http://cold-fusion.ca/floridagate-puts-rossi-under-scrutiny-299000
*“Floridagate” puts Rossi under scrutiny* The matter was investigated by Mr James Stokes who reported “Dr Rossi stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hydrogen gas during the process. The output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowledged that *no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low energy photons in the energy range 50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation.* Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste is generated by it, the State of Florida, Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction. *Currently, all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas.* Dr Rossi has arranged to meet with Underwriter Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufacturing in the United States.” On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:52 PM, DJ Cravens <djcrav...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps Rossi was adding some catalyst. **** > > For example, perhaps his source of Ni 62 is slightly radioactive (say it > was prepared via neutron activation of other Ni isotopes say there was > some Ni 63m in it).**** > > Then it might register when the catalyst was accessed.**** > > **** > > Dennis**** > > > ------------------------------ > From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, > 2011 Rossi Test > Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:26:01 +0200 > > > Thank you Jed to remind me this exchange you had with Celani. I was not > fully aware of every detail. When I was reading, an idea come to me mind. > Could it be possible that the secret sauce of Rossi is a gamma emitter? I > explain myself: Secretly, Rossi could have opened his reactor to adjust > something inside then closed the reactor back. In the meantime, Celani > detected an increase of gamma emission. A low frequency gamma (25~50 keV) > could be easily shielded. If Rossi opened his reactor, then vacuum should > be applied prior to reload with H2. The noise of a vacuum pump can not be > hidden easily. Celani and al should have heard it as well. Rossi isn’t fool > to put air and H2 inside a closed vessel … > > > > Unfortunately, we don’t have the wavelength of the emission. I don’t want > to play the sceptic here. Can Celani say that he is sure that Rossi didn’t > open his reactor while they were waiting behind the door? > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* mardi 21 mai 2013 15:48 > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* [Vo]:Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, > 2011 Rossi Test > > > > [Here is a message I posted in 2011] > > > > Celani detects gamma emissions during the January 14, 2011 Rossi Test > > Villa reported no gamma emissions or other radiation significantly above > background from the Rossi device. Celani, however, said that he did detect > something. Here are the details he related to me at ICCF16, from my notes > and with corrections from Celani. > > Celani attended the demonstration on Jan. 14. The device did not work at > first. He and others were waiting impatiently in a room next to the room > with the device. He estimates that he was around 6 m from the device. He > had two battery-powered detectors: > > 1. A sodium iodide gamma detector (NaI), set for 1 s acquisition time. > > 2. A Geiger counter (model GEM Radalert II, Perspective Scientific), > which was set to 10 s acquisition time. > > Both were turned on as he waited. The sodium iodide detector was in count > mode rather than spectrum mode; that is, it just tells the number of counts > per second. > > Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that > elevation. > > As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors > were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. > The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger > counter had to be switched off to “delete” the “overrange,” which was >7.5 > microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. > > About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room > and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. > > Celani commented that the only conventional source of gamma rays far from > a nuclear reactor would be a rare event: a cosmic ray impact on the > atmosphere producing proton storm shower of particles. He and I agreed it > is extremely unlikely this happened coincidentally the same moment the > reactor started . . . Although, come to think of it, perhaps the causality > is reversed, and the cosmic ray triggered the Rossi device. > > Another scientist said perhaps both detectors malfunctioned because of an > electromagnetic source in the building or some other prosaic source. Celani > considers this unrealistic because he also had in operation > battery-operated radio frequency detectors: an ELF (Extremely Low > Frequency) and RF (COM environmental microwave monitor), both made by > Perspective Scientific. No radio frequency anomalies were detected. I > remarked that it is also unrealistic because the two gamma detectors are > battery powered and they work on different principles. The scientist > pointed to neutron detectors in an early cold fusion experiment that > malfunctioned at a certain time of day every day because some equipment in > the laboratory building was turned on every day. That sort of thing can > happen with neutron detectors, which are finicky, but this Geiger counter > is used for safety monitoring. Such devices have to be rugged and reliable > or they will not keep you safe, so I doubt it is easy to fool one of them. > > Celani expresses some reservations about the reality of the Rossi device. > Given his detector results I think it would be more appropriate for him to > question the safety of it. > > When Celani went in to see the experiment in action, he brought out the > sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which > would give him more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected > vociferously, saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see > it), all they need to know to replicate the machine and steal Ross's > intellectual property. > > Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to a > demo if you have no intentions of letter them use their own instruments. > (Note, however, that Levi et al. did use their own instruments.) > > > > Jacques Dufour also attended the demonstration. He does not speak much > Italian, so he could not follow the discussion. He made some observations, > including one that I consider important, namely that the outlet pipe was > far too hot to touch. That means the temperature of it was over 70 deg C. > That, in turn, proves there was considerable excess heat. McKubre and > others have said the outlet temperature sensor was too close to the body of > the device. Others have questioned whether the steam was really dry or not. > If the question is whether the machine really produced heat or not, these > factors can be ignored. All you need to know is the temperature of the tap > water going in (15°C), the flow rate and the power input (400 W). At that > power level the outlet pipe would be ~30°C. Celani points out that the > input power was quite unstable, fluctuating between 400 and 800 W, but it > was still not large enough to explain the excess heat. > > Celani did not see the steam emerge from the end of the pipe, but he > reported the whistling sound of steam passing through the pipe. I think > there is no question the water boiled, and much of it was vaporized, so > there was massive excess heat. Celani complained that phase-change > calorimetry is too complicated, but I think he exaggerates the difficulty. > I agree that the actual calorimetric method could be improved, especially > with a 5-minute test of steam sparged into a container of cold water. > > Here are a couple of additional comments from Celani: > > a) The NaI (Tl) gamma detector had an energy range from 25 to 2000 keV; > > b) Celani asked, in several public mail to Rossi, that for a conclusive > SCIENTIFIC demonstration of such wonderful device, the maximum temperature > of the outgoing water has to be <90°C so that CONVENTIONAL flow calorimetry > can be used (rather than phase-change calorimetry). >
