Don't forget that Rossi initially had a business in waste conversion to bio-fuel.....
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Russ George <[email protected]> wrote: > You ignore the finding of 4He in my improvements upon and replication of > the Case catalyst. > http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2013/05/03/wired-magazine-report-on-cold-fusion-includes-segment-on-my-work/ > > > > *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:47 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [Vo]:The identifty of a catalyst that was known in 1966 or > earlier > > > > Connect the dots… (none of these items mean much alone, but all of them > come together in the end) > > Dot #1. Here is the original observation of a possible thermal anomaly in > phenanthrene, dating from 1966 by Arndt and Damask, which reported 380 > cal/mole unexplainable gain at around 70°C. > > http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/45/2/10.1063/1.1727640 > > Dot #2. Mizuno’s 2008 paper on phenanthrene is here: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomaloushb.pdf > > Mizuno based his work on anecdotal thermal anomalies of coal tar from > Japan, going back to the 1940s. The reports were similar to Arndt. Dot #3- > Phenanthrene > is often the most stable aromatic component of coal tar or charcoal - due > to Clar’s rule, but other similar compounds may be active for thermal gain > when hydrogen is present. > > Dot #4. Les Case saw thermal gain using a catalyst made of charcoal and > palladium. Surprisingly the gain could have come from the aromatic. > Phenanthrene and related aromatics make up most of any type of pyrolyzed > organic > material like coconut shells. > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CaseLCcatalyticf.pdf > > Dot #5. Dennis Cravens saw long term significant thermal gain at low > temperature in his famous NI Week demo using the Case carbon – along with > added magnetism. His catalyst not doubt contained substantial phenanthrene > and other aromatics. > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/08/02/dennis-craven-demo-for-niweek/ > > Dot #6. Larsen’s excellent slide-show on phenanthrene and other aromatics > (PAHs) is here: > > > http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewpahs-and-lenrsnov-25-2009 > > Dot #7. Lastly, Focardi and Rossi acknowledged Mizuno’s work and un-named > catalysts, according to Passerini and others who have suspected a > phenanthrene connection. > > Since as far back as the Petroldragon story, a secret catalyst was used > to turn waste from old tires into liquid fuel. Thus, phenanthrene would > have been known to Rossi when the Mizuno report came out in 2008, but if this > led to the E-Cat … (and it could have been the prime inspiration), it was > not mentioned in ECat patents … In short, Rossi could not patent > phenanthrene, due to Mizuno’s prior art, even if he used it beforehand - so > it had to remain a secret. > > Connecting the dots, the aromatic compound phenanthrene could be the > “secret sauce” catalyst that only works in the low temperature versions of > E-Cat. It will boil water but not much more. It only works for low gain and > will degrade at high temperature. “Low gain” is defined herein as gain of > less that COP=2 … but make no mistake, this low-cost catalyst would still > be extraordinarily valuable to society, if proved scientifically, even if > it’s only use is for hot water. > > I am assuming that -- although IH reports (in sworn documents) to NOT having > witnessed excess heat at all from Rossi, nor having scientific evidence > that any ECat actually produced thermal gain, that some prior versions > did work for low gain, at low temperature. That combination of facts would > mean that these E-Cat versions were actually suppressed by the inventor > himself. Why? > > Simple. Under the contract with IH, thermal gain with COP less than 2 was > not just worthless, it was harmful to Rossi as it would have meant no > bonus payment at all. Thus, low gain could not be admitted, despite its > value to the rest of science. What a predicament. Nevertheless, based on > the strong evidence from Cravens and the prior work of Mizuno - one can > make a good case for phenanthrene being a key route to modest thermal gain > at low temperature. > > Why are Mizuno and Cravens not replicated?? Apparently, low gain at low > power is not very interesting to replicators. > > Yet - it is of extreme importance to the field of LENR to replicate these > experiments immediately, since Rossigate has created nothing but turmoil, > and will consume the field for the next year. > > Craven’s demo, or something like it at a larger scale, needs to be > demonstrated ASAP – with tens of watts of excess heat ongoing for months > using low input power. > > >
