date:20141009

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Do you remember all the internet ink was used to debate the copper ash in
> the nickel powder; now all that is for naught.
>

Yes, and thankfully so.  Ni(p,ɣ)Cu can go away and die a peaceful death.
 (Not to say that it doesn't happen in small quantities.)

Like you, I wonder about other reactions, though.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?

The isotopic shift observed is only a side effect of the real reaction that
are taking place. From others LENR experiments one can suspect that
hydrogen is the fuel and that Ni is just modified by whatever is in its
vicinity.

Do you remember all the internet ink was used to debate the copper ash in
the nickel powder; now all that is for naught.

The transmutation pattern is based on the geometry of the reactor. As that
geometry changes so does the transmutation patterns.

The analysis of transmutation was incomplete and much of the many reactions
were missed.

For example from page 53...

Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very
fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel
also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these
are not found in the ash.

And there was transmutation of aluminum.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM,  wrote:
>
> Li7 + Ni58 => Ni59 + Li6 + 1.75 MeV
>> Li7 + Ni59 => Ni60 + Li6 + 4.14 MeV
>> Li7 + Ni60 => Ni61 + Li6 + 0.57 MeV
>> Li7 + Ni61 => Ni62 + Li6 + 3.34 MeV
>> Li7 + Ni62 => Ni63 + Li6 - 0.41 MeV (Endothermic!)
>>
>> This series stops at Ni62, hence all isotopes of Ni less than 62 are
>> depleted
>> and Ni62 is strongly enriched.
>>
>
> This is very nice.  I've been too attached to deuterium.  In this
> particular instance, deuterium reactions above 62Ni would be exothermic:
>
>- 62Ni + n → 63Ni + p + Q (5.1 MeV)
>- 63Ni + n → 64Ni + p + Q (7.9 MeV)
>
> Since neither 62Ni nor 63Ni were seen in significant quantities in the
> ash, I think we can rule deuterium out for this particular test.  Note that
> while 64Ni(7Li,6Li)65Ni is also endothermic, 63Ni(7Li,6Li)64Ni is
> exothermic.  Since 63Ni is not found in nature, however, and since it won't
> be coming from the 62Ni(7Li,6Li)63Ni reaction, none will arise unless there
> is deuterium in the mix.  It all feels a little precarious, because if you
> get any 64Ni, you can get penetrating radiation from deexcitation gammas
> from inelastic collisions.
>
> To add to your thought about the kinetic energy of the daughter 6Li being
> relatively low, for the maximum Q value in your list above, there would be
> 4.14 MeV / 6 nucleons = 690 keV per nucleon, which seems manageable.  I
> will nominate you for the Vortex Nobel Prize for your insight about neutron
> stripping from lithium.
>
> Two questions I have:
>
>- Why use hydrogen at all if the reaction can be sustained with
>lithium?
>- What is the amount of force that would be needed to bring a 7Li to
>within a sufficient distance of a nickel nucleus for stripping to occur?
>It seems like it would be high.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The obect of the TIP report is to get a patent

2014-10-09 Thread Teslaalset

European Patent Office is more than willing to process.
Piantelli got one of his patents on Ni-H granted in January 2013 (EP2368252)

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Would Sweden qualify?  The demo plant was originally stated to be in
> Sweden a couple of years ago.
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:51 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Better would be a patent cooperation treaty country somewhere other than
>> the US approving the patent and the US physics theocracy being paraded
>> around for historic scorn and perhaps trials for crimes against humanity.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The TIP report is out, and it is positive for Rossi.  The next step for
>>> him is to challenge the USPTO rejection of his patent because their
>>> assessment is that it is not operable.  Now he has 7 independent scientists
>>> saying it IS operable.
>>>
>>> But the patent office will still drag their heels because this is an
>>> embarrassment.  So Rossi's next step will be public demos and a press
>>> release inviting the patent examiners to see the demo.  From this point it
>>> is politics.  And Rossi/IH will need to grease a few palms in the political
>>> realm that can bring pressure on the patent office.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on duration of test

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:11 PM,  wrote:

I also suspect that he originally used D iso Li, but changed to Li when he
> found
> that D produces protons that are too energetic and produce too much
> secondary
> radiation.
>

Another astute observation.  To elaborate on what might have happened with
this test:

   - They've been using deuterium during testing and figured out along the
   way that lithium could provide a boost of some sort from proton knock-on.
   Perhaps they then figured out that neutron stripping of lithium was itself
   a direction reaction.
   - When they use deuterium they get a higher power output but also
   penetrating radiation from fast protons (as you mention).
   - In order to provide a safe test and no penetrating radiation, they got
   rid of the deuterium and provided the Italian/Swedish team with a fuel
   charge with plain hydrogen and lithium.  The daughter 6Li, as you point
   out, will be pretty slow.  The pure 1H does nothing in this particular
   instance.
   - Another reason to use LiAlH4 depleted in deuterium would be to avoid
   reactions such as 62Ni(d,p)63Ni, which will carry the Ni(Li,Li)Ni chain
   past 62Ni.

So like you I'm betting Industrial Heat have more powerful reactions under
investigation involving deuterium, but these ones are harder to shield
against and so would not have been wise for use in a largely unsupervised
test at a third party laboratory.  Note that Industrial Heat itself
provided financial support for radiation protection.

Since under this explanation the modus operandi is neutron stripping, there
are probably many other similar reactions that might be going on.  When I
run the numbers, I'm seeing that out of 3184 isotopes in Mathematica, 2965
are exothermic under neutron capture versus 95 that are endothermic.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM,  wrote:

Li7 + Ni58 => Ni59 + Li6 + 1.75 MeV
> Li7 + Ni59 => Ni60 + Li6 + 4.14 MeV
> Li7 + Ni60 => Ni61 + Li6 + 0.57 MeV
> Li7 + Ni61 => Ni62 + Li6 + 3.34 MeV
> Li7 + Ni62 => Ni63 + Li6 - 0.41 MeV (Endothermic!)
>
> This series stops at Ni62, hence all isotopes of Ni less than 62 are
> depleted
> and Ni62 is strongly enriched.
>

This is very nice.  I've been too attached to deuterium.  In this
particular instance, deuterium reactions above 62Ni would be exothermic:

   - 62Ni + n → 63Ni + p + Q (5.1 MeV)
   - 63Ni + n → 64Ni + p + Q (7.9 MeV)

Since neither 62Ni nor 63Ni were seen in significant quantities in the ash,
I think we can rule deuterium out for this particular test.  Note that
while 64Ni(7Li,6Li)65Ni is also endothermic, 63Ni(7Li,6Li)64Ni is
exothermic.  Since 63Ni is not found in nature, however, and since it won't
be coming from the 62Ni(7Li,6Li)63Ni reaction, none will arise unless there
is deuterium in the mix.  It all feels a little precarious, because if you
get any 64Ni, you can get penetrating radiation from deexcitation gammas
from inelastic collisions.

To add to your thought about the kinetic energy of the daughter 6Li being
relatively low, for the maximum Q value in your list above, there would be
4.14 MeV / 6 nucleons = 690 keV per nucleon, which seems manageable.  I
will nominate you for the Vortex Nobel Prize for your insight about neutron
stripping from lithium.

Two questions I have:

   - Why use hydrogen at all if the reaction can be sustained with lithium?
   - What is the amount of force that would be needed to bring a 7Li to
   within a sufficient distance of a nickel nucleus for stripping to occur?
   It seems like it would be high.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

2014-10-09 Thread Robert Lynn

Excellent point.  Would be easy enough to do a second control run even now
to add some confidence to the calorimetry.  The alumina + wire will be
off-the-shelf all someone need do is ask Rossi for specs of tube and wire -
he should be happy to provide them in the interests of clarity.

On 10 October 2014 13:40, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
> This is wonderfully simple calorimetry. The easiest I have seen in cold
>> fusion. If you cannot understand this, you cannot understand any
>> experiment, and you know nothing about this subject.
>>
>
> To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion.
>
>- The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than
>the live run.
>- The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine.  I
>don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind
>of additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the
>calibration run).
>
> Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at
> the same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working
> fluid, calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the
> control and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the
> live run.  The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a
> distraction.
>
> That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not
> a physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number,
> and it probably a much better number than that.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear to be absent

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Robert Ellefson 
wrote:

Given that the ash sample was taken at an arbitrarily-defined time point
> ... then I believe this indicates that the reaction is a cyclic one, which
> decays to the measured ash isotope ratios while the reaction is stopping.
>

This is an interesting idea.  Do you have any thoughts on the cyclic
reaction or reactions?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

This is wonderfully simple calorimetry. The easiest I have seen in cold
> fusion. If you cannot understand this, you cannot understand any
> experiment, and you know nothing about this subject.
>

To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion.

   - The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than the
   live run.
   - The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine.  I
   don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind
   of additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the
   calibration run).

Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at
the same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working
fluid, calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the
control and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the
live run.  The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a
distraction.

That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not
a physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number,
and it probably a much better number than that.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Zirconia?

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

Perhaps it could be more than just housing the nanoparticles because of the
> very strong electrostatic field created within the zeolite cavities and the
> oscillation of the cavity.
>

I think of Iraj Parchamazad whenever the topic if zeolites comes up.  I
wonder how his research is doing.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:motls chimes in

Yeah, its great to have people pseudonymously changing "You're Mr.
Poopypants." in PhD lingo.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> The cranks served a purpose.   It's always useful to have a sanity check.
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Motl actually said that! Amazing. Quote:
>>>
>>
>> One encouraging thing -- Motl, Yugo, etc., appear to be a little on the
>> defensive.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:motls chimes in

And for anyone who wants to suggest random anonymous internet posters are
responsible for the general censorship of Cold Fusion   Please.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> The cranks served a purpose.   It's always useful to have a sanity check.
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Motl actually said that! Amazing. Quote:
>>>
>>
>> One encouraging thing -- Motl, Yugo, etc., appear to be a little on the
>> defensive.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:motls chimes in

The cranks served a purpose.   It's always useful to have a sanity check.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
> Motl actually said that! Amazing. Quote:
>>
>
> One encouraging thing -- Motl, Yugo, etc., appear to be a little on the
> defensive.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan describes the ash extraction

Good stuff, Harry,

Question - how do we know where they cut is representative of the fuel that
was injected?  Maybe what they analyzed was primer.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:46 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

>
> http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/interview-on-radio-show-free-energy-quest-tonight/#comment-3469
>
> << I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the
> team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed
> room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug
> could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the
> charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly
> imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the
> charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was
> manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have
> needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening.>>
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:NetworkWorld covers Report

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg96727.html

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Did he?  You're sure?  :-)
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
> > If Gibbs knows it's nonsense, why did he write it?  It's frustrating
> that he
> > unsubscribed from Vortex-L.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I find it disturbing that he wrote: "The problem with Pons and
> >> Fleischmann’s claimed discovery was that no one could duplicate it . .
> ."
> >> That is nonsense, and he knows it is nonsense.
> >>
> >> - Jed
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:motls chimes in

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Motl actually said that! Amazing. Quote:
>

One encouraging thing -- Motl, Yugo, etc., appear to be a little on the
defensive.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:NetworkWorld covers Report

2014-10-09 Thread Terry Blanton

Did he?  You're sure?  :-)

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
> If Gibbs knows it's nonsense, why did he write it?  It's frustrating that he
> unsubscribed from Vortex-L.
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>
>> I find it disturbing that he wrote: "The problem with Pons and
>> Fleischmann’s claimed discovery was that no one could duplicate it . . ."
>> That is nonsense, and he knows it is nonsense.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:Mats Lewan describes the ash extraction

http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/interview-on-radio-show-free-energy-quest-tonight/#comment-3469

<< I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the
team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed
room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug
could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the
charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly
imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the
charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was
manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have
needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening.>>



Harry

Re: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Lithium is not unique. How does a family of element doing the secret sauce
> function fit into your new theories?
>

Neutron stripping.  :)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:NetworkWorld covers Report

If Gibbs knows it's nonsense, why did he write it?  It's frustrating that
he unsubscribed from Vortex-L.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I find it disturbing that he wrote: "The problem with Pons and
> Fleischmann’s claimed discovery was that no one could duplicate it . . ."
> That is nonsense, and he knows it is nonsense.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox

Sorry, I did not reply sooner. Thanks for the interest. Except for my
encounters with Maxwell's demon this field is all new to me. Unfortunately
I don't know anything about semiconductor theory. I found Sheehan's
proposed epicatalytic method for violating of the second law of
thermodynamics inspiring, because it only requires basic concepts from the
kinetic theory of gases and chemistry to understand the gist of it.

I am interested in the experimental problem of detecting a violation of the
second law without necessarily having to posses a thorough understanding of
the microscopic process which brings it about. For example, I wonder if
what appears as energy production in LENR/CF experiments is in fact energy
concentration, i.e. a 2nd law violation.

Harry


On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Teslaalset 
wrote:

> A much wider set of principles can be found in patent applications by
> George Samual Levy.
> In particular his published provisional filing 61567455 which can be
> obtained at http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair is intreaging,
>
> My personal interest goes to the solid state versions of his claimed
> energy generators.
> By appying graded doped semiconductor slabs he claims to be able to
> withdraw electrical power by temporary periods of violated 2nd law of
> thermodynamics.
>
> The part that is key and needs some more prove by experts in my view is
> following part of his provisional filing where Levy claims that by themally
> shortcutting a graded doped semiconductor slab a current is flowing through
> such semiconducor.
>
> Quote:
> *"An analog of Loschmidt's adiabatic gas column thought experiment can
> therefore*
> *be implemented in a semiconductor with graded doping. Carriers in such a
> semiconductor*
> *develop an adiabatic temperature profile. If the heavily doped end and
> lightly doped end*
> *of the semiconductor slab are thermally short circuited, the temperature
> of the*
> *semiconductor at each end deviates from the adiabatic profile. The
> relative temperature is*
> *colder at the heavily doped end and hotter at the lightly doped end. The
> hot probe effect*
> *results in a current flowing through the semiconductor, which can be
> tapped by*
> *electrodes. This particular implementation combines in a single
> semiconductor slab two*
> *aspects of the Loschmidt's thought experiment: the adiabatic gradient in
> the gas and the*
> *heat engine (Seebeck device)."*
>
> We can further discuss if found interesting enough.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:25 AM, H Veeder  wrote:
>
>> The Paradigm Energy website is now empty (although you can still download
>> the papers at the links given on the MFMP page). In the comments section
>> Ryan Hunt explains why:
>>
>> <> research openly in the interest of being able to secure private funding and
>> guarding against getting patented out of the game by onlookers is what I
>> heard.>>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>>
>>> The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the
>>> _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat.
>>>
>>> 
>>> http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:47 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>>>
 Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and
 Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second
 law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb.


 http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics

 Harry

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

don't you remember when Rossi said...

He said that he tested a number of "secret sauce" element which all
basically worked.

Lithium is just one of a number of elements that do basically the same
thing.

Lithium is not unique. How does a family of element doing the secret sauce
function fit into your new theories?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com
>
> My guess as to how it works:- Hydrinohydride is a small heavy negative
> particle with a mass about 10 times greater than a negative muon. These
> form
> the equivalent of muonic molecules (Hydronic molecules?) with Ni & Li,
> allowing them to approach one another close enough to facilitate neutron
> hopping (tunneling)
> in a reasonable time frame, especially at elevated temperatures.
>
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> I like this hypothesis as a major part of the emerging picture, assuming
> TIP2 is not part of an elaborate scam.
>
> f/H in some form is especially interesting as an initial step in a more
> complex reaction which is started by hydrogen shrinkage. f/H could be an
> isomer which can be contained in alumina via nickel bonding. The reaction
> may be sustained with SPP over the long run. SPP could supply the same
> intense high negative field as the f/H- or the two could work together.
>
> It is more than my opinion that this reactor design cannot enclose gaseous
> hydrogen when hot, as I have confirmed this from an alumina sales engineer
> today. This cannot work as a hydrogen reactor unless the hydrogen finds a
> way to bind to something at 1300 C and that feat is not easy.
>
> However ... it could work as a pychno/lithium/nickel reactor.
>
> For those who were not around when Arata's experiments were at center
> stage,
> "pychno" is his name for dense hydrogen. It is also known as f/H, hydrino,
> IRH, DDL, hydrex and probably a few other names. Presumably, pychno binds
> with nickel and stays in the reactor when gaseous hydrogen would escape.
>
> PLN has a nice ring to it.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

Maybe it can all be done with shrunken lithium...

...Lithino

harry

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com
>
> My guess as to how it works:- Hydrinohydride is a small heavy negative
> particle with a mass about 10 times greater than a negative muon. These
> form
> the equivalent of muonic molecules (Hydronic molecules?) with Ni & Li,
> allowing them to approach one another close enough to facilitate neutron
> hopping (tunneling)
> in a reasonable time frame, especially at elevated temperatures.
>
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> I like this hypothesis as a major part of the emerging picture, assuming
> TIP2 is not part of an elaborate scam.
>
> f/H in some form is especially interesting as an initial step in a more
> complex reaction which is started by hydrogen shrinkage. f/H could be an
> isomer which can be contained in alumina via nickel bonding. The reaction
> may be sustained with SPP over the long run. SPP could supply the same
> intense high negative field as the f/H- or the two could work together.
>
> It is more than my opinion that this reactor design cannot enclose gaseous
> hydrogen when hot, as I have confirmed this from an alumina sales engineer
> today. This cannot work as a hydrogen reactor unless the hydrogen finds a
> way to bind to something at 1300 C and that feat is not easy.
>
> However ... it could work as a pychno/lithium/nickel reactor.
>
> For those who were not around when Arata's experiments were at center
> stage,
> "pychno" is his name for dense hydrogen. It is also known as f/H, hydrino,
> IRH, DDL, hydrex and probably a few other names. Presumably, pychno binds
> with nickel and stays in the reactor when gaseous hydrogen would escape.
>
> PLN has a nice ring to it.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

2014-10-09 Thread Jones Beene

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

My guess as to how it works:- Hydrinohydride is a small heavy negative
particle with a mass about 10 times greater than a negative muon. These form
the equivalent of muonic molecules (Hydronic molecules?) with Ni & Li,
allowing them to approach one another close enough to facilitate neutron
hopping (tunneling)
in a reasonable time frame, especially at elevated temperatures.


Hi Robin,

I like this hypothesis as a major part of the emerging picture, assuming
TIP2 is not part of an elaborate scam. 

f/H in some form is especially interesting as an initial step in a more
complex reaction which is started by hydrogen shrinkage. f/H could be an
isomer which can be contained in alumina via nickel bonding. The reaction
may be sustained with SPP over the long run. SPP could supply the same
intense high negative field as the f/H- or the two could work together.

It is more than my opinion that this reactor design cannot enclose gaseous
hydrogen when hot, as I have confirmed this from an alumina sales engineer
today. This cannot work as a hydrogen reactor unless the hydrogen finds a
way to bind to something at 1300 C and that feat is not easy.

However ... it could work as a pychno/lithium/nickel reactor.

For those who were not around when Arata's experiments were at center stage,
"pychno" is his name for dense hydrogen. It is also known as f/H, hydrino,
IRH, DDL, hydrex and probably a few other names. Presumably, pychno binds
with nickel and stays in the reactor when gaseous hydrogen would escape.

PLN has a nice ring to it.

Re: [Vo]:NetworkWorld covers Report

I find it disturbing that he wrote: "The problem with Pons and
Fleischmann’s claimed discovery was that no one could duplicate it . . ."
That is nonsense, and he knows it is nonsense.

- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi and Matts Lewan on the Radio

2014-10-09 Thread Ron Kita

Greetings Vortex-L:

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/697-Tonight-we-listen-to-Sterling-Lewan-and-Andrea-Rossi/

Ad Astra,
Ron Kita, Chiralex

Re: [Vo]:NetworkWorld covers Report

Our good friend mark gibbs!  Click on it!   Many times!

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

>
> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2824558/infrastructure-management/could-ultra-cheap-clean-energy-be-just-around-the-corner-the-return-of-rossi-and-the-e-cat.html
>

[Vo]:NetworkWorld covers Report

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2824558/infrastructure-management/could-ultra-cheap-clean-energy-be-just-around-the-corner-the-return-of-rossi-and-the-e-cat.html

Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on duration of test

Craig Haynie  wrote:

> I assume that Rossi simply put more than enough fuel into the cell to
> accommodate a 35 day test, at whatever power level was chosen.

That would be sensible.

This may have nothing to do with the near total transmutation of the nickel.

Still, if Ni transmutation is supplying much of the heat . . . then I
suppose it might have been on the verge of petering out. That is also the
impression you get from the question and answer:

Q: It seems that in the ITP test the content of 58Ni was reduced almost to
zero after one month of operation. That leads to a conclusion that maybe
some route of conversion of 58Ni to 62Ni may be a significant source of the
energy relaeased. But if the E-cat can function for as much as six times
longer than the 32 days of the ITP test, then that cannot be right because
there would not be any 58Ni available for the next five months.

A: the charge had been made for a 35 days test. This is the test duration
agreed upon when the experiment has been started

It sounds like he calibrated it to run out. What a strange thing to do!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on duration of test

2014-10-09 Thread Craig Haynie


On 10/09/2014 03:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


It is difficult believe Rossi can calibrate the amount of fuel so 
closely, given that a microscopic amount of fuel produces a huge 
amount of energy.





I assume that Rossi simply put more than enough fuel into the cell to 
accommodate a 35 day test, at whatever power level was chosen. This may 
have nothing to do with the near total transmutation of the nickel.


Craig

[Vo]:Lithium

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

Isotopes

Naturally occurring lithium is composed of two stable isotopes, 6Li and
7Li, the latter being the more abundant (92.5% natural
abundance).[3][13][23] Both natural isotopes have anomalously low nuclear
binding energy per nucleon compared to the next lighter and heavier
elements, helium and beryllium, which means that alone among stable light
elements, lithium can produce net energy through nuclear fission. The two
lithium nuclei have lower binding energies per nucleon than any other
stable nuclides other than deuterium and helium-3.[24] As a result of this,
though very light in atomic weight, lithium is less common in the Solar
System than 25 of the first 32 chemical elements.[1] Seven radioisotopes
have been characterized, the most stable being 8Li with a half-life of 838
ms and 9Li with a half-life of 178 ms. All of the remainingradioactive
isotopes have half-lives that are shorter than 8.6 ms. The shortest-lived
isotope of lithium is 4Li, which decays through proton emission and has a
half-life of 7.6 × 10−23 s.[25]

7Li is one of the primordial elements (or, more properly, primordial
nuclides) produced in Big Bang nucleosynthesis. A small amount of both 6Li
and 7Li are produced in stars, but are thought to be burned as fast as
produced.[26] Additional small amounts of lithium of both 6Li and 7Li may
be generated from solar wind, cosmic rays hitting heavier atoms, and from
early solar system 7Be and 10Be radioactive decay.[27] While lithium is
created in stars during the Stellar nucleosynthesis, it is further burnt.
7Li can also be generated in carbon stars.[28]

Lithium isotopes fractionate substantially during a wide variety of natural
processes,[29] including mineral formation (chemical precipitation),
metabolism, and ion exchange. Lithium ions substitute for magnesiumand iron
in octahedral sites in clay minerals, where 6Li is preferred to 7Li,
resulting in enrichment of the light isotope in processes of
hyperfiltration and rock alteration. The exotic 11Li is known to exhibit a
nuclear halo. The process known as laser isotope separation can be used to
separate lithium isotopes.[30]

Nuclear weapons manufacture and other nuclear physics uses are a major
source of artificial lithium fractionation, with the light isotope 6Li
being retained by industry and military stockpiles to such an extent as to
slightly but measurably change the 6Li to 7Li ratios even in natural
sources, such as rivers. This has led to unusual uncertainty in the
standardized atomic weight of lithium, since this quantity depends on the
natural abundance ratios of these naturally-occurring stable lithium
isotopes, as they are available in commercial lithium mineral sources.[31]

Re: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

2014-10-09 Thread Sunil Shah

FYI, he's definitely NOT looking to engage research into coat phenomena : )  
just "looking to describe the phenomenon and then explain how it works"
/Sunil<>

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on duration of test

 wrote:

> If Rossi already knew the reaction mechanism, then it wouldn't be hard to
> weigh
> out exactly the right amount of chemicals.
>

You can weigh them out with a milligram lab scale I suppose. I guess you
could be plus/minus a week or two in fuel. But they describe pouring the
powder into the cell. If a little powder is left in the bag you introduce a
big error.

It seems remarkable that he could deliver just the right amount, such that
it almost all depletes.

By the way, how much depletes? How much left is there? How much is left in
terms of mass and also time before the reaction stops? The table on the
last page of the report shows this but it is unclear to me. I guess it is
"using up" Li-7, Ni-59, Ni-60 and they are almost gone. Is that correct? It
looks like there is a lot of Li-7 left so maybe he did not calibrate it
quite as close to the limit as I thought. I guess it would depend on how
much energy each contributes.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

2014-10-09 Thread mixent

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:01:38 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>THIS is the kind of response I was hoping to see!
>
>"Elforsk takes now the initiative to build a comprehensive Swedish research
>initiative. More knowledge is needed to understand and explain. Let us
>engage more researchers in searching coat phenomenon and then explain how
>it works."
>
>Ignore the skeptics. Funding and full speed ahead.
>
>- Jed

My guess as to how it works:- Hydrinohydride is a small heavy negative particle
with a mass about 10 times greater than a negative muon. These form the
equivalent of muonic molecules (Hydronic molecules?) with Ni & Li, allowing them
to approach one another close enough to facilitate neutron hopping (tunneling)
in a reasonable time frame, especially at elevated temperatures.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:motls chimes in

Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
> The whole paper must be ignored because the authors put their units in
> square brackets : [W] etc
>

Motl actually said that! Amazing. Quote:

"For example, these cranks haven't understood the concept of units in
physics. All equations for dimensionful variables contain things like [W]
for units even though there is absolutely no reason why general,
non-numerical equations in physics should come with particular units."

Many old fashioned Europeans use brackets for all units. So does Arata, and
so do many Japanese publishers of popular science magazines (but not
journals).

NIST says to do it the 'Merican way:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on duration of test

2014-10-09 Thread mixent

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:51:09 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Peter Gluck already told us about this. I should pay closer attention.
>
>I do not know what to make of this. How could Rossi know what power level
>they would run at? It is a shame they did not try to run for 40 days.
>
>It is difficult believe Rossi can calibrate the amount of fuel so closely,
>given that a microscopic amount of fuel produces a huge amount of energy.
>
>(I am assuming that Ni is the fuel for the purpose of this analysis. I
>don't know whether that is true.)
>
>- Jed

If Rossi already knew the reaction mechanism, then it wouldn't be hard to weigh
out exactly the right amount of chemicals.

I also suspect that he originally used D iso Li, but changed to Li when he found
that D produces protons that are too energetic and produce too much secondary
radiation.

(It costs about 7.2 MeV to remove a neutron from Li7, but only 2.2 to remove one
from D. When such a neutron is accepted by a Ni nucleus you get about 8-11 MeV
back, depending on the Ni isotope, so there is only a small gain when Li7
supplies the neutrons, but a much larger gain when D supplies the neutrons.) 

For the rest of the world this is important. It means that the Li reactors are
intrinsically cleaner, but we will run out of our current known land based
reserves of Lithium[1] long before we run out of deuterium, so there may yet be
a role to play for centralized[2] power plants that burn D and have proper
shielding, leaving the clean Li reactors for transportation applications.

1. At our current rate of energy use, if Lithium had to supply all our energy,
then current proven land based reserves would last about 5000 years.

2. Centralized could be as small as a current local substation, because even D
wouldn't require all that much shielding, and in fact it could easily be
provided by burying the reactor under ground, or in a well. In fact back yard
versions might be feasible.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:The obect of the TIP report is to get a patent

Would Sweden qualify?  The demo plant was originally stated to be in Sweden
a couple of years ago.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:51 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Better would be a patent cooperation treaty country somewhere other than
> the US approving the patent and the US physics theocracy being paraded
> around for historic scorn and perhaps trials for crimes against humanity.
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> The TIP report is out, and it is positive for Rossi.  The next step for
>> him is to challenge the USPTO rejection of his patent because their
>> assessment is that it is not operable.  Now he has 7 independent scientists
>> saying it IS operable.
>>
>> But the patent office will still drag their heels because this is an
>> embarrassment.  So Rossi's next step will be public demos and a press
>> release inviting the patent examiners to see the demo.  From this point it
>> is politics.  And Rossi/IH will need to grease a few palms in the political
>> realm that can bring pressure on the patent office.
>>
>
>

[Vo]:motls chimes in

http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/10/fusion-dynomak-new-compact-rival-of.html

On a new HOT fusion device, but the new hotcat test is mentioned in a couple of 
comments.

The whole paper must be ignored because the authors put their units in square 
brackets : [W] etc

He enthusiastically quotes Pomp, but mis-describes the set-up. And doesn't know 
Aluminum from Alumina.

Re: [Vo]:another Law breaker?

2014-10-09 Thread David L. Babcock

Thank you. Also, Noted that the 2nd law is not violated.

Ol' Bab

On 10/7/2014 1:34 PM, Ian Walker wrote:

Hi David

I did a search for "good-bye-second-law-of-thermodynamics"

It came up in google with this
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2014/09/good-bye-second-law-of-thermodynamics.html

I clicked on the link in google and it took me to the page that I
quote the first few lines of:

# "

Home

Good-bye second law of thermodynamics?

09/02/2014
By John Wallace

Senior Editor

I was quite happy last week to post a news item about a colorless
transparent luminescent solar concentrator developed at Michigan State
University
(East
Lansing, MI), as I have had a long-term fascination with luminescent
solar concentrators. So why am I so fascinated by such devices?

One reason is that at first glance they seem to violate the second law
of thermodynamics
,
which says that the entropy of any isolated system never decreases. In
the field of optics, the second law sorta translates in a hand-waving
way to the fact that the étendue (solid angle multiplied by beam
cross-section) of a light beam can never decrease: for example, one
can't focus a low-quality laser beam to a spot as small as that that
can be produced by a high-quality laser beam (given the same lens used
for both, with lens pupil optimally filled)..."

Kind Regards walker

On 7 October 2014 18:52, David L. Babcock > wrote:

Exact link not found. On inspection, no such article found in
their many lists.
Pulled?

Ol' Bab

On 10/5/2014 9:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Every week it seems, there is a new assault around the edges
of the 2nd
Generalization of Thermodynamics...

http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2014/09/good-bye-second-law-of-therm
odynamics.html

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:Sintered Aluminia

Stefan Israelsson Tampe  wrote:

I find GoatGuy's comment interesting, how valid is his objection?
>

GoatGuy's comments are always valid. Just be sure you reverse the truth
value. X := Not(X);

- Jed

[Vo]:mysterious high concentration of the end product

If we consider that the granules are different and react diferently, and it
seams to be known
how a particle that react well should look like, couldn't the testers have
picked a biased sample
for their expensive analysis e.g. a particle that have had the time to
saturate in order to ne sure to
get an interesting sample. If the number of  such particles are say 25% and
the rest is a spectra of non saturated granulles it would not be a surprise
of the findings. There might still be plenty of active
particles left with a slightly different morphology that still reacts. Also
the setup is actively controlled and it is not unheard of getting such
systems to run at constant power output although the reaction potential
decreases with time until a cutoff happens. Just my 2c.
Cheers!

Re: [Vo]:The obect of the TIP report is to get a patent

Better would be a patent cooperation treaty country somewhere other than
the US approving the patent and the US physics theocracy being paraded
around for historic scorn and perhaps trials for crimes against humanity.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> The TIP report is out, and it is positive for Rossi.  The next step for
> him is to challenge the USPTO rejection of his patent because their
> assessment is that it is not operable.  Now he has 7 independent scientists
> saying it IS operable.
>
> But the patent office will still drag their heels because this is an
> embarrassment.  So Rossi's next step will be public demos and a press
> release inviting the patent examiners to see the demo.  From this point it
> is politics.  And Rossi/IH will need to grease a few palms in the political
> realm that can bring pressure on the patent office.
>

Re: [Vo]:Sintered Aluminia

not, maybe but I wan't some more meat.

Doesn't it depend if light get's through from the inner tube but the heat
radiation is insulated within. Of cause if the layer is thin or if it
conduct heat well the inner and the outer has pretty much the same
temperature and hence the argument is moot, not sure about the details,
only that I can speculate that he has a point in argument but probably not
in real performance.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:22 PM, leaking pen  wrote:

> not.   it still ignores the fact that the transmitted light was more than
> the power coming in.
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I find GoatGuy's comment interesting, how valid is his objection?
>>
>>
>> http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/third-party-report-on-32-day-continuous.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Sintered Aluminia

2014-10-09 Thread leaking pen

not.   it still ignores the fact that the transmitted light was more than
the power coming in.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I find GoatGuy's comment interesting, how valid is his objection?
>
>
> http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/third-party-report-on-32-day-continuous.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29
>

[Vo]:Sintered Aluminia

I find GoatGuy's comment interesting, how valid is his objection?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/third-party-report-on-32-day-continuous.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29

Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on duration of test

Peter Gluck already told us about this. I should pay closer attention.

I do not know what to make of this. How could Rossi know what power level
they would run at? It is a shame they did not try to run for 40 days.

It is difficult believe Rossi can calibrate the amount of fuel so closely,
given that a microscopic amount of fuel produces a huge amount of energy.

(I am assuming that Ni is the fuel for the purpose of this analysis. I
don't know whether that is true.)

- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi comments on duration of test

Here is a comment from Rossi's blog.

This seems to indicate there was only enough Ni to run for about a month. I
am not sure what it means. See the word "charge."

- Jed



Rodney Nicholson 
October 8th, 2014 at 5:05 PM


Dear Mr. Rossi:

Many questions have been answered in the paper. But more arise:

1) Was it originally intended that the paper be released on sifferkoll? Or
might
this be some kind of unintentional leak? And if it was unintended, from
what you know is the information contained in the report accurate?

2) It seems that in the ITP test the content of 58Ni was reduced almost to
zero after one month of operation. That leads to a conclusion that maybe
some route of conversion of 58Ni to 62Ni may be a significant source of the
energy relaeased. But if the E-cat can function for as much as six times
longer than the 32 days of the ITP test, then that cannot be right because
there would not be any 58Ni available for the next five months.

3) I had previously thought I had understood that hydrogen was supplied in
gaseous form under pressure. But I do not see mention of that in the paper.
It seems that it is available only in the form of AlLiH4. Is that correct?

Please feel free to modify, or completely erase, any of the above questions
if you feel discussion of them might not be helpful.

Again, wonderful (positive?!) news. Congratulations.

Rodney Nicholson.


Andrea Rossi
October 8th, 2014 at 11:57 PM


Rodney Nicholson:
1- I do not know why the Professors of the ITP decided that way to publish.
They, as I always said, are totally independent from us. If they did so,
means they had a reason for it. The report has been written by them,
obviously; today I have contacted their spokesman, who confirmed that the
report published is the original version, uncut; the version that will be
published in a scientific magazine will have to be reduced within 15 pages.
They told me it was necessary a publication with all the 54 pages, because
every page has a specific importance.
2- the charge had been made for a 35 days test. This is the test duration
agreed upon when the experiment has been started
3- I cannot enter in this particular
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

[Vo]:The obect of the TIP report is to get a patent

The TIP report is out, and it is positive for Rossi.  The next step for him
is to challenge the USPTO rejection of his patent because their assessment
is that it is not operable.  Now he has 7 independent scientists saying it
IS operable.

But the patent office will still drag their heels because this is an
embarrassment.  So Rossi's next step will be public demos and a press
release inviting the patent examiners to see the demo.  From this point it
is politics.  And Rossi/IH will need to grease a few palms in the political
realm that can bring pressure on the patent office.

Re: [Vo]:[Rossi TR#2] Reactor close down : all Li and Ni converted. Coincidentally?



To disprove it you must be more specific. 

Watt is the reactions
between Ni 62 and Li 6? 

I am not a physicists to but have already
proposed this cyclic reactions. 

And it may be easy to disprove. 

At
the start up D is formed from p threw Storms process PeP>D 

And then D
reacts with Ni in a Oppenheimer-Phillips process. 

The new protons then
recycle back to D. 

But it says nothing about Li. 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014
10:31:07 -0700, Robert Dorr  wrote: 
 First off let me get this out of
the way, I am not a physicists so this is probably completely
impossible, but I'll throw it out here anyway. What if the conversion of
Ni 58 and Li 7 happen relatively quickly so that very soon after the
reaction is commenced there is almost a complete conversion of Ni 58 to
Ni 62 and an almost complete conversion of Li 7 to Li 6 and what
sustains the reaction from that point on is primarily a cyclic reaction
between Ni 62 and Li 6. Just throwing this out there. Go ahead and start
telling me that this couldn't happen, I know it's a crazy idea.

 Robert
Dorr

 On 10/9/2014 8:12 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:  
the powder change
seems quite simple... no complex procedure... surprising. 

2014-10-09
15:53 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher :
 At 04:23 AM 10/9/2014, Teslaalset
wrote:
 I find it quite a coincident that after 32 days approximately
all Ni and Li were transmuted to Ni62 and Li6. I would have guessed that
running out of the original isotopes would create a reduced performance
which would be the reason for shutdown.
 Why has this not been
mentioned?

Although none of the tests show it, I still believe that the
ECAT will run, as advertised, for at least 6 months on one charge. The
time for this test was set by the experimental team (and most likely by
their host, which was paying for the power).

 I'm beginning to think
that this transmutation was a "burn-in" secondary effect, particularly
for the Lithium, which was there only to provide the hydrogen.

 If you
ignore the bump when they changed the input power levels (files 4 to 6)
the COP increased almost linearly over the whole test.

 So maybe the
"long term" COP depends on these transmutations -- ie the availability
of (most likely) Ni62, and coincidentally Li6 -- and would have
stabilized just a few days later when the transmutation was complete.


I wonder if Rossi knew this would happen. However, he usually runs his
Ecats at higher power, so the burn-in might be much quicker -- and he's
never analyzed the ash that early.

 He's also hinted that the 1MW
"baby" at the "customer" has also needed constant attention and
adjustment (including being called out in the middle of the night).
Maybe it too is undergoing a settling-in period --- it's also been
running for less than a month.

 But we won't get those results for at
least a year, and they will be purely internal documents.

 In short, I
think it IS coincidental that the Ni and Li transmutation was nearly
complete at the end of the run, but that some other reaction continues
beyond that point.

 And even if the 1g charge DID have to be replaced
monthly it would probably still be economical.

No virus found in this
message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com [2]
 Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus
Database: 4040/8355 - Release Date: 10/09/14  


Links:
--
[1]
mailto:a...@well.com
[2] http://www.avg.com

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

Axil Axil  wrote:

> The testers should not have run the reactor at 1400C.
>

I do not think they knew it would get that hot.

> That high operational temperature would have partially melted many of the
> nickel particles thereby reducing the power output of the test reactor.
> Melted particles are pictured in appendix 3 of the test results. The
> testers may have wanted to increase the COP to as high a level as they
> could push the reactor to provide.
>

No, they said just the opposite. They avoided pushing the reactor to its
limits. They avoided the use of pulsed input. Quote:

"In order to assure that the reactor would operate for a prolonged length
of time, we chose to supply power to the E-Cat in such a way as to keep it
working in a stable and controlled manner. For this reason, the
performances obtained do not reflect the maximum potential of the reactor,
which was not an object of study here."

And earlier:

". . . In a few minutes, the reactor body reached a temperature close to
1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly
100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. The
speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any
further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no
way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal
parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at
ca. 900 W."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Blaze exhibits his wishy-washiness yet again.  He also doesn't follow his
own posted "criteria", which was that if the report came out after
September he would lower the probability to 25%, which he never did.  He
went straight to 20% yesterday and today he's at 45%.  Because of ONE
reaction to the report.   One might as well use a windvane, it would give
at least traceable information.

Oh well, at least he's posting on his own thread.

So I'm constrained, again,  to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that
Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine "hind quarters" from 7.09% down
to 6.59%. Blaze might as well start building a shelter, because his head
will be staying there for a long time.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/probability-is-now-45/
>
> Based on http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece
>
> Exciting times!
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
> wrote:
>
>> http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/probability-now-20/
>>
>> Disappointed to see the same names at the top of the paper.Shocked to
>> see not even Arxiv will accept it.   I will increase the probability if
>> does make it onto Arxiv or if we see IH and Cherokee step up.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/probability-is-now-27/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>

 http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/probability-rossi-is-real-is-now-28/





 On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, John Berry 
 wrote:

> Well I worded that strongly to drive home a point, we often hide our
> ignorance in the talk of probability.
>
> There are 4 domains in which we apply probability.
>
> 1: Things which are set and we are ignorant of, no actual element of
> chance exist, such as with Rossi.
>
> 2: Macro chance, things that we fail to predict but maybe could if we
> did sufficiently in-depth analysis, this could be likened to the spinning
> of a wheel of wheel of fortune
>
> 3: While a machine could be used to spin a wheel and get the desired
> selection to come up on a wheel, some things seem beyond our ability to
> predict. The experiment with falling BB's hitting pegs and being seemingly
> effected by the intent of the observer in university studies backs up that
> this is maybe beyond modeling within known physics/ Rolling a dice is
> similar, but we do know dice can be loaded showing that even on this level
> small physical changes can reduce the randomness.
>
> 4: Quantum physics where it is believed God does actually pay dice.
> But this is in ignorance of the state of the aether behind such
> interactions.
> It could be that these things are not random at all.
>
> But even IF you believe that probability really exist, that does not
> apply to Rossi.
>
> And if you were to hide ignorance in the language of probability
> despite the obvious lack of 'chance', there is the fact that if you were 
> at
> 1% confidence and then saw one tiny single sign, you could have to go to
> 100%.
>
> Such as an event that can only be explained by Rossi being genuine.
>
> Granted this is difficult with magicians (illusionists) and con men,
> but there has very likely been such a sign that either moves him to 100% 
> or
> damn near 0%.
> Not that there is anything that could prove him false so easily
> including proof he faked a test as there might be genuine motives to fake 
> a
> test despite being genuinely in possession of the real thing, it really is
> harder/impossible to prove a negative.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or
>> they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real..
>> There is no such thing as probability in reality."
>>
>> I see..
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM, John Berry 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Blaze's ego is astounding, thinking that he has things so well
>>> worked out that his ramblings about probability have meaning.
>>>
>>> Even if he were that good at working out probability, a few facts
>>> remain that make it worthless.
>>>
>>> 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or
>>> they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real..
>>> There is no such thing as probability in reality.
>>>
>>> 2: What is the difference between a 30% chance and a 70% chance?
>>> Answer 1: 40%
>>> Answer 2: Nothing much, both means that there is a very real
>>> possibility

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

>From an electromagnetic point of view, nickel and lithium perform the same
no matter how many neutrons are included in their nuclei.

The testers should not have run the reactor at 1400C. That high operational
temperature would have partially melted many of the nickel particles
thereby reducing the power output of the test reactor. Melted particles are
pictured in appendix 3 of the test results. The testers may have wanted to
increase the COP to as high a level as they could push the reactor to
provide. This may have had a reverse effect and the reactor might have
begun to fail. To keep the test positive, this could be the reason for the
early test termination.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> This is correct thinking and a real path to truth.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Alain Sepeda 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> tthe isotopic shift observed is probably only a side effect of the real
>>> reaction.
>>> from others LENR experiments one can suspect that hydrogen is the fuel,
>>> and that Ni is just modified.
>>>
>>> that the surface of the powder is pure Ni62 maye be simply that it is
>>> cooked by the reactions, stay stable, and work anyway.
>>>
>>
> I agree this is the most plausible-sounding scenario proposed here so far.
> It beats my suggestion that only the surface layers of material transmuted.
>
> So-called host metal transmutations have been observed in several
> experiments. We assume they are "host metal" rather than the main energy
> generating reactions.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

Axil Axil  wrote:

This is correct thinking and a real path to truth.
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Alain Sepeda 
> wrote:
>
>> tthe isotopic shift observed is probably only a side effect of the real
>> reaction.
>> from others LENR experiments one can suspect that hydrogen is the fuel,
>> and that Ni is just modified.
>>
>> that the surface of the powder is pure Ni62 maye be simply that it is
>> cooked by the reactions, stay stable, and work anyway.
>>
>
I agree this is the most plausible-sounding scenario proposed here so far.
It beats my suggestion that only the surface layers of material transmuted.

So-called host metal transmutations have been observed in several
experiments. We assume they are "host metal" rather than the main energy
generating reactions.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

Chris Zell  wrote:

>

> I think a line is being crossed in regard to the accusations made.  While
> there are many points to be debated, accusing professionals of being part
> of a fraud is something that should answered in a courtroom as defamation.
>

I agree with your sentiments, but people have been making these accusations
since March 23, 1989. There is no escaping it. This is the only argument
the skeptics have left.

In March 1989 the profs at MIT made accusations of fraud which were
recorded on audiotape by a reporter for the Boston Globe. Is a good thing
he made a recording. Otherwise he would have been fired when he published
the attacks, because the profs denied what they said.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:my first reaction to the Rossi Report

2014-10-09 Thread Foks0904 .

I'll second your opinion Alan.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/the-rossi-report-no-2-is-great-step.html
>
>
>
>
> *> Without a decent hypothesis at least, a paper is not scientific. *I
> strongly disagree with that. It's perfectly respectable and scientific to
> report an observation without an explanation.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Off Topic: "Flu" Season

2014-10-09 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Hi Terry!

I was being sarcastic...

I have a colleague who earned his PhD at UCLA in Biology back in the 80s... he 
used to have lunch with some of the virologists, at the time when HIV was in 
the news a lot... viruses are good at mutating, but the virologists said that 
what made HIV difficult to combat/treat is that it is *exceptionally* good at 
mutating... I hope ebola isn't.

Why they don't just send CDC doctors and scientists over to Africa, with all 
the equipment they need, to keep the virus isolated, is a mystery...
 
-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 7:40 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Off Topic: "Flu" Season

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:26 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

> How many ebola virus can you fit into a droplet in a sneeze or cough???

Does it matter?  It takes only one.

WHO contradicted CDCP by saying that you can get ebola from a sneeze:

http://www.naturalnews.com/047177_Ebola_transmission_direct_contact_aerosolized_particles.html

Regarding immunity, 15.3% of people in Gabone villages where there has been no 
ebola show antibodies.  Ebola survivors are generally assumed to be immune to 
re-infection.

http://en.ird.fr/the-media-centre/scientific-newssheets/337-possible-natural-immunity-to-ebola

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

This is correct thinking and a real path to truth.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> tthe isotopic shift observed is probably only a side effect of the real
> reaction.
> from others LENR experiments one can suspect that hydrogen is the fuel,
> and that Ni is just modified.
>
> that the surface of the powder is pure Ni62 maye be simply that it is
> cooked by the reactions, stay stable, and work anyway.
>
> it is like a barbecue made with bricks.
> at the end the bricks are all black, and they stay black. they don't burn,
> but they are blackened.
>
> that someone tweaked the isotopic shift is not logic, as it is useless...
> heat is the question. forbidding isotopic measurement was possible as it is
> IP protected.
>
> that Ni62 is consumed just when they stop the reactor, while it show no
> evidence of exhaustion, is not logic.
>
> one possible idea is that the Ni62 transmutation may be the cause of the
> COP improvement after few days of test. only an idea... not sure at all. it
> can be lattice reorganisation, decontaminations...
>
>
> 2014-10-09 5:29 GMT+02:00 Robert Lynn :
>
>> so the claim is essentially that this soup of elements were also consumed
>> to exhaustion, without changing power input or output as their quantities
>> reduced, in an amazingly perfect process that has as its only product the
>> highest binding energy Ni62 (also consuming Ni64) and without creating any
>> observable radiation during the process and no radiative ash.
>>
>> It will require a very high level of proof to convince the world of the
>> truth of that.
>>
>> On 9 October 2014 11:15, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same
>>> assumption that the testers suffer from.
>>>
>>> The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR
>>> transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements.
>>>
>>> Did you see this line on page 53?
>>>
>>> Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a
>>> very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the
>>> fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and
>>> these are not found in the ash.
>>>
>>> This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Robert Lynn <
>>> robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 De-cloaking long term lurker.
 Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions:

- The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism
somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion
and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive
isotopes produced?
- The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni
just happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must
have done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly.
- Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet the
reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the
test.  To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) 
 behaviour.

 If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into
 the unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes,
 focused microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and
 facilities to make any judgement on things like this.  I'm happy with black
 box reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these
 COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better.  Unless and until truly
 independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry
 in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the
 world.

 I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track
 record of sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will
 need independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi.

 On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker 
 wrote:

> Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was
> the best way to do so.
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:
>>
>> If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud.  End of story.
>>>
>>
>> Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash?
>> What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he
>> have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons:
>>
>> 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the
>> effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni
>> transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be 
>> more
>> convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isoto

Re: [Vo]:my first reaction to the Rossi Report

My apologies.  I saw the big Cc list and didn't notice I wasn't on it.
Your contributions to the vortex-l are proper to the list so I have no
complaints for Mr. Beatty.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> Dear Jemes Bowery,
>
> you are not an my cc list, but Vortex sends my messages to you
> I am a founding member of Vortex but you can ask Bill Beatty to
> exclude me from it.
>
> Peter
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:32 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Dr. Gluck, please remove me from your Cc list.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/the-rossi-report-no-2-is-great-step.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *> Without a decent hypothesis at least, a paper is not scientific. *I
>>> strongly disagree with that. It's perfectly respectable and scientific to
>>> report an observation without an explanation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

Mind blowing.This is a B.F.D.

Exciting times!!

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:53 AM, H Veeder  wrote:

> Elforsks CEO: Let's move on with research on LENR
>
> http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece
>
> google translation of swedish:
>
> < research initiative. More knowledge is needed to understand and explain.
> Let us engage more researchers in searching coat phenomenon and then
> explain how it works.
>
> Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elforsk>>
>
> Harry
>

RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

2014-10-09 Thread Chris Zell


I think a line is being crossed in regard to the accusations made.  While there 
are many points to be debated, accusing professionals of being part of a fraud 
is something that should answered in a courtroom as defamation.


-

Re: [Vo]:my first reaction to the Rossi Report

2014-10-09 Thread Peter Gluck

Dear Jemes Bowery,

you are not an my cc list, but Vortex sends my messages to you
I am a founding member of Vortex but you can ask Bill Beatty to
exclude me from it.

Peter

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:32 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Dr. Gluck, please remove me from your Cc list.
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/the-rossi-report-no-2-is-great-step.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *> Without a decent hypothesis at least, a paper is not scientific. *I
>> strongly disagree with that. It's perfectly respectable and scientific to
>> report an observation without an explanation.
>>
>>
>

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

Stefan Israelsson Tampe  wrote:

yes, they probably choosed the most extreme sample to make a statement.
>

I do not think they chose the samples. I think they only analyzed two and
they reported on both. If they had analyzed 10 or 20 I think they would've
said so.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/probability-is-now-45/

Based on http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece

Exciting times!

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/probability-now-20/
>
> Disappointed to see the same names at the top of the paper.Shocked to
> see not even Arxiv will accept it.   I will increase the probability if
> does make it onto Arxiv or if we see IH and Cherokee step up.
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
>> http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/probability-is-now-27/
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/probability-rossi-is-real-is-now-28/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, John Berry 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Well I worded that strongly to drive home a point, we often hide our
 ignorance in the talk of probability.

 There are 4 domains in which we apply probability.

 1: Things which are set and we are ignorant of, no actual element of
 chance exist, such as with Rossi.

 2: Macro chance, things that we fail to predict but maybe could if we
 did sufficiently in-depth analysis, this could be likened to the spinning
 of a wheel of wheel of fortune

 3: While a machine could be used to spin a wheel and get the desired
 selection to come up on a wheel, some things seem beyond our ability to
 predict. The experiment with falling BB's hitting pegs and being seemingly
 effected by the intent of the observer in university studies backs up that
 this is maybe beyond modeling within known physics/ Rolling a dice is
 similar, but we do know dice can be loaded showing that even on this level
 small physical changes can reduce the randomness.

 4: Quantum physics where it is believed God does actually pay dice.
 But this is in ignorance of the state of the aether behind such
 interactions.
 It could be that these things are not random at all.

 But even IF you believe that probability really exist, that does not
 apply to Rossi.

 And if you were to hide ignorance in the language of probability
 despite the obvious lack of 'chance', there is the fact that if you were at
 1% confidence and then saw one tiny single sign, you could have to go to
 100%.

 Such as an event that can only be explained by Rossi being genuine.

 Granted this is difficult with magicians (illusionists) and con men,
 but there has very likely been such a sign that either moves him to 100% or
 damn near 0%.
 Not that there is anything that could prove him false so easily
 including proof he faked a test as there might be genuine motives to fake a
 test despite being genuinely in possession of the real thing, it really is
 harder/impossible to prove a negative.

 On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
 blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or
> they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real..
> There is no such thing as probability in reality."
>
> I see..
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM, John Berry 
> wrote:
>
>> Blaze's ego is astounding, thinking that he has things so well worked
>> out that his ramblings about probability have meaning.
>>
>> Even if he were that good at working out probability, a few facts
>> remain that make it worthless.
>>
>> 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or
>> they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real..
>> There is no such thing as probability in reality.
>>
>> 2: What is the difference between a 30% chance and a 70% chance?
>> Answer 1: 40%
>> Answer 2: Nothing much, both means that there is a very real
>> possibility of it going either way.
>> If you were invested in oil, it would mean that there is a very real
>> risk that you must take seriously.
>> If you are on the side of good, you know that there is an
>> extraordinary possibility that might be worthy of attention, but might 
>> not
>> pan out.
>>
>> But the difference between 0.1% chance and a 0.001% chance is
>> huge!
>> With the 0.1% there is a long shot, but one that could still very
>> well pan out. Just 1 in 1,000 is not too distant odds to let one ignore
>> something potentially significant good or bad.
>>
>> But 0.001 is 1 in ten million, an almost impossible long shot
>> worthy of no attention/investment unless there are enough of these low
>> level 'promises/threats' to bring it up to a level of relevance.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:my first reaction to the Rossi Report

2014-10-09 Thread Peter Gluck

 I agree with you but this is the custom for scientific publications.
It is not my opinion.
Peter

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/the-rossi-report-no-2-is-great-step.html
>
>
>
>
> *> Without a decent hypothesis at least, a paper is not scientific. *I
> strongly disagree with that. It's perfectly respectable and scientific to
> report an observation without an explanation.
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:[Rossi TR#2] Reactor close down : all Li and Ni converted. Coincidentally?

2014-10-09 Thread Robert Ellefson

I don’t consider this a crazy idea at all.

In fact, there is my nearly-identical conclusion from yesterday: 

   http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98021.html

 

-Bob

 

 

From: Robert Dorr [mailto:rod...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Rossi TR#2] Reactor close down : all Li and Ni converted. 
Coincidentally?

 


First off let me get this out of the way, I am not a physicists so this is 
probably completely impossible, but I'll throw it out here anyway. What if the 
conversion of Ni 58 and Li 7 happen relatively quickly so that very soon after 
the reaction is commenced there is almost a complete conversion of Ni 58 to Ni 
62 and an almost complete conversion of Li 7 to Li 6 and what sustains the 
reaction from that point on is primarily a cyclic reaction between Ni 62 and Li 
6. Just throwing this out there. Go ahead and start telling me that this 
couldn't happen, I know it's a crazy idea.

Robert Dorr


On 10/9/2014 8:12 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: 

the powder change seems quite simple... no complex procedure... surprising.

 

2014-10-09 15:53 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher mailto:a...@well.com> 
>:

At 04:23 AM 10/9/2014, Teslaalset wrote:

I find it quite a coincident that after 32 days approximately all Ni and Li 
were transmuted to Ni62 and Li6. I would have guessed that running out of the 
original isotopes would create a reduced performance which would be the reason 
for shutdown.
Why has this not been mentioned?


Although none of the tests show it, I still believe that the ECAT will run, as 
advertised, for at least 6 months on one charge. The time for this test was set 
by the experimental team (and most likely by their host, which was paying for 
the power).

I'm beginning to think that this transmutation was a "burn-in" secondary 
effect, particularly for the Lithium, which was there only to provide the 
hydrogen.

If you ignore the bump when they changed the input power levels (files 4 to 6)  
the COP increased almost linearly over the whole test.

So maybe the "long term" COP depends on these transmutations -- ie the 
availability of (most likely) Ni62, and coincidentally Li6 -- and would have 
stabilized just a few days later when the transmutation was complete.

I wonder if Rossi knew this would happen. However, he usually runs his Ecats at 
higher power, so the burn-in might be much quicker  -- and he's never analyzed 
the ash  that early.

He's also hinted that the 1MW "baby" at the "customer" has also needed constant 
attention and adjustment (including being called out in the middle of the 
night). Maybe it too is undergoing a settling-in period --- it's also been 
running for less than a month.

But we won't get those results for at least a year, and they will be purely 
internal documents.

In short, I think it IS coincidental that the Ni and Li transmutation was 
nearly complete at the end of the run, but that some other reaction continues 
beyond that point.

And even if the 1g charge DID have to be replaced monthly it would probably 
still be economical.





 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com  
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8355 - Release Date: 10/09/14

Re: [Vo]:my first reaction to the Rossi Report

Dr. Gluck, please remove me from your Cc list.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/the-rossi-report-no-2-is-great-step.html
>
>
>
>
> *> Without a decent hypothesis at least, a paper is not scientific. *I
> strongly disagree with that. It's perfectly respectable and scientific to
> report an observation without an explanation.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:[Rossi TR#2] Reactor close down : all Li and Ni converted. Coincidentally?

2014-10-09 Thread Robert Dorr



First off let me get this out of the way, I am not a physicists so this 
is probably completely impossible, but I'll throw it out here anyway. 
What if the conversion of Ni 58 and Li 7 happen relatively quickly so 
that very soon after the reaction is commenced there is almost a 
complete conversion of Ni 58 to Ni 62 and an almost complete conversion 
of Li 7 to Li 6 and what sustains the reaction from that point on is 
primarily a cyclic reaction between Ni 62 and Li 6. Just throwing this 
out there. Go ahead and start telling me that this couldn't happen, I 
know it's a crazy idea.


Robert Dorr


On 10/9/2014 8:12 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
the powder change seems quite simple... no complex procedure... 
surprising.


2014-10-09 15:53 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher >:


At 04:23 AM 10/9/2014, Teslaalset wrote:

I find it quite a coincident that after 32 days approximately
all Ni and Li were transmuted to Ni62 and Li6. I would have
guessed that running out of the original isotopes would create
a reduced performance which would be the reason for shutdown.
Why has this not been mentioned?


Although none of the tests show it, I still believe that the ECAT
will run, as advertised, for at least 6 months on one charge. The
time for this test was set by the experimental team (and most
likely by their host, which was paying for the power).

I'm beginning to think that this transmutation was a "burn-in"
secondary effect, particularly for the Lithium, which was there
only to provide the hydrogen.

If you ignore the bump when they changed the input power levels
(files 4 to 6)  the COP increased almost linearly over the whole test.

So maybe the "long term" COP depends on these transmutations -- ie
the availability of (most likely) Ni62, and coincidentally Li6 --
and would have stabilized just a few days later when the
transmutation was complete.

I wonder if Rossi knew this would happen. However, he usually runs
his Ecats at higher power, so the burn-in might be much quicker 
-- and he's never analyzed the ash  that early.


He's also hinted that the 1MW "baby" at the "customer" has also
needed constant attention and adjustment (including being called
out in the middle of the night). Maybe it too is undergoing a
settling-in period --- it's also been running for less than a month.

But we won't get those results for at least a year, and they will
be purely internal documents.

In short, I think it IS coincidental that the Ni and Li
transmutation was nearly complete at the end of the run, but that
some other reaction continues beyond that point.

And even if the 1g charge DID have to be replaced monthly it would
probably still be economical.





No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8355 - Release Date: 10/09/14

Re: [Vo]:my first reaction to the Rossi Report





http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/the-rossi-report-no-2-is-great-step.html

> Without a decent hypothesis at least, a paper is not
scientific.
I strongly disagree with that. It's perfectly respectable and
scientific to report an observation without an explanation.

[Vo]:ExtremeTech headlines with LENR success

2014-10-09 Thread Ian Walker

Hi all

"Cold fusion reactor verified by third-party researchers, seems to have 1
million times the energy density of gasoline"

Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat — the device that purports to use cold fusion to
generate massive amounts of cheap, green energy – has been verified by
third-party researchers, according to a new 54-page report. The researchers
observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5
megawatt-hours, or “far more than can be obtained from any known chemical
sources in the small reactor volume.”...

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

Follow the link to story in full

Kind Regards walker

[Vo]:my first reaction to the Rossi Report

2014-10-09 Thread Peter Gluck

Dear Friends,

I have published with a bit of delay:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/the-rossi-report-no-2-is-great-step.html

I wish I could have been an incombustible fly inside that alumina vessel
to see everything what happened there!

Peter


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

2014-10-09 Thread Lennart Thornros

I think this report was very good from many aspects. I understand from the
comments that the Pomp's of this world now have one and only one way to
deny the existence of Rossi's E-cat and that is to say that Rossi is an
fraud and a magician.
As much as I want to be critical and as much as it is OK to be skeptic,
 there are too many people involved in the process to say that fraud is an
option. I am sure that Rossi have had to demonstrate that the E=cat works
for his investors-they do not want to lose capital. I know that the people
doing the test are concerned about there reputation - they do not want to
lose credibility as scientists.
If Rossi is able to fool us all I am sure that he could go to Vegas and
compete with David Copperfield earning much more money. (and status). The
alternative is that all others involved are :) Nae!!

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:08 AM, H Veeder  wrote:

> Stephen Pomp asserts that it is possible to use commercially available
> isotopes to make an ash sample that gives the same values as measured in
> the report. Setting aside the issues of how Rossi would switch samples and
> his motivation for doing so, we should ask if Pomp is exaggerating the
> correspondence between the measured ash values and the commercially
> available materials.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Alain Sepeda 
> wrote:
>
>> bad logic
>>
>> even a fraudster cannot change the physics of heat.
>>
>>
>> a fraudster need to control his environment. he makes pony show.
>> he ensure condition for his fraud. he does not let people play with his
>> reactor, choose methods...
>>
>> the fraud hypotheis are empty... they don't even consider the
>> consequences of their hypothsis and how it will have been spotted... how it
>> could have been spotted according to the protocol.
>>
>> the fraud theory have to propose a reliable way to fraud... not just luck.
>> they have to prove that it cannot be spotted, not only the the
>> measurement don, but by the one that could have been done reasonably...
>>
>>
>> moreover Rossi is not a convicted fraudster, but a loose polluting
>> industrialist as the justice said. this is an urban myth. his numerous
>> mistakes and failures are not incoherent with Italian justice opinion, with
>> his clients opinion, with his bosses opinions, with Mats lewan ...
>> creative, yes. real yes, loose and stubborn, sometime... that is what makes
>> disruptive inventors. nice and cautious guys follow the train, don't lead
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-10-09 3:58 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker :
>>
>>> Jed, it doesn't matter.   If the ash is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud.
>>> Plain and simple.   I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of
>>> the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry.
>>>
>>>  There are no such complexities in the ash which makes the discussion
>>> very straightforward.   He either switched it out or he didn't.  He's
>>> either a liar or he isn't.  It's pretty simple..
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:

> I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing
> this is too incredible.  What he's done is nothing short of miraculous.
>

 It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several
 hundred other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds?

 In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this
 is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to
 suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean
 the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to
 swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the
 calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of
 instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the
 Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera?

 If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he
 did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, "it was
 caused by invisible unicorns."

>   It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all
> that we know.
>

 That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of
 history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to F&P.

 - Jed

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors



At 09:44 AM 10/9/2014, H Veeder wrote:
A statement
about the report in Swedish and English on the Elforsk website:

http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/

This sentence is on the NyTeknik site, but not in the Elforsk
release


"Elforsk takes now the initiative to build a comprehensive
Swedish research initiative. 

Did he ADD something for NyTeknik, or did he take it back for an official
statement?
ps : Who is o...@verisoft.com and why do I get a bounce message from
verisoft every time I post?

Re: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

2014-10-09 Thread Foks0904 .

Thanks Harry.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:44 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> A statement about the report in Swedish and English on the Elforsk website:
>
> http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/
>
> Harry
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> THIS is the kind of response I was hoping to see!
>>
>> "Elforsk takes now the initiative to build a comprehensive Swedish
>> research initiative. More knowledge is needed to understand and explain.
>> Let us engage more researchers in searching coat phenomenon and then
>> explain how it works."
>>
>> Ignore the skeptics. Funding and full speed ahead.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

A statement about the report in Swedish and English on the Elforsk website:

http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/

Harry

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> THIS is the kind of response I was hoping to see!
>
> "Elforsk takes now the initiative to build a comprehensive Swedish
> research initiative. More knowledge is needed to understand and explain.
> Let us engage more researchers in searching coat phenomenon and then
> explain how it works."
>
> Ignore the skeptics. Funding and full speed ahead.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Rossi Comment on Depletion of Li7

2014-10-09 Thread David Roberson

Rossi commented on his blog today that he was expecting to see the Li7 
depletion from his research.  He said that he also has seen Ni62 enhancement, 
but was surprised to see the latest conversion efficiency reported.

It is encouraging to see that earlier testing revealed similar results to what 
is now being reported.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:[Rossi TR#2] Reactor close down : all Li and Ni converted. Coincidentally?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
>
> There are so many transmutation threads going on that I'm not sure if this
> was posted :
>
>  Rodney Nicholson
> October 8th, 2014 at 5:05 PM
>
> 2) It seems that in the ITP test the content of 58Ni was reduced almost to
> zero after one month of operation. That leads to a conclusion that maybe
> some route of conversion of 58Ni to 62Ni may be a significant source of the
> energy relaeased. But if the E-cat can function for as much as six times
> longer than the 32 days of the ITP test, then that cannot be right because
> there would not be any 58Ni available for the next five months.
>
> AR: 2- the charge had been made for a 35 days test. This is the test
> duration agreed upon when the experiment has been started
>
> So Rossi knew it would be exhausted, there isn't another reaction, and
> it's NOT a coincidence.
>
>

And this was not mentioned in the report?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ-t4DhAfrs

harry

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

Stephen Pomp asserts that it is possible to use commercially available
isotopes to make an ash sample that gives the same values as measured in
the report. Setting aside the issues of how Rossi would switch samples and
his motivation for doing so, we should ask if Pomp is exaggerating the
correspondence between the measured ash values and the commercially
available materials.



Harry

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> bad logic
>
> even a fraudster cannot change the physics of heat.
>
>
> a fraudster need to control his environment. he makes pony show.
> he ensure condition for his fraud. he does not let people play with his
> reactor, choose methods...
>
> the fraud hypotheis are empty... they don't even consider the consequences
> of their hypothsis and how it will have been spotted... how it could have
> been spotted according to the protocol.
>
> the fraud theory have to propose a reliable way to fraud... not just luck.
> they have to prove that it cannot be spotted, not only the the measurement
> don, but by the one that could have been done reasonably...
>
>
> moreover Rossi is not a convicted fraudster, but a loose polluting
> industrialist as the justice said. this is an urban myth. his numerous
> mistakes and failures are not incoherent with Italian justice opinion, with
> his clients opinion, with his bosses opinions, with Mats lewan ...
> creative, yes. real yes, loose and stubborn, sometime... that is what makes
> disruptive inventors. nice and cautious guys follow the train, don't lead
> it.
>
>
>
> 2014-10-09 3:58 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker :
>
>> Jed, it doesn't matter.   If the ash is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud.
>> Plain and simple.   I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of
>> the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry.
>>
>>  There are no such complexities in the ash which makes the discussion
>> very straightforward.   He either switched it out or he didn't.  He's
>> either a liar or he isn't.  It's pretty simple..
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing
 this is too incredible.  What he's done is nothing short of miraculous.

>>>
>>> It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several hundred
>>> other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds?
>>>
>>> In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this
>>> is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to
>>> suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean
>>> the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to
>>> swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the
>>> calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of
>>> instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the
>>> Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera?
>>>
>>> If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he
>>> did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, "it was
>>> caused by invisible unicorns."
>>>
>>>
>>>
   It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that
 we know.

>>>
>>> That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of
>>> history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to F&P.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in



Thanks this looks fine.  

Rossi have to declare watt material he
used. 

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:41:33 -0600, Bob Higgins  wrote:  
Jones,
I think you have far insufficient data to jump to the conclusion that
this is no longer a Ni-H reaction. Earlier, the hotCat used stainless,
and it worked just fine. Before that, it was just added H2 gas. Just
because alumina is used now does not mean it is "beta alumina" or even
uncoated alumina and that all of the H2 leaked out. Here is an example
of an alpha alumina coating that can be added to prevent diffusion of
hydrogen: http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560 [1] . I
believe the process to still be a Ni-H reaction. 

That having been
said, the 1g of active fuel powder + hydride would not be enough hydride
to provide much H2 pressure in the large alumina tube (of course, we
don't have a good idea what the internal volume looks like). Apparently
when the powder was added, the device was shaken vigorously to disperse
the small amount of powder inside the cylinder. 

Storms has noted
before that there appears to be an unusual radiation coming from some of
his tests that activated the window in his GM tube. It appears that
transmutation could be caused at a distance; probably with a 1/r^2 sort
of density of transmutation. Of course, there is sparse evidence for
this too. 

Bob Higgins 

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Jones Beene 
wrote:

Sorry - but this reactor is made of alumina - which is a proton
conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but
you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply
of hydrogen after startup.

All of the initial hydrogen is gone
within an hour due to hydrogen diffusion.

This looks like a
lithium-nickel reactor.   

 

Links:
--
[1]
http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560
[2]
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

2014-10-09 Thread Bob Higgins

Jones,  I think you have far insufficient data to jump to the conclusion
that this is no longer a Ni-H reaction.  Earlier, the hotCat used
stainless, and it worked just fine.  Before that, it was just added H2
gas.  Just because alumina is used now does not mean it is "beta alumina"
or even uncoated alumina and that all of the H2 leaked out.  Here is an
example of an alpha alumina coating that can be added to prevent diffusion
of hydrogen: http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560 .  I believe
the process to still be a Ni-H reaction.

That having been said, the 1g of active fuel powder + hydride would not be
enough hydride to provide much H2 pressure in the large alumina tube (of
course, we don't have a good idea what the internal volume looks like).
Apparently when the powder was added, the device was shaken vigorously to
disperse the small amount of powder inside the cylinder.

Storms has noted before that there appears to be an unusual radiation
coming from some of his tests that activated the window in his GM tube.  It
appears that transmutation could be caused at a distance; probably with a
1/r^2 sort of density of transmutation.  Of course, there is sparse
evidence for this too.

Bob Higgins

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
>
> Sorry – but this reactor is made of alumina – which is a proton conductor.
> Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would
> never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen
> after startup.
>
>
>
> All of the initial hydrogen is gone within an hour due to hydrogen
> diffusion.
>
>
>
> This looks like a lithium-nickel reactor.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:[Rossi TR#2] Reactor close down : all Li and Ni converted. Coincidentally?

At 04:23 AM 10/9/2014, Teslaalset wrote:
>I find it quite a coincident that after 32 days approximately all Ni 
>and Li were transmuted to Ni62 and Li6. I would have guessed that 
>running out of the original isotopes would create a reduced 
>performance which would be the reason for shutdown.
>Why has this not been mentioned?

There are so many transmutation threads going on that I'm not sure if this was 
posted :

 Rodney Nicholson
October 8th, 2014 at 5:05 PM 

2) It seems that in the ITP test the content of 58Ni was reduced almost to zero 
after one month of operation. That leads to a conclusion that maybe some route 
of conversion of 58Ni to 62Ni may be a significant source of the energy 
relaeased. But if the E-cat can function for as much as six times longer than 
the 32 days of the ITP test, then that cannot be right because there would not 
be any 58Ni available for the next five months.

AR: 2- the charge had been made for a 35 days test. This is the test duration 
agreed upon when the experiment has been started

So Rossi knew it would be exhausted, there isn't another reaction, and it's NOT 
a coincidence.

Re: [Vo]:[Rossi TR#2] Reactor close down : all Li and Ni converted. Coincidentally?

2014-10-09 Thread David Roberson

Perhaps anyone that takes proper precautions associated with the use of micro 
sized particles can perform the task.   The lack of needing controlled 
atmosphere for loading is fabulous.  This technology has the potential of 
becoming extremely wide spread.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Alain Sepeda 
To: Vortex List 
Sent: Thu, Oct 9, 2014 11:13 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Rossi TR#2] Reactor close down : all Li and Ni converted. 
Coincidentally?


the powder change seems quite simple... no complex procedure... surprising.


2014-10-09 15:53 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher :

At 04:23 AM 10/9/2014, Teslaalset wrote:

I find it quite a coincident that after 32 days approximately all Ni and Li 
were transmuted to Ni62 and Li6. I would have guessed that running out of the 
original isotopes would create a reduced performance which would be the reason 
for shutdown.
Why has this not been mentioned?


Although none of the tests show it, I still believe that the ECAT will run, as 
advertised, for at least 6 months on one charge. The time for this test was set 
by the experimental team (and most likely by their host, which was paying for 
the power).

I'm beginning to think that this transmutation was a "burn-in" secondary 
effect, particularly for the Lithium, which was there only to provide the 
hydrogen.

If you ignore the bump when they changed the input power levels (files 4 to 6)  
the COP increased almost linearly over the whole test.

So maybe the "long term" COP depends on these transmutations -- ie the 
availability of (most likely) Ni62, and coincidentally Li6 -- and would have 
stabilized just a few days later when the transmutation was complete.

I wonder if Rossi knew this would happen. However, he usually runs his Ecats at 
higher power, so the burn-in might be much quicker  -- and he's never analyzed 
the ash  that early.

He's also hinted that the 1MW "baby" at the "customer" has also needed constant 
attention and adjustment (including being called out in the middle of the 
night). Maybe it too is undergoing a settling-in period --- it's also been 
running for less than a month.

But we won't get those results for at least a year, and they will be purely 
internal documents.

In short, I think it IS coincidental that the Ni and Li transmutation was 
nearly complete at the end of the run, but that some other reaction continues 
beyond that point.

And even if the 1g charge DID have to be replaced monthly it would probably 
still be economical.

Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF & the Rossi effect



Is sounds unbelievable because the Ni58 and annihilation radiaton.


but maybe something like that may work. 

At the start up D is formed
from p threw Storms process PeP>D 

And then D reacts with Ni in a
Oppenheimer-Phillips process. 

The new protons then recycle back to D.


This may provide D even if much of it is lost threw the wals.


Torulf. 

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:26:25 -0700, Eric Walker  wrote:  

I
wrote: 

In recent months my bet has been on transmutation from one
isotope of nickel to another, but I will need to read the report to see
how I continue to feel about that.  
I just read over the report,
and I feel greatly confirmed in the hypothesis that neutron stripping of
deuterium is occurring via the Oppenheimer-Phillips process. I'm also
guessing that a 7Li(p,4He)4He reaction is happening, as offered as one
possibility by the authors. This means there could be measurable helium,
something I hadn't expected. 

The ratios of isotopes of nickel in the
fuel prior to operation were the natural ones. After operation, the
amounts of 58Ni, 60Ni and 61Ni pretty much went to zero. This indicates
to me that those isotopes were consumed. By contrast, 62Ni went up
dramatically. This indicates to me that 62Ni was the final point in the
process, at least as far as nickel is concerned. The way I would expect
the process to unfold would be something like this: 

* 58Ni → 59Ni →
60Ni → 61Ni → 62Ni
*  59Ni → 60Ni → 61Ni → 62Ni
*  60Ni → 61Ni →
62Ni
*  61Ni → 62Ni

The reaction would be Ni(d,p)Ni in all cases, and
these four chains would occur in parallel. Clearly they're different
stages of the same chain, but it's helpful to see the starting points.
As you consider this list, keep in mind the natural abundances of 68
percent 58Ni, 26 percent 60Ni, 1 percent 61Ni and 3.6 percent 62Ni.


Given enough time, and perhaps relatively quickly, you'll
progressively burn through 58Ni through 61Ni to 62Ni, which presumably
is neutron-rich enough to have a small enough neutron stripping cross
section at the energies involved to prevent the chain from going on to
64Ni. There was a remark in the report to the effect that no deuterium
was seen in the SIMS results, apparently in connection with the fuel and
not the ash, although this is not made clear. Unless there was a
specific effort on Rossi's part to use a fuel enriched in 1H, there will
have been at least 1 part in 6000 D per H, which I assume would be
sufficient to generate energy on the order described in the report from
neutron stripping reactions. It is plausible that Rossi will have
provided fuel that is not his best in order to avoid giving away too
much information; one wonders whether a fuel with a larger amount of
deuterium is used in other contexts. 

I'm going to guess that the
lithium plays two roles. First, in the form of LiAlH4 it provides a
hydride that can be used to release hydrogen (deuterium) over time.
Second, it provides a booster of sorts when the fast protons ejected
from the Ni(d,p)Ni reactions collide with the 7Li. Note that the isotope
analysis shows that nearly all of the 7Li was consumed. I find it
unlikely that there is any direct reaction between 7Li and nickel. There
was a significant amount of iron in the fuel, prior to the experimental
run. Note that Elinvar is an iron-nickel alloy that does not expand or
contract with temperature [1]. 

To my mind, the preceding analysis is
consistent with what Yoshino, Igari and Mizuno's slides show, and it's
interesting to note that they include slides at the end that give
neutron capture cross sections for 58Ni and 60Ni (slides 56 and 57) [2].
In this regard they seem to be obliquely hinting at a deuterium
stripping reaction. 

One question that is somewhat of a mystery to me
is why no radiation is observed. As far as 58Ni is concerned, there will
be a miniscule beta plus decay after the transition to 59Ni that has a
half-life of thousands of years, but I would assume this would be seen
in the ash assay, had there been enough 59Ni. Beta plus decay leads to
electron-positron annihilation photons, which will be detected by the
devices used by David Bianchini. Presumably what 59Ni is produced is
then consumed sufficiently that there is not enough at any given point
in time to detect radiation above the normal noise in the background.
But note that even if 59Ni lingered around, I suspect there would be few
enough annihilation photons that it might be hard to detect them as
something separate from background in any event. 

Eric 

[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinvar [1] 
[2]
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YoshinoHreplicable.pdf [2] 
  


Links:
--
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinvar
[2]
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YoshinoHreplicable.pdf

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden

2014-10-09 Thread Alain Sepeda

NyTeknik just make an article about the Boss of Elforsk who play the
cautious man, but say he will launche a research effor on that subject with
partners...

http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece


david made a translation
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/691-CEO-Elforsk-Magnus-Olofsson/?postID=1330#post1330

this is good.
we have to see how big is the budget, and who are the partners.

Maybe I will have a surprise.


2014-10-09 16:02 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher :

> At 08:20 AM 10/8/2014, Alan Fletcher wrote:
>
>> Releasing the report during "Nobel" week means that all the scientific
>> journalists will be busy on that and/or won't have space for it (print
>> versions).
>>
>
> Still no media mention -- not even NyTeknik. So it can't go in the wiki
> article yet. (Also, as a semi-leaked paper, it's not clear what its
> copyright status is. We only have Mat Lewan's comment that Essen sent it to
> him and that it's "public")
>

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

yes, they probably choosed the most extreme sample to make a statement.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Ron Wormus  wrote:

>
>
> --On Thursday, October 09, 2014 5:07 AM -0400 Craig Haynie <
> cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It does look like the system ran until its fuel was exhausted.
>>
>> "The unused fuel shows the natural isotope composition from both SIMS
>> and ICP-MS, i.e. 58 Ni (68.1%), 60 Ni (26.2%), 61 Ni (1.1%), 62 Ni
>> (3.6%), and 64 Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58
>> Ni (0.8.%), 60 Ni (0.5%), 61 Ni (0%), 62 Ni (98.7%), 64 Ni (0%), and
>> from ICP-MS: 58 Ni (0.8%), 60 Ni(0.3%), 61 Ni (0%), 62 Ni (99.3%), 64 Ni
>> (0%)."
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
> They only analyzes a few grains of the ash. I doubt that the ash is
> homogenous & isotropic so it is likely incorrect to assume that system ran
> to exhaustion.
>
> Maybe the ash is predominately spent fuel while most of the fuel remains
> active.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:[Rossi TR#2] Reactor close down : all Li and Ni converted. Coincidentally?

2014-10-09 Thread Alain Sepeda

the powder change seems quite simple... no complex procedure... surprising.

2014-10-09 15:53 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher :

> At 04:23 AM 10/9/2014, Teslaalset wrote:
>
>> I find it quite a coincident that after 32 days approximately all Ni and
>> Li were transmuted to Ni62 and Li6. I would have guessed that running out
>> of the original isotopes would create a reduced performance which would be
>> the reason for shutdown.
>> Why has this not been mentioned?
>>
>
> Although none of the tests show it, I still believe that the ECAT will
> run, as advertised, for at least 6 months on one charge. The time for this
> test was set by the experimental team (and most likely by their host, which
> was paying for the power).
>
> I'm beginning to think that this transmutation was a "burn-in" secondary
> effect, particularly for the Lithium, which was there only to provide the
> hydrogen.
>
> If you ignore the bump when they changed the input power levels (files 4
> to 6)  the COP increased almost linearly over the whole test.
>
> So maybe the "long term" COP depends on these transmutations -- ie the
> availability of (most likely) Ni62, and coincidentally Li6 -- and would
> have stabilized just a few days later when the transmutation was complete.
>
> I wonder if Rossi knew this would happen. However, he usually runs his
> Ecats at higher power, so the burn-in might be much quicker  -- and he's
> never analyzed the ash  that early.
>
> He's also hinted that the 1MW "baby" at the "customer" has also needed
> constant attention and adjustment (including being called out in the middle
> of the night). Maybe it too is undergoing a settling-in period --- it's
> also been running for less than a month.
>
> But we won't get those results for at least a year, and they will be
> purely internal documents.
>
> In short, I think it IS coincidental that the Ni and Li transmutation was
> nearly complete at the end of the run, but that some other reaction
> continues beyond that point.
>
> And even if the 1g charge DID have to be replaced monthly it would
> probably still be economical.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:[Rossi TR#2] Reactor close down : all Li and Ni converted. Coincidentally?

2014-10-09 Thread Ron Wormus

They only looked at a few grains of the ash so to extrapolate the results 
to all of the remaining fuel is probably erroneous.


--On Thursday, October 09, 2014 1:23 PM +0200 Teslaalset 
 wrote:




I find it quite a coincident that after 32 days approximately all Ni and
Li were transmuted to Ni62 and Li6. I would have guessed that running
out of the original isotopes would create a reduced performance which
would be the reason for shutdown. 
Why has this not been mentioned?

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

2014-10-09 Thread Ron Wormus




--On Thursday, October 09, 2014 5:07 AM -0400 Craig Haynie 
 wrote:




It does look like the system ran until its fuel was exhausted.

"The unused fuel shows the natural isotope composition from both SIMS
and ICP-MS, i.e. 58 Ni (68.1%), 60 Ni (26.2%), 61 Ni (1.1%), 62 Ni
(3.6%), and 64 Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58
Ni (0.8.%), 60 Ni (0.5%), 61 Ni (0%), 62 Ni (98.7%), 64 Ni (0%), and
from ICP-MS: 58 Ni (0.8%), 60 Ni(0.3%), 61 Ni (0%), 62 Ni (99.3%), 64 Ni
(0%)."

Craig



They only analyzes a few grains of the ash. I doubt that the ash is 
homogenous & isotropic so it is likely incorrect to assume that system ran 
to exhaustion.


Maybe the ash is predominately spent fuel while most of the fuel remains 
active.


Ron

Re: [Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

THIS is the kind of response I was hoping to see!

"Elforsk takes now the initiative to build a comprehensive Swedish research
initiative. More knowledge is needed to understand and explain. Let us
engage more researchers in searching coat phenomenon and then explain how
it works."

Ignore the skeptics. Funding and full speed ahead.

- Jed

[Vo]:Some Ni particles depleted, others not?

In this study they looked at only a few particles of nickel. They found
that nearly all of the nickel had been transmuted into another isotope.
Presumably this was the source of the energy in the experiment. People
wonder how Rossi could have arranged to make the nickel deplete just as the
experiment was coming to an end. This does not seem possible because he did
not know what power level they would run at. Midway through the experiment
they raise the power level.

It occurs to me that perhaps if they were to look at many other particles
they would discover different levels of depletion. Perhaps particles lying
at the top of the pile in contact with the gas were used up, while others
were not.

Perhaps the gas has nothing to do with it since it appears to be ordinary
air. That is unclear to me. Anyway, something triggered the reaction,
perhaps heat from the rods. With ordinary cold fusion, some parts of the
cathode are heavily loaded and undergo reactions that caused them to melt,
while other parts of the cathode do not participate in the reaction at all.
As Ed Storms often points out the NAE is not evenly distributed.

Think of it as something similar to a pile of burning firewood. The surface
of the wood burns first. As it burns away, air reaches the wood underneath
and that burns. Not all of the fuel at all depths ignites at the same
moment.

- Jed

[Vo]:Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elfors

Elforsks CEO: Let's move on with research on LENR

http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece

google translation of swedish:

<>

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Off Topic: "Flu" Season

2014-10-09 Thread Craig Haynie


On 10/09/2014 10:40 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
WHO contradicted CDCP by saying that you can get ebola from a sneeze: 
http://www.naturalnews.com


If it's in saliva, then why wouldn't it be in a sneeze?

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

 wrote:
>
> The fraud hypothesis is an obvious option.
>
If it is so obvious then please explain how it would be done. By Rossi, I
mean. Obviously if Levi et al. wanted to commit fraud they could simply
publish fake data. They could make up the whole thing without doing an
experiment.

You should please explain how Rossi made Levi's instruments give the wrong
answer. If you cannot do this then you have no business saying that the
fraud "hypothesis" is an "obvious option."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Off Topic: "Flu" Season

2014-10-09 Thread Terry Blanton

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:26 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

> How many ebola virus can you fit into a droplet in a sneeze or cough???

Does it matter?  It takes only one.

WHO contradicted CDCP by saying that you can get ebola from a sneeze:

http://www.naturalnews.com/047177_Ebola_transmission_direct_contact_aerosolized_particles.html

Regarding immunity, 15.3% of people in Gabone villages where there has
been no ebola show antibodies.  Ebola survivors are generally assumed
to be immune to re-infection.

http://en.ird.fr/the-media-centre/scientific-newssheets/337-possible-natural-immunity-to-ebola

Re: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?

2014-10-09 Thread frobertcook

I for one consider a hot  Li6 is inconsistent with no radiation.

The enerrgy  release must  be by a different mechanism.

Bob Cook


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneAxil Axil  
wrote:
I agree, you really can tell where that Li6 came from.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:21 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:22:13 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> Li7 + Ni58 => Ni59 + Li6 + 1.75 MeV
> Li7 + Ni59 => Ni60 + Li6 + 4.14 MeV
> Li7 + Ni60 => Ni61 + Li6 + 0.57 MeV
> Li7 + Ni61 => Ni62 + Li6 + 3.34 MeV
> Li7 + Ni62 => Ni63 + Li6 - 0.41 MeV (Endothermic!)
>
> This series stops at Ni62, hence all isotopes of Ni less than 62 are
> depleted
> and Ni62 is strongly enriched.
>
> I have only briefly skimmed the report, but the basic reaction appears to
> be a
> neutron transfer reaction where a neutron tunnels from Li7 to a Nickel
> isotope.
> The excess energy of the reaction appears as kinetic energy of the two
> resultant
> nuclei (i.e. Li6 & the new Ni isotope), rather than as gamma rays. Because
> there
> are two daughter nuclei, momentum can be conserved while dumping the
> energy as
> kinetic energy in a reaction that is much faster then gamma ray emission.
> Because both nuclei are "heavy" and slow moving, very little to no
> bremsstrahlung is produced. There is effectively no secondary gamma from
> Li6
> because the first excited state is too high. (I haven't checked Li7).
> There is
> unlikely to be anything significant from Ni because the high charge on the
> nucleus combined with the "3" from Lithium tend to keep them apart (minimum
> distance 31 fm).
>
> It would be nice to know if the total amounts of each of Li & Ni in the
> sample
> were conserved (I'll have to study the report more closely).
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in



At 05:46 PM 10/8/2014, Jones Beene wrote:
Many things do not
add up here, especially the drastic changes from the original
E-Cat.
I don't have any problem with the design evolution.
The original "warm" cat went from a large tube boiler to a
small tube boiler to a kettle.
The hotcat went from a large ceramic+steel tube (with a cavity in the
middle), to a closed  ceramic+steel tube (both with the heating resistors
lengthways) and now to a smaller ceramic tube with helical resistors. But
the heating resistors were always on the outside.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat Report Leaked- Sweden


At 08:20 AM 10/8/2014, Alan Fletcher wrote:
Releasing the report during "Nobel" week means that all the 
scientific journalists will be busy on that and/or won't have space 
for it (print versions).


Still no media mention -- not even NyTeknik. So it can't go in the 
wiki article yet. (Also, as a semi-leaked paper, it's not clear what 
its copyright status is. We only have Mat Lewan's comment that Essen 
sent it to him and that it's "public")

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in



A Nickel Hydrogen reactor without hydrogen. 

The isotope shift end
at the same time the experiment stop. 

The fraud hypothesis is an
obvious option. 

Torulf

Re: [Vo]:[Rossi TR#2] Reactor close down : all Li and Ni converted. Coincidentally?


At 04:23 AM 10/9/2014, Teslaalset wrote:
I find it quite a coincident that after 32 days approximately all Ni 
and Li were transmuted to Ni62 and Li6. I would have guessed that 
running out of the original isotopes would create a reduced 
performance which would be the reason for shutdown.

Why has this not been mentioned?


Although none of the tests show it, I still believe that the ECAT 
will run, as advertised, for at least 6 months on one charge. The 
time for this test was set by the experimental team (and most likely 
by their host, which was paying for the power).


I'm beginning to think that this transmutation was a "burn-in" 
secondary effect, particularly for the Lithium, which was there only 
to provide the hydrogen.


If you ignore the bump when they changed the input power levels 
(files 4 to 6)  the COP increased almost linearly over the whole test.


So maybe the "long term" COP depends on these transmutations -- ie 
the availability of (most likely) Ni62, and coincidentally Li6 -- and 
would have stabilized just a few days later when the transmutation 
was complete.


I wonder if Rossi knew this would happen. However, he usually runs 
his Ecats at higher power, so the burn-in might be much quicker  -- 
and he's never analyzed the ash  that early.


He's also hinted that the 1MW "baby" at the "customer" has also 
needed constant attention and adjustment (including being called out 
in the middle of the night). Maybe it too is undergoing a settling-in 
period --- it's also been running for less than a month.


But we won't get those results for at least a year, and they will be 
purely internal documents.


In short, I think it IS coincidental that the Ni and Li transmutation 
was nearly complete at the end of the run, but that some other 
reaction continues beyond that point.


And even if the 1g charge DID have to be replaced monthly it would 
probably still be economical.

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in