Re: [Vo]:Again on possible hints for Rossi's secret catalyst
On 2011-04-30 04:44, Rich Murray wrote: Uh, so far all known magnets have two poles and attract each other, unless held in a lattice that confines them strongly in a repulsive pattern. On the nanoscale, this would store huge amounts of energy. You're absolutely right here, of course. I regret writing the opening message because of that very stupid error. Please forget that part and consider the rest instead (unless there are other silly errors in it, which is possible since I apparently haven't checked the message before sending it to the group). Terribly embarrassed, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Again on possible hints for Rossi's secret catalyst
On 2011-04-30 05:07, Axil Axil wrote: As documented in the Cat-E patent, Rossi ash contains no element heavier the zinc. I have also looked at the waste documented in publically available spectrographs that have been produced by the Piantelli’s process and have not seen heavy elements there either. I guess I have to accept that as truth, although I'm dubious whether we can trust spectrograms in Rossi's patent or not, or even Piantelli's (real implementations might of course differ in many ways). Still, if one of Arata's important innovations for reproducibility and intensity has been avoiding the aggregation of microparticles adsorbing deuterium (hydrogen) as mentioned by Celani, Rossi must have taken care of that too, in order to maximize the surface area of nickel particles. I admit this is just my conjecture though. It might have no relevance at all in Rossi's case. Also since in my opening post I've already made a very very stupid, scientifically wrong assumption, maybe I don't have the best credentials to discuss about this. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:97 E-CATS in Operation at 4 sites
On 2011-04-29 02:32, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi never ceases to amaze me! There have not been this many cold fusion reactors in operation since Stan and Martin were open for business in Nice, France, and they ran 64 cells at a time. And those were only ~100 W each. Partially unrelated with the OP, but here's more interesting new information: * * * Dear Ing. Rossi, First of all congratulations for your work. I would like to know few details about the 1MW termal unit that you are going to deliver in Greece. Could you please provide me an estimation of the size and of the weight of the thermal part ? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=6#comment-35947 Andrea Rossi April 30th, 2011 at 7:05 AM Dear Mr Mirco Bianco: The whole will be contained in a box m. 3 x 2 x 2; weight tonn 2. Of course the container has much more space than necessary for the modules; it contains control panels, room for operator, etc. The energy density of the modules is totally another thing and is about 2 kW x 1000 cc^-1 Warm regards, A.R. * * * So, In short: - Power plant volume: 3m x 2m x 2m = 12m3 - Total weight: 2 metric tons - Module thermal power density: 2 kW/liter - Derived plant power density (thermal): 0.0833 kW/liter - Derived plant specific power (thermal): 0.5 kW/ton (metric) How does this data compare with other power sources? (although I'm not sure if specific power and power density of the whole plant are of any significance at all) Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:97 E-CATS in Operation at 4 sites
A GE90 turbofan engine, which has the highest power to weight ratio I've found provides about 9000 kW/ton of weight. Best lithium ion battery: 19387 kW/ton of weight _ from wikipedia GE90-115B Brayton turbofan jet engine[14][15] 83,164 kW 111,526 hp 10.0 kW/kg 6.10 hp/lb Boeing 777 VL 6Ah Lithium-ion battery[55] 3.65 V -20 °C 154 kJ/kg 30C to 2.5 V 41.4 W/kg 233 kJ/kg 58.3C to 2.5 V3757 W/kg 58.3C (350A) 4.29 kJ/kg 333C to 2.5 V21370 W/kg 333C (2kA) -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 5:38 AM So, In short: - Power plant volume: 3m x 2m x 2m = 12m3 - Total weight: 2 metric tons - Module thermal power density: 2 kW/liter - Derived plant power density (thermal): 0.0833 kW/liter - Derived plant specific power (thermal): 0.5 kW/ton (metric) How does this data compare with other power sources? (although I'm not sure if specific power and power density of the whole plant are of any significance at all) Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:97 E-CATS in Operation at 4 sites
> > * * * > > So, In short: > - Power plant volume: 3m x 2m x 2m = 12m3 > - Total weight: 2 metric tons > - Module thermal power density: 2 kW/liter > - Derived plant power density (thermal): 0.0833 kW/liter > - Derived plant specific power (thermal): 0.5 kW/ton (metric) > I would have said 0.5MW/ton
Re: [Vo]:97 E-CATS in Operation at 4 sites
On 2011-04-30 15:01, Michele Comitini wrote: I would have said 0.5MW/ton Whoops, of course you're right! It's 0.5 MW/ton. Yet another case of my fingers typing faster than my mind thinks. S.A.
[Vo]:Is the Rossi energy amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor?
I added my comment below to -69 comments to Is the Rossi energy amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor? .Jacques Dufour, I don't think exotic nuclear reactions are behind the missing Gamma radiation but rather our understanding of catalytic action and the theory of Casimir effect. Presently we assume the vacuum fluctuations in Casimir effect are "upshifted" such that longer wavelengths can not exist between Casimir boundaries and the total energy density is therefore reduced. I am proposing a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect where the longer wavelengs still exist and the boundaries appear to shrink away into the distance for a local observer in the cavity. This is based on the paper "Cavity QED" by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula, another paper on Relativistic hydrogen by Jan Naudts and "The Light Velocity Casimir Effect" by Tom Ostoma and Mike Trushyk where the measured velocity of light "appears" to increase due to Casimir geometry. My point is time dilation better explains the seeming increase in C calculated by entry and exity of light thru a cavity, it also gives an alternate explanation of "fractional" hydrogen orbits in this environment as a relativistic effect unseen by the local observer inside the cavity AND it would explain the missing radiation as not only "DOWNshifted" but also attenuation since the "contraction" we observe remotely is actually spatial displacement locally. We are trained to think of relativistic effects as requiring near luminal velocity to INCREASE vacuum energy density before dilation can occur but it would appear that Casimir supression can REDUCE vacuum energy density by doing just the opposite - spatial confinement - de- celeration or even "negative" acceleration AND instead of slowing time from our perspective it accelerates it. http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir- effect-expanded/ My blog does not speak to the nuclear paths but I am convinced this relativistic interpretation and energy density pumping above and below the disassociation threshold for h2 provides the initiating environment that makes otherwise improbable nuclear reactions probable.See my blog "Gas property of constant motion disassociates h2 in opposition to changes in casimir force". I think it makes a strong argument as an initial energy source for the Rossi patent consideration - where most patent offices treat this field like perpetual motion this approach cites the inexhaustible gas motion based on HUP as exploitable between inertial frames - something that excuses them from being unaware since this simply doesn't occur at the macro scale except at a slow gravitational gradient - not to mention driving any rectifying device between different inertial frames would take more energy than we could hope to rectify at the macro scale. At the nano scale we have free motion of h1 and h2 courtesy of HUP and thermal energy, If we suddenly have the ability to travel between frames the removal of energy to the point of liquifying or solidifying gas is irrelevant because it can be restored thru time dilation. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:97 E-CATS in Operation at 4 sites
Not a fair comparison, it does not include fuel to run continuosly at that power for 6 months. 2011/4/30 Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. : > > > A GE90 turbofan engine, which has the highest power to weight ratio I've > found provides about 9000 kW/ton of weight. > > Best lithium ion battery: > 19387 kW/ton of weight > > _ from wikipedia > > GE90-115B Brayton turbofan jet engine[14][15] 83,164 kW 111,526 hp > 10.0 > kW/kg 6.10 hp/lb Boeing 777 > > VL 6Ah Lithium-ion battery[55] 3.65 V -20 °C > 154 kJ/kg 30C to 2.5 V 41.4 W/kg > 233 kJ/kg 58.3C to 2.5 V 3757 W/kg 58.3C (350A) > 4.29 kJ/kg 333C to 2.5 V 21370 W/kg 333C (2kA) > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 5:38 AM > > So, In short: > - Power plant volume: 3m x 2m x 2m = 12m3 > - Total weight: 2 metric tons > - Module thermal power density: 2 kW/liter > - Derived plant power density (thermal): 0.0833 kW/liter > - Derived plant specific power (thermal): 0.5 kW/ton (metric) > > How does this data compare with other power sources? > (although I'm not sure if specific power and power density of the whole > plant are of any significance at all) > > Cheers, > S.A. > >
[Vo]:cell phones
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-previously-unaccounted-mechanism-cell.html (PhysOrg.com) -- The long running debate on whether cell phones are capable of damaging human tissue and causing health problems received new fuel from a paper published at arXiv by theoretical biologist Bill Bruno from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Cell phones and the microwave photons they create have been looked at for some time as having the potential for causing damage and health issues to humans. One side shows evidence that cell signals have affected human behavior and health, while the other side says there is no epidemiological evidence and that microwave photons do not have enough energy to damage chemical bonds and biological tissue. However, as Bruno points out in his paper, microwave photons can cause damage if the conditions are right. The main argument is that microwaves are not able to damage human tissue when the photon density in a cubic wavelength is less than one. Bruno compares this to optical tweezers, which are able to manipulate and damage cells with the use of photons. Optical tweezers have large amounts of photons piled on each other creating a stronger force. It is this reasoning that Bruno believes that cell signals are capable of damaging human tissue because their photons per cubic wavelength are much greater than one. Bruno has shown that the argument that microwaves cannot disrupt a chemical bond is no longer enough to say that cell phones are unable to damage human tissue. This new information will most definitely add more fuel to the cell phone debate. Bruno argues that the way current safe dosage limits are determined is not accurate because it does not take into account this tweezer-like notion into consideration. More information: What does photon energy tell us about cellphone safety? arXiv:1104.5008v1 [q-bio.OT] http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5008 Abstract It has been argued that cellphones are safe because a single microwave photon does not have enough energy to break a chemical bond. We show that cellphone technology operates in the classical wave limit, not the single photon limit. Based on energy densities relative to thermal energy, we estimate thresholds at which effects might be expected. These seem to correspond somewhat with many experimental observations. via Technology Review
[Vo]:Re-Read: Fran's Clearest & Best Documented Statement
ScottWm. Scott Smith Re-Read: Fran's Clearest & Best Documented Statement: I don’t think exotic nuclear reactions are behind the missing Gamma radiation but rather our understanding of catalytic action and the theory of Casimir effect. Presently we assume the vacuum fluctuations in Casimir effect are “upshifted” such that longer wavelengths can not exist between Casimir boundaries and the total energy density is therefore reduced. I am proposing a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect where the longer wavelengs still exist and the boundaries appear to shrink away into the distance for a local observer in the cavity. This is based on the paper “Cavity QED” by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula, another paper on Relativistic hydrogen by Jan Naudts and “The Light Velocity Casimir Effect” by Tom Ostoma and Mike Trushyk where the measured velocity of light “appears” to increase due to Casimir geometry. My point is time dilation better explains the seeming increase in C calculated by entry and exity of light thru a cavity, it also gives an alternate explanation of “fractional” hydrogen orbits in this environment as a relativistic effect unseen by the local observer inside the cavity AND it would explain the missing radiation as not only “DOWNshifted” but also attenuation since the “contraction” we observe remotely is actually spatial displacement locally. We are trained to think of relativistic effects as requiring near luminal velocity to INCREASE vacuum energy density before dilation can occur but it would appear that Casimir supression can REDUCE vacuum energy density by doing just the opposite – spatial confinement – de- celeration or even “negative” acceleration AND instead of slowing time from our perspective it accelerates it.http://froarty.scienceblog.com/32155/relativistic-interpertation-of-casimir-effect-expanded/My blog does not speak to the nuclear paths but I am convinced this relativistic interpretation and energy density pumping above and below the disassociation threshold for h2 provides the initiating environment that makes otherwise improbable nuclear reactions probable.See my blog “Gas property of constant motion disassociates h2 in opposition to changes in casimir force”. I think it makes a strong argument as an initial energy source for the Rossi patent consideration – where most patent offices treat this field like perpetual motion this approach cites the inexhaustible gas motion based on HUP as exploitable between inertial frames – something that excuses them from being unaware since this simply doesn’t occur at the macro scale except at a slow gravitational gradient – not to mention driving any rectifying device between different inertial frames would take more energy than we could hope to rectify at the macro scale. At the nano scale we have free motion of h1 and h2 courtesy of HUP and thermal energy, If we suddenly have the ability to travel between frames the removal of energy to the point of liquifying or solidifying gas is irrelevant because it can be restored thru time dilation.RegardsFran ·I I I
[Vo]:How best to go about mining the asteroid belt for nickle
And now, let's add back in the premise of mining the asteroid belt for virtually unlimited supplies of nickel! What would be the safest way to get those supplies back to Earth! Aiming nickel laden asteroids directly at Earth would IMO be a horrible suggestion, even if each asteroid was strategically slowed down to a less threatening reentry speed, even if engineering calculated precisely where each asteroid would reenter our atmosphere over a desolate spot. I wonder how much would be lost, i.e., burned up in the atmosphere. Could such reentry operations, particularly if performed on a massive scale contribute to unnecessary atmospheric pollution and/or other environmental hazards? I don't like the idea of parking imported asteroids in near-earth orbit either. After mining operations started (especially if operations focus on surface mining) this would likely result in incredible amounts of random grit expelled into adjacent space. All that unwanted grit would randomly park themselves into nearby earth orbit. It would very likely make space travel to and from our planet increasingly hazardous. I also have serious reservations about mining the asteroids out in the asteroid belt, for similar reasons: Surface mining operations would kick of considerable grit. Expelled grit would fly out into space. Again, this might make space travel hazardous, particularly for space freighters trying to negotiate their way through the belt. For me, the two most practical solutions that come to mind are: 1) NEVER EVER MINE THE SURFACE OF AN ASTEROID Always burrow inside and mine them from within. Also make sure each asteroid has a slow spin generating a small artificial gravity. That way, all loose grit would not only be contained within the interior of the asteroid, it would eventually precipitate out of the interior "space" and land on a nearby wall/floor. It's also conceivable that internal mining operations would allow for the possibility of introducing atmospheric pressurization. This might make mining operations more convenient for miners. The only downside, what to do with all that extracted and unwanted internal grit! Ya gota park it somewhere! 2) My best solution: Aim nickel laden asteroids directly at specially selected craters located on the Moon. These would be deep craters possessing high walls. Make sure each asteroid has been sufficiently slowed down so that when they impact the contents won't instantly vaporize. The resulting impact should only shatter the contents into smaller more digestible pieces that should be more easily mined. Also most of the resulting asteroid's eject (from the impact) would be contained within the walls of the crater. The moon's gravity would quickly take care of all ejected grit, settling it back to the surface. Mining the asteroid on the surface of the moon makes a lot of sense to me. The added cost of shipping processed nickel from the Moon to Earth might not add that much more to overall costs. I suspect it would be environmentally safer! --- Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
Robin recently brought up an important speculative issue pertaining to the available supply of nickel on our planet. If one assumes a worst case scenario it's possible we might only have a 100 year supply. [For the sake of argument, let's temporarily remove the premise of mining the asteroid belt for unlimited supplies of nickel! I'll follow-up with a different post on that matter.] Granted, I gather, Robin's estimate was deliberately engineered to be conservative - primarily to stress the point that without more information it would be wise to error on the conservative side - until we know more about what Rossi's e-cats really "transmute". I would love to hear various opinions on the matter of available supplies of Nickel, particularly pertaining to the economy of actually mining the element. How realistic of a "conservative" prediction is the 100 year prediction? What economics are involved? What do others think & speculate on this matter? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
-Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson I would love to hear various opinions on the matter of available supplies of Nickel, particularly pertaining to the economy of actually mining the element. How realistic of a "conservative" prediction is the 100 year prediction? What economics are involved? I looked into this recently. Presently nickel is mined from rich deposits such as the Sudbury Basin in Canada, which were former asteroid impact sites and have an unnaturally rich percentage. However, there are much larger deposits called laterites which are lower grade, and seldom mined due to comparative cost. These are very large tonnage, billion tons and more - but low-grade deposits. They are located close to the surface and can supply World energy needs for a very long time at a price of about 100/kg. (going by projections for copper prices - which is similar in ore concentration to laterites). There is roughly half as much nickel as carbon on earth ! IOW it is very common. Scarcity is not a problem - if the price is right. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
Jones Beene wrote: > However, there are much larger deposits called laterites which are lower > grade, and seldom mined due to comparative cost. > I do not know about nickel, but some types of ore are not mined because it takes a lot of energy to mine and separate the ore. With cold fusion, these ores could be mined in a cost effective manner. If this nickel ore can be extracted with lots of energy, then Rossi-style cold fusion energy overhead would be increased. It would be lower than the overhead for oil, which is reportedly 10% to 20%, depending on the type of oil and where it is extracted. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
At this point, the amount and balance of the elements in the Rossi ash cannot be determined. IMHO, Rossi can’t tell how much nickel or hydrogen is used, consumed, or transmuted in his reactor because of the large amount of iron (and other undocumented elements) that are produced by erosion from the walls of the reaction vessel. To start out with, the Catalyst is initially afixed to the walls of the stainless steel reaction vessel. To remove the ash for analysis, the ash must be abraded away from the walls of the stainless steel vessel by a mechanical process. A reamer, sander, or some other cutting tool grinds the ash off the walls of the stainless steel reaction vessel. A large amount of iron, nickel, chromium, and other trace components of stainless steel are removed by the extraction process. There is no way to tell if nickel is even consumed by transmutation. The copper in the ash may well come from just hydrogen fusion only. Until a controlled study of how copper is formed in the Rossi process, nothing can be said about the consumption of nickel as a feed stock of the Rossi process. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jones Beene wrote: > > >> However, there are much larger deposits called laterites which are lower >> grade, and seldom mined due to comparative cost. >> > > I do not know about nickel, but some types of ore are not mined because it > takes a lot of energy to mine and separate the ore. With cold fusion, these > ores could be mined in a cost effective manner. If this nickel ore can be > extracted with lots of energy, then Rossi-style cold fusion energy overhead > would be increased. It would be lower than the overhead for oil, which is > reportedly 10% to 20%, depending on the type of oil and where it is > extracted. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:How best to go about mining the asteroid belt for nickle
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Could such > reentry operations, particularly if performed on a massive scale contribute > to unnecessary atmospheric pollution and/or other environmental hazards? > Bad idea. > > I don't like the idea of parking imported asteroids in near-earth orbit > either. Still a bad idea. Here is what I recommend: A space elevator system. A big one. Really big! I mean hundreds of tracks, each carrying ~200 tons a day. Eventually, thousands of tracks. We need 4 or 5 separate elevator systems at various points around the equator, along the coast where ships, hovercraft and airships can offload to them. Park the asteroids or the material mined from them at the space elevator terminals, in geosynchronous orbits (GSO -- a.k.a. Clarke orbits). Move most heavy industrial production from the earth to the terminals. Do most of the refining and manufacturing up there. The stuff coming back down the space elevator is finished goods: automobiles, electronics, and other non-organic stuff. Probably food and wood-based goods should be made on earth, with the food grown underground or in gigantic multi-story food factories. Going up would be passenger service, naturally, but also things like scrap iron, inorganic waste, and all nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is dumped in to the sun. The rest is thrown into high temperature separation units and broken into and then separated into elements, and used as raw materials. It might be more cost effective to use solar energy rather than cold fusion for some of these purposes. Perhaps sunlight focused with giant lenses would be good. GSO are 42,000 km away. It would be great if passenger service could be arranged at 2,000 km/h or more, for a 21 hour trip. That would require some sort of Maglev cars. You cannot have any physical contact at those speeds. It would have to be a good distance from the track. The track would have to be rigid, I presume with magnets in it. So the track itself would be a massive structure. The space elevators now being planned are tracks about as wide and thin as newspaper page. If one of them falls, it will gradually drift to the ground, like confetti. These will support cars of several tons. The cars would travel with wheels -- friction climbers, at modest speeds of 100 to 200 km/h (slower than shinkansen trains). For future freight, I envision tracks somewhat thicker and stronger than the newspaper page size, but with climbing cars running maybe 400 km/h, a 4.4 day trip. Each car might carry 100 to 200 tons. A 747 air freighter payload capacity is 134 tons. Cars weigh less at high altitudes, so I think you can dispatch one every day. A few hundred tracks at each of the 4 or 5 earth terminals. Most world trade goes by sea. In recent years this has been roughly 7.7 billion tons. See: http://www.marisec.org/shippingfacts/worldtrade/volume-world-trade-sea.php A few years ago, roughly 34% of that tonnage was for oil. Coal is another large chunk of it. A lot is for food, which would taste a lot better if it were grown nearby the people who consume it. Assume that leaves 3 billion tons of things like automobiles, toys, clothing and so on. All of this should be manufactured by robots in vast industrial complexes at GSO, where real estate can be had in abundance at no cost, and there is no air to pollute or dust to get into the computer chip production line. That's 8.2 million tons a day. So we need 41,000 tracks, or 8,200 per terminal. An array of 90 x 90, roughly 200 meters apart should do it. They might vibrate or move around in heavy weather, so they should be kept apart. The passenger lines would be separate, and much heavier construction. This would be a complex 18 km per side, plus many underground warehouses, docks, airports and so on. All of the world's trade will pass through these points, on the way to and from the factories, and to other planets as well. The tracks might be beefed up to carry more than 200 tons a day, reducing the numbers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
Axil Axil wrote: > To start out with, the Catalyst is initially afixed to the walls of the > stainless steel reaction vessel. > > > > To remove the ash for analysis, the ash must be abraded away from the walls > of the stainless steel vessel by a mechanical process. A reamer, sander, or > some other cutting tool grinds the ash off the walls of the stainless steel > reaction vessel. > Where did you read that? That is not what I have heard from people testing similar materials. They say it is powder, and it is so fine it pours like a liquid. Arata's Pd-black and other material is easily removed from the cells. It is as fine as soot. - Jed
[Vo]:Apples & Oranges & Some part of many things in everything?
Doesn't everything have trace amount, at the very least, of many other things. Even assuming there really is Fusion Bi-Products, I don't see how they would be distinguishable from trace amounts of the same isotopes that are there, anyway. When I worked at Johnson Mathey, more than anything, we took metals that were already pure to one part in 10,000 and purified them to about one part in 100,000. A small number of things were pure to parts in a million. But this increase the value of the base metal MANY times, since only trace amounts were used in a given micro-circuit. This was many years ago, but I think my memory is reasonably close to the facts at that time. Comparing apples to oranges still gives us some information about fruit, in general: I seem to remember that the bi-products from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are though to have decreased in Mass on an order of only about a gram. My point is, one must postulate a really exotic form of fusion to explain so little heat for so much tranmuted by-products Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:43:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with? From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com At this point, the amount and balance of the elements in the Rossi ash cannot be determined. IMHO, Rossi can’t tell how much nickel or hydrogen is used, consumed, or transmuted in his reactor because of the large amount of iron (and other undocumented elements) that are produced by erosion from the walls of the reaction vessel. To start out with, the Catalyst is initially afixed to the walls of the stainless steel reaction vessel. To remove the ash for analysis, the ash must be abraded away from the walls of the stainless steel vessel by a mechanical process. A reamer, sander, or some other cutting tool grinds the ash off the walls of the stainless steel reaction vessel. A large amount of iron, nickel, chromium, and other trace components of stainless steel are removed by the extraction process. There is no way to tell if nickel is even consumed by transmutation. The copper in the ash may well come from just hydrogen fusion only. Until a controlled study of how copper is formed in the Rossi process, nothing can be said about the consumption of nickel as a feed stock of the Rossi process. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: However, there are much larger deposits called laterites which are lower grade, and seldom mined due to comparative cost. I do not know about nickel, but some types of ore are not mined because it takes a lot of energy to mine and separate the ore. With cold fusion, these ores could be mined in a cost effective manner. If this nickel ore can be extracted with lots of energy, then Rossi-style cold fusion energy overhead would be increased. It would be lower than the overhead for oil, which is reportedly 10% to 20%, depending on the type of oil and where it is extracted. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
Unless the catalyst evenly covers the inside surface of the reaction vessel (RV) evenly, the heat transfer to the water on the outside surface would be uneven, and inefficient. When the powder fell to the bottom of the RV through the action of gravity, a damaging hot spot would form on the bottom of the reaction vessel since only 5% of the surface of the RV would support all the heat produced by the catalyst. In addition, the heat from the internal heater would not evenly radiate the unfixed catalyst. IMHO, unless the catalyst is evenly distributed on the inside surface of the RV, it can be shone mathematically that a 130kw highly concentrated heat spike would melt through the wall of a one liter RV. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > >> To start out with, the Catalyst is initially afixed to the walls of the >> stainless steel reaction vessel. >> >> >> >> To remove the ash for analysis, the ash must be abraded away from the >> walls of the stainless steel vessel by a mechanical process. A reamer, >> sander, or some other cutting tool grinds the ash off the walls of the >> stainless steel reaction vessel. >> > > Where did you read that? > > That is not what I have heard from people testing similar materials. They > say it is powder, and it is so fine it pours like a liquid. Arata's Pd-black > and other material is easily removed from the cells. It is as fine as soot. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
Axil Axil wrote: Unless the catalyst evenly covers the inside surface of the reaction vessel > (RV) evenly, the heat transfer to the water on the outside surface would be > uneven, and inefficient. > In the Arata DS cathode devices, the powder was packed in tightly, so it covered the inside surfaces evenly, and did not move when the device was tilted. I have no idea what the inside of the Rossi device is like, but doubt there is any empty space. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Harry Veeder wrote: > In another post you said Levi will soon get to see inside the cell. > I didn't think Rossi would let anyone (except those involved in the > manufacturing?)see > inside a cell until his patent was granted. Does this mean he expects his > patent > will > be granted soon? > He said he hopes to get a patent at about the time of the 1 MW reactor roll-out, which is October. He and Levi both said that Levi will look inside the cell sooner than that. I do not know the schedule. I suppose Levi signed a non-disclosure agreement. I think they want to run the cell for a long time before opening it, for obvious reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
Rossi has stated that the amount of catalyst used in the one liter Reaction vessel is 100 grams. At a density of 3 grams per cm3, the catalyst comsums 33 cm3 of volume that is 3% of the total volume of the 1000 cm3 RV. 3% of unfixed powder would fall in a thin line on the bottom of the RV. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > Unless the catalyst evenly covers the inside surface of the reaction >> vessel (RV) evenly, the heat transfer to the water on the outside surface >> would be uneven, and inefficient. >> > > In the Arata DS cathode devices, the powder was packed in tightly, so it > covered the inside surfaces evenly, and did not move when the device was > tilted. > > I have no idea what the inside of the Rossi device is like, but doubt there > is any empty space. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jones Beene wrote: > OMG I going to be sick … with laughter. > > > > This is much better than SNL ever was …. > > > Cough, cough … yup it’s gotta be that micro-super-nova, [slaps forehead] > how could we have missed it !! > We didn't miss it. It was discussed here at length. You proposed a preposterous theory that different super-nova produce elements different isotopic ratios. Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the 1940s, would know that is wrong. So far you have added the most misinformation and mistaken information to this particular subject, but I am not sick with laughter. I think you should do your homework before blurting out such mistakes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
Axil Axil wrote: Rossi has stated that the amount of catalyst used in the one liter Reaction > vessel is 100 grams. At a density of 3 grams per cm3, the catalyst comsums > 33 cm3 of volume that is 3% of the total volume of the 1000 cm3 RV. > > > > 3% of unfixed powder would fall in a thin line on the bottom of the RV. > In that case, I do not understand why he does not use a rod with little inside volume, like a fission reactor fuel rod. What would be the point of leaving empty space inside? Maybe there is filler material? Or a solid core? This does not make sense, but a lot of what Rossi says does not make sense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
The internal heater (cathode) must be placed at a precise distance from the surface of the catalytic powder to maintain the correct electrostatic and heat gradient in the hydrogen gas (*vis*'*-à-vis' * H- , H2). This distance is determined experimentally. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > Rossi has stated that the amount of catalyst used in the one liter >> Reaction vessel is 100 grams. At a density of 3 grams per cm3, the catalyst >> comsums 33 cm3 of volume that is 3% of the total volume of the 1000 cm3 RV. >> >> >> >> 3% of unfixed powder would fall in a thin line on the bottom of the RV. >> > > In that case, I do not understand why he does not use a rod with little > inside volume, like a fission reactor fuel rod. > > What would be the point of leaving empty space inside? > > Maybe there is filler material? Or a solid core? > > This does not make sense, but a lot of what Rossi says does not make sense. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
Added thought follows: You should consider the design of the Rossi reaction vessel analogous to a vacuum tube, with the cathode (internal heater) placed at a precise distance from the grid (reaction vessel wall). On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > The internal heater (cathode) must be placed at a precise distance from the > surface of the catalytic powder to maintain the correct electrostatic and > heat gradient in the hydrogen gas (*vis*'*-à-vis' * H- , H2). This > distance is determined experimentally. > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Axil Axil wrote: >> >> Rossi has stated that the amount of catalyst used in the one liter >>> Reaction vessel is 100 grams. At a density of 3 grams per cm3, the catalyst >>> comsums 33 cm3 of volume that is 3% of the total volume of the 1000 cm3 RV. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3% of unfixed powder would fall in a thin line on the bottom of the RV. >>> >> >> In that case, I do not understand why he does not use a rod with little >> inside volume, like a fission reactor fuel rod. >> >> What would be the point of leaving empty space inside? >> >> Maybe there is filler material? Or a solid core? >> >> This does not make sense, but a lot of what Rossi says does not make >> sense. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
Axil Axil wrote: The internal heater (cathode) must be placed at a precise distance from the > surface of the catalytic powder to maintain the correct electrostatic and > heat gradient in the hydrogen gas (*vis*'*-à-vis' * H- , H2). This > distance is determined experimentally. > Ah. I guess that makes sense. So there is gas between the heater and the powder surface? I do not think it should be called a cathode, since there is no anode as far as I know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
"Ah. I guess that makes sense. So there is gas between the heater and the powder surface?" Hydrogen at 20 bar give or take. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > The internal heater (cathode) must be placed at a precise distance from >> the surface of the catalytic powder to maintain the correct electrostatic >> and heat gradient in the hydrogen gas (*vis*'*-à-vis' * H- , H2). This >> distance is determined experimentally. >> > > Ah. I guess that makes sense. So there is gas between the heater and the > powder surface? > > I do not think it should be called a cathode, since there is no anode as > far as I know. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Regarding this micro-super-nova, note that I said this is "improbable" meaning I do not believe it. I entertain the hypothesis, which Beene finds entertaining. So far, three improbable ideas have been proposed: 1. Cu amounting to 10% of the cell volume migrates in through stainless steel walls. Presumably, 10% of the Ni migrates out. 2. The cell acts as a micro-super-nova. 3. Actual super-novas produce different isotopic ratios, which is contrary to the last 70 years of astronomy. Beene apparently believes #1 and #3. I do not believe any of them, so Beene is evidently a better candidate for SNL than I am. I have never seen SNL, except for the Palin impersonations, so I wouldn't know about that. Beene also subscribes to a number of other highly improbable notions, such as the idea that professors cannot read digital scales, or that they might overlook a factor of 10 difference between two methods of determining a flow rate. I do not find that laughable. I do not think that laughing at people is appropriate at this forum. I don't see anything funny about any of this. It is rather annoying. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
From: Jed Rothwell * You proposed a preposterous theory that different super-nova produce elements different isotopic ratios. This is not a theory. It is known fact. It is not my proposal. It is seen every day in cosmology. Every supernova is different and even in any one, like the one that preceded our sun, after the initial coalescence of elements, isotopes were redistributed among the planets according to mass, and the isotopic composition of elements varies slightly from planet to planet. EVEN IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. To suggest earth could have a "universal" ratio of isotopes is beyond preposterous since it is not even the same between planets !!! * Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the 1940s, would know that is wrong. You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data? I challenge you to present a single piece of real evidence for Universal isotope ratios. * So far you have added the most misinformation and mistaken information to this particular subject, but I am not sick with laughter. You should be sick with embarrassment! . and to look like such a uneducated and yet vocal proponent - for this field of LENR. I am ashamed, for the entire field, that you are so misinformed on this important point, and not just that - so stubbornly misinformed. This casts a shadow over everything you have said about Rossi. Jones
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
“I do not think it should be called a cathode, since there is no anode as far as I know.” It is this internal heater that forms the H- ions (like a cathode) needed to make the Rossi reaction function so productively. This internal heater acts as a spill over catalyst to create H- ions. Rossi calls this his secret catalyst. Also, this is why you cannot find any traces of the secret catalyst element(s) in the ash product of the reaction. The internal heater acts at a distance and does not come in contact with the catalyst on the wall of the reaction vessel. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > "Ah. I guess that makes sense. So there is gas between the heater and the > powder surface?" > > Hydrogen at 20 bar give or take. > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Axil Axil wrote: >> >> The internal heater (cathode) must be placed at a precise distance from >>> the surface of the catalytic powder to maintain the correct electrostatic >>> and heat gradient in the hydrogen gas (*vis*'*-à-vis' * H- , H2). This >>> distance is determined experimentally. >>> >> >> Ah. I guess that makes sense. So there is gas between the heater and the >> powder surface? >> >> I do not think it should be called a cathode, since there is no anode as >> far as I know. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jones Beene wrote: > > Ø Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the > 1940s, would know that is wrong. > > > > You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you > must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data? > See the work of Townes and, for example, "Interstellar isotope ratios from mm-wave molecular absorption spectra." These studies would not be meaningful if isotopic ratios varied in different parts of the universe. - Jed
[Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2?
Can't remember if this has ever been discussed... Is the (industrial-grade?) hydrogen gas pure, or is there some D2 in it? If so, and its the D2 that is participating in the reaction, then wouldn't that affect the expected reaction products and isotope ratios? -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Massive Rossi Claim: "97 E-Cats In Operation Right Now Across 4 Countries"
From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: Their statement is either senile or idiotic, take your pick. Copper migration is well known, and no lucid physicist misses this point. Kullander misses it. Is he senile or stupid? > JR: I do not think that this much copper can migrate through stainless steel, so I doubt that can explain the presence of the copper. You did read the patent application, no? Direct quote from Publication number: US 2011/0005506 A1 Filing date: Aug 4, 2009 "An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that said nickel powder filled metal tube is a *copper tube, said copper tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance,* said tube being encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water " * As far as I know, E&K are merely entertaining the hypothesis. That is not what was said in the original public release. The two scarcely qualified their enthusiasm in any way. When you choose to put yourself in the public eye, as these men chose to do, and you make silly errors - then you cannot complain if people comment about your intellectual capability. That is what happens on News Groups - and it is part of the process of separating the wheat from the chaff. The message here is: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen... And BTW - as I recall Rothwell has said many worse and more belittling things about Joe Newman, Evan Soule and several other inventors here, and they probably deserved it. We agreed with those because these men were mistaken to the point of fraud. Fraud has not yet been ruled out with Rossi, and it is completely appropriate to question the competency of anyone who uses a University position to support what could possibly be a scam. Let me make it clear - I do NOT suspect a scam but it is not ruled out. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Massive Rossi Claim: "97 E-Cats In Operation Right Now Across 4 Countries"
Jones Beene wrote: > > JR: I do not think that this much copper can migrate through stainless > steel, so I doubt that can explain the presence of the copper. > > You did read the patent application, no? > > Direct quote from Publication number: US 2011/0005506 A1 Filing date: Aug > 4, > 2009 "An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that said > nickel powder filled metal tube is a *copper tube, said copper tube further > including at least a heating electrical resistance,* said tube being > encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water " > Yes. We have already discussed this. Rossi says that the present configuration is with a stainless steel cell, not copper. Levi et al. saw the outside of the cell and they agree it is stainless steel. It could be that the inside is copper, but that is not what Rossi says, and that would be an odd way to make a cell. Why not make the whole thing copper? So, for now, I think it is most likely the patent is out of date. That's my working hypothesis. It could be wrong. I think I made that clear before, in several statements. Feel free to disagree, but please do not ask me to reiterate such things. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Massive Rossi Claim: "97 E-Cats In Operation Right Now Across 4 Countries"
From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: Their statement is either senile or idiotic, take your pick. Copper migration is well known, and no lucid physicist misses this point. Kullander misses it. Is he senile or stupid? > JR: I do not think that this much copper can migrate through stainless steel, so I doubt that can explain the presence of the copper. You did read the patent application, no? Direct quote from Publication number: US 2011/0005506 A1 Filing date: Aug 4, 2009 "An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that said nickel powder filled metal tube is a *copper tube, said copper tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance,* said tube being encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water .." * As far as I know, E&K are merely entertaining the hypothesis. That is not what was said in the original public release. The two scarcely qualified their enthusiasm in any way. When you choose to put yourself in the public eye, as these men chose to do, and you make silly errors - then you cannot complain if people comment about your intellectual capability. That is what happens on News Groups - and it is part of the process of separating the wheat from the chaff. The message here is: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And BTW - as I recall Rothwell has said many worse and more belittling things about Joe Newman, Evan Soule and several other inventors here, and they probably deserved it. We agreed with those because these men were mistaken to the point of fraud. Fraud has not yet been ruled out with Rossi, and it is completely appropriate to question the competency of anyone who uses a University position to support what could possibly be a scam. Let me make it clear - I do NOT suspect a scam but it is not ruled out. Jones
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of January 14 wrong?
From: Jed Rothwell * Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the 1940s, would know that is wrong. JB: You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data? * JR: See the work of Townes and, for example, "Interstellar isotope ratios from mm-wave molecular absorption spectra." These studies would not be meaningful if isotopic ratios varied in different parts of the universe. LOL. I see you haven't understood this at all, let alone read Townes. Townes measured the `primordial' abundance of the `light elements', in the ISM. This has absolutely nothing to do with heavy elements in planets, all of which have isotopes that come from second or third generation stars, and all of which are vastly different from 'primordial' abundances, and each galaxy will have incorporated literally trillions of unique isotope balances . ..or do you really think that out earth has a primordial balance of copper - which was unaffected by the stellar event which formed out sun? This is preposterous. Again you are showing an incredible intellectual deficit in this argument - and that reflects poorly on Rossi. I am sure that in time, skeptics like Bob Park will pick up on this and beat you into the dirt with it! It is so foolish for you to be promoting this kind of bogosity! There are no heavy elements in the ISM spectrum which can be measured accurately BTW and subsequent stellar processing of the light elements has altered the relative abundances in every single star if you look close enough. That's right every single star has its own ratio of deuterium to hydrogen to helium, and every single nova also produced heavier elements such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in absolutely unique ratios. Copper-63 exists in a different ratio on our own moon, for goodness sake! There dozens of analyses of moon rocks online. When Kullander say it is natural - that is for earth but do you really think that the Rossi reactor, if one ever gets to the moon - will then magically shift gears and start producing fusion debris that matches the natural abundance there? Geeze can't you see the shallowness of your position? Stellar nucleosynthesis is a function of initial mass and composition - and larger mass stars and planets have isotopes which are very different from low mass - so Townes work was on the ISM was essentially meaningless to this, and like Newton's work on alchemy - primitive! Give it up Rothwell - you are beyond wrong and I do not want to make you look even more imbecilic by continuing this thread ad infinitum - but if you want that as part of the record, then so be it. Please do take the time to read your references, though, as it makes things work so much more smoothly . Jones
RE: [Vo]:Massive Rossi Claim: "97 E-Cats In Operation Right Now Across 4 Countries"
Apparently you failed to notice the date of that post. Yesterday. It must have been lost in cyberspace for a day. In any event, you have not come up with an effective response - one that does not involve something Rossi 'said' . since essentially that makes it irrelevant for the obvious reason that he has contradicted himself so many times, and littered the record with so many 'George Kelly' lies that he can never be trusted. Jones From: Jed Rothwell * Feel free to disagree, but please do not ask me to reiterate such things. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Massive Rossi Claim: "97 E-Cats In Operation Right Now Across 4 Countries"
Jones Beene wrote: > It must have been lost in cyberspace for a day. > > > > In any event, you have not come up with an effective response – one that > does not involve something Rossi ‘said’ … > Actually, it involves: 1. What Rossi said. 2. What Levi et al. observed on the outside of the cell. 3. What Levi et al. will see soon when they open the cell -- i.e. it would strange for Rossi to lie about something that will soon be revealed as a lie. What's the point? That's a lot more than taking Rossi's word for it. But let's drop the subject. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2?
Mark Iverson wrote: Can't remember if this has ever been discussed... > Is the (industrial-grade?) hydrogen gas pure, or is there some D2 in it? > There is always the natural abundance of D2 in ordinary H2. It is 1 part in 5,400 according to NIST. You would have to go to a lot of trouble to remove it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2?
I read on some blog three days ago that I can't remember the URL of that some knowledgeable person said that D2 poisons the reaction -- maybe that's the secret. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2? Mark Iverson wrote: Can't remember if this has ever been discussed... Is the (industrial-grade?) hydrogen gas pure, or is there some D2 in it? There is always the natural abundance of D2 in ordinary H2. It is 1 part in 5,400 according to NIST. You would have to go to a lot of trouble to remove it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
On 2011-04-30 20:34, Axil Axil wrote: It is this internal heater that forms the H- ions (like a cathode) needed to make the Rossi reaction function so productively. This internal heater acts as a spill over catalyst to create H- ions. Rossi calls this his secret catalyst. Also, this is why you cannot find any traces of the secret catalyst element(s) in the ash product of the reaction. The internal heater acts at a distance and does not come in contact with the catalyst on the wall of the reaction vessel. So perhaps Focardi mistook (maybe "intentionally") that with some kind of electrolysis in his last radio interview [1]? He said that Rossi used electrolysis to generate hydrogen on-the-fly for his E-Cat reactors in his factory at Bondeno. Rossi stressed recently that he doesn't use electrolysis at all [2]. But surely, even if some kind of auxiliary ionizer was used inside the reactor, that wouldn't be electrolysis. * * * [1] Excerpt from: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/sergio-focardi-father-of-ni-h-cold.html "At some point in the past, as the device kept working on and on, I started thinking of a hammer. "Let’s hit it with a hammer!" (Laughs). Well, what you do is you shut off ... the latest application has nickel inside it, then the hydrogen is supplied by electrolysis, so that … because you cannot keep a hydrogen tank at home, of course, it’s dangerous. Instead we generated it from water by electrolysis. So, the device kept on working, and I thought to myself: "I guess I’m going to have to use a hammer to stop it". Until one day Rossi told me “I stopped it!”. "And how did you do that?". He said: "I cut the power to the electrolysis, obviously". Right! All you have to do is run the electrolysis from a separate power source. You cut the power off there, and once the hydrogen is used up, the device stops by itself. " [2] http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=4#comment-35781 "[...]The only and sole guy, so far, that knows what happens inside the reactor is me. We do not use electrolysis." Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of January 14 wrong?
This very interesting paper http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~srf/isotopes/li1.pdf is all about isotope ratios varying from region to region. Sent from my iPhone. On Apr 30, 2011, at 15:56, "Jones Beene" wrote: > From: Jed Rothwell > > > > > > Ø Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the > 1940s, would know that is wrong. > > JB: You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you > must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data? > > Ø JR: See the work of Townes and, for example, "Interstellar isotope ratios > from mm-wave molecular absorption spectra." These studies would not be > meaningful if isotopic ratios varied in different parts of the universe. > > > > LOL. I see you haven’t understood this at all, let alone read Townes. > > > > Townes measured the `primordial' abundance of the `light elements', in the > ISM. This has absolutely nothing to do with heavy elements in planets, all of > which have isotopes that come from second or third generation stars, and all > of which are vastly different from ‘primordial’ abundances, and each galaxy > will have incorporated literally trillions of unique isotope balances … > > > > ….or do you really think that out earth has a primordial balance of copper - > which was unaffected by the stellar event which formed out sun? This is > preposterous. Again you are showing an incredible intellectual deficit in > this argument – and that reflects poorly on Rossi. > > > > I am sure that in time, skeptics like Bob Park will pick up on this and beat > you into the dirt with it! It is so foolish for you to be promoting this kind > of bogosity! > > > > There are no heavy elements in the ISM spectrum which can be measured > accurately BTW and subsequent stellar processing of the light elements has > altered the relative abundances in every single star if you look close > enough. That’s right every single star has its own ratio of deuterium to > hydrogen to helium, and every single nova also produced heavier elements such > as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in absolutely unique ratios. > > > > Copper-63 exists in a different ratio on our own moon, for goodness sake! > There dozens of analyses of moon rocks online. When Kullander say it is > natural – that is for earth but do you really think that the Rossi reactor, > if one ever gets to the moon – will then magically shift gears and start > producing fusion debris that matches the natural abundance there? > > > > Geeze can’t you see the shallowness of your position? Stellar > nucleosynthesis is a function of initial mass and composition - and larger > mass stars and planets have isotopes which are very different from low mass - > so Townes work was on the ISM was essentially meaningless to this, and like > Newton’s work on alchemy – primitive! > > > > Give it up Rothwell – you are beyond wrong and I do not want to make you look > even more imbecilic by continuing this thread ad infinitum – but if you want > that as part of the record, then so be it. > > > > Please do take the time to read your references, though, as it makes things > work so much more smoothly … > > > > Jones > >
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of January 14 wrong?
I would like to reset the tenor of this recent discussion - back towards our jointly shared goal on this forum of finding the truth about this important breakthrough of A. Rossi. I have come down too hard on Jed, who we all know is articulate and bright and seldom this wrong. However, there comes a point in any give-and-take when things can get out hand and it leaves a deep scar on the record, as preserved in the archives. None of us come away as victors in such a debate. For this I am as guilty as anyone by not being more moderate in framing the argument and the response. In this recent flare-up, being on the correct side of a debate, which is not always the case by any means, has no rewards. As we all know, to be human is to be imperfect; and all of us post in haste and wish we had spent more time with reading the literature, or in the underlying assumptions; or in my case most recently - conflating power vs energy. Mea Culpa. "None of us is as smart as all of us" is my credo for participation in these debates - and we all are seeking the same kind of clearer understanding in the end. So please - let's drop the contention on this particular point, with all (or most) of us agreeing (or at least acknowledging the overwhelming probability) that the natural ratio of isotopes as seen on earth CANNOT be a universal ratio. That is simply not the way that cosmology works; even if we want it to be different, for the purpose of Rossi's credibility. Furthermore, if and when a natural ratio is seen in nuclear debris, the most likely conclusion to be derived from that is that this particular isotope was NOT involved in whatever reaction created the anomaly. My apologies to other vorticians for the wasted bandwidth, and the edginess of the heated exchanges. This is crucible from which understanding emerges (we hope). Jones
Re: [Vo]:How best to go about mining the asteroid belt for nickle
It would be good to bring some asteroids to the space elevator, rather than mining them and bringing only the ore, because you need a counter-weight beyond GSO. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
Akira Shirakawa wrote: > So perhaps Focardi mistook (maybe "intentionally") that with some kind of > electrolysis in his last radio interview [1]? He said that Rossi used > electrolysis to generate hydrogen on-the-fly for his E-Cat reactors . . . > [2] http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=4#comment-35781 > "[...]The only and sole guy, so far, that knows what happens inside the > reactor is me. We do not use electrolysis." > I have been wondering about this. My guess is that Rossi means his device uses gas-loaded cold fusion, rather than the original Fleischmann-Pons electrolysis loading. The method of producing hydrogen outside the reactor is not "what happens inside the reactor." That method is also unimportant. Who cares where the hydrogen comes from, as long as it works? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2?
But if you start out with pure water (H2O, w/o any D2O) and generate the hydrogen gas via electrolysis, then the gas would be pure hypothetically speaking of course. -Mark _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2? Mark Iverson wrote: Can't remember if this has ever been discussed... Is the (industrial-grade?) hydrogen gas pure, or is there some D2 in it? There is always the natural abundance of D2 in ordinary H2. It is 1 part in 5,400 according to NIST. You would have to go to a lot of trouble to remove it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
On 2011-04-30 23:37, Jed Rothwell wrote: I have been wondering about this. My guess is that Rossi means his device uses gas-loaded cold fusion, rather than the original Fleischmann-Pons electrolysis loading. I agree that here Rossi probably means that. The method of producing hydrogen outside the reactor is not "what happens inside the reactor." That method is also unimportant. Who cares where the hydrogen comes from, as long as it works? There are secondary implications from what Focardi said, however. 1) Using electrolysis would also "poison" the cell with oxygen (even if minimally in the best case, with good separation). We know that oxygen in free form is bad for Ni-H reaction. The less oxides form in the cell, especially on nickel particles, the better. Also small quantities of water might enter in the catalyst container and poison the reaction in other ways. 2) How is an internal reactor pressure of 20-25 bars achieved by using electrolysis in that way? 3) Isn't hydrogen supposed to be used in very small quantities anyway? Also it isn't really "consumed", just absorbed, unless it spills somewhere. So why use electrolysis? It could be that these are non-issues, however I find the generation of hydrogen from electrolysis odd in Rossi's case. My idea (assuming my observations are correct, which maybe is not the case) is that either Focardi got confused with the system used or he didn't tell the entire truth on the matter. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:More from Rossi's Blog: plans,electrolysis,casimir
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473 Bjorn Genborg April 29th, 2011 at 10:02 AM Dear Mr.Rossi; Question 1: What would you consider being the worst “showstopper” for you and your invention? I mean, what do you consider being the biggest risk/drawback that could happen? For example: Authorities not allowing the device? Oil companies trying to “kill” it? Proplems with up-scaling? Unknown environmental issues? ... Andrea Rossi April 29th, 2011 at 2:59 PM Dear Mr Bjorn Genborg: 1- My death. Nothing else will stop this. Warm regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi April 29th, 2011 at 3:01 PM Dear John Davison: The only and sole guy, so far, that knows what happens inside the reactor is me. We do not use electrolysis. Warm regards, A.R. [ On the Focardi/electrolysis thread ... maybe they used electrolysis as a hydrogen source early on, but now they use industrial cylinders. ] Carlo Ombello April 29th, 2011 at 9:16 PM Dear Ing. Rossi, I truly hope you’re joking and that your death won’t stop your invention from spreading further! surely you already are in the agenda of many in the energy and financial establishment. Mechanisms must be in place for worst case scenario events. But I’m sure that with your life experience you must have quite a few good plans in place, right? ... Cari saluti Ing. Carlo Ombello Andrea Rossi [ I think this one was vortexed earlier, but I can't find it ] April 30th, 2011 at 7:05 AM Dear Mr Mirco Bianco: The whole will be contained in a box m. 3 x 2 x 2; weight tonn 2. Of course the container has much more space than necessary for the modules; it contains control panels, room for operator, etc. The energy density of the modules is totally another thing and is about 2 kW x 1000 cc^-1 Warm regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi April 30th, 2011 at 11:16 AM Dear Mr Enrico: 1- our modular E-Cats are already produced with a definite design 2- we will soon be able to produce tens of thousands of modules per year Warm regards, A.R. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=488 Paul Fernhout April 30th, 2011 at 8:23 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=488&cpage=1#comment-35961 ... discusses casimir effect ... Andrea Rossi April 30th, 2011 at 11:12 AM Dear Mr Paul Fernhout: I will think about your insight. Warm regards, A.R.
RE: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2?
ratio of D2 to H2 in gaseous hydrogen: 1 in 5400 (NIST) ratio of deuterium to hydrogen in sea water: 1 in 6400 (wikipedia) with only slight variations between most natural waters. Hmmm, close enough to be a cause/effect relationship? -Mark _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2? Mark Iverson wrote: Can't remember if this has ever been discussed... Is the (industrial-grade?) hydrogen gas pure, or is there some D2 in it? There is always the natural abundance of D2 in ordinary H2. It is 1 part in 5,400 according to NIST. You would have to go to a lot of trouble to remove it. - Jed
[Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
Has anyone read this before? It was posted on the Rossi blog a long time ago. I think it is a big clue about the function of the catalyst. Also, please don't run up to his blog and suggest he delete it to protect his IP. The world needs all the info they can get so this technology can be replicated, ASAP! --- http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62&cpage=2#comment-273 * Andrea Rossi April 29th, 2010 at 9:46 AM I said ‘eventually’ because it is exactly what happens. Of course you know that in English ‘eventually’ means ‘after some time’.We know exactly why and how to make H after the injection of H2 and know exactly how difficult is to use this radical before H2 recombination. This is one of the most important parts of our know how. When we use terms, in this field, we know exactly what we say. We not just made models and calculations, but we made apparatuses which are working from 2 years now. What we are working on is no more an ‘experimental set’, as you wrongly wrote,it is an apparatus which heats up a factory and of which we are organizing the industrialization. I understand you get fun, we don’t: we work on this in a factory totally dedicated to this, and we are pretty good at, as you soon will see. In our team there are Nuclear Physics University professors, with experience from CERN of Geneva, INFN, etc., etc. Your lecturing and sarcastic tone does not qualify you a lot, but we know, you get fun… About the second question, yes, the paper has been peer-reviewed. Get fun, ‘MR BROWN’, and let your sun smile for ever. A.R. p.s. Now, after your lecturing, I want to put you some questions: 1- Who are you? D.Brown is a fake name, so you approached us unonimously, which is not fair, is it? But I know: it’s fun.. 2- which is your profession? What do you do, besides cozy smiling suns?
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
On 2011-05-01 00:43, noone noone wrote: Has anyone read this before? It was posted on the Rossi blog a long time ago. I think it is a big clue about the function of the catalyst. Also, please don't run up to his blog and suggest he delete it to protect his IP. The world needs all the info they can get so this technology can be replicated, ASAP! The important part: [...] We know exactly why and how to make H after the injection of H2 and know exactly how difficult is to use this radical before H2 recombination. This is one of the most important parts of our know how. Very interesting! That is a confirmation of what Focardi hinted in his latest radio interview [1]: that the catalyst "might be something" that improves adsorption of atomic hydrogen rather than that of molecular hydrogen. There must be technical implications in the process (the "knowhow") which I'll leave the experts figure out, but that's pretty much it. This is also further confirmation that Focardi knows more than he says he does, and makes me wonder about other things he said. Good find! S.A. [1] http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/sergio-focardi-father-of-ni-h-cold.html
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of January 14 wrong?
Whew! T
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
In reply to Akira Shirakawa's message of Sat, 30 Apr 2011 23:54:10 +0200: Hi, [snip] >1) Using electrolysis would also "poison" the cell with oxygen (even if >minimally in the best case, with good separation). We know that oxygen ...surely, a DC electrolysis cell will only create Oxygen at one electrode and only Hydrogen at the other? In short, it is quite simple to produce pure Hydrogen? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
In reply to Akira Shirakawa's message of Sat, 30 Apr 2011 23:54:10 +0200: Hi, [snip] >2) How is an internal reactor pressure of 20-25 bars achieved by using >electrolysis in that way? Electrolysis can actually produce very high pressures. Much higher than those required here. > >3) Isn't hydrogen supposed to be used in very small quantities anyway? yes. >Also it isn't really "consumed", just absorbed, unless it spills >somewhere. So why use electrolysis? Not it's really consumedbut we don't know exactly how much is consumed. That depends on the actual reactions that are taking place. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:How best to go about mining the asteroid belt for nickle
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:19:49 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Aiming nickel laden asteroids directly at Earth would IMO be a horrible >suggestion, even if each asteroid was strategically slowed down to a less >threatening reentry speed, even if engineering calculated precisely where >each asteroid would reenter our atmosphere over a desolate spot. I wonder >how much would be lost, i.e., burned up in the atmosphere. Could such >reentry operations, particularly if performed on a massive scale contribute >to unnecessary atmospheric pollution and/or other environmental hazards? They would first be placed in Earth orbit, then landed using something like a space shuttle (I imagine), at least initially. Otherwise one risks losing too much during reentry burn up. Although that depends on the size I guess. Small ones would lose a relatively large proportion, while very large ones might be quite economical, however they also make a much larger "dent". ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
-Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa > That is a confirmation of what Focardi hinted in his latest radio interview [1]: that the catalyst "might be something" that improves adsorption of atomic hydrogen rather than that of molecular hydrogen. In essence this is what a "spillover catalyst" does. Unalloyed nickel is not a good spillover catalyst, but it has a modest effect. Palladium is better. There is a massive body of literature on spillover, as it is the very heart of petroleum refining. The big advance of Arata/Zhang is that they discovered an alloy of about 13-15% palladium with the balance nickel (when embedded in a zirconia support) which gives a factor of more than 10 times more spillover effect. This is detectable as surface loading and excess heat, even unpowered. This has been confirmed and improved by Brian Ahern and others. Even so, it is very likely that the Rossi breakthrough is a spillover catalyst that gives far more than the 10x the effect of Arata/Zhang. Jones
Re: [Vo]:How best to go about mining the asteroid belt for nickle
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:19:49 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I don't like the idea of parking imported asteroids in near-earth orbit >either. After mining operations started (especially if operations focus on >surface mining) this would likely result in incredible amounts of random >grit expelled into adjacent space. All that unwanted grit would randomly >park themselves into nearby earth orbit. It would very likely make space >travel to and from our planet increasingly hazardous. It would make more sense to just "land" the entire thing rather than mining in orbit, because much of what burned off in the atmosphere would then be the unwanted "junk" anyway. If you first extract the Nickel, then only land that, then what you lose is pure product. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:How best to go about mining the asteroid belt for nickle
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:19:49 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I also have serious reservations about mining the asteroids out in the >asteroid belt, for similar reasons: Surface mining operations would kick of >considerable grit. Expelled grit would fly out into space. Again, this might >make space travel hazardous, particularly for space freighters trying to >negotiate their way through the belt. > I doubt that would make much difference. There is already a huge amount of crap in the belt anyway. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
On 2011-05-01 01:30, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: ...surely, a DC electrolysis cell will only create Oxygen at one electrode and only Hydrogen at the other? In short, it is quite simple to produce pure Hydrogen? Even I know that oxygen and hydrogen are generated separately at each electrode, what I was wondering is if in a closed system (to build up pressure) there isn't risk of oxygen spillover where it isn't needed. It's a honest question, I don't know the technical details, although I do know how basic electrolysis systems are made. OK, maybe it's a silly question after all. Electrolysis can actually produce very high pressures. Much higher than those required here. I wasn't aware. I guess then it would make sense to use electrolysis in that way. Not it's really consumedbut we don't know exactly how much is consumed. That depends on the actual reactions that are taking place. I see. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:How best to go about mining the asteroid belt for nickle
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:19:49 -0500: Hi, [snip] >The only downside, what to do >with all that extracted and unwanted internal grit! Ya gota park it >somewhere! You just place it in the already mined out portions. It will always be less than you extracted because you have removed the useful part. (Glassification may be needed to recompress it). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Apples & Oranges & Some part of many things in everything?
In reply to Wm. Scott Smith's message of Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:24:03 -0700: Hi, [snip] >My point is, one must postulate a really exotic form of fusion to explain so >little heat for so much tranmuted by-products Please quantify this. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
On 2011-05-01 01:34, Jones Beene wrote: [...] Even so, it is very likely that the Rossi breakthrough is a spillover catalyst that gives far more than the 10x the effect of Arata/Zhang. Interesting, thanks very much for the info. So in the end Rossi didn't really reveal anything special, since in short that is what Arata-Zhang already discovered, although at a much lower yield apparently. However that is probably, as you say, his breakthrough (or most of it), and that's where research should go. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Symantec Email Proxy Deleted Message
Symantec Email Proxy deleted the following email message: From: "Jones Beene" To: Subject: The butter connection to Rossi - hydrogenation
[Vo]:The butter connection to Rossi - hydrogenation
"Hydrogenation" is a term seen on many edible foods these days. It implies spillover catalysis. It also implies that the maker of the product is too cheap to use butter. The process is commonly employed to reduce vegetable oils. Hydrogenation typically constitutes the addition of atomic hydrogen to another molecule. Catalysts are required for the reaction to be usable and they do not have a long lifetime. In the Great Depression - butter was an expensive commodity, and margarine had already been invented 100 years earlier as a cheaper substitute not needing cows - but using soybean oil instead - yet it wasn't really all that cheap till Raney came along. "Raney nickel" was developed near Chattanooga TN - by the predecessor company of WR Grace in 1926 by Murray Raney as a "hydrogenation catalyst" for converting vegetable oils to margarine and other marvelously cheap edibles. It is an effective hydrogenation catalyst, but primarily only used today as an nickel alloy - not pure nickel. The alloy, even after aluminum removal - is typically 85-90% nickel. The original aluminum that it is cast from never alloys with nickel - and can be leached out leaving an extremely reactive nano-equivalent surface. The sodium hydroxide leachant, when some is left-over, also improves the spillover capability of Raney nickel This is the recent history of the Rossi effect- in my opinion. He has discovered an alloy of nickel which is far preferable to those current available from Grace, or from other suppliers (mostly from China) as an alternative to the brand name of Raney Nickel, which is still a trademarked name. An inventor can say, in complete honesty, but with a complete intent to deceive: "I do not use Raney nickel" ... which only means that he did not buy the catalyst from WR Grace & Co and who would? It costs about 4 times more from Grace than from anyone else. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
As I stated before in the Cat-E patent, Rossi ash contains no element heavier the zinc. Rossi has stated that he does not use precious metals in the Cat-E. The logical conclusion is that that there is no spill over catalyst mixed in with the nickel catalyst. The source of hydrogen ionization works at a distance from the surface of the nickel powder. The internal heater can generate a 1000 times more H- ions that any spill over catalyst element could possible produce. This internal heater is capable of ionizing the entire volume of the hydrogen if required. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > On 2011-05-01 01:34, Jones Beene wrote: > > [...] > > Even so, it is very likely that the Rossi breakthrough is a spillover >> catalyst that gives far more than the 10x the effect of Arata/Zhang. >> > > Interesting, thanks very much for the info. So in the end Rossi didn't > really reveal anything special, since in short that is what Arata-Zhang > already discovered, although at a much lower yield apparently. > > However that is probably, as you say, his breakthrough (or most of it), and > that's where research should go. > > Cheers, > S.A. > >
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
On 2011-05-01 02:23, Axil Axil wrote: As I stated before in the Cat-E patent, Rossi ash contains no element heavier the zinc. Rossi has stated that he does not use precious metals in the Cat-E. Do you think the patent can be trusted? After all it's written in the least useful possible way (prominent example: reactor temperature range of 150-5000 degrees C). There's also microscope photography of the ash, which shows particles in the micron range in size. As nanoparticles are easy to come by, and that according to Arata decreasing particle size to the nanometers range increases the likelihood of reaction, wouldn't it be wise for Rossi to use them instead (unless there is a very specific reason to use particles in the micron range)? I bet he already does. The point of this being: that patent is probably outdated or deliberately incomplete, and might lack fundamental information to obtain the huge excess heat reported. Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
-Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa > Do you think the patent can be trusted? After all it's written in the least useful possible way ... Very observant, Akira. You should hear good US patent attorneys lambast this document as some kind of joke. This document could be a complete diversionary tactic. It has no value in the USA, and actually could be used as proof of lack of 'good faith.' In the USA - the element of 'good faith' is built into law, unlike parts of Europe and Asia, where it is occasionally seen as an American reversion to its Puritanical roots. Mattia Rizzi, in a past posting, indicates that there is a new and yet unpublished WIPO document, which is due out soon - which will very likely convey the important details that Rossi wants to protect. He will then write-off this USPTO diversion as a business expense. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
Rossi would never give the nickel catalyst to anyone if the “secret” could be chemically deduced from the nickel powder. The “secret” is not associated with the nickel powder. Rossi said: *“I understand you get fun, we don’t: we work on this in a factory totally dedicated to this, and we are pretty good at, as you soon will see. In our team there are Nuclear Physics University professors, with experience from CERN of Geneva, INFN, etc., etc.”* Workers at CERN are expert at producing hydrogen IONs (protons) to fill the CERN acceleration ring. Producing ionized hydrogen (plasma) and accelerating these protons are what atoms smashers are all about. Rossi ionizes hydrogen using current from the PLCs in his control box. Varying the voltage of this current to his internal heater is how he controls his reactor. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > On 2011-05-01 02:23, Axil Axil wrote: > >> As I stated before in the Cat-E patent, Rossi ash contains no element >> heavier the zinc. Rossi has stated that he does not use precious metals >> in the Cat-E. >> > > Do you think the patent can be trusted? After all it's written in the least > useful possible way (prominent example: reactor temperature range of > 150-5000 degrees C). There's also microscope photography of the ash, which > shows particles in the micron range in size. As nanoparticles are easy to > come by, and that according to Arata decreasing particle size to the > nanometers range increases the likelihood of reaction, wouldn't it be wise > for Rossi to use them instead (unless there is a very specific reason to use > particles in the micron range)? I bet he already does. > > The point of this being: that patent is probably outdated or deliberately > incomplete, and might lack fundamental information to obtain the huge excess > heat reported. > > Cheers, > S.A. > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
Rossi has specifically stated that one or two other elements are used as catalysts with the nickel powder. So while it is possible there is not a "spill over catalyst" there is some type of catalyst mixed in with the nickel. The truth cannot be that he has lied repeatedly to the world on his blog, lied to Focardi and other associates repeatedly, and there is no catalyst at all. If (and I do not think this is the case) the heater is the only thing responsible for the reaction and he has lied about the catalysts I hope his technology goes no where. I do not have pity for liars, but I do not think he is lying. I think he is telling the truth. From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, April 30, 2011 5:23:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? As I stated before in the Cat-E patent, Rossi ash contains no element heavier the zinc. Rossi has stated that he does not use precious metals in the Cat-E. The logical conclusion is that that there is no spill over catalyst mixed in with the nickel catalyst. The source of hydrogen ionization works at a distance from the surface of the nickel powder. The internal heater can generate a 1000 times more H- ions that any spill over catalyst element could possible produce. This internal heater is capable of ionizing the entire volume of the hydrogen if required. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-05-01 01:34, Jones Beene wrote: > >[...] > > >Even so, it is very likely that the Rossi breakthrough is a spillover catalyst >that gives far more than the 10x the effect of Arata/Zhang. >> Interesting, thanks very much for the info. So in the end Rossi didn't really reveal anything special, since in short that is what Arata-Zhang already discovered, although at a much lower yield apparently. > >However that is probably, as you say, his breakthrough (or most of it), and >that's where research should go. > >Cheers, >S.A. > >
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
Could you please share more with us about the WIPO document that is due out soon? Do you have any links to discussion about it? This is the FIRST TIME I have heard about this. Would this WIPO document cover the catalyst his system use? Rossi has stated they have submitted a patent application covering the catalysts and preperation of the nickel powder. Is there anything Rossi can do to delay the publication of this patent application? I know of one company that simply continually edited their patent applications to delay them from being published. They have been doing this for years. From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, April 30, 2011 6:02:19 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa > Do you think the patent can be trusted? After all it's written in the least useful possible way ... Very observant, Akira. You should hear good US patent attorneys lambast this document as some kind of joke. This document could be a complete diversionary tactic. It has no value in the USA, and actually could be used as proof of lack of 'good faith.' In the USA - the element of 'good faith' is built into law, unlike parts of Europe and Asia, where it is occasionally seen as an American reversion to its Puritanical roots. Mattia Rizzi, in a past posting, indicates that there is a new and yet unpublished WIPO document, which is due out soon - which will very likely convey the important details that Rossi wants to protect. He will then write-off this USPTO diversion as a business expense. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
Rossi has specifically said that a couple of elements are used as catalysts. If what you are saying is true (and I do not believe it is) it would make him a total lying scum-bag. Of course, I don't think he is lying and he is telling us the truth. Also, the fact the system can self sustain without an input for extended periods of time (and can actually be difficult to stop) tells me the heaters are not the catalysts. From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, April 30, 2011 6:03:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? Rossi would never give the nickel catalyst to anyone if the “secret” could be chemically deduced from the nickel powder. The “secret” is not associated with the nickel powder. Rossi said: “I understand you get fun, we don’t: we work on this in a factory totally dedicated to this, and we are pretty good at, as you soon will see. In our team there are Nuclear Physics University professors, with experience from CERN of Geneva, INFN, etc., etc.” Workers at CERN are expert at producing hydrogen IONs (protons) to fill the CERN acceleration ring. Producing ionized hydrogen (plasma) and accelerating these protons are what atoms smashers are all about. Rossi ionizes hydrogen using current from the PLCs in his control box. Varying the voltage of this current to his internal heater is how he controls his reactor. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-05-01 02:23, Axil Axil wrote: > >As I stated before in the Cat-E patent, Rossi ash contains no element >>heavier the zinc. Rossi has stated that he does not use precious metals >>in the Cat-E. >> Do you think the patent can be trusted? After all it's written in the least useful possible way (prominent example: reactor temperature range of 150-5000 degrees C). There's also microscope photography of the ash, which shows particles in the micron range in size. As nanoparticles are easy to come by, and that according to Arata decreasing particle size to the nanometers range increases the likelihood of reaction, wouldn't it be wise for Rossi to use them instead (unless there is a very specific reason to use particles in the micron range)? I bet he already does. > >The point of this being: that patent is probably outdated or deliberately >incomplete, and might lack fundamental information to obtain the huge excess >heat reported. > >Cheers, >S.A. > > > >
Re: [Vo]:How best to go about mining the asteroid belt for nickle
Mining the asteroid belt would be easy if the powers that be would release the gravity and inertia based technologies they have been keeping beyond top secret. These technologies exist, but are simply highly classified. With these technologies mining the asteroid belt would be extremely easy. Of course when these technologies emerge there would be little need for cold fusion, because more advanced energy technologies would emerge. From: "mix...@bigpond.com" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, April 30, 2011 4:34:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How best to go about mining the asteroid belt for nickle In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:19:49 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Aiming nickel laden asteroids directly at Earth would IMO be a horrible >suggestion, even if each asteroid was strategically slowed down to a less >threatening reentry speed, even if engineering calculated precisely where >each asteroid would reenter our atmosphere over a desolate spot. I wonder >how much would be lost, i.e., burned up in the atmosphere. Could such >reentry operations, particularly if performed on a massive scale contribute >to unnecessary atmospheric pollution and/or other environmental hazards? They would first be placed in Earth orbit, then landed using something like a space shuttle (I imagine), at least initially. Otherwise one risks losing too much during reentry burn up. Although that depends on the size I guess. Small ones would lose a relatively large proportion, while very large ones might be quite economical, however they also make a much larger "dent". ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
From: Axil Axil * The internal heater can generate a 1000 times more H- ions that any spill over catalyst element could possible produce. Where did you come up with that? First, let's be clear. Spillover is NOT the negative ion. It is monatomic and uncharged. An internal heater can supply about .2 eV, of mass-energy for catalysis and a good spillover catalyst provides almost 3 eV. There is at least a 15:1 difference. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
Rossi said: *“We know exactly why and how to make H after the injection of H2 and know exactly how difficult is to use this radical before H2 recombination. This is one of the most important parts of our know how. When we use terms, in this field, we know exactly what we say.”* * * *It could not be more clear.* * * *“We know exactly why and how to make H after the injection of H2”* * * *Rossi is ionizing hydrogen. He is breaking it apart to form plasma that he directs toward the wall of the reaction chamber.* * * *You said* * * *“So while it is possible there is not a "spill over catalyst" there is some type of catalyst mixed in with the nickel.”* * * *NO.* * * *Hydrogen *molecules dissociate to atomic hydrogen in the presence of a tungsten cathode at temperatures > 800°C.** * * *The secret element is thorium oxide. It coats the internal heater to produce lots of electrons. These electrons ionize hydrogen. The thorium is coated with some carbon to protect it from evaporation.* * * *Rossi did not allow Livi to take a gamma spectrum because this would have revealed the use of the thorium coatings on the internal heater.* On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:10 PM, noone noone wrote: > Rossi has specifically stated that one or two other elements are used as > catalysts with the nickel powder. > > So while it is possible there is not a "spill over catalyst" there is some > type of catalyst mixed in with the nickel. > > The truth cannot be that he has lied repeatedly to the world on his blog, > lied to Focardi and other associates repeatedly, and there is no catalyst at > all. > > If (and I do not think this is the case) the heater is the only thing > responsible for the reaction and he has lied about the catalysts I hope his > technology goes no where. > > I do not have pity for liars, but I do not think he is lying. I think he is > telling the truth. > > -- > *From:* Axil Axil > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sat, April 30, 2011 5:23:46 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? > > As I stated before in the Cat-E patent, Rossi ash contains no element > heavier the zinc. Rossi has stated that he does not use precious metals in > the Cat-E. > > > > The logical conclusion is that that there is no spill over catalyst mixed > in with the nickel catalyst. > > > > The source of hydrogen ionization works at a distance from the surface of > the nickel powder. > > > > The internal heater can generate a 1000 times more H- ions that any spill > over catalyst element could possible produce. This internal heater is > capable of ionizing the entire volume of the hydrogen if required. > > > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Akira Shirakawa < > shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2011-05-01 01:34, Jones Beene wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> Even so, it is very likely that the Rossi breakthrough is a spillover >>> catalyst that gives far more than the 10x the effect of Arata/Zhang. >>> >> >> Interesting, thanks very much for the info. So in the end Rossi didn't >> really reveal anything special, since in short that is what Arata-Zhang >> already discovered, although at a much lower yield apparently. >> >> However that is probably, as you say, his breakthrough (or most of it), >> and that's where research should go. >> >> Cheers, >> S.A. >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
*From the 2010 Piantelli patent an important section is excerpted for your convenience as follows:* * * *[quote] The H- ions can be obtained by treating, under particular operative conditions, hydrogen H2 molecules that have been previously adsorbed on said transition metal surface, where the semi-free valence electrons form a plasma. In particular, a heating is needed to cause lattice vibrations, i.e. phonons, whose energy is higher than a first activation energy threshold, through non-linear and an harmonic phenomena. In such conditions, the following events can occur: * *a dissociation of the hydrogen molecules that is adsorbed on the surface; an interaction with valence electrons of the metal, and formation of H- ions;* *- an adsorption of the H- ions into the clusters, in particular the clusters that form the two or three crystal layers that are most close to the surface. The H- ions can just physically interact with the metal, or can chemically bond with it, in which case hydrides can be formed.* * * *The H- ions can also be adsorbed into the lattice interstices, but adsorption at the grain edges, by trapping the ions into the lattice defects; replacement of an atom of the metal of clusters may also occur.* * * *After such adsorption step, the H- ions interact with the atoms of the clusters, provided that a second activation threshold is exceeded, which is higher than the first threshold. By exceeding this second threshold, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle and with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the conditions are created for replacing electrons of metal atoms with H- ions, and, accordingly, for forming metal-hydrogen complex atoms. This event can take place due to the fermion nature of H- ion; however, since H- ions have a mass 1838 times larger than an electron mass, they tend towards deeper layers, and cause an emission of Auger electrons and of X rays. Subsequently, since the H- ion Bohr radius is comparable with the metal core radius, the H- ions can be captured by the metal core, causing a structural reorganization and freeing energy by mass defect; the H- ions can now be expelled as protons, and can generate nuclear reactions with the neighbouring cores. More in detail, the complex atom that has formed by the metal atom capturing the H- ion, in the full respect of the energy conservation principle, of the Pauli exclusion principle, and of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, is forced towards an excited status, therefore it reorganizes itself by the migration of the H- ion towards deeper orbitals or levels, i.e. towards a minimum energy state, thus emitting Auger electrons and X rays during the level changes. The H- ion falls into a potential hole and concentrates the energy which was previously distributed upon a volume whose radius is about 10e-12 m into a smaller volume whose radius is about 5x10e-15 m. * * * *At the end of the process, the H- ion is at a distance from the core that is comparable with the nuclear radius; in fact in the fundamental status of the complex atom that is formed by adding the H- ion, due to its mass that is far greater than the mass of the electron, the H- ion is forced to stay at such deep level at a distance from the core that is comparable with the nuclear radius, in accordance with Bohr radius calculation. As above stated, owing to the short distance from the core, a process is triggered in which the H- ion is captured by the core, with a structural reorganization and energy release by mass defect, similarly to what happens in the case of electron capture with structural reorganization and energy release by mass defect or in case of loss of two electrons, due to their intrinsic instability, during the fall process towards the lowest layers, and eventually an expulsion of the the H- ion takes place as a proton, as experimentally detected in the cloud chamber, and nuclear reactions can occur with other neighboring cores, said reactions detected as transmutations on the active core after the production of energy.* * * *According to the above, the actual process cannot be considered as a fusion process of hydrogen atoms, in particular of particular hydrogen isotopes atoms; instead, the process has to be understood as an interaction of a transition metal and hydrogen in general, in its particular form of H- ion.[/quote]* * * *The H-ion is the active agent in both the Piantelli and Rossi process which itself is just a variation of the Piantelli process.* * * *Upon reading this section of Piantelli patent, I remembered the THYRATRON. The hydrogen thyratron is a high peak power electrical switch which uses hydrogen gas as the switching medium. The switching action is achieved by a transfer from the insulating properties of neutral gas to the conducting properties of ionized gas.* * * * * *Of interest as applied the Rossi process, the Thyratron communication phase is achieved by introducing plasma into the grid/anode region vi
RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
I see no claim of a high rate of H- formation - where is it? From: Axil Axil Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 6:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? >From the 2010 Piantelli patent an important section is excerpted for your convenience as follows: [quote] The H- ions can be obtained by treating, under particular operative conditions, hydrogen H2 molecules that have been previously adsorbed on said transition metal surface, where the semi-free valence electrons form a plasma. In particular, a heating is needed to cause lattice vibrations, i.e. phonons, whose energy is higher than a first activation energy threshold, through non-linear and an harmonic phenomena. In such conditions, the following events can occur: a dissociation of the hydrogen molecules that is adsorbed on the surface; an interaction with valence electrons of the metal, and formation of H- ions; - an adsorption of the H- ions into the clusters, in particular the clusters that form the two or three crystal layers that are most close to the surface. The H- ions can just physically interact with the metal, or can chemically bond with it, in which case hydrides can be formed. The H- ions can also be adsorbed into the lattice interstices, but adsorption at the grain edges, by trapping the ions into the lattice defects; replacement of an atom of the metal of clusters may also occur. After such adsorption step, the H- ions interact with the atoms of the clusters, provided that a second activation threshold is exceeded, which is higher than the first threshold. By exceeding this second threshold, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle and with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the conditions are created for replacing electrons of metal atoms with H- ions, and, accordingly, for forming metal-hydrogen complex atoms. This event can take place due to the fermion nature of H- ion; however, since H- ions have a mass 1838 times larger than an electron mass, they tend towards deeper layers, and cause an emission of Auger electrons and of X rays. Subsequently, since the H- ion Bohr radius is comparable with the metal core radius, the H- ions can be captured by the metal core, causing a structural reorganization and freeing energy by mass defect; the H- ions can now be expelled as protons, and can generate nuclear reactions with the neighbouring cores. More in detail, the complex atom that has formed by the metal atom capturing the H- ion, in the full respect of the energy conservation principle, of the Pauli exclusion principle, and of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, is forced towards an excited status, therefore it reorganizes itself by the migration of the H- ion towards deeper orbitals or levels, i.e. towards a minimum energy state, thus emitting Auger electrons and X rays during the level changes. The H- ion falls into a potential hole and concentrates the energy which was previously distributed upon a volume whose radius is about 10e-12 m into a smaller volume whose radius is about 5x10e-15 m. At the end of the process, the H- ion is at a distance from the core that is comparable with the nuclear radius; in fact in the fundamental status of the complex atom that is formed by adding the H- ion, due to its mass that is far greater than the mass of the electron, the H- ion is forced to stay at such deep level at a distance from the core that is comparable with the nuclear radius, in accordance with Bohr radius calculation. As above stated, owing to the short distance from the core, a process is triggered in which the H- ion is captured by the core, with a structural reorganization and energy release by mass defect, similarly to what happens in the case of electron capture with structural reorganization and energy release by mass defect or in case of loss of two electrons, due to their intrinsic instability, during the fall process towards the lowest layers, and eventually an expulsion of the the H- ion takes place as a proton, as experimentally detected in the cloud chamber, and nuclear reactions can occur with other neighboring cores, said reactions detected as transmutations on the active core after the production of energy. According to the above, the actual process cannot be considered as a fusion process of hydrogen atoms, in particular of particular hydrogen isotopes atoms; instead, the process has to be understood as an interaction of a transition metal and hydrogen in general, in its particular form of H- ion.[/quote] The H-ion is the active agent in both the Piantelli and Rossi process which itself is just a variation of the Piantelli process. Upon reading this section of Piantelli patent, I remembered the THYRATRON. The hydrogen thyratron is a high peak power electrical switch which uses hydrogen gas as the switching medium. The switching action is achieved by a transfer from the insulating properties of neutral gas to the conduc
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
Rossi stated there are no radioactive elements put into the device. Thorium is radioactive. Thorium oxide is too. I do not think he would lie about putting no radioactive materials into the cell. Although your idea is interesting (and allows for another element to be used), it would mean Rossi is a liar. I find that difficult to believe. I think he is telling the truth, but if he is lying I hope his tech goes no where! Do you have any additional evidence for the presence of Thorium? From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, April 30, 2011 6:25:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? Rossi said: “We know exactly why and how to make H after the injection of H2 and know exactly how difficult is to use this radical before H2 recombination. This is one of the most important parts of our know how. When we use terms, in this field, we know exactly what we say.” It could not be more clear. “We know exactly why and how to make H after the injection of H2” Rossi is ionizing hydrogen. He is breaking it apart to form plasma that he directs toward the wall of the reaction chamber. You said “So while it is possible there is not a "spill over catalyst" there is some type of catalyst mixed in with the nickel.” NO. Hydrogen molecules dissociate to atomic hydrogen in the presence of a tungsten cathode at temperatures > 800°C. The secret element is thorium oxide. It coats the internal heater to produce lots of electrons. These electrons ionize hydrogen. The thorium is coated with some carbon to protect it from evaporation. Rossi did not allow Livi to take a gamma spectrum because this would have revealed the use of the thorium coatings on the internal heater. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:10 PM, noone noone wrote: Rossi has specifically stated that one or two other elements are used as catalysts with the nickel powder. > >So while it is possible there is not a "spill over catalyst" there is some >type >of catalyst mixed in with the nickel. > >The truth cannot be that he has lied repeatedly to the world on his blog, lied >to Focardi and other associates repeatedly, and there is no catalyst at all. > > >If (and I do not think this is the case) the heater is the only thing >responsible for the reaction and he has lied about the catalysts I hope his >technology goes no where. > >I do not have pity for liars, but I do not think he is lying. I think he is >telling the truth. > > > > > From: Axil Axil >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Sat, April 30, 2011 5:23:46 PM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? > > > >As I stated before in the Cat-E patent, Rossi ash contains no element heavier >the zinc. Rossi has stated that he does not use precious metals in the Cat-E. > >The logical conclusion is that that there is no spill over catalyst mixed in >with the nickel catalyst. > >The source of hydrogen ionization works at a distance from the surface of the >nickel powder. > >The internal heater can generate a 1000 times more H- ions that any spill over >catalyst element could possible produce. This internal heater is capable of >ionizing the entire volume of the hydrogen if required. > > > >On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Akira Shirakawa >wrote: > >On 2011-05-01 01:34, Jones Beene wrote: >> >>[...] >> >> >>Even so, it is very likely that the Rossi breakthrough is a spillover >>catalyst >>that gives far more than the 10x the effect of Arata/Zhang. >>> > Interesting, thanks very much for the info. So in the end Rossi didn't really reveal anything special, since in short that is what Arata-Zhang already discovered, although at a much lower yield apparently. >> >>However that is probably, as you say, his breakthrough (or most of it), and >>that's where research should go. >> >>Cheers, >>S.A. >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
Beside iron, I cannot think of another element that can be detected using a gamma spectrum beside thorium. One of the rare earth elements can replace thorium as an electron emitter but it would not last as long. He might not be using thorium to be politically correct. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:46 PM, noone noone wrote: > Rossi stated there are no radioactive elements put into the device. > > Thorium is radioactive. Thorium oxide is too. I do not think he would lie > about putting no radioactive materials into the cell. > > Although your idea is interesting (and allows for another element to be > used), it would mean Rossi is a liar. I find that difficult to believe. I > think he is telling the truth, but if he is lying I hope his tech goes no > where! > > Do you have any additional evidence for the presence of Thorium? > > > -- > *From:* Axil Axil > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sat, April 30, 2011 6:25:15 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? > > Rossi said: > > > > *“We know exactly why and how to make H after the injection of H2 and know > exactly how difficult is to use this radical before H2 recombination. This > is one of the most important parts of our know how. When we use terms, in > this field, we know exactly what we say.”* > > * * > > *It could not be more clear.* > > * * > > *“We know exactly why and how to make H after the injection of H2”* > > * * > > *Rossi is ionizing hydrogen. He is breaking it apart to form plasma that > he directs toward the wall of the reaction chamber.* > > * * > > *You said* > > * * > > *“So while it is possible there is not a "spill over catalyst" there is > some type of catalyst mixed in with the nickel.”* > > * * > > *NO.* > > * * > > *Hydrogen *molecules dissociate to atomic hydrogen in the presence of a > > tungsten cathode at temperatures > 800°C.** > > * * > > *The secret element is thorium oxide. It coats the internal heater to > produce lots of electrons. These electrons ionize hydrogen. The thorium is > coated with some carbon to protect it from evaporation.* > > * * > > *Rossi did not allow Livi to take a gamma spectrum because this would have > revealed the use of the thorium coatings on the internal heater.* > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:10 PM, noone noone wrote: > >> Rossi has specifically stated that one or two other elements are used as >> catalysts with the nickel powder. >> >> So while it is possible there is not a "spill over catalyst" there is some >> type of catalyst mixed in with the nickel. >> >> The truth cannot be that he has lied repeatedly to the world on his blog, >> lied to Focardi and other associates repeatedly, and there is no catalyst at >> all. >> >> If (and I do not think this is the case) the heater is the only thing >> responsible for the reaction and he has lied about the catalysts I hope his >> technology goes no where. >> >> I do not have pity for liars, but I do not think he is lying. I think he >> is telling the truth. >> >> -- >> *From:* Axil Axil >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Sat, April 30, 2011 5:23:46 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? >> >> As I stated before in the Cat-E patent, Rossi ash contains no element >> heavier the zinc. Rossi has stated that he does not use precious metals in >> the Cat-E. >> >> >> >> The logical conclusion is that that there is no spill over catalyst mixed >> in with the nickel catalyst. >> >> >> >> The source of hydrogen ionization works at a distance from the surface of >> the nickel powder. >> >> >> >> The internal heater can generate a 1000 times more H- ions that any spill >> over catalyst element could possible produce. This internal heater is >> capable of ionizing the entire volume of the hydrogen if required. >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Akira Shirakawa < >> shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2011-05-01 01:34, Jones Beene wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> Even so, it is very likely that the Rossi breakthrough is a spillover catalyst that gives far more than the 10x the effect of Arata/Zhang. >>> >>> Interesting, thanks very much for the info. So in the end Rossi didn't >>> really reveal anything special, since in short that is what Arata-Zhang >>> already discovered, although at a much lower yield apparently. >>> >>> However that is probably, as you say, his breakthrough (or most of it), >>> and that's where research should go. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> S.A. >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
On 2011-05-01 03:30, Axil Axil wrote: [...] *The H-ion is the active agent in both the Piantelli and Rossi process which itself is just a variation of the Piantelli process.[...] Wow. I've never read Piantelli's patent (and now I realize I should have), which is quite clear and descriptive. It does really look like, as far as we know, that Rossi's process is a variation of Piantelli's. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
*“The trigger plasma provides a copious supply of electrons so that anode breakdown proceeds until ionized plasma connects the cathode and anode.”* “Connects the cathode and anode” means “ionize the entire bulk of the hydrogen atmosphere” A hot cathode can ionize the entire bulk of the hydrogen atmosphere in the Rossi reaction vessel if the filament is big enough and hot enough. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > I see no claim of a high rate of H- formation – where is it? > > > > > > *From:* Axil Axil > *Sent:* Saturday, April 30, 2011 6:30 PM > > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? > > > > *From the 2010 Piantelli patent an important section is excerpted for your > convenience as follows:* > > * * > > *[quote] The H- ions can be obtained by treating, under particular > operative conditions, hydrogen H2 molecules that have been previously > adsorbed on said transition metal surface, where the semi-free valence > electrons form a plasma. In particular, a heating is needed to cause lattice > vibrations, i.e. phonons, whose energy is higher than a first activation > energy threshold, through non-linear and an harmonic phenomena. In such > conditions, the following events can occur: * > > *a dissociation of the hydrogen molecules that is adsorbed on the surface; > an interaction with valence electrons of the metal, and formation of H- > ions;* > > *- an adsorption of the H- ions into the clusters, in particular the > clusters that form the two or three crystal layers that are most close to > the surface. The H- ions can just physically interact with the metal, or can > chemically bond with it, in which case hydrides can be formed.* > > * * > > *The H- ions can also be adsorbed into the lattice interstices, but > adsorption at the grain edges, by trapping the ions into the lattice > defects; replacement of an atom of the metal of clusters may also occur.* > > * * > > *After such adsorption step, the H- ions interact with the atoms of the > clusters, provided that a second activation threshold is exceeded, which is > higher than the first threshold. By exceeding this second threshold, in > accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle and with the Heisenberg > uncertainty principle, the conditions are created for replacing electrons of > metal atoms with H- ions, and, accordingly, for forming metal-hydrogen > complex atoms. This event can take place due to the fermion nature of H- > ion; however, since H- ions have a mass 1838 times larger than an electron > mass, they tend towards deeper layers, and cause an emission of Auger > electrons and of X rays. Subsequently, since the H- ion Bohr radius is > comparable with the metal core radius, the H- ions can be captured by the > metal core, causing a structural reorganization and freeing energy by mass > defect; the H- ions can now be expelled as protons, and can generate nuclear > reactions with the neighbouring cores. More in detail, the complex atom that > has formed by the metal atom capturing the H- ion, in the full respect of > the energy conservation principle, of the Pauli exclusion principle, and of > the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, is forced towards an excited status, > therefore it reorganizes itself by the migration of the H- ion towards > deeper orbitals or levels, i.e. towards a minimum energy state, thus > emitting Auger electrons and X rays during the level changes. The H- ion > falls into a potential hole and concentrates the energy which was previously > distributed upon a volume whose radius is about 10e-12 m into a smaller > volume whose radius is about 5x10e-15 m. * > > * * > > *At the end of the process, the H- ion is at a distance from the core that > is comparable with the nuclear radius; in fact in the fundamental status of > the complex atom that is formed by adding the H- ion, due to its mass that > is far greater than the mass of the electron, the H- ion is forced to stay > at such deep level at a distance from the core that is comparable with the > nuclear radius, in accordance with Bohr radius calculation. As above stated, > owing to the short distance from the core, a process is triggered in which > the H- ion is captured by the core, with a structural reorganization and > energy release by mass defect, similarly to what happens in the case of > electron capture with structural reorganization and energy release by mass > defect or in case of loss of two electrons, due to their intrinsic > instability, during the fall process towards the lowest layers, and > eventually an expulsion of the the H- ion takes place as a proton, as > experimentally detected in the cloud chamber, and nuclear reactions can > occur with other neighboring cores, said reactions detected as > transmutations on the active core after the production of energy.* > > * * > > *According to the above, the actual process cannot be considered as a > fusion process of hydrogen ato
RE: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
Yes, Piantelli's patent is certainly more "enabling" than Rossi's... I think the most interesting statement in the patent excerpt is: "...heating is needed to cause lattice vibrations, i.e. phonons, whose energy is higher than a first activation energy threshold, through non-linear and an harmonic phenomena." "thru NON_LINEAR and a HARMONIC phenomena." For the theorists out there, what do you make of that statement? -Mark _ From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 6:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST? >From the 2010 Piantelli patent an important section is excerpted for your >convenience as follows: [quote] The H- ions can be obtained by treating, under particular operative conditions, hydrogen H2 molecules that have been previously adsorbed on said transition metal surface, where the semi-free valence electrons form a plasma. In particular, a heating is needed to cause lattice vibrations, i.e. phonons, whose energy is higher than a first activation energy threshold, through non-linear and an harmonic phenomena. In such conditions, the following events can occur: a dissociation of the hydrogen molecules that is adsorbed on the surface; an interaction with valence electrons of the metal, and formation of H- ions; - an adsorption of the H- ions into the clusters, in particular the clusters that form the two or three crystal layers that are most close to the surface. The H- ions can just physically interact with the metal, or can chemically bond with it, in which case hydrides can be formed.
Re: [Vo]:The butter connection to Rossi - hydrogenation
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > "Raney nickel" was developed near Chattanooga TN - I didn't know you Tennesseans made RN. T
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
The hydrogen is not ionized. I really think it's worth the time to read another member's theory: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf T
Re: [Vo]:How much nickel does the planet really have to play around with?
In reply to Akira Shirakawa's message of Sun, 01 May 2011 01:39:24 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Even I know that oxygen and hydrogen are generated separately at each >electrode, what I was wondering is if in a closed system (to build up >pressure) there isn't risk of oxygen spillover where it isn't needed. >It's a honest question, I don't know the technical details, although I >do know how basic electrolysis systems are made. OK, maybe it's a silly >question after all. > I think one can alleviate this by putting a pressure valve on the collector at the Oxygen electrode, that vents the Oxygen when it gets above a set pressure. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Can there be some D2 in the H2?
In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:15:46 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Can't remember if this has ever been discussed... >Is the (industrial-grade?) hydrogen gas pure, or is there some D2 in it? > >If so, and its the D2 that is participating in the reaction, then wouldn't >that affect the expected >reaction products and isotope ratios? > >-Mark I don't think there is enough D in ordinary H to explain the energy output. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:57:11 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Beside iron, I cannot think of another element that can be detected using a >gamma spectrum beside thorium. > He wouldn't allow use of the spectrometer while the device *was in operation*. IMO that implies that either x-rays or gamma rays are generated during operation, and their spectra would reveal the chemical composition of the content. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Old, but MAJOR clue about the Rossi CATALYST?
In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:25:37 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Yes, Piantelli's patent is certainly more "enabling" than Rossi's... > >I think the most interesting statement in the patent excerpt is: >"...heating is needed to cause lattice vibrations, i.e. phonons, whose energy >is higher than a first >activation energy threshold, through non-linear and an harmonic phenomena." > >"thru NON_LINEAR and a HARMONIC phenomena." ...I think the patent contains a minor error, and should read "...and anharmonic ^^^ phenomena". (Which in turn relates to the Israeli Superwave theory?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
