Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
time passes news about Piantelli's work. Thanks for translating this. Perhaps Piantelli has been spurred into working more quickly and going commercial quickly by Rossi. Piantelli has been doing this research for a long time but he has not published many papers. He has been keeping a low profile. Maybe Rossi has nothing to do with it, and Piantelli happened to achieve commercial-level success now, and he would have gone public even without Rossi. - Jed I am not aware of any paper published by Rossi (apart from his own blog). Piantelli published several papers about his research. Francesco Piantelli's problem is that independent replication attempts failed so far. Piantelli described precisely his reactor in his patents, but nobody could repeat his results, despite the fact that he uses no secret catalyst. In 1996, Antonino Zichichi and a group at CERN could not replicate the Piantelli experiments. They wrote: ..We have found the results to be consistent with our observations; namely we measured higher temperatures for the same input power when hydrogen is absorbed during a heating cycle. Nevertheless this temperature rise does not appear to correspond to an increase in heat production. We have added a temperature sensor to the container of the experiment. The temperature of the container follows the same temperature with input power curve irrespective of whether there is an anomalous absorption of hydrogen or not; therefore we have no evidence that this temperature increase corresponds to another source of heat. In conclusion, we have observed all the effects discovered by Focardi etnbsp;al., but our results imply that there is no production of power associated with the absorption of hydrogen by nickel.. See: Cerron-Zeballos, E., Crotty, I., Hatzifotiadou, D., Lamas Valverde, J., Williams, M.C.S., and Zichichi, A., Investigation of Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems. Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 109A, pages 1645-1654, (1996) 1998/1999 Luigi Nosenzo and Luigi Cattaneo could not replicate Piantelli's results. See: Adalberto Piazzoli, Fusione Fredda? Una ricerca italiana. CICAP Scienza Paranormale N. 78 (2008) -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote: Francesco Piantelli's problem is that independent replication attempts failed so far. Piantelli described precisely his reactor in his patents, but nobody could repeat his results . . . As far as I know, that is correct. I may have overlooked a successful replication. However, only a few people have tried to replicate, so the failures do not have much significance. Also, people have observed heat from other types of nickel systems. See: Cerron-Zeballos, E., Crotty, I., Hatzifotiadou, D., Lamas Valverde, J., Williams, M.C.S., and Zichichi, A., Investigation of Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems. Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 109A, pages 1645-1654, (1996) That paper is here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf 1998/1999 Luigi Nosenzo and Luigi Cattaneo could not replicate Piantelli's results. See: Adalberto Piazzoli, Fusione Fredda? Una ricerca italiana. CICAP Scienza Paranormale N. 78 (2008) I don't have that one. I wish I had more papers in Italian. But it does not sound like a chemistry or physics journal. Something about paranormal. Such journals seldom have good information on cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
Dear Angela, I have asked Piantelli's opinion about these independent replications with negative results, Perhaps there were no adequate nanostructures on the surfaces of the Ni rods. The slogan: a patent can be reproduced by those skilled enough is many times a void formula. You cannot reproduce it, the wxplanation is: you are not skilled enough! Please pay for know-how and learn the know why- it will be hard.I am speaking from experience not from what I have read in the books. Many German firms as BASF, Hoechts, Wacker but Japanese and US too. You don't buy patemts you buy technologies. Peter On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.dewrote: time passes news about Piantelli's work. Thanks for translating this. Perhaps Piantelli has been spurred into working more quickly and going commercial quickly by Rossi. Piantelli has been doing this research for a long time but he has not published many papers. He has been keeping a low profile. Maybe Rossi has nothing to do with it, and Piantelli happened to achieve commercial-level success now, and he would have gone public even without Rossi. - Jed I am not aware of any paper published by Rossi (apart from his own blog). Piantelli published several papers about his research. Francesco Piantelli's problem is that independent replication attempts failed so far. Piantelli described precisely his reactor in his patents, but nobody could repeat his results, despite the fact that he uses no secret catalyst. In 1996, Antonino Zichichi and a group at CERN could not replicate the Piantelli experiments. They wrote: ..We have found the results to be consistent with our observations; namely we measured higher temperatures for the same input power when hydrogen is absorbed during a heating cycle. Nevertheless this temperature rise does not appear to correspond to an increase in heat production. We have added a temperature sensor to the container of the experiment. The temperature of the container follows the same temperature with input power curve irrespective of whether there is an anomalous absorption of hydrogen or not; therefore we have no evidence that this temperature increase corresponds to another source of heat. In conclusion, we have observed all the effects discovered by Focardi etnbsp;al., but our results imply that there is no production of power associated with the absorption of hydrogen by nickel.. See: Cerron-Zeballos, E., Crotty, I., Hatzifotiadou, D., Lamas Valverde, J., Williams, M.C.S., and Zichichi, A., Investigation of Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems. Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 109A, pages 1645-1654, (1996) 1998/1999 Luigi Nosenzo and Luigi Cattaneo could not replicate Piantelli's results. See: Adalberto Piazzoli, Fusione Fredda? Una ricerca italiana. CICAP Scienza Paranormale N. 78 (2008) -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
That is an article written for CICAP (kind of italian skeptics society) so it can be taken seriously. See : http://www.cicap.org/new/articolo.php?id=273588 Translation http://goo.gl/info/1mgr8# mic Il giorno 30/lug/2011 20:56, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com ha scritto: Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote: Francesco Piantelli's problem is that independent replication attempts failed so far. Piantelli described precisely his reactor in his patents, but nobody could repeat his results . . . As far as I know, that is correct. I may have overlooked a successful replication. However, only a few people have tried to replicate, so the failures do not have much significance. Also, people have observed heat from other types of nickel systems. See: Cerron-Zeballos, E., Crotty, I., Hatzifotiadou, D., Lamas Valverde, J., Williams, M.C.S., and Zichichi, A., Investigation of Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems. Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 109A, pages 1645-1654, (1996) That paper is here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf 1998/1999 Luigi Nosenzo and Luigi Cattaneo could not replicate Piantelli's results. See: Adalberto Piazzoli, Fusione Fredda? Una ricerca italiana. CICAP Scienza Paranormale N. 78 (2008) I don't have that one. I wish I had more papers in Italian. But it does not sound like a chemistry or physics journal. Something about paranormal. Such journals seldom have good information on cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Here is my translation of several tidbits in a thread in the Italian web forum energeticambiente.it where Roy Virgilio (nicknamed here eroyka. He attended Saturday's LENR talk in Viareggio) will report as time passes news about Piantelli's work. Thanks for translating this. Perhaps Piantelli has been spurred into working more quickly and going commercial quickly by Rossi. Piantelli has been doing this research for a long time but he has not published many papers. He has been keeping a low profile. Maybe Rossi has nothing to do with it, and Piantelli happened to achieve commercial-level success now, and he would have gone public even without Rossi. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
Jed sez: ... Maybe Rossi has nothing to do with it, and Piantelli happened to achieve commercial-level success now, and he would have gone public even without Rossi. In a pig's eye. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Piantelli news
From Akira translation of thread by Roy Virgilio who attended Saturday's LENR talk in Viareggio [snip] Piantelli doesn't use catalysts, at least in the term's literal meaning. His technology is based mainly on nickel preparation, i.e. powder geometry/size and deposition size (in a multilayered manner). It isn't known yet if the nickel he uses is doped/enriched.[/snip] Akira, Once again the clues point to size, shape and packing arrangement of nano powders leading to the geometry which produces anomalous heat. IMHO normal catalytic action is also based on geometry but at the atomic level which is wrapped into our understanding of chemistry and the periodic chart... Puthoff's atomic model of a balance between vacuum pressure and an atom's zero state is being accumulated in a segregated fashion by Casimir geometry such that entire regions outside a cavity can have a slightly higher energy density while tiny confined [suppressed] areas inside the cavity have a concentrated lower density often described as negative that balances the shallow field outside the cavity. When you load these quantum fields with hydrogen you have an exotic form of relativistic matter because the energy of these gas atoms is not the result of spatial velocity or individual chemical interaction but rather is conferred upon the hydrogen by the modified vacuum energy density [suppressed environment through which it is travelling] - this is similar to the 9.8m/s^2 we feel gratis of the earth's mass but negative and without any slow gradients it can change as rapidly as the relative motion between the gas and the rigid Casimir geometry through which it is migrating. My point is that when Naudts posited the hydrino as relativistic it was really the restriction of longer vacuum wavelengths gratis of Casimir suppression that made it so and that any matter inside the cavity would also appear relativistic due to the negative energy density. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
And perhaps, as Peter and I have discussed, there is no Rossi magic sauce after all . . . it's all in the size, shape, cleansing, pressure and temperature of the elements involved. T
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: - On a theoretical perspective (Piantelli has a mathematical theory which doesn't require exotic reactions, but that can be explained by current physical laws and mathematics) protons of 6-7 Mev energy have been confirmed (in a cloud chamber), which allow for good likelihood of interaction with nickel particles; a semi-complete theory is about to be published as an internal document in the University of Siena. The complete theory will be probably disclosed after the initial devices will be commercially sold. 7 MeV protons are not a result of an exotic reaction? T
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
Actually Piantelli has at least 15 publications in which he is the main leading/author the others being Focardi and analyticians. And his two patents WO 1995/20816 and WO 2010/058288 are very professionally written. (two new patents coming soon) He had self-sustaining cells years ago. Being a serious scientist he has explored the anomalous heat effect with many transition metals- many work. He understand what happens in his cells.. He does not like publicity and what he says is based on solid experimental facts.And has experience in the industry, therefore will not put technologically immature products on the...market. Rossi says his system is not related to Piantelli's- he has to demonstrate this , combined with the viability and usability of his generators. Peter On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Here is my translation of several tidbits in a thread in the Italian web forum energeticambiente.it where Roy Virgilio (nicknamed here eroyka. He attended Saturday's LENR talk in Viareggio) will report as time passes news about Piantelli's work. Thanks for translating this. Perhaps Piantelli has been spurred into working more quickly and going commercial quickly by Rossi. Piantelli has been doing this research for a long time but he has not published many papers. He has been keeping a low profile. Maybe Rossi has nothing to do with it, and Piantelli happened to achieve commercial-level success now, and he would have gone public even without Rossi. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
On 2011-07-25 12:15, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Short URL: http://goo.gl/H4vDd (http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/14742857-novita-cella-piantelli.html) More tidbits: - The older reactivated cells that are being tested right now show small excess heat (2-3 times the input energy), but for new ones it's expected about an output of 200 times the input energy. - According to several third-parties, older cells have been able to work in self-sustaining mode for quite some amount of time. - Experiments are being performed in a lab near Siena. Italian institutions are not involved, however a public USA agency will probably contribute to the development and certify/validate the reaction. - There's minimal risk of info leaking from such agency. Anyway, everything is now protected by patents (pending). Last week, Piantelli's group filed a third patent for the latest technologies to be implemented in his devices. - A gradual scale-up in power is necessary because nobody so far has attempted making a big cell. To avoid potential disasters (it's a nuclear reaction after all) it's necessary to be able to control it no matter what. As for when the scale-up will be ready... when it's done. Smaller devices will be sold first. - The proposed Supporter's trust [1] is to offer people a chance to participate to the technology development, but it won't guarantee anything. Piantelli's group doesn't *need* money; the aim is to put the technology on the hands of many enthusiasts and interested people as a form of protection. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supporters%27_trust Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Piantelli news
As a parting shot, so to speak - let me chime in with a couple of comments on Fran's behalf - and others who see cavity-QED as the best answer to understanding the thermal gain in Ni-H (as opposed to the other proposed transmutation reactions, including Piantelli, Focardi etc. since they should exhibit strong residual radioactivity, which is not seen in any data). The finding of high speed protons in a cloud chamber - even if their mass-energy on average is less than the several MeV claimed - is most consistent with a quark-based hypothesis for explaining the gain. This is not nuclear, per se, but instead is subnuclear. The hypothesis does involve the conversion of nuclear mass into energy. And it is dependent of cavity-QED as the initial driving force. This hypothesis is an outgrowth and enhancement of Nyman's modeling of quark interaction, together with the assumption of having IRH - Inverted Rydberg hydrogen - being formed continuously in the reactor from hydrogen spillover, collecting in cavities and other details which have the effect of putting protons into close proximity - within occasional strong force attraction. 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 to shoot two protons at each other with the right speed and *quark alignment* so that they latch onto each other instead of repel... IOW quark placement can overcome Coulomb repulsion, in standard physics. No magic, or new physics, required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right conclusion. He opines the protons will fuse, which is impossible in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated by strong force attraction will still be gainful; and the driving force must be depletion of nuclear mass (by default). However, this reaction does not result in either fusion or transmutation normally. It does result in fast protons and on occasion these may cause secondary reactions, but net gain is there without anything else. This suggestion is an alternative to the P-e-P reaction where no deflated or other improbable kind of electron is involved, and in the end NO fusion occurs. Two protons in this circumstance would have severe negative binding energy, so several things could happen, besides fusion. This is where Nyman falls short - since all we need to know to explain the net gain without nuclear transmutation is that strong force attraction happens (which essentially the free ingredient) followed by some kind of energetic expulsion. Net nuclear mass of the reacting protons is slightly depleted by the extracted energy (from gluons pions, etc) and this depletion will be recovered from the zero point field eventually, in order to maintain an expected average mass value of ~ 938.272013 MeV which can vary significantly in individual atoms. As to the simulation's observation of occasionally possible to shoot two protons at each other with the right speed and quark positions that rings of the importance of cavity-QED. This is where protons emerge from Casimir cavities with the right speed having experienced the Scharnhorst-type acceleration. IOW, building on this mechanism, even when deuterium is not seen in the ash of the reaction, there is a clear route to strong subnuclear gain via proton acceleration away from another superimposed proton - with which it CANNOT fuse. ... but, needless to say, the complete details are not clear. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Piantelli news
Jones, Thanks for the support, I agree with many of your suggestions for non-nuclear and sub nuclear reactions. My only goal is to have mainstream re-consider a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect where longer wavelengths are actually subject to Lorentzian contraction not displaced, which would explain the initiating environment in a manner not violating COE for gas atoms migrating through changes in Casimir force. It creates an environment where HUP can be tapped in numerous ways like DCE separating virtual particle pairs or the endlessly reversed chemical reactions posited for MAHG, or the quark rearrangements such as you mention as well as many others. The hydrogen orbital in a Casimir cavity would appear from our perspective outside the cavity to shrink away while the nucleus dilates away from it on the time axis. http://byzipp.com/coffee3.gif while remaining unchanged to a local observer. Regards Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Piantelli news As a parting shot, so to speak - let me chime in with a couple of comments on Fran's behalf - and others who see cavity-QED as the best answer to understanding the thermal gain in Ni-H (as opposed to the other proposed transmutation reactions, including Piantelli, Focardi etc. since they should exhibit strong residual radioactivity, which is not seen in any data). The finding of high speed protons in a cloud chamber - even if their mass-energy on average is less than the several MeV claimed - is most consistent with a quark-based hypothesis for explaining the gain. This is not nuclear, per se, but instead is subnuclear. The hypothesis does involve the conversion of nuclear mass into energy. And it is dependent of cavity-QED as the initial driving force. This hypothesis is an outgrowth and enhancement of Nyman's modeling of quark interaction, together with the assumption of having IRH - Inverted Rydberg hydrogen - being formed continuously in the reactor from hydrogen spillover, collecting in cavities and other details which have the effect of putting protons into close proximity - within occasional strong force attraction. 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 to shoot two protons at each other with the right speed and *quark alignment* so that they latch onto each other instead of repel... IOW quark placement can overcome Coulomb repulsion, in standard physics. No magic, or new physics, required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right conclusion. He opines the protons will fuse, which is impossible in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated by strong force attraction will still be gainful; and the driving force must be depletion of nuclear mass (by default). However, this reaction does not result in either fusion or transmutation normally. It does result in fast protons and on occasion these may cause secondary reactions, but net gain is there without anything else. This suggestion is an alternative to the P-e-P reaction where no deflated or other improbable kind of electron is involved, and in the end NO fusion occurs. Two protons in this circumstance would have severe negative binding energy, so several things could happen, besides fusion. This is where Nyman falls short - since all we need to know to explain the net gain without nuclear transmutation is that strong force attraction happens (which essentially the free ingredient) followed by some kind of energetic expulsion. Net nuclear mass of the reacting protons is slightly depleted by the extracted energy (from gluons pions, etc) and this depletion will be recovered from the zero point field eventually, in order to maintain an expected average mass value of ~ 938.272013 MeV which can vary significantly in individual atoms. As to the simulation's observation of occasionally possible to shoot two protons at each other with the right speed and quark positions that rings of the importance of cavity-QED. This is where protons emerge from Casimir cavities with the right speed having experienced the Scharnhorst-type acceleration. IOW, building on this mechanism, even when deuterium is not seen in the ash of the reaction, there is a clear route to strong subnuclear gain via proton acceleration away from another superimposed proton - with which it CANNOT fuse. ... but, needless to say, the complete details are not clear. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Actually Piantelli has at least 15 publications in which he is the main leading/author the others being Focardi and analyticians. And his two patents WO 1995/20816 and WO 2010/058288 are very professionally written. (two new patents coming soon) That's true. And yet he has a low profile in that he does not attend conferences and he and co-workers have been someone stand-offish toward other researchers -- other researchers say. He has a low profile compared to Rossi, but who doesn't? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
There are more reasons for the low profile: - very hard working; - doing advanced and very important cancer research, he has offered to help Scott Chubb- but when we knew about Scott illness it was too late; - health problems (asthma): - rather passive knowledge of the English language; - marginalized from different reasons- Ni-H was very unpopular, Piantelli is not enthusiastic toward Giuliano Preparata's theory- in Italy this is kind of sin, think electrolysis is not good as energy source, and so is(n't) Pd; - great troubles with his lab moved many times. But you could meet him at the excellent CF/LENR meetings organized by Bill Collis Pd On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Actually Piantelli has at least 15 publications in which he is the main leading/author the others being Focardi and analyticians. And his two patents WO 1995/20816 and WO 2010/058288 are very professionally written. (two new patents coming soon) That's true. And yet he has a low profile in that he does not attend conferences and he and co-workers have been someone stand-offish toward other researchers -- other researchers say. He has a low profile compared to Rossi, but who doesn't? - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
