This is correct thinking and a real path to truth. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote:
> tthe isotopic shift observed is probably only a side effect of the real > reaction. > from others LENR experiments one can suspect that hydrogen is the fuel, > and that Ni is just modified. > > that the surface of the powder is pure Ni62 maye be simply that it is > cooked by the reactions, stay stable, and work anyway. > > it is like a barbecue made with bricks. > at the end the bricks are all black, and they stay black. they don't burn, > but they are blackened. > > that someone tweaked the isotopic shift is not logic, as it is useless... > heat is the question. forbidding isotopic measurement was possible as it is > IP protected. > > that Ni62 is consumed just when they stop the reactor, while it show no > evidence of exhaustion, is not logic. > > one possible idea is that the Ni62 transmutation may be the cause of the > COP improvement after few days of test. only an idea... not sure at all. it > can be lattice reorganisation, decontaminations... > > > 2014-10-09 5:29 GMT+02:00 Robert Lynn <[email protected]>: > >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
