RE: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list... add emissions seen in the 100keV-300keV range

2011-04-13 Thread Mark Iverson
Jed:
Add that he has seen energetic particle emissions in the 100keV to 300keV 
range... 
I put this in a posting a few days ago and no one even noticed!
 
This from a Ny Teknik QA session with Rossi...
Rossi: No radioactivity has been found in the residual metals, it is true, but 
the day after the
stop of the operation. In any case you are right, if 59-Cu is formed from 58-Ni 
we should have the
couples of 511 keV at 180° and we never found them, while we found keV in the 
range of 100-300 keV.

-Mark




  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list


This was formerly titled What We Know from Rossi. It is a list of major 
assertions made by Rossi and
others, mainly Rossi in his blog 

1) The catalyst is not copper.
2) The catalyst is not iron.
3) The catalyst is not a precious metal.
4) The catalyst is not radioactive.
5) The catalyst is not expensive.
6) The catalyst is not Raney Nickel
7) The catalyst is not an additional gas placed in the reactor. 
8) The Ni processing system increases the cost of Ni by ~10%.
9) The catalyst consists of Ni plus two other elements.
10) A small percentage (2% to 3%) of deuterium will kill the reaction.
11) The reaction is modulated with resistance heaters.
12) The reaction can be killed by injecting N to displace the H.

13) Much of the Ni transmutes to Cu during the reaction.
14) The Cu has slightly unnatural isotopic ratios. - Rossi
15) No, the Cu ratios are natural. - Essen

16) Fe appears, whether from transmutation or contamination is not clear.

17) The Ni isotopes in the starting material are enriched, by some 
revolutionary technique that
costs little. - Rossi
18) No, the Ni isotopes are not enriched! - Essen

New item: 

19) The minimum power of the e-Cat reactor unit is 2.5 kW. See:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=2#comment-32831 
cpage=2#comment-32831


When you assemble this puzzle you are allowed to leave pieces on the table. You 
do not have to
account for every claim. #14 cancels #15, and #17 cancels #18. Pick whichever 
you prefer. In
groundbreaking science it is not uncommon to find that some of the evidence did 
not fit because it
turned out to be wrong.

Some of these statements may be mistakes. So may be deliberate misdirection, or 
perhaps even lies.
There is a long history of this in science, going back to the days of Newton. 
There was a famous
example in 1987. Ching-Wu Chu described his high temperature superconductor 
formula before
publication. He gave it out as including Yb (ytterbium) when he meant Y 
(yttrium). He said it was a
typo. It threw his rivals off the trail for weeks.


- Jed



Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list... add emissions seen in the 100keV-300keV range

2011-04-13 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
From Mark:

 Rossi: No radioactivity has been found in the residual metals, it is true,
 but the day after the stop of the operation. In any case you are right, if
 59-Cu is formed from 58-Ni we should have the couples of 511 keV at 180° and
 we never found them, while we found keV in the range of 100-300 keV.

Is the 100 - 300 KeV range within the speculated reality rage of
hydrino formation?

Just curious.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks



Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list... add emissions seen in the 100keV-300keV range

2011-04-13 Thread mixent
In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Wed, 13 Apr 2011
16:30:59 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
From Mark:

 Rossi: No radioactivity has been found in the residual metals, it is true,
 but the day after the stop of the operation. In any case you are right, if
 59-Cu is formed from 58-Ni we should have the couples of 511 keV at 180° and
 we never found them, while we found keV in the range of 100-300 keV.

Is the 100 - 300 KeV range within the speculated reality rage of
hydrino formation?

Just curious.

Not from direct Hydrino reactions, however a fusion initiated by a Hydrino may
result in fast electrons which could easily have this much energy (and in fact
much more). Note that by the time the fast electron gets out of the device to
the detector it will usually have lost a considerable amount of energy through
collisions.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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



Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list... add emissions seen in the 100keV-300keV range

2011-04-13 Thread mixent
In reply to  mix...@bigpond.com's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:26:35 +1000:
Hi,
[snip]

I should add that x-rays resulting from these electrons could easily lie in this
range.

In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Wed, 13 Apr 2011
16:30:59 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
From Mark:

 Rossi: No radioactivity has been found in the residual metals, it is true,
 but the day after the stop of the operation. In any case you are right, if
 59-Cu is formed from 58-Ni we should have the couples of 511 keV at 180° and
 we never found them, while we found keV in the range of 100-300 keV.

Is the 100 - 300 KeV range within the speculated reality rage of
hydrino formation?

Just curious.

Not from direct Hydrino reactions, however a fusion initiated by a Hydrino may
result in fast electrons which could easily have this much energy (and in fact
much more). Note that by the time the fast electron gets out of the device to
the detector it will usually have lost a considerable amount of energy through
collisions.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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