi's original promises. It would be far cheaper to just put in more fuel (Ni and LAH) to get the power you need from the existing 3.6% of the 62Ni in the natural powder. On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Teslaalset > wrote: > > The Ni62 amendments to US2009125444 were sent to the patent office in >> April 2013 while Rossi’s patent US9115913B1 originated as filing in March >> 2012. US91159B1 does not mention specifically Ni62 in the claims, but >> instead the general term ‘Nickel’. These claims were not amended to be more >> specific at a later stage in the patent process, probably for a very good >> reason. >> > > Here is the patent application I was thinking of, where results similar to > (the same as?) those of the Lugano test were incorporated as evidence: > > http://www.google.com/patents/US20140326711 > > Only the byzantine energy calculations are included. There is less than > the usual reference to different isotopes of nickel. I found nothing more > specific than "nickel," and there is no mention of the ICP-MS, ICP-AES, > SEM/EDS or ToF-SIMS results. I assume the evidence goes back to the Lugano > trial, but it's hard to say for sure. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Teslaalset wrote: The Ni62 amendments to US2009125444 were sent to the patent office in April > 2013 while Rossi’s patent US9115913B1 originated as filing in March 2012. > US91159B1 does not mention specifically Ni62 in the claims, but instead the > general term ‘Nickel’. These claims were not amended to be more specific at > a later stage in the patent process, probably for a very good reason. > Here is the patent application I was thinking of, where results similar to (the same as?) those of the Lugano test were incorporated as evidence: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140326711 Only the byzantine energy calculations are included. There is less than the usual reference to different isotopes of nickel. I found nothing more specific than "nickel," and there is no mention of the ICP-MS, ICP-AES, SEM/EDS or ToF-SIMS results. I assume the evidence goes back to the Lugano trial, but it's hard to say for sure. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
In reply to Teslaalset's message of Sat, 3 Oct 2015 20:18:09 +0200: Hi, At that time didn't he still think that the primary reaction was Ni62 + H => Cu63? If so, then specifying Ni62 explicitly would make sense because Cu63 is stable. >Rossis patent application WO2009125444 had a major claim change on April >15, 2013 (initiated in the European patent family member EP2259998), >stating that the applied Nickel SHALL be Ni62. The discussed matter in this >discussion thread could well be tightly related to the amended claims >'EUIP5C400118284_EP08873805_en')>. > >In recent granted patent, Rossi indicates that Nickel acts as catalyst, not >mentioning Ni62 specifically. Maybe this should be combined with Rossis >amended claims of WO2009125444 > >Rob Woudenberg > > >On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> *From:* Eric Walker >> >> >> >> Ø I do not assume anything at this point about what Industrial Heat knew >> or didn't know in connection with Rossi's preparation for the Lugano test. >> >> >> >> The patent in question is not in their name, so this doesnt relate to >> them very much. >> >> >> >> Given the amount of money reportedly involved in the E-Cat licensing, >> there is a fair chance that IH was offered the patent rights as assignee - >> but refused, suspecting that this kind of problem would arise. Thus, IH >> appear to have taken a completely different approach in their own filing - >> and they have steered clear of this isotope issue. >> >> >> >> An interesting point is this regard is China, since IH has strong >> connections. It would be interesting to look at the Chinese patent filings >> to see what IH did file over there. >> >> >> >> The Chinese market for LENR could easily be larger than the US market >> and possibly by a factor of 10 times, given the larger population and >> growing desire to cut down on dirty coal, and given there is no competition >> or interference from BIG OIL/ OPEC. >> >> >> >> *From:* Eric Walker >> >> >> >> Intentionally fiddling around with the nickel isotopes without having an >> operational reason to do so strikes me as active sabotage of the ash assay, >> rather than passive standing back and allowing the Lugano team to >> concluding what they will. So I have a hard time concluding anything but >> subterfuge in connection with this specific detail of the Lugano test if >> Bob's scenario is what occurred. It is possible that there is a similar, >> but more benign, scenario that actually transpired. >> >> >> >> I'm personally holding out for an active role for the nickel, though. :) >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> Jones Beene wrote: >> >> Dont forget that the Lugano report, containing the fallacious isotope >> data - was apparently submitted directly to the patent office as >> documentation for obtaining the IP. This detail was mentioned in ARs >> blog, IIRC. It is probably one reason that Rossi got the expedited grant >> (in addition to age, which now allows an expedited process). >> >> That is where the real problem lies. See Manual of Patent Examining >> Procedure Section 2016 on Fraud. This could be a costly problem which >> has repercussions far beyond the original filing. However, the USPTO does >> not do this kind of investigation it will only come up in a challenge, >> and must be proved by the opposing party which could be Piantelli. >> >> Thus us was a STUPID strategy to go to court with Piantelli so early. With >> discovery (the legal procedure) the truth about the isotopes could come >> out very soon. >> >> >> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
If theory of how the LENR reaction works is included in the Patent, and
that theory is later disproved, is the patent invalidated? If this is so,
is it not best to keep theory out of a patent?
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Teslaalset
wrote:
> I had included the link to the amended claims in the orginal posting, but
> it seems including hyperlinks with a substitute does not work at Vortex.
> Here is the
> link:
> javascript:NewPDFWindow('application?documentId=EUIP5C400118284&number=EP08873805&lng=en&npl=false',
> 'EUIP5C400118284_EP08873805_en')
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Teslaalset
> wrote:
>
>> Rossi’s patent application WO2009125444 had a major claim change on April
>> 15, 2013 (initiated in the European patent family member EP2259998),
>> stating that the applied Nickel SHALL be Ni62. The discussed matter in this
>> discussion thread could well be tightly related to the amended claims.
>>
>> In recent granted patent, Rossi indicates that Nickel acts as catalyst,
>> not mentioning Ni62 specifically. Maybe this should be combined with
>> Rossi’s amended claims of WO2009125444
>>
>> Rob Woudenberg
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>>> *From:* Eric Walker
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ø I do not assume anything at this point about what Industrial Heat
>>> knew or didn't know in connection with Rossi's preparation for the Lugano
>>> test.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The patent in question is not in their name, so this doesn’t relate to
>>> them very much.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Given the amount of money reportedly involved in the E-Cat licensing,
>>> there is a fair chance that IH was offered the patent rights as assignee -
>>> but refused, suspecting that this kind of problem would arise. Thus, IH
>>> appear to have taken a completely different approach in their own filing -
>>> and they have steered clear of this isotope issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An interesting point is this regard is China, since IH has strong
>>> connections. It would be interesting to look at the Chinese patent filings
>>> to see what IH did file over there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Chinese market for LENR could easily be larger than the US market –
>>> and possibly by a factor of 10 times, given the larger population and
>>> growing desire to cut down on dirty coal, and given there is no competition
>>> or interference from BIG OIL/ OPEC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Eric Walker
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Intentionally fiddling around with the nickel isotopes without having an
>>> operational reason to do so strikes me as active sabotage of the ash assay,
>>> rather than passive standing back and allowing the Lugano team to
>>> concluding what they will. So I have a hard time concluding anything but
>>> subterfuge in connection with this specific detail of the Lugano test if
>>> Bob's scenario is what occurred. It is possible that there is a similar,
>>> but more benign, scenario that actually transpired.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm personally holding out for an active role for the nickel, though. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jones Beene wrote:
>>>
>>> Don’t forget that the Lugano report, containing the fallacious isotope
>>> data - was apparently submitted directly to the patent office as
>>> documentation for obtaining the IP. This detail was mentioned in AR’s
>>> blog, IIRC. It is probably one reason that Rossi got the expedited grant
>>> (in addition to age, which now allows an expedited process).
>>>
>>> That is where the real problem lies. See “Manual of Patent Examining
>>> Procedure” Section 2016 on Fraud. This could be a costly problem which
>>> has repercussions far beyond the original filing. However, the USPTO
>>> does not do this kind of investigation – it will only come up in a
>>> challenge, and must be proved by the opposing party – which could be
>>> Piantelli.
>>>
>>> Thus us was a STUPID strategy to go to court with Piantelli so early. With
>>> “discovery” (the legal procedure) the truth about the isotopes could
>>> come out very soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
I had included the link to the amended claims in the orginal posting, but
it seems including hyperlinks with a substitute does not work at Vortex.
Here is the
link:
javascript:NewPDFWindow('application?documentId=EUIP5C400118284&number=EP08873805&lng=en&npl=false',
'EUIP5C400118284_EP08873805_en')
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Teslaalset
wrote:
> Rossi’s patent application WO2009125444 had a major claim change on April
> 15, 2013 (initiated in the European patent family member EP2259998),
> stating that the applied Nickel SHALL be Ni62. The discussed matter in this
> discussion thread could well be tightly related to the amended claims.
>
> In recent granted patent, Rossi indicates that Nickel acts as catalyst,
> not mentioning Ni62 specifically. Maybe this should be combined with
> Rossi’s amended claims of WO2009125444
>
> Rob Woudenberg
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> *From:* Eric Walker
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø I do not assume anything at this point about what Industrial Heat
>> knew or didn't know in connection with Rossi's preparation for the Lugano
>> test.
>>
>>
>>
>> The patent in question is not in their name, so this doesn’t relate to
>> them very much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the amount of money reportedly involved in the E-Cat licensing,
>> there is a fair chance that IH was offered the patent rights as assignee -
>> but refused, suspecting that this kind of problem would arise. Thus, IH
>> appear to have taken a completely different approach in their own filing -
>> and they have steered clear of this isotope issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> An interesting point is this regard is China, since IH has strong
>> connections. It would be interesting to look at the Chinese patent filings
>> to see what IH did file over there.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Chinese market for LENR could easily be larger than the US market –
>> and possibly by a factor of 10 times, given the larger population and
>> growing desire to cut down on dirty coal, and given there is no competition
>> or interference from BIG OIL/ OPEC.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Eric Walker
>>
>>
>>
>> Intentionally fiddling around with the nickel isotopes without having an
>> operational reason to do so strikes me as active sabotage of the ash assay,
>> rather than passive standing back and allowing the Lugano team to
>> concluding what they will. So I have a hard time concluding anything but
>> subterfuge in connection with this specific detail of the Lugano test if
>> Bob's scenario is what occurred. It is possible that there is a similar,
>> but more benign, scenario that actually transpired.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm personally holding out for an active role for the nickel, though. :)
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>> Don’t forget that the Lugano report, containing the fallacious isotope
>> data - was apparently submitted directly to the patent office as
>> documentation for obtaining the IP. This detail was mentioned in AR’s
>> blog, IIRC. It is probably one reason that Rossi got the expedited grant
>> (in addition to age, which now allows an expedited process).
>>
>> That is where the real problem lies. See “Manual of Patent Examining
>> Procedure” Section 2016 on Fraud. This could be a costly problem which
>> has repercussions far beyond the original filing. However, the USPTO
>> does not do this kind of investigation – it will only come up in a
>> challenge, and must be proved by the opposing party – which could be
>> Piantelli.
>>
>> Thus us was a STUPID strategy to go to court with Piantelli so early. With
>> “discovery” (the legal procedure) the truth about the isotopes could
>> come out very soon.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
Rossi’s patent application WO2009125444 had a major claim change on April 15, 2013 (initiated in the European patent family member EP2259998), stating that the applied Nickel SHALL be Ni62. The discussed matter in this discussion thread could well be tightly related to the amended claims . In recent granted patent, Rossi indicates that Nickel acts as catalyst, not mentioning Ni62 specifically. Maybe this should be combined with Rossi’s amended claims of WO2009125444 Rob Woudenberg On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Eric Walker > > > > Ø I do not assume anything at this point about what Industrial Heat knew > or didn't know in connection with Rossi's preparation for the Lugano test. > > > > The patent in question is not in their name, so this doesn’t relate to > them very much. > > > > Given the amount of money reportedly involved in the E-Cat licensing, > there is a fair chance that IH was offered the patent rights as assignee - > but refused, suspecting that this kind of problem would arise. Thus, IH > appear to have taken a completely different approach in their own filing - > and they have steered clear of this isotope issue. > > > > An interesting point is this regard is China, since IH has strong > connections. It would be interesting to look at the Chinese patent filings > to see what IH did file over there. > > > > The Chinese market for LENR could easily be larger than the US market – > and possibly by a factor of 10 times, given the larger population and > growing desire to cut down on dirty coal, and given there is no competition > or interference from BIG OIL/ OPEC. > > > > *From:* Eric Walker > > > > Intentionally fiddling around with the nickel isotopes without having an > operational reason to do so strikes me as active sabotage of the ash assay, > rather than passive standing back and allowing the Lugano team to > concluding what they will. So I have a hard time concluding anything but > subterfuge in connection with this specific detail of the Lugano test if > Bob's scenario is what occurred. It is possible that there is a similar, > but more benign, scenario that actually transpired. > > > > I'm personally holding out for an active role for the nickel, though. :) > > > > Eric > > > > > > Jones Beene wrote: > > Don’t forget that the Lugano report, containing the fallacious isotope > data - was apparently submitted directly to the patent office as > documentation for obtaining the IP. This detail was mentioned in AR’s > blog, IIRC. It is probably one reason that Rossi got the expedited grant > (in addition to age, which now allows an expedited process). > > That is where the real problem lies. See “Manual of Patent Examining > Procedure” Section 2016 on Fraud. This could be a costly problem which > has repercussions far beyond the original filing. However, the USPTO does > not do this kind of investigation – it will only come up in a challenge, > and must be proved by the opposing party – which could be Piantelli. > > Thus us was a STUPID strategy to go to court with Piantelli so early. With > “discovery” (the legal procedure) the truth about the isotopes could come > out very soon. > > >
RE: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
From: Eric Walker Ø I do not assume anything at this point about what Industrial Heat knew or didn't know in connection with Rossi's preparation for the Lugano test. The patent in question is not in their name, so this doesn’t relate to them very much. Given the amount of money reportedly involved in the E-Cat licensing, there is a fair chance that IH was offered the patent rights as assignee - but refused, suspecting that this kind of problem would arise. Thus, IH appear to have taken a completely different approach in their own filing - and they have steered clear of this isotope issue. An interesting point is this regard is China, since IH has strong connections. It would be interesting to look at the Chinese patent filings to see what IH did file over there. The Chinese market for LENR could easily be larger than the US market – and possibly by a factor of 10 times, given the larger population and growing desire to cut down on dirty coal, and given there is no competition or interference from BIG OIL/ OPEC. From: Eric Walker Intentionally fiddling around with the nickel isotopes without having an operational reason to do so strikes me as active sabotage of the ash assay, rather than passive standing back and allowing the Lugano team to concluding what they will. So I have a hard time concluding anything but subterfuge in connection with this specific detail of the Lugano test if Bob's scenario is what occurred. It is possible that there is a similar, but more benign, scenario that actually transpired. I'm personally holding out for an active role for the nickel, though. :) Eric Jones Beene wrote: Don’t forget that the Lugano report, containing the fallacious isotope data - was apparently submitted directly to the patent office as documentation for obtaining the IP. This detail was mentioned in AR’s blog, IIRC. It is probably one reason that Rossi got the expedited grant (in addition to age, which now allows an expedited process). That is where the real problem lies. See “Manual of Patent Examining Procedure” Section 2016 on Fraud. This could be a costly problem which has repercussions far beyond the original filing. However, the USPTO does not do this kind of investigation – it will only come up in a challenge, and must be proved by the opposing party – which could be Piantelli. Thus us was a STUPID strategy to go to court with Piantelli so early. With “discovery” (the legal procedure) the truth about the isotopes could come out very soon.
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
It sounds like there could be a legal house of cards, then, if deception is shown during a patent suit. I remember a recent patent application by Rossi whose description seemed to incorporate large portions of the Lugano report as evidence. I was wondering whether the isotope analysis was included in that application; if it was omitted, I suppose the patent might not be endangered. I do not assume anything at this point about what Industrial Heat knew or didn't know in connection with Rossi's preparation for the Lugano test. Intentionally fiddling around with the nickel isotopes without having an operational reason to do so strikes me as active sabotage of the ash assay, rather than passive standing back and allowing the Lugano team to concluding what they will. So I have a hard time concluding anything but subterfuge in connection with this specific detail of the Lugano test if Bob's scenario is what occurred. It is possible that there is a similar, but more benign, scenario that actually transpired. I'm personally holding out for an active role for the nickel, though. :) Eric On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Don’t forget that the Lugano report, containing the fallacious isotope > data - was apparently submitted directly to the patent office as > documentation for obtaining the IP. This detail was mentioned in AR’s blog > , IIRC. It is probably one reason that Rossi got the expedited grant (in > addition to age, which now allows an expedited process). > > That is where the real problem lies. See “Manual of Patent Examining > Procedure” Section 2016 on Fraud. This could be a costly problem which > has repercussions far beyond the original filing. However, the USPTO does > not do this kind of investigation – it will only come up in a challenge, > and must be proved by the opposing party – which could be Piantelli. > > Thus us was a STUPID strategy to go to court with Piantelli so early. With > “discovery” (the legal procedure) the truth about the isotopes could come > out very soon. >
RE: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
Don’t forget that the Lugano report, containing the fallacious isotope data - was apparently submitted directly to the patent office as documentation for obtaining the IP. This detail was mentioned in AR’s blog, IIRC. It is probably one reason that Rossi got the expedited grant (in addition to age, which now allows an expedited process). That is where the real problem lies. See “Manual of Patent Examining Procedure” Section 2016 on Fraud. This could be a costly problem which has repercussions far beyond the original filing. However, the USPTO does not do this kind of investigation – it will only come up in a challenge, and must be proved by the opposing party – which could be Piantelli. Thus us was a STUPID strategy to go to court with Piantelli so early. With “discovery” (the legal procedure) the truth about the isotopes could come out very soon. From: Eric Walker Bob Higgins wrote: I don't consider this to be subterfuge on Rossi's behalf. I don't think he ever agreed to full open access to everything from his design. If that is the case, please remind me never to do business with you! Trust that someone is being straightforward is very important in business. Based on this, I cannot consider differential isotopic analysis from fuel to ash in the Lugano experiment to have any credibility. I just want to note here that If it were one scientist working with another scientist, the lack of credibility of the ash assay would be a huge deal. Obviously this is a different situation, but the point is an interesting one nonetheless. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: I don't consider this to be subterfuge on Rossi's behalf. I don't think he > ever agreed to full open access to everything from his design. > If that is the case, please remind me never to do business with you! Trust that someone is being straightforward is very important in business. Based on this, I cannot consider differential isotopic analysis from fuel > to ash in the Lugano experiment to have any credibility. > I just want to note here that If it were one scientist working with another scientist, the lack of credibility of the ash assay would be a huge deal. Obviously this is a different situation, but the point is an interesting one nonetheless. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
ICP-MS does digest the entire "sample", but the sample used is typically 1-2 small 100 micron scale particles - not the entire ash or grams of it. So, in the Lugano report on page 45 where they show Particle1 and Particle2 of the ash and the accompanying EDS, it is likely that they only digested Particle1 - the Ni rich particle - or another particle like it. EDS would only have looked at the top micron of the particles, but by digestion in acid, the average composition of the entire particle is tested. Digestion is target specific too. For example, if it was known that they were going to do platinum isotopic analysis as well, the platinum would not have dissolved (digested) into the same acid as the Ni. Based on previous experiments with this material taken to 1000+C, the resulting ash is a sparsely sintered material that is not easy to remove from the reactor without cracking it open. Even if the added 62Ni had been granular before the dummy runs, it certainly would not have been granular after the dummy run. In the Glowstick designs, both ends are easy to open and the ash can be simply rodded out. In the Lugano hotCat, the reactor tube was closed at one end with a glued cap before the reactor was provided and after the fuel was added a cap was glued to the other end. Because one end was closed in the beginning, it may have been difficult to determine if the reactor tube was empty before the "fuel" powder was added - it was only a 4mm bore tube 200mm long. At the end of the 32 days, one end cap was broken to remove the ash. The ash would have been difficult to remove from just one end, and it is not clear what percentage of the ash was withdrawn from the reactor. While it was said that ~1g of fuel powder was added, no mention was made of how much ash was removed. It would have been suspicious if 1.5g of ash came out. No picture was shown of the ash as it was removed, nor was any mention made of its amount. Again, this pre-loading of 62Ni is just a scenario we cannot rule out on the basis of the Lugano report. Failing to answer questions about the possibility that the reactor tube was not empty when the "fuel" powder was poured in, completely leaves this possibility open. The recent Parkhomov presentation shows no movement in the isotopic composition of the Ni in his experiments, those of MFMP's Alan Goldwater, and in Songsheng Jiang's experiment. This lack of Ni isotopic shift in the other experiments is suspicious when compared to the nearly compete and unexpected Ni isotopic shift in the reported results of the Lugano experiment. I don't consider this to be subterfuge on Rossi's behalf. I don't think he ever agreed to full open access to everything from his design. I thought it was amazing that the Lugano experimenters had access to any of his fuel or ash given his patent status. Though in retrospect, it appears that the Lugano test was part of a ploy to help get his patent applications seriously considered and one of his applications reads like it was taken directly from the Lugano report text. Based on this, I cannot consider differential isotopic analysis from fuel to ash in the Lugano experiment to have any credibility. It is valuable analysis for at least a part of the fuel (it gave us the LAH). It is not clear at all what conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of the ash. Perhaps the isotopic change in the Li could be real as isotopic shifts of Li were seen in Parkhomov's experiment and that of Jiang - but they went in opposite directions and were too small to draw a conclusion. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > I do not by any means rule out the scenario you propose. I only attempt > to draw out its implications. > > If what you say is what happened, I see several implications. A first > implication is that the 62Ni would have had to have been relatively > granular and segregated from the "fuel" nickel, even after undergoing high > temperature excursions. The reason I referred to the ICP-MS and AES > analyses is because (to my knowledge) they involve digesting the entire > sample, as you describe. Since the isotope analysis of the ash showed > nearly pure 62Ni, there was no mixing or sintering of the 62Ni with the > residual "fuel" nickel. That means that any functional role played by 62Ni > would have to work in a granular form. > > A second implication is that either the "fuel" was sampled prior to > insertion into the E-Cat, or it was a bit of random chance that the sample > showed natural isotope ratios, since it might have shown elevated 62Ni > instead. (It seems pretty reasonable that the "fuel" nickel would have > been sampled before insertion, so this implication isn't that big of a > deal.) > > A third implication is that any functional role played by the 62Ni would > be other than the suppression of penetrating radiation. This is because if > the natural-ratio nickel was the source of penetrating radiation, the 62Ni > would be un
RE: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
Excellent hypothesis Bob. This is a million times more likely to have happened than the deception which Rossi is trying to push over on the patent office. My prediction is that the Lugano episode, which is little more than sham PR event, masquerading as science - will cost Rossi, Leonardo an IH the entirety of their IP portfolio protection related to LENR. From: Bob Higgins Ø Yes, my hypothesis is that the reactor tube was not empty when given to the Lugano team to test - it had been pre-loaded with 62Ni. They did their dummy tests with the inert 62Ni by itself (and no H2). When it came time for Rossi to add the "fuel" powder, a sample of what he was putting in was taken for analysis as the "fuel". But, what Rossi put in was not the whole fuel - only some LAH and some natural Ni to obscure the analysis. When the ash was analyzed, it was a mix of a large amount of 62Ni pre-loaded + a smaller amount of natural Ni loaded as powder by Rossi after the dummy test. In the ash analysis, there was still 0.3% of 58Ni, probably from the free "fuel" powder he added after the dummy test. However, in my hypothesis, the ash particles tested were mostly comprised of the original 62Ni that was pre-loaded into the reactor with a small amount of Ni that was added when Rossi added the powder fuel.
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
I do not by any means rule out the scenario you propose. I only attempt to draw out its implications. If what you say is what happened, I see several implications. A first implication is that the 62Ni would have had to have been relatively granular and segregated from the "fuel" nickel, even after undergoing high temperature excursions. The reason I referred to the ICP-MS and AES analyses is because (to my knowledge) they involve digesting the entire sample, as you describe. Since the isotope analysis of the ash showed nearly pure 62Ni, there was no mixing or sintering of the 62Ni with the residual "fuel" nickel. That means that any functional role played by 62Ni would have to work in a granular form. A second implication is that either the "fuel" was sampled prior to insertion into the E-Cat, or it was a bit of random chance that the sample showed natural isotope ratios, since it might have shown elevated 62Ni instead. (It seems pretty reasonable that the "fuel" nickel would have been sampled before insertion, so this implication isn't that big of a deal.) A third implication is that any functional role played by the 62Ni would be other than the suppression of penetrating radiation. This is because if the natural-ratio nickel was the source of penetrating radiation, the 62Ni would be unlikely to help out once the normal nickel was included. So whatever functional role it plays is probably different. (This implication is interesting mostly to me.) A fourth implication in your scenario is that, even if the 62Ni plays a functional role, Rossi seems to have engaged in conscious misdirection by including the natural-ratio nickel in the "fuel" (along with the LAH). (You appear to anticipate this yourself.) Here is an exchange that comes to mind: Team: Andrea, will you allow us to analyze the fuel? Can we do an isotope analysis? (Here the team assumes that it will be a meaningful thing to do.) Rossi: Yes, you can do an isotope analysis. Team: Thank you. We will analyze samples before and after the live run, and we will look at what happens to the fuel. Rossi: Yes, please go ahead and do that if you like. Team: Thank you for being forthcoming. It's possible that your scenario isn't the one that happened. But if it is, it's hard to see how to avoid a conclusion of misdirection, unless there's a functional role that is played by the 62Ni and a different functional role played by the natural-isotope nickel. At this point, explanations start to get pretty fancy. A relevant question here is the role that the isotope analysis played, if any, in Industrial Heat's due diligence process. I should mention that I'm still optimistic that the nickel was active, so I don't necessarily assume misdirection at this point. Your scenario is interesting nonetheless. Eric On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > Yes, my hypothesis is that the reactor tube was not empty when given to > the Lugano team to test - it had been pre-loaded with 62Ni. They did their > dummy tests with the inert 62Ni by itself (and no H2). When it came time > for Rossi to add the "fuel" powder, a sample of what he was putting in was > taken for analysis as the "fuel". But, what Rossi put in was not the whole > fuel - only some LAH and some natural Ni to obscure the analysis. When the > ash was analyzed, it was a mix of a large amount of 62Ni pre-loaded + a > smaller amount of natural Ni loaded as powder by Rossi after the dummy > test. In the ash analysis, there was still 0.3% of 58Ni, probably from the > free "fuel" powder he added after the dummy test. However, in my > hypothesis, the ash particles tested were mostly comprised of the original > 62Ni that was pre-loaded into the reactor with a small amount of Ni that > was added when Rossi added the powder fuel. > > The ICP-MS and AES only tested the particles that were sampled from > Rossi's powder fuel before he added it to the reactor, and then the > particles that were shaken loose from the sintered mass of ash in the > reactor after the experiment. The ICP-MS analysis begins with chemical > digestion of a few small particles, I think in ultra-pure nitric acid. > This acid with the dissolved metals is injected into the spectrometer. > ICP-MS only tests the average composition of the digested particles in the > acid. ICP-MS does not analyze the materials while still in the reactor > like some sort of MRI. AES is an optical emission spectrum measurement on > the excited plasma that feeds the mass spectrometer in the ICP machine - > testing the same digested particles. > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Bob Higgins >> wrote >> >> Just to make sure I understand your hypothesis -- 62Ni is added prior to >> the blank runs, before the natural-ratio nickel fuel was added. It is then >> present during the blank runs and doesn't do anything, because by >> hypothesis it is presumed to be inert. Then jus
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
Yes, my hypothesis is that the reactor tube was not empty when given to the Lugano team to test - it had been pre-loaded with 62Ni. They did their dummy tests with the inert 62Ni by itself (and no H2). When it came time for Rossi to add the "fuel" powder, a sample of what he was putting in was taken for analysis as the "fuel". But, what Rossi put in was not the whole fuel - only some LAH and some natural Ni to obscure the analysis. When the ash was analyzed, it was a mix of a large amount of 62Ni pre-loaded + a smaller amount of natural Ni loaded as powder by Rossi after the dummy test. In the ash analysis, there was still 0.3% of 58Ni, probably from the free "fuel" powder he added after the dummy test. However, in my hypothesis, the ash particles tested were mostly comprised of the original 62Ni that was pre-loaded into the reactor with a small amount of Ni that was added when Rossi added the powder fuel. The ICP-MS and AES only tested the particles that were sampled from Rossi's powder fuel before he added it to the reactor, and then the particles that were shaken loose from the sintered mass of ash in the reactor after the experiment. The ICP-MS analysis begins with chemical digestion of a few small particles, I think in ultra-pure nitric acid. This acid with the dissolved metals is injected into the spectrometer. ICP-MS only tests the average composition of the digested particles in the acid. ICP-MS does not analyze the materials while still in the reactor like some sort of MRI. AES is an optical emission spectrum measurement on the excited plasma that feeds the mass spectrometer in the ICP machine - testing the same digested particles. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote > > Just to make sure I understand your hypothesis -- 62Ni is added prior to > the blank runs, before the natural-ratio nickel fuel was added. It is then > present during the blank runs and doesn't do anything, because by > hypothesis it is presumed to be inert. Then just prior to the live run the > natural-ratio nickel is added, sampled and measured. And then the test > proceeds. After the test has been concluded, several of the nickel > isotopes are found to have been consumed, leaving only 62Ni as the > residue. Have I understood this correctly? > > In this scenario, it seems that nickel is still active, whereas it is not, > as far as we can tell, in the other experimenter's (shorter) tests. > > Also, if the 62Ni was present in Lugano prior to the start of the live > run, why was it not detected in the ICP-MS and ICP-AES analyses? (I do > note that the amount was slightly above the nickel standard that was used.) > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: As I was translating Parkhomov's paper this morning, I was struck by the > fact that the other researchers are not seeing any isotopic movement in the > Ni in their experiments, while they are seeing minor shifts in the Li > isotopic ratio. > Yes, I'm struck by that as well. For drawing conclusions, it would be nice if the various experiments were a little more comparable in their excess heat and running time. > The big shadow still hanging over the Lugano experiment does not regard a > deception by Rossi, but rather a withholding of information he neither > intended to give nor was he obliged to give. > My hope is not to imply deception, although I do not rule it out. But the only alternative I can think of is that the 62Ni plays some functional role, especially in view of the high price for isotopically enriched nickel. I can think of one possible functional role -- perhaps natural-isotopic-ratio nickel yields penetrating radiation in the conditions provided by Rossi's device, whereas 62Ni is inert. But that begs the question of whether penetrating radiation would be observed in the other experiments, and if not, why not. Perhaps there is another functional role. Absent a functional role for the 62Ni, misdirection is an obvious explanation. That is, was the reactor tube empty when he added his "fuel"? The reactor > could well have been full with the 62Ni before he added his "fuel" powder. > Any 62Ni present in the tube initially would have been inert during the > dummy runs. I wrote to Bo Hoisted to ask if the reactor was inspected to > be empty before this "fuel" was added by Rossi. He would not reply (it > doesn't mean he knew). Because of this unknown, differential analysis of > the of the Lugano fuel/ash isotopes is meaningless. > Just to make sure I understand your hypothesis -- 62Ni is added prior to the blank runs, before the natural-ratio nickel fuel was added. It is then present during the blank runs and doesn't do anything, because by hypothesis it is presumed to be inert. Then just prior to the live run the natural-ratio nickel is added, sampled and measured. And then the test proceeds. After the test has been concluded, several of the nickel isotopes are found to have been consumed, leaving only 62Ni as the residue. Have I understood this correctly? In this scenario, it seems that nickel is still active, whereas it is not, as far as we can tell, in the other experimenter's (shorter) tests. Also, if the 62Ni was present in Lugano prior to the start of the live run, why was it not detected in the ICP-MS and ICP-AES analyses? (I do note that the amount was slightly above the nickel standard that was used.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
Bob, Interesting point on the SS can being stripped of its protective oxides. In my most recent experiment (with no excess heat seen), the stainless fuel container was extremely shiny after use as if nickel plated. There was a cooler end that appeared to have an oxidized layer. Jack On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:02 PM Bob Higgins wrote: > While I was translating Parkhomov's latest presentation, I was struck > again by the plethora of elements in the ash that were not in the "fuel". > Previously I pleaded through Bob Greenyer to get Parkhomov to give us a > slice of his stainless steel fuel can. When the reactor is heated over > 1000C in the presence of hydrogen gas, the stainless steel will be stripped > of its protective oxides, and most of its constituents will dissolve to > some extent in the molten Li-Al-H. It is likely a great deal of the > elements found in the ash came from the stainless steel can. > > This makes any conclusions from changes in the element composition, other > than for Li, Al, and Ni, to have no basis at the moment. In a Hangouts > call today with Bob Greenyer, I brought this up again - to have him ask > Parkhomov for a sliver of the can material. MFMP would have elemental > analysis performed on the sliver of can. There is little excuse to not > have had this done before presenting such a table of element values in his > presentation - at least without the caveat that many of those elements > likely came from the can. > > Bob Higgins > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Will someone with an analogical bent find out if there was more fission >> going on than fusion. It looks like there was an increase in lighter (Z) >> elements and a reduction in the heavier elements. Nickel which according to >> Rossi is not a fuel looks like the element that was most likely to be >> disrupted in favor of lighter elements like oxygen. Are we seeing muon >> fission going on? >> > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Eric Walker >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell >>> wrote: >>> >>> This just in. See: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ >>> >>> These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that >>> all tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than >>> weeks and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano >>> test. >>> >>> There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi >>> played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this >>> shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with >>> little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some >>> unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) >>> >>> Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits >>> of half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, >>> and are always left wondering what's going on. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
While I was translating Parkhomov's latest presentation, I was struck again by the plethora of elements in the ash that were not in the "fuel". Previously I pleaded through Bob Greenyer to get Parkhomov to give us a slice of his stainless steel fuel can. When the reactor is heated over 1000C in the presence of hydrogen gas, the stainless steel will be stripped of its protective oxides, and most of its constituents will dissolve to some extent in the molten Li-Al-H. It is likely a great deal of the elements found in the ash came from the stainless steel can. This makes any conclusions from changes in the element composition, other than for Li, Al, and Ni, to have no basis at the moment. In a Hangouts call today with Bob Greenyer, I brought this up again - to have him ask Parkhomov for a sliver of the can material. MFMP would have elemental analysis performed on the sliver of can. There is little excuse to not have had this done before presenting such a table of element values in his presentation - at least without the caveat that many of those elements likely came from the can. Bob Higgins On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Will someone with an analogical bent find out if there was more fission > going on than fusion. It looks like there was an increase in lighter (Z) > elements and a reduction in the heavier elements. Nickel which according to > Rossi is not a fuel looks like the element that was most likely to be > disrupted in favor of lighter elements like oxygen. Are we seeing muon > fission going on? > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell >> wrote: >> >> This just in. See: >>> >>> >>> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ >>> >> >> These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that all >> tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks >> and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test. >> >> There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi >> played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this >> shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with >> little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some >> unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) >> >> Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits >> of half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, >> and are always left wondering what's going on. >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
I have a intuition that the one 100 micro particle that the Lugano analysts looked at was a one in a million rough event. That particle could never have been manually fabricated by anybody. A human could not have made that particle. It is a miracle of transmutation. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > As I was translating Parkhomov's paper this morning, I was struck by the > fact that the other researchers are not seeing any isotopic movement in the > Ni in their experiments, while they are seeing minor shifts in the Li > isotopic ratio. > > The big shadow still hanging over the Lugano experiment does not regard a > deception by Rossi, but rather a withholding of information he neither > intended to give nor was he obliged to give. That is, was the reactor tube > empty when he added his "fuel"? The reactor could well have been full with > the 62Ni before he added his "fuel" powder. Any 62Ni present in the tube > initially would have been inert during the dummy runs. I wrote to Bo > Hoisted to ask if the reactor was inspected to be empty before this "fuel" > was added by Rossi. He would not reply (it doesn't mean he knew). Because > of this unknown, differential analysis of the of the Lugano fuel/ash > isotopes is meaningless. > > This is supported by the fact that the reactor showed no signs of heat > production abatement even though the isotope had ostensibly changed from a > natural distribution to purely 62Ni. > > Bob Higgins > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell >> wrote: >> >> This just in. See: >>> >>> >>> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ >>> >> >> These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that all >> tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks >> and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test. >> >> There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi >> played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this >> shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with >> little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some >> unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) >> >> Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits >> of half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, >> and are always left wondering what's going on. >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
As I was translating Parkhomov's paper this morning, I was struck by the fact that the other researchers are not seeing any isotopic movement in the Ni in their experiments, while they are seeing minor shifts in the Li isotopic ratio. The big shadow still hanging over the Lugano experiment does not regard a deception by Rossi, but rather a withholding of information he neither intended to give nor was he obliged to give. That is, was the reactor tube empty when he added his "fuel"? The reactor could well have been full with the 62Ni before he added his "fuel" powder. Any 62Ni present in the tube initially would have been inert during the dummy runs. I wrote to Bo Hoisted to ask if the reactor was inspected to be empty before this "fuel" was added by Rossi. He would not reply (it doesn't mean he knew). Because of this unknown, differential analysis of the of the Lugano fuel/ash isotopes is meaningless. This is supported by the fact that the reactor showed no signs of heat production abatement even though the isotope had ostensibly changed from a natural distribution to purely 62Ni. Bob Higgins On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > > This just in. See: >> >> >> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ >> > > These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that all > tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks > and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test. > > There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi > played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this > shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with > little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some > unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) > > Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits of > half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, > and are always left wondering what's going on. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
Will someone with an analogical bent find out if there was more fission going on than fusion. It looks like there was an increase in lighter (Z) elements and a reduction in the heavier elements. Nickel which according to Rossi is not a fuel looks like the element that was most likely to be disrupted in favor of lighter elements like oxygen. Are we seeing muon fission going on? On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > > This just in. See: >> >> >> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ >> > > These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that all > tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks > and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test. > > There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi > played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this > shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with > little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some > unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) > > Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits of > half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, > and are always left wondering what's going on. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This just in. See: > > > http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ > These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that all tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test. There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits of half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, and are always left wondering what's going on. Eric
