FYI from a previous post. Please consider Rossi a expert first person experimental witness as follows:
Andrea Rossi December 28th, 2013 at 6:47 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833&cpage=4#comment-891266 Jed Rothwell: The team of Prof. has been increased. I cannot give more information about this issue. Warm Regards, A.R. And on self-destruct --- 1MW in 10 seconds !!!!! James Bowery December 28th, 2013 at 7:54 PM Dr. Rossi, When you say that reactors “explode” when out of control, do you mean they actually produce a loud noise? Or do they merely destructively over-heat? (As apparently happened to a HotCat in this photograph during the prior validation test:) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XuKgtxpqL9U/UYQSyPJP-OI/AAAAAAAAJYI/96mRUBJjs1w/s1600/ hot-cat.JPG Andrea Rossi December 28th, 2013 at 8:32 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833&cpage=4#comment-891334 James Bowery: Very sorry, I cannot answer to this question exhaustively, but I can say something. Obviously, the experiments are made with total respect of the safety of my team and myself. During the destructive tests we arrived to reach temperatures in the range of 2,000 Celsius degrees, when the “mouse” excited too much the E-Cat, and it is gone out of control, in the sense that we have not been able to stop the raise of the temperature ( we arrived on purpose to that level, because we wanted to study this kind of situation). A nuclear Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has calculated that the increase of temperature ( from 1 000 Celsius to 2,000 Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has increased of such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while the Mouse had a mean power of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have given the link of, and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red, then in 10 seconds all the cylinder became white-blue, starting from the white dot you see in the photo ( after 1 second) becoming totally white-blue in the following 9 seconds, and then an explosion and the ceramic inside ( which is a ceramic that melts at 2,000 Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant stone, like a ruby. When we opened the reactor, part of the AISI 310 ss steel was not molten, but sublimated and recondensed in form of microscopic drops of steel. Warm Regards, A.R. On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > First of all, Axil, we do not know which part of e-Cat melted or the > melting point of this material. Without this knowledge, speculation is > pointless. We know only that the temperature reached the melting point of > some material in the reactor. The NAE could not have melted because > otherwise energy production would stop before the energy required to form a > liquid could be produced. > > Many odd phenomenon have been revealed, not all of them are related to > LENR. The Shoulders EV is created only by spark discharge and the proton-21 > effect requires intense electron bombardment. Both produce conditions well > outside of what exists during LENR. Nevertheless, clearly several > unexpected conditions can cause nuclear reactions. Their relationship will > be better understood once LENR is understood. To do other wise would be > like trying to understand how fire works by studying the sun. We need to > stay in the parameter space known to apply, at least initially. > > Ed Storms > > On Jan 12, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > One manifestation of the LENR reaction that your theoretical thinking has > been very weak on is the explanation of the Rossi reactor meltdown when > high temperature material can melt at temperatures in excess of 2000C. > > Will you now attempt to explain how this high heat event can occur, > and explain the details of how this particular reaction can happen? > > I believe that the extremes of a reaction can reveal the detailed essence > of the reaction. > > I also wonder if you will cover Ken Shoulders discovery of transmutation > in spark production as well as transmutation produced in the proton 21 > experiment? > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> Axil, this insight will be provided in a book that will take my first >> book, written in 2007, to the present and show how the observations have >> been explained and how they can be better explained without conflict with >> what is known. Unfortunately, so many different opinions exists in the >> field, no one would believe what I propose without the complete evidence >> only a book can provide. >> >> Too many attempts at creating a theory are based on pure imagination >> without any relationship to reality or to what is actually observed. People >> simply do not read the literature. This is understandable because about >> 2000 papers must be found and read, which is a full time job. Enough >> information is now available to make rejection of most theories possible >> and to identify where the unique mechanism functions in the process. >> Nothing about the process conflicts with what is known. The unique >> mechanism is new and I predict the full understanding will warrant a Nobel >> prize by someone in the distant future. The best analogy to past >> discoveries would be the realization by Pauli that a neutrino-like particle >> existed based on how the energy of beta decay was found to be less than the >> required mass-energy change. Until then, people had no clue such a particle >> was possible. In the case of LENR, a new force is revealed that is hidden >> in plain sight in exactly the same way. A person only needs to know where >> to look. >> >> My book will describe my path to a solution. Of course, this will open >> the door to another rejection event by all the theoreticians and everyone >> who thinks they know how the effect works. But, then the book will speak >> for itself without my having to waste time in endless debate. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> >> On Jan 12, 2014, at 2:58 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm in the process of studying all the explanations and comparing them >>> to what is known in LENR and in general science. The failure to make >>> progress in explaining LENR is easy to see and a clear path to the correct >>> explanation is becoming obvious, at least to me. The problem has a >>> solution if you know where to look. >>> >>> >>> I am sure that all here want to get a preview of this emerging solution. >>> Is it possible to reveal to us a preview? >>> >> >> > >
