The dimethyl siloxane type of polymer will confine hydrogen since oxygen carbon and silicon all keep hydrogen from escaping.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > The Lithium Aluminum Hydride was not added to the fuel mix for its good > looks. The Hydride had a definite purpose. Sorry, the reactor is a Nickel > Hydrogen reactor. > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Sorry – but this reactor is made of alumina – which is a proton >> conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but >> you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of >> hydrogen after startup. >> >> >> >> All of the initial hydrogen is gone within an hour due to hydrogen >> diffusion. >> >> >> >> This looks like a lithium-nickel reactor. >> >> >> >> *From:* Axil Axil >> >> >> >> >> >> NiH2 >Zn*> Ni + He >> >> 2H(1) + Ni(64) > Zn(66)* Step1 >> >> Zn(66)* > Ni(62) + He(4) Step 2 >> >> >> >> You also suffer from the nuclear physics syndrome where reactions are >> fixed over all systems. Each LENR system has a unique transmutation >> character based on the way the magnetic field emitters are deployed. In >> fact, each nickel particle produces a different reaction. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Robert Lynn < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> so the claim is essentially that this soup of elements were also consumed >> to exhaustion, without changing power input or output as their quantities >> reduced, in an amazingly perfect process that has as its only product the >> highest binding energy Ni62 (also consuming Ni64) and without creating any >> observable radiation during the process and no radiative ash. >> >> >> >> It will require a very high level of proof to convince the world of the >> truth of that. >> >> >> >> On 9 October 2014 11:15, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same >> assumption that the testers suffer from. >> >> >> >> The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR >> transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. >> >> >> >> Did you see this line on page 53? >> >> >> >> Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a >> very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the >> fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and >> these are not found in the ash. >> >> This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Robert Lynn < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> De-cloaking long term lurker. >> >> Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions: >> >> · The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism >> somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion >> and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive >> isotopes produced? >> >> · The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni >> just happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must >> have done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly. >> >> · Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet >> the reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the >> test. To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) behaviour. >> >> If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into the >> unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes, focused >> microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and facilities >> to make any judgement on things like this. I'm happy with black box >> reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these >> COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better. Unless and until truly >> independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry >> in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the >> world. >> >> >> >> I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track record >> of sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will need >> independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi. >> >> >> >> On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was >> the best way to do so. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. >> >> >> >> Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What >> possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? >> The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: >> >> >> >> 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the >> effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni >> transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more >> convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the >> contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research. >> >> >> >> 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this >> technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people >> Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find >> out he is faking. Long term, he will fail. So what short term gain can >> there be? >> >> >> >> 3. Along the same lines, if it is not true, he cannot get a patent for >> it, or a Nobel, or anything else. >> >> >> >> 4. Since people would soon distrust him, this would get in the way of >> proving the excess heat is real, and setting up commercial ventures. The >> excess heat is the only thing with commercial value at this stage, and >> Rossi is only interested in commercial development. He does not give a fig >> about science. >> >> >> >> Levi and Rossi's backers also have zero motivation to fake the Ni >> results. It would not benefit them at all, for the same set of reasons. >> >> >> >> Can you suggest any reason he *would* want to do this? Since this is >> your hypothesis, it is up to you to give a plausible reason why it might be >> true. >> >> >> >> - Jed >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
