Re: [Vo]:E-catworld webpage Host

[Frank (admin)]

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 5:29 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>
> Yes, it does seem to be reasonably organized. At first glance some of the
> information even strikes me as being somewhat objective.
>
> I would nevertheless be concerned about copy cats and opportunists
> attempting to skim a little cream off the top of the bottle. IMO, the
> nature
> of Rossi's endeavors (assuming it turns out to be the real deal) will by
> default attract a lot of unsavory individuals who in turn will attempt to
> cash in and then bolt from the scene as quickly as they can at the height
> of
> the predicted "stampede."
>
> Perhaps someone could ask Rossi to comment on the credentials of the web
> site over at his Journal. Hopefully, he is aware of this website and can
> either endorse and/or vouch for it, or not. Either response from Rossi
> would, I think, be revealing.
>
>
> 

Just to let people know that I am the publisher of E-Cat World. The site is
not at all an official Rossi site -- but he does
know about the site and has expressed no objection to it being in
publication. I told him that it was for news, information
and comment about E-Cat technology. He was fine with that, but reminded me
that I was not allowed to use any of his company's
trademarks in the sales of products or services, which of course is fine
with me.

Trying to be objective about the tech, but since I feel pretty well
convinced that Rossi has what he claims, the articles will come across
as quite supportive of his technology.

Please get in touch with me if you have any questions or comments.

Frank

http://www.e-catworld.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: Ekstrom on a Swedish blog -- fuel -- Kullander -- Uppsala eCat after June

[Harry Veeder]

That explains why Ekstrom provided this link:
 
Cold fusion: A case study for scientific behavior
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_01

This twelve page article uses a check-list of good scientific practice to 
explain how Pons and Flieschman practiced bad science, while the rest of the 
scientific community practiced good science. 


On the last page it says:
"However, there was still a price to pay for this misconduct: time, energy, and 
upwards of 100 million tax dollars were squandered on cold fusion." 

I wonder where they got that figure!

Harry

>
>From: Alan Fletcher 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Sat, May 21, 2011 9:55:11 PM
>Subject: [Vo]:Re: Ekstrom on a Swedish blog -- fuel -- Kullander -- Uppsala 
>eCat 
>after June
>
>
>Ekstrom:  Crazy or not, you can sell a certain thing does not work.  There 
>have 
>been many times. Rossi's agenda is simply to generate interest and support 
>from 
>those who believe in him or are too polite to tell the truth. Critics ignoring 
>him completely. Mats Lewan on New Technologies was an absolutely perfect 
>person: 
>gullible, speaks Italian and writes in a newspaper that at least so far had a 
>decent reputation ('ll see how it is when this is over). 
>
>
>...  [ google won't let me copy & paste ]  on p3 he says:
>
>I still believe the energy balance is a scam and know at least one way to 
bluff.
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Wiki Energy Catalyzer is effectively dead.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:04 PM 5/20/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

I hope this Wiki behavior is being meticulously documented, if for anything,
for posterity.


It's all in page history, Steven, unless Revision Deletion is used, 
and that's not likely to happen to any serious extent.


Long story. And, yes, it's being documented. 

Re: [Vo]:Wiki Energy Catalyzer is effectively dead.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:08 PM 5/20/2011, you wrote:
The Pathological Skeptics / Reliable Source Police have been 
attacking it line by line for several days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

This morning they  deleted the 18-hour test:

16:09, 
20 May 2011 
Moishe 
Rosenbaum ( 
talk | 
contribs) 
(21,339 bytes) 
( 18 
hour test: Removed unverified scientific claims because it still 
reads like a science article -- see talk.)


Now they're planning to remove anything describing it as "science", 
and MAY allow it to continue as a description of a commercial venture.


I've removed it from my useful links section in 
http://lenr.qumbu.com / http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v401.php


Well, you should look more closely (and Wikipedia doesn't care at all 
whether you link to the article).


The Energy Catalyzer can't be treated as "science" yet. Where are the 
peer-reviewed publications? Where are the secondary source reviews? 
Where are the independent replications?


The 18-hour test is back, and will almost certainly stay. To 
understand Wikipedia, you can't just look at what happens on a 
one-day basis! Consensus is built, more or less, gradually, unless it 
is warped by selectively blocking a point of view, which can and does 
happen, but which hasn't happened here yet.


Watch the editor EnergyNeutral. He or she is a Single Purpose Account 
(SPA), obviously an experienced Wikipedian, or has studied Wikipedia 
well or is being coached. Attempts may be made to block him, based on 
claims of sock puppetry, using the famous duck test, which is often 
based on point of view (though his point of view doesn't seem to 
match that of the blocked editors I know, not exactly.) He could 
actually be a sock of a blocked or banned editor, it's a possible 
explanation for his behavior.


When people let this selective enforcement happen and just stand by, 
wringing their hands, that's how the pseudo-skeptics get away with 
warping Wikipedia coverage. If you want to help, register an account 
if you don't already have one, watchlist articles of concern, and 
also communicate with editors, especially those you might like to 
help, watchlising their talk pages. You will then see if there are 
attempts to warn or block them, or blocks actually made.


A handful of editors who cooperate -- properly, within what is 
allowed -- can stand up against the entire pseudoskeptical faction, 
even though it includes some administrators.

[Vo]:IRH

[mixent]

Hi,

If Holmlid et al. are correct about the size of IRH, then it's production should
yield about 200 eV / atom just from shrinkage, i.e. even without any pursuant
nuclear reactions.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Re: Ekstrom on a Swedish blog -- fuel -- Kullander -- Uppsala eCat after June

[Alan Fletcher]

Ekstrom: Crazy or not, you can sell a certain thing does not work. There have 
been many times. Rossi's agenda is simply to generate interest and support from 
those who believe in him or are too polite to tell the truth. Critics ignoring 
him completely. Mats Lewan on New Technologies was an absolutely perfect 
person: gullible, speaks Italian and writes in a newspaper that at least so far 
had a decent reputation ('ll see how it is when this is over). 

... [ google won't let me copy & paste ] on p3 he says: 

I still believe the energy balance is a scam and know at least one way to 
bluff. 

[Vo]:Ekstrom on a Swedish blog -- fuel -- Kullander -- Uppsala eCat after June

[Alan Fletcher]

Original : 
http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=57&sid=8b0cab3864cf96c68a71692b63658e2c
 
GT: 
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energikatalysatorn.se%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ff%3D2%26t%3D57%26sid%3D8b0cab3864cf96c68a71692b63658e2c
 

As Professor Sven Kullander neither read or participate in the discussions in 
this forum, or NT, I get to act messengers. We discussed the many different 
aspects of E-Cat. 

The most important thing right now for understanding the function of the E-Cat 
(if any) is the analysis of the fuel. Kullander will soon publish a detailed 
report describing the analysis and results in detail. I have seen data on 
elemental analysis and isotope analysis. The result is as it says in the NT 
article 

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 144772.ece 144772.ece 

New fuel: 100% Ni 
Spent fuel approximately 11% Fe, 10% Cu, remainder Ni 
All subjects are within limits of error (a few percent), natural isotope 
distribution. 

I agree with Kullander's assessment that Rossi's explanation of the capture of 
a proton in the nickel is unlikely. . Kullander has proposed an alternative 
possibility for explaining the energy development (which does not have to 
nickel to do). 

One can see a weak copper green color of the spent fuel It has not examined the 
structure, ie the Cu, Fe occurs in grains separate from you (this was further 
enhanced to test not authentically). 

In the case of Uppsala, shall receive an E-Cat for the tests, there will be no 
earlier than the end of June (determined by Rossi). The precondition is that in 
Uppsala are free to do what measurements you want. 

It is quite clear that the Uppsala could verify the function of the E-Cat. Most 
ENR results lies in the noise at the limit of what can be measured. E-Cat 
gives, according to Rossi's demonstrations, a large and easily measurable 
signal. 

To refute is more difficult because Rossi can always say: it did not work 
because you did wrong. 

. I regret that I have nothing more exciting to tell 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi uses sputtering like MAHG

[Alan Fletcher]

An alternative translation of Rossispeak 
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2829&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1560&sid=1bcf396d7381efeaaafd9b9d81c8e298
 

raphael : Here's what Rossi was attempting to say: 

To assert that we are enriching Ni powders in the conventional manner would be 
tantamount to asserting, absurdly, that we have invented either hot water or, 
in 2010, the then-long-familiar process of sputtering. 







Sat, 21 May 2011 09:45:04 -0700 

*Dear Jed Rothwell: * 



* 

I am not going to give more information about this issue. Just can say we 

have invented a process of ours to enrich Ni without relevant costs. To 

elaborate Ni powders along classic processes is the invention of the hot 

water. It is as invent and patent the sputtering in 2010… 

Warm regards, 

A.R.* 

Re: [Vo]: Why did the engineer Rossi beat all the scientists? WAS: Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?

[mixent]

In reply to  Charles Hope's message of Sat, 21 May 2011 13:59:45 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>This paper is pretty harsh. 
>http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/pdf/njp5_1_127.pdf It's difficult 
>to imagine how the CQM advocates could have adequately addressed these 
>questions. 

There is at least one flaw in Rathke's analysis.

He states:

"If you combine the relations in equations (2)–(4) with the classical circular
motion of an
electron in the Coulomb field of a proton, the ground state of Bohr’s model is
the only solution."

This is true as far as it goes, however he neglects Mills' claim that trapped
photons mimic a change in the central charge, such that it is only equal to that
of a single proton for the common ground state.

IOW his claim that Mills doesn't cater for excited states isn't necessarily
correct.

The rest of his math is a bit above my head, but I suspect this has carried
through in the rest of his analysis.

BTW he goes on to say:

"In order to obtain the whole set
of radii of Bohr’s model, one would have to change equation (2) to
 2*Pi*r_n = n*lambda_n, where n is a
positive integer."

...which is exactly what I do in my variation on Mills' model. :)

(see http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/relativistic-both.pdf ).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Newish Aleklett article (May 16)

[Alan Fletcher]

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/the-sun-rossi%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Denergy-catalyzer%E2%80%9D-and-the-%E2%80%9Cneutron-barometer%E2%80%9D/#comments
 

The sun, Rossi’s ”energy catalyzer” and the “neutron barometer” 





One hundred years ago the sun’s source of energy was a complete mystery. The 
famous professor Svante Arrhenius is said to have asserted that the sun’s 
energy output could not be due to combustion and that there was no other 
explanation. Today our knowledge of physics allows us to explain why the sun 
can radiate energy for millions of years – hydrogen is transformed to helium. 





 




To use a hydrogen nucleus to transform nickel into copper requires a particle 
accelerator that can give the hydrogen nucleus energy sufficient to approach a 
nickel nucleus close enough for absorption. Putting nickel and hydrogen in a 
tube under pressure as described by Rossi does not create the conditions 
required for this nuclear reaction. 




[ That's just gratuitously naive -- nobody's suggested that it's a gas-solid 
interaction depending on pressure. ] 




... 

The only thing we know with certainty is that there must be a physical 
explanation for the catalyzer’s energy output. One hundred years ago it was 
possible to state that the sun is radiating more energy than could, at that 
time, be explained. Despite their ignorance of nuclear physics the scientists 
of that time could, nevertheless, make measurements to support that statement. 
As scientists we are naturally frustrated that we are not allowed to know all 
the details of Rossi’s experiment. 




[ At least he doesn't seem to be outright denying that there IS energy output. 
] 




... an amusing anecdote on Pons and Fleischmann ... 




[ I love this comment : ] 





Paul Fernhout says: 
May 21, 2011 at 1:48 am 

It’s interesting that you referenced historical issues about understanding if 
the sun, because there are alternative theories like the sun is a ball of 
nickel/iron and/or effected by an electric universe. We might find in the end 
that “hot fusion” is the thing that does not exist, as proven by decades of 
failure to duplicate it, and that cold fusion at the boundary of a mass of 
nickel is what powers the Sun, heats the Earth, and maybe heats the gas giants, 
too. That would be a big irony about the eCat discovery, to overturn all the 
dogma about hot fusion that has suppressed cold fusion work for so long. (See 
the book “Disciplined Minds” by an editor of Physics Today, Jeff Schmidt, for 
more on group think in the physics community and other parts of academia.) 

[Vo]:Rossi uses sputtering like MAHG

[francis]

Rossi sputtering is like the sputtering on inside of MAHG tube.

Fran

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Oildrum notices rossi/ecat

Axil Axil
Sat, 21 May 2011 09:45:04 -0700

*Dear Jed Rothwell: *

 

*

I am not going to give more information about this issue. Just can say we

have invented a process of ours to enrich Ni without relevant costs. To

elaborate Ni powders along classic processes is the invention of the hot

water. It is as invent and patent the sputtering in 2010.

Warm regards,

A.R.*

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: NO MORE TESTS and other stuff

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 6:33 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:

> Rats!

Squirrel!

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2011/05/20/give-squirrel-a-whirl/

T

RE: [Vo]:Rossi: NO MORE TESTS and other stuff

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Alan:

> This question was deleted. No answer.

>> Thon Brocket 
May 20th, 2011 at 12:55 AM 
>>
>> Just for a little fun, Dr Rossi, would it be possible to cook
>> something – boil an egg or cook some pasta, perhaps – and video
>> it? That would be a nice little historical moment: “The first 
>> ever food cooked using the E-Cat.” Good luck.

Rats!

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:E-catworld webpage Host

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Ron Kita:

> I went to http://www.netsol.com
> and noted that the E-Cat is hosted in Utah.
>
> I am not sure if this is an "official" Rossi site
> http://www.e-catworld.com 
> From appearances the site is very well done

Yes, it does seem to be reasonably organized. At first glance some of the
information even strikes me as being somewhat objective.

I would nevertheless be concerned about copy cats and opportunists
attempting to skim a little cream off the top of the bottle. IMO, the nature
of Rossi's endeavors (assuming it turns out to be the real deal) will by
default attract a lot of unsavory individuals who in turn will attempt to
cash in and then bolt from the scene as quickly as they can at the height of
the predicted "stampede."

Perhaps someone could ask Rossi to comment on the credentials of the web
site over at his Journal. Hopefully, he is aware of this website and can
either endorse and/or vouch for it, or not. Either response from Rossi
would, I think, be revealing.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: NO MORE TESTS and other stuff

[Alan Fletcher]

This question was deleted. No answer. 




Thon Brocket 
May 20th, 2011 at 12:55 AM 

Just for a little fun, Dr Rossi, would it be possible to cook something – boil 
an egg or cook some pasta, perhaps – and video it? That would be a nice little 
historical moment: “The first ever food cooked using the E-Cat.” Good luck. 

Re: [Vo]:Oildrum notices rossi/ecat

[Alan Fletcher]

I've left that in my paper as a "reliable" link ... but it's not clear how to 
join/ get editor rights.
(I saw several things that needed clarification/correction).

The linked blog also has competent (but skeptical) analysis .. in  German, of 
course. (Using which I can get to the train station, but that's about it).


- Original Message -
> From Mauro:
> 
> > Following the links:
> >
> http://www.angewandtebiologischeneuemedizin.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-
> > Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer
> 
> 
> Mostly Skeptical
> 
> However quite detailed. I'm impressed.
> Steven Vincent Johnson\

RE: [Vo]: arXiv paper: Enhanced low energy fusion rate in palladium...

[Jones Beene]

Awkshully, Mark -  you covered the H+H situation too, back in Jan:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42057.html

but it bears repeating, since Dr Brown did comment directly to Rossi. 

The important things which Julian misses IMHO - and which makes this
energetic reaction both NON-fusion, energetic and sub-nuclear - is the Nyman
paper: 
http://dipole.se/ 
 which explains how the probability of a strong force interaction
becomes far more likely than ever suspected - but since P+P fusion is
forbidden at low energy - we must resort to the Dirac alternative for gain,
which is the epo-field disruption by the strong force - resulting in 6.8 eV
photons. 

This is the excess heat of the Rossi reaction IMO. Fortunately, the
hypothesis is falsifiable.

Jones


Julian Brown 
January 27th, 
 
Congratulations Mr Rossi. You may have saved the planet.
 
The anomaly has a relatively simple explanation:
 
Effective potential for H in Ni and Pd is very flat because of surrounding 
countercharge, so ground state of H has gaussian width of about 0.3
Angstrom.
 
H-omega transition to 1st excited state in harmonic well is about 50 meV (8
THz). This frequency is not attenuated over lattice cell dimensions, so
transitions are unscreened.
 
Ground->excited -- exited->ground interaction between neighbours causes
first 
excited doublet of two H to mix into bonding and anti-bonding states.
 
Splitting, large because of 0.3A width, may be greater than h-omega, so
bonding 
state is actually true ground state.
 
Dipole attraction exactly cancels monopole repulsion at very short H-H 
distances.
 
Gaussian tail from neighbouring cell can overlap with other H without any 
exponential die-off, resulting in nuclear contact and some sort of p+p
reaction.
 
Multisite coherence forbids emission of short wave quanta, so normal n,p,
gamma 
channels are forbidden.
 
See http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0703715 for the details.




From: Mark Iverson 

No, the one in your post was:
"H-H dipole interactions in fcc metals"
which I think has been mentioned on vortex a few times.
 
What they have in common is the mind of J.S.Brown.
-Mark


From: Axil Axil 
I beleive that this reference is the same as in my post "the dipole
constrant"
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Mark Iverson 
wrote:
FYI:
 
"Enhanced low energy fusion rate in palladium (Pd) due to vibrational
deuteron dipole-dipole interactions and associated resonant tunneling that
over-cancels the Jastrow factor between deuteron pair wavefunctions"
 
Abstract
We show that interstitial hydrogen nucleii on a metallic lattice are
strongly coupled to their near neighbours by the unscreened electromagnetic
field mediating transitions between low-lying states. We then show that in
almost-stoichiometric PdD clusters, in which most interstitial sites are
occupied by a deuteron, certain specific superpositions of many-site product
states exist that are lower in energy than the single-site ground state,
suggesting the existence of a new low temperature phase. The modified
behaviour of the two-particle wavefunction at small separations is
investigated and preliminary results suggesting an over-canceling of the
effective Coulomb barrier are presented.
 
Mark N. Iverson
markiver...@charter.net
 
 

<>

Re: [Vo]: Why did the engineer Rossi beat all the scientists? WAS: Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?

[Charles Hope]

This paper is pretty harsh. 
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/pdf/njp5_1_127.pdf It's difficult 
to imagine how the CQM advocates could have adequately addressed these 
questions. 

 

Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 21, 2011, at 3:23, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

> In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Fri, 20 May 2011
> 07:24:55 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> From Robin:
>> 
>>> [snip]
 Is there anyone who believes Mills' hydrino theory who also understands
 quantum mechanics?
>>> 
>>> Yes, Mills. :)
>>> 
>>> (Actually he's not the only one, there are probably quite a few, but far
>> less
>>> that would go out on a limb and admit it.)
>>> Personally I think QM is the norm, and Mills is an allowed exception,
>> which
>>> means that it happens some of the time.
>> 
>> Some of the time??? X'plain yourself Sir Robin! ;-)
> 
> Mills' ground state orbitals are spherical. In QM the electron travels 
> radially
> frequently passing through the nucleus. I think the latter is the norm, but I
> think "Bohr like" orbitals are possible, and occasionally happen (see Rydberg
> orbitals). IOW I don't think Millsian spherical orbitals are ruled out, I just
> don't think they are common. However under the right circumstances, I think 
> an H
> atom can be convinced to occupy such an orbital.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> 

Re: [Vo]:Oildrum notices rossi/ecat

[Axil Axil]

*Dear Jed Rothwell: *

*
I am not going to give more information about this issue. Just can say we
have invented a process of ours to enrich Ni without relevant costs. To
elaborate Ni powders along classic processes is the invention of the hot
water. It is as invent and patent the sputtering in 2010…
Warm regards,
A.R.*





I would like to draw attention to the word “sputtering” in Rossi’s response.



During the processing of the nano-powder, I speculate that when Rossi
implants the nickel nano-powder onto the walls of the stainless steel
reaction vessel, the sputtering technique that he uses implants the powder
particles enriched in heavy nickel isotopes in preference to the powder
particles enriched with only light ones.



This could be the result of the magnetic and/or electrostatic guiding
technique Rossi is using that puts the powder particles where he wants them
to go.



It could be that Rossi only wastes 10% of the nano-powder in this
“sputtering” process



The process that Rossi uses to enrich the nano-powder would have to be
non-destructive of that powder. We know he buys his powder from a vender of
such things. He also gave samples of this powder to the Swedes as an initial
sample to compare against an old ash sample.





Rossi is not going to rework the nano-powder he is getting from his
nano-powder vender. So it must be a particle selection process that somehow
selects particles containing heavy isotopes in preference to light ones.





As background, here is an explanation of what “sputtering” might mean in
this context




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputter_deposition


On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Man on Bridges wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>
> On 21-5-2011 16:48, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
>
> From Mauro:
>
>  Following the 
> links:http://www.angewandtebiologischeneuemedizin.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer
>
>  Mostly Skeptical
>
> However quite detailed. I'm impressed.
>
>
> Quote: "and was transformed into the stable copper isotope 62Cu29."
>
> Yes, very detailed indeed, but no quality check; it should read 63Cu29.
>
> Quote: "The copper thus generated is said to contain two stable copper
> isotopes, with an isotope proportion different from the one in natural
> copper."
>
> I.e. 63Cu29 and 65Cu29 (these are the only two stable copper isotopes); if
> this is true then my guess is that the isotope proportion is equal to that
> of the initial 62Ni28 and 64Ni28 proportion, which is most likely to be
> enriched.
> I was wondering if Rossi is using something like the "Isotopic Enrichment
> of Nickel in Aqueous Solution/Crown Ether System" (
> http://db.wdc-jp.com/mssj/search/pdf/199704/ms450521.pdf )
>
> Kind regards,
>
> MoB
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Pet Service

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:

> Doomsday church: Still open for business

Yes.  Don't you think that if they knew they were really going
"Camping" this weekend, they would have given away the $72M to the
poor non-Christians who had no chance in hell of being raptured?

T

[Vo]:E-catworld webpage Host

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Vortex-L,

I went to http://www.netsol.com and noted that the E-Cat  is hosted in Utah.

I am not sure if this is an "official" Rossi site  http://www.e-catworld.com
 From appearances the site is very well done


Respectfully,
Ron Kita, Chiralex

Re: [Vo]:Oildrum notices rossi/ecat

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 21-5-2011 16:48, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

 From Mauro:

Following the links:
http://www.angewandtebiologischeneuemedizin.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer

Mostly Skeptical

However quite detailed. I'm impressed.


Quote: "and was transformed into the stable copper isotope 62Cu29."

Yes, very detailed indeed, but no quality check; it should read 63Cu29.

Quote: "The copper thus generated is said to contain two stable copper 
isotopes, with an isotope proportion different from the one in natural 
copper."


I.e. 63Cu29 and 65Cu29 (these are the only two stable copper isotopes); 
if this is true then my guess is that the isotope proportion is equal to 
that of the initial 62Ni28 and 64Ni28 proportion, which is most likely 
to be enriched.
I was wondering if Rossi is using something like the "Isotopic 
Enrichment of Nickel in Aqueous Solution/Crown Ether System" ( 
http://db.wdc-jp.com/mssj/search/pdf/199704/ms450521.pdf )


Kind regards,

MoB

RE: [Vo]:Oildrum notices rossi/ecat

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Mauro:

> Following the links:
>
http://www.angewandtebiologischeneuemedizin.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-
> Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer


Mostly Skeptical

However quite detailed. I'm impressed.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:The future of energy

[Mauro Lacy]

Very interesting article on energy policies, the energy of the 
ether(ZPE), and more:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/14/nuclear-catastrophe-how-the-lack-of-fundamental-research-on-alternative-energy-led-to-a-wrong-energy-policy/ 

[Vo]:Ionospheric precursors to earthquakes

[Mauro Lacy]

Atmosphere Above Japan Heated Rapidly Before M9 Earthquake
Infrared emissions above the epicenter increased dramatically in the 
days before the devastating earthquake in Japan, say scientists.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26773/?p1=Blogs
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2841

Re: [Vo]:Oildrum notices rossi/ecat

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/20/2011 04:25 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7942
   


Following the links:
http://www.angewandtebiologischeneuemedizin.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer

Re: [Vo]: Why did the engineer Rossi beat all the scientists? WAS: Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?

[mixent]

In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Fri, 20 May 2011
07:24:55 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>From Robin:
>
>> [snip]
>>> Is there anyone who believes Mills' hydrino theory who also understands
>>> quantum mechanics?
>> 
>> Yes, Mills. :)
>> 
>> (Actually he's not the only one, there are probably quite a few, but far
>less
>> that would go out on a limb and admit it.)
>> Personally I think QM is the norm, and Mills is an allowed exception,
>which
>> means that it happens some of the time.
>
>Some of the time??? X'plain yourself Sir Robin! ;-)

Mills' ground state orbitals are spherical. In QM the electron travels radially
frequently passing through the nucleus. I think the latter is the norm, but I
think "Bohr like" orbitals are possible, and occasionally happen (see Rydberg
orbitals). IOW I don't think Millsian spherical orbitals are ruled out, I just
don't think they are common. However under the right circumstances, I think an H
atom can be convinced to occupy such an orbital.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html