I wasn't thinking of the Hot Cat but more of the QuarkX variety. True we have
little data about it and really only know that it is 1.5cm long by 6 mm dia.,
that it runs at over 2000C and has a resistance similar to silver. I think
that means it is a plasma.
Contrary to some on this forum I think it exists and will be demonstrated in
October with a believable calorimetry method. Time will tell.
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <email@example.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 25, 2017 10:28 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:There's the rub ...
The Mizuno and Rossi effects may only be second cousins, since D is used in one
and H in the other.
thought to be the ash in Mizuno’s and transmutation of Ni plus a little He the
ash in Rossi’s.
From: Adrian Ashfield
Considering the Conservation of Miracles law, I wonder what the chances are
that this is a kissing cousin to Rossi's E-Cat QX. That he gets a higher COP
due to the higher temperature he uses.
Well, no scientist knows if Rossi has valid gain or not – but indeed, there is
one striking similarity between the two which has not been emphasized
The interesting parallel between Mizuno’s latest design and the so-called
hot-cat is that the reactor itself (in both cases) is heated externally via
resistance heaters (inefficient) - but at the same time, excess heat is claimed
to be measured far above the level of the input heat. That feature is
Mizuno uses a steel reactor held at much lower temperature and in a partial
vacuum. Rossi (Parkhomov) uses ceramic but with embedded external heaters but
provides no real calorimetry to bolster his claim. Mizuno notably adds high
voltage internal electrodes (500 volts) but it is not clear if his design is
really “glow discharge” or instead is “hot gas” like the hot-cat, or is a bit
of both. A characterization of “hot gas” would mean no real plasma, but
instead hot hydrogen (or deuterium) in gas phase which is activated by a high
temperature trigger and presumably enters into rapid cycling of
Since there is no consistent low pressure ionized gas and no partial vacuum in
any Rossi design it cannot be labeled as glow-discharge or even plasma-state.
The similarity between the two derives from both having external resistance
heating - which requires most of the electrical input - and both claiming that
despite large power being used by the external heaters, there is net thermal
gain. This claim cannot be substantiated by “thermometry” as Rossi would like
Mizuno is able to make an arguably valid scientific argument for thermal gain
by having an identical control reactor operating at identical parameters
(except for the palladium surface coat). That kind of control makes his setup
much more expensive to build – but importantly, much more convincing to believe.
Rossi offers no such duplicate control nor calorimetry, and Parkomov cannot
repeat his former claim for gain, while at least 6 other similar hot-cat
replications have failed to show any meaningful gain. In scientific terms,
therefore, Rossi’s claim depends completely on his personal honesty.
The big knock on Mizuno is that IH partially funded his work - and perhaps that
is the key to the design similarity. Yet in court papers, IH states under oath
that they witnessed no thermal gain - and apparently they visited Mizuno’s Lab
in Japan months prior to the improvements mentioned at the end of the Mizuno
paper. Was this simply bad timing?
Bottom line - when your own funder will not step up, then there’s the
existential “to be or not to be” problem…
….and “there’s the rub” so to speak. (apologies to WS)