Re: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!

[Bob Higgins]

I asked the supplier that specific question.  If we wanted to run our
experiment with an enrichment of 62Ni, would it be cheaper to buy the
lesser enriched Ni or buy a smaller amount of 96% and dilute it.  The
answer came back plain and simple - the cheapest is to buy the smaller
amount of 96% and dilute it as we want it.  The reason is that a big part
of the cost is the care that is needed in handling the nickel
tetracarbonyl.  Once they are setup to run the nickel tetracarbonyl through
the centrifuge, the extra time in the centrifuge for concentration was a
small effort compared to handling the nickel tetracarbonyl.

The MFMP plan is to run with about a 4x enrichment over natural Ni - not
pure 62Ni.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
> > MFMP intends to find out by purchasing some 96% enriched 62Ni to run in
> a Parkhomov-like reactor. The cost to purchase 96% enriched 62Ni is
> $11.30/mg (milligram)…
>
> Bob – the thought just occurred, assuming that 62Ni is the only active
> isotope … and the others are neutral, then it is probably not wise to
> look for high enrichment levels, especially in centrifugal process
> enrichment.
>
> The reason is that the percentage enrichment per stage is higher in the
> early stages than in the later stages, while the processing cost per stage i
> s about the same. There is a fixed cost to liquefy the nickel, but that
> is comparatively low. The depleted feedstock loss is minimized by going
> to lower enrichment.
>
> For instance it could be possible to enrich by a factor of 10 – e.g. from
> 3.6% to 36% in a few stages, but it requires exponentially more stages to
> reach 96%, perhaps 50 stages with far more depleted feedstock. Thus, one
> would be better off, cost-wise, in looking for the flexibility of getting the
> enrichment at the lowest net cost for the exact enrichment level desired in
> the end product, instead of getting a high enrichment and then diluting a
> nearly pure isotope back down.
>
> Jones
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

> MFMP intends to find out by purchasing some 96% enriched 62Ni to run in a 
> Parkhomov-like reactor. The cost to purchase 96% enriched 62Ni is $11.30/mg 
> (milligram)…

Bob – the thought just occurred, assuming that 62Ni is the only active isotope 
… and the others are neutral, then it is probably not wise to look for high 
enrichment levels, especially in centrifugal process enrichment.  

The reason is that the percentage enrichment per stage is higher in the early 
stages than in the later stages, while the processing cost per stage is about 
the same. There is a fixed cost to liquefy the nickel, but that is 
comparatively low. The depleted feedstock loss is minimized by going to lower 
enrichment.

For instance it could be possible to enrich by a factor of 10 – e.g. from 3.6% 
to 36% in a few stages, but it requires exponentially more stages to reach 96%, 
perhaps 50 stages with far more depleted feedstock. Thus, one would be better 
off, cost-wise, in looking for the flexibility of getting the enrichment at the 
lowest net cost for the exact enrichment level desired in the end product, 
instead of getting a high enrichment and then diluting a nearly pure isotope 
back down. 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:the necessary level of competence of the ERV of the TEST

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Assuming the reactor is connected to some sort of radiator or ventilation
> system like any other space heater, then any licensed HVAC engineer who
> works with large furnaces could do this test.
>

I mean a test to confirm the heat. Many other important tests must be done
with a cold fusion reactor, such as looking for tritium. An HVAC engineer
would not be qualified to look for tritium. You have to conduct long-term
tests for reliability and stability, which I suppose calls for a mechanical
engineer. You would need a team of people including one or more HVAC
engineers.

An HVAC engineer could set up and perform the heat balance test in about an
hour, I think. A full test of a large conventional heating system takes
longer than this. It covers many other performance parameters and safety
checks. Many of the steps would not apply to a cold fusion reactor, such as
measuring incomplete combustion. See, for example:

http://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/guidlnd/gd-051.pdf

To confirm that the reactor is producing heat beyond the limits of
chemistry, you would not do a single one-hour test. You would set up
equipment to record the electric power input and thermal output
continuously for hours or days. The basic methods are the same as a
one-hour test of a heating system. They are usually air-flow calorimetry,
for a space heating furnace. (I do not know know what the 1 MW reactor
heats. It could be water. The principles are similar.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Heat and electricity

[Axil Axil]

LENR is breaking down the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. This
produces electrons and heat as the final product.

Breaking down means causing the proton and neutron to decay to mesons.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:39 PM, H LV  wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> The general expectation among Rossi supporters is that he is going to
> supply the world with a super fuel. Among his detractors the general
> expectation is that he is engaged in fraud. However,
> ​I take ​
> Rossi
> ​'s ambiguous remarks as​
>  hint
>  to his supporters that
> ​ ​their
>  expectations
> ​ need an adjustment​
> ​​
> . With this in mind, I think the expectations which inform research into
> "cold fusion" phenomena also need
> ​ an adjustment​
> .
>
> In broad terms, there are three domains of energy research: Energy
> production, energy storage and energy conversion.
> The view of the nucleus as a super fuel places it in the research domain
> of energy production. This view underwrites the claims of "excess heat"
> every time an anomalous heat effect occurs. Every claim of "excess heat" is
> a claim of energy gain, but it is assumed that the energy used during the
> ​_​
> preparation
> ​_
>  of the experiment is irrelevant to the claim of energy gain. However, I
> think the preoccupation with "excess heat" has been blinding us to the true
> significance of the anomalies. The anomalies point to new forms of energy
> storage and conversion instead of a new form of energy production.
>
> ​Furthermore,​ if
>  the overriding aim of all nuclear
> ​energy ​
> research is to give humanity a super fuel then the values of the fossil
> fuel age will just continue under a different name with a different set of
> environmentally unsustainable practices. In order to let go of the fossil
> fuel age a new energy role for the very small
> ​needs to be imagined ​
> that doesn't involve energy production.
>
> (This critique applies to all the variants of the hydrino hypothesis as
> well.)
>
> Harry
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Mats Lewan  wrote:
> > Harry, regarding heat into electricity conversion, Professor Eli
> > Yablonovitch of the University of California seems to be doing some
> > interesting stuff, as a side effect of having found a way to throw out
> > photons with sub bandgap energy from photovoltaics.
> >
> > I’ve seen some hints, like this poster from last year:
> >
> http://www.zeplerinstitute.ac.uk/sites/www.zeplerinstitute.ac.uk/files/yablonovitch_lecture_poster_web_0.pdf
> >
> > "Thus the effort to reflect band-edge luminescence in solar cells has
> > serendipitously created the technology to reflect all infrared
> wavelengths,
> > which can revolutionize thermo-photovoltaics. We have never before had
> such
> > high rear reflectivity for sub-bandgap radiation, permitting
> step-function
> > spectral control of the unused infrared photons for the first time. This
> > enables conversion from heat[iii] to electricity with >50% efficiency.
> Such
> > a lightweight “engine” can provide power to electric cars, aerial
> vehicles,
> > spacecraft, homes, and stationary power plants.”
> >
> > I couldn’t find the full paper though.
> >
> > Mats
> > www.animpossibleinvention.com
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20 Feb 2016, at 19:30, H LV  wrote:
> >
> > A typical goal of energy conversion is to convert heat into electricity
> and
> > to do it as efficiently as possible. However, if the goal is to convert
> > electricity into heat the issue of efficiency also arises.
> >
> >
> > An LED is efficient at converting electricity into light but it is
> > inefficient at converting electricity in to heat. So if you wanted heat
> and
> > only had an LED how would you make it more efficient at producing heat?
> >
> > Harry
> >
> >
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!

[H LV]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:

>
> Rossi is known to have purchased 62Ni a few years back from an isotope
> producer.  Also, another source claims to have provided some amount of 62Ni
> to Rossi.  So we know that Rossi obtained some 62Ni.  This does not mean
> that the 62Ni is not bred in Rossi's reactions - it may be that the reaction
> breeds 62Ni and that could be why Rossi has no need any longer to buy 62Ni.
>

Didn't Rossi say in 2011 or 2012 that he found an old man who could
supply him with enriched 62Ni
and at good price? I guess that old man was himself. ;-)

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Heat and electricity

[H LV]

Hi Matt,

The general expectation among Rossi supporters is that he is going to
supply the world with a super fuel. Among his detractors the general
expectation is that he is engaged in fraud. However,
​I take ​
Rossi
​'s ambiguous remarks as​
 hint
 to his supporters that
​ ​their
 expectations
​ need an adjustment​
​​
. With this in mind, I think the expectations which inform research into
"cold fusion" phenomena also need
​ an adjustment​
.

In broad terms, there are three domains of energy research: Energy
production, energy storage and energy conversion.
The view of the nucleus as a super fuel places it in the research domain of
energy production. This view underwrites the claims of "excess heat" every
time an anomalous heat effect occurs. Every claim of "excess heat" is a
claim of energy gain, but it is assumed that the energy used during the
​_​
preparation
​_
 of the experiment is irrelevant to the claim of energy gain. However, I
think the preoccupation with "excess heat" has been blinding us to the true
significance of the anomalies. The anomalies point to new forms of energy
storage and conversion instead of a new form of energy production.

​Furthermore,​ if
 the overriding aim of all nuclear
​energy ​
research is to give humanity a super fuel then the values of the fossil
fuel age will just continue under a different name with a different set of
environmentally unsustainable practices. In order to let go of the fossil
fuel age a new energy role for the very small
​needs to be imagined ​
that doesn't involve energy production.

(This critique applies to all the variants of the hydrino hypothesis as
well.)

Harry

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Mats Lewan  wrote:
> Harry, regarding heat into electricity conversion, Professor Eli
> Yablonovitch of the University of California seems to be doing some
> interesting stuff, as a side effect of having found a way to throw out
> photons with sub bandgap energy from photovoltaics.
>
> I’ve seen some hints, like this poster from last year:
>
http://www.zeplerinstitute.ac.uk/sites/www.zeplerinstitute.ac.uk/files/yablonovitch_lecture_poster_web_0.pdf
>
> "Thus the effort to reflect band-edge luminescence in solar cells has
> serendipitously created the technology to reflect all infrared
wavelengths,
> which can revolutionize thermo-photovoltaics. We have never before had
such
> high rear reflectivity for sub-bandgap radiation, permitting step-function
> spectral control of the unused infrared photons for the first time. This
> enables conversion from heat[iii] to electricity with >50% efficiency.
Such
> a lightweight “engine” can provide power to electric cars, aerial
vehicles,
> spacecraft, homes, and stationary power plants.”
>
> I couldn’t find the full paper though.
>
> Mats
> www.animpossibleinvention.com
>
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2016, at 19:30, H LV  wrote:
>
> A typical goal of energy conversion is to convert heat into electricity
and
> to do it as efficiently as possible. However, if the goal is to convert
> electricity into heat the issue of efficiency also arises.
>
>
> An LED is efficient at converting electricity into light but it is
> inefficient at converting electricity in to heat. So if you wanted heat
and
> only had an LED how would you make it more efficient at producing heat?
>
> Harry
>
>

[Vo]:the necessary level of competence of the ERV of the TEST

[Jed Rothwell]

I think Peter posted this message here and at CMNS. Anyway, here is a
response.


Peter quoted someone (not sure who):

"Any report from Rossi will be worthless unless it includes the names of
the claimed independent referee which Rossi refers to as "ERV". If this
person is an unknown, without flawless credentials, the report is
unacceptable. . . ."

That is silly. Assuming the reactor is connected to some sort of radiator
or ventilation system like any other space heater, then any licensed HVAC
engineer who works with large furnaces could do this test. That is their
job. It is what they do every day. If the reactor is not connected to a
conventional ventilation system then it will cook everyone in the building.

This is like saying that only a world-class plumber can replace a kitchen
sink. Or only a world-class dentist can fill a cavity.

1 MW is larger than most heaters, but units of this size are used in
shopping malls and other large buildings. Every one of them has to be
tested on a regular basis. The test procedures reveal how much heat they
are producing. For various reasons they can underheat, which can be
dangerous. Here is a 70 million btu/hour heating system for a mall. That's
20 MW:

https://www.wbdg.org/resources/hvac.php

If measuring heat were difficult, or unusual, or something that required
the kind of skills you need to operate a Tokamak reactor or a robot
explorer on Mars, then yes, you would need a world-class expert. But this
is not an arcane skill. Government licensing agencies and the ASME have
published detailed guides on how to do this. The procedures are spelled out
by law. To get a license you have to pass a test showing you know these
procedures. Here are some ASME textbooks:

https://www.asme.org/about-asme/standards/performance-test-codes

There are 292,000 licensed HVAC engineers in the U.S. Their mean annual
salary is $44,000 a year, so they are skilled but they are not rare, highly
paid, world-class experts. The engineers who work with large-scale
installations could confirm the performance of this reactor in an hour or
so with absolute confidence.

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation-maintenance-and-repair/heating-air-conditioning-and-refrigeration-mechanics-and-installers.htm

If HVAC engineers were not capable of testing large heating systems with
confidence, then every day dozens of shopping malls and large buildings
would explode and burn. People would be asphyxiated with carbon monoxide.

I have worked with HVAC engineers from time to time, such as when I
installed a heat pump at my house. They know more about calorimetry than,
say, the authors of the Lugano report do. They are more qualified to test a
1 MW reactor than a typical physics professor would be. Heck, they are more
qualified than the whole physics department tied together. They don't call
this "calorimetry" but that's what it is, on a large scale. Of course they
know less about this subject than say, Rob Duncan or Mike McKubre, and they
do not know much about theory or thermodynamics. Then again, they probably
know more theory than you might think.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!

[Bob Cook]

Bob Higgins--

I had the same thoughts, however, I thought it may have to do with engineering 
a robust Ni nano particle that would not be damaged so as to shutdown the 
reaction happening because of the Ni lattice parameters.  

Bob Cook

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:18 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!

The Lugano report states that the ~1g of fuel was poured into the reactor.  
However, I am told that when the researchers were retrieving a sample of ash, 
it was firmly attached to the tube walls.  The reactor had to be broken open 
(maybe Rossi did this for them) and the ash sample was scraped off of the inner 
walls of the alumina reactor tube.  It could well be that the 62Ni was already 
on the walls of the tube before the "fuel" was poured in.  This is why it is 
believed that the researchers were restricted in their dummy runs to low 
temperature - the 62Ni was on the walls of the reactor already and increasing 
above a certain temperature in air would damage the real fuel that was already 
in the reactor.


Rossi is known to have purchased 62Ni a few years back from an isotope 
producer.  Also, another source claims to have provided some amount of 62Ni to 
Rossi.  So we know that Rossi obtained some 62Ni.  This does not mean that the 
62Ni is not bred in Rossi's reactions - it may be that the reaction breeds 62Ni 
and that could be why Rossi has no need any longer to buy 62Ni.


Many in the field claim that there is nothing special about 62Ni from a LENR 
perspective and this is a ruse by Rossi to keep other researchers distracted.  
It is likely that during Rossi's early development that he and Focardi explored 
which isotopes of Ni (if any) were special in the process.

MFMP intends to find out by purchasing some 96% enriched 62Ni to run in a 
Parkhomov-like reactor.  The cost to purchase 96% enriched 62Ni is $11.30/mg 
(milligram), so it is quite expensive.  It is produced via multiple passes 
through a centrifuge using nickel tetracarbonyl liquid.  MFMP may put in about 
$600 worth in an experiment to look for difference compared to natural Ni.


On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

  What on earth make Ni-62 a good catalyst?.  It would nice to at least to have 
a suggested catalytic mechanism.

  As Jones notes, it is a singularity with the highest binding potential energy 
per nucleon of any nucleons.  That means its stable.  Maybe it was a required 
Ni lattice constituent to avoid damage to the lattice and, hence,  a productive 
home for the Li-7 H reaction.  I would think that would have to be disclosed in 
a real patent and not assumed to be state of art knowledge.  

  The Swedish inspection team must have looked at confirming the absence of 
other isotopes in the ash.  Has there been any additional Lugano testing of ash 
to anybody’s knowledge?

  Lastly, I find it surprising to expect the purity of Ni-62 found in the 
Lugano  ash consistent with the commercial separation schemes that may have 
been available to Rossi.  Does anybody have a spec for the purity of such an 
isotope.  Jones suggested it would be high at $10,000 per gram.  

  The production planning advertised by Rossi/Industrial heat would have to 
take Ni-62 expense into account.  There is not evidence that this is a 
consideration to my knowledge.  

  Bob Cook

  From: Jones Beene 
  Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 8:17 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

  From: Teslaalset 

  Ø  Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden 
because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur and 
not somebody who is paid by society… Give Rossi a bit more credit on what he 
shares and what he doesn’t share. From his angle it very understandable. 


  I agree with your synopsis – as far as it goes. But there is more to the big 
picture of understanding what is going on - behind the scenes. We have 
discussed this before, circa 2013, but never really took the thread about 
Rossi’s real secret (not-so-secret secret) to its logical conclusion.

  On the larger stage of commercial reality - Rossi has had no choice but to 
put the identity of the secret sauce on the table (and then try to hide it in 
practice by a string of deceptive disinformation). It has been crystal-clear 
for 3 years that the one and only public detail which is relevant for the 
successful Rossi-effect  reaction, and is protected by Patent - is the use of 
nickel-62 as the active isotope. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.


  62Ni is the only major detail which is protected in Rossi’s granted Italian 
patent, according to experts, and also it is in the pending EPO application 
(EP2259998). Rossi’s wife is a top Italian Lawyer, so it can be assumed that 
she knew the importance of disclosing (and then trying to 

[Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:I have 
always assumed that the isotopic concentrations were due to various 
differential parameters, including magnetic field strengths, during their 
generation.  It is generally assumed that supernovae product the display of 
isotopes we see around us.  And this relative abundance may be due to the 
number of supernovae that had happened in our galaxy from the beginning.  The 
production of relative stable isotopes as the nucleons gained in mass during 
production, may have been slowed enough such that the anticipated stable 
isotopes never got a chance to dominate the  abundance chart here in the sun’s 
solar system or nearby in our galaxy.   

One added point--
You noted that:   <<< “That is where we are now: awaiting the “proof beyond 
doubt”… and sadly, depending on a very unreliable source to provide it. If one 
is only concerned with personal enrichment, at the expense of science, then it 
could take decades to understand this problem to be resolved.”>>>

I agree with that conclusion.  This is the case with many complicated phenomena 
or even rational assemblage of ideas.  Where profit, or getting ahead, or 
merely superiority over someone or ones is involved, getting to the truth, 
either factual or logically, may take decades, if not centuries given the 
nature of humanity to accept dogma as truth or being logically founded.   

The trick is how to get to the truth or logical conclusion of an issue, in this 
case a potentially colossal  disruptive invention,  fast.  It takes social 
engineering and BENEVOLENT market manipulation IMHO.  I think Rossi and IH 
consider that the latter scheme is the most likely to succeed considering 
Rossi’s statements in the past to flood the market with cheap E-Cats before the 
competition can get a foot hold and change things to their liking—probably at 
the expense of increased cost to humanity.  Look today at how the big energy 
interests are attempting to stymie net metering of roof-top solar generated 
electricity in many states on the heals of the shutdown of solar R at Golden 
CO  in the early 1980’s.  Contending with the energy-government complex can be 
a daunting task.   

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 10:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

From: Bob Cook 

Ø  

Ø  What on earth make Ni-62 a good catalyst?.  It would nice to at least to 
have a suggested catalytic mechanism… it is a singularity with the highest 
binding potential energy per nucleon of any nucleons.  That means it’s stable. 

Yes, a lot of thought has gone into this mystery. Why should the most stable 
isotope in the periodic table be the one which is active for gain in the Rossi 
effect? That runs contrary to commons sense about nuclear stability.

Without going back to billions of years to nucleogenesis (in a putative big 
bang), here is a partial explanation which is “out of the box” so to speak 
(hopefully not Pandora’s box). Think about what makes an isotope not only 
stable, but the most stable. Obviously it is a peak in binding energy.

Next, and this is most important - consider that 62Ni is NOT the most abundant 
isotope of nickel, far from it. In fact, it is only 3.6% of the natural 
abundance. Logic would seem to indicate that if it was the most stable nucleus 
in the periodic table, then nickel should be almost all this isotope instead of 
only a tiny fraction.

When you consider both of these facts together, it becomes possible to consider 
that binding energy itself can reach a peak which is superfluous to long-term 
nucleon stability and even counter-productive – in the sense that it is “too 
stable.” In short this is saying that binding energy and nucleon stability are 
not in a linear and predictable relationship but in a progression which ‘flips’ 
and becomes negative.

I realize that this is not the answer you are looking for, and everyone wants 
to know precisely how “superfluous binding energy” gets translated into thermal 
gain. Is it via a reaction with lithium or with hydrogen? I do not pretend to 
know that mechanism, but it is clear to me that when we are talking about 
roughly 8.8 MeV of binding energy, then it could easily be possible to remove 
several hundred keV per nucleus without changing the identity of the isotope. 
If nuclear stability maximizes at say 8.5 MeV, then there is a lot of excess to 
share.

Answering that question is why LENR needs and deserves funding in the $10 
billion per annum range – once the effect is proved beyond doubt. As of now, 
there is still a reasonable chance that it is a sophisticated scam. 

That is where we are now: awaiting the “proof beyond doubt”… and sadly, 
depending on a very unreliable source to provide it. If one is only concerned 
with personal enrichment, at the expense of science, then it could take decades 
to understand this 

Re: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!

[Bob Higgins]

The Lugano report states that the ~1g of fuel was poured into the reactor.
However, I am told that when the researchers were retrieving a sample of
ash, it was firmly attached to the tube walls.  The reactor had to be
broken open (maybe Rossi did this for them) and the ash sample was scraped
off of the inner walls of the alumina reactor tube.  It could well be that
the 62Ni was already on the walls of the tube before the "fuel" was poured
in.  This is why it is believed that the researchers were restricted in
their dummy runs to low temperature - the 62Ni was on the walls of the
reactor already and increasing above a certain temperature in air would
damage the real fuel that was already in the reactor.

Rossi is known to have purchased 62Ni a few years back from an isotope
producer.  Also, another source claims to have provided some amount of 62Ni
to Rossi.  So we know that Rossi obtained some 62Ni.  This does not mean
that the 62Ni is not bred in Rossi's reactions - it may be that the
reaction breeds 62Ni and that could be why Rossi has no need any longer to
buy 62Ni.

Many in the field claim that there is nothing special about 62Ni from a
LENR perspective and this is a ruse by Rossi to keep other researchers
distracted.  It is likely that during Rossi's early development that he and
Focardi explored which isotopes of Ni (if any) were special in the process.

MFMP intends to find out by purchasing some 96% enriched 62Ni to run in a
Parkhomov-like reactor.  The cost to purchase 96% enriched 62Ni is
$11.30/mg (milligram), so it is quite expensive.  It is produced via
multiple passes through a centrifuge using nickel tetracarbonyl liquid.
MFMP may put in about $600 worth in an experiment to look for difference
compared to natural Ni.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> What on earth make Ni-62 a good catalyst?.  It would nice to at least to
> have a suggested catalytic mechanism.
>
> As Jones notes, it is a singularity with the highest binding potential
> energy per nucleon of any nucleons.  That means its stable.  Maybe it was a
> required Ni lattice constituent to avoid damage to the lattice and, hence,
> a productive home for the Li-7 H reaction.  I would think that would have
> to be disclosed in a real patent and not assumed to be state of art
> knowledge.
>
> The Swedish inspection team must have looked at confirming the absence of
> other isotopes in the ash.  Has there been any additional Lugano testing of
> ash to anybody’s knowledge?
>
> Lastly, I find it surprising to expect the purity of Ni-62 found in the
> Lugano  ash consistent with the commercial separation schemes that may have
> been available to Rossi.  Does anybody have a spec for the purity of such
> an isotope.  Jones suggested it would be high at $10,000 per gram.
>
> The production planning advertised by Rossi/Industrial heat would have to
> take Ni-62 expense into account.  There is not evidence that this is a
> consideration to my knowledge.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
> *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2016 8:17 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test
> over!Re:
>
>
> *From:* Teslaalset
>
> Ø  Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably
> Darden because he invested in his technology development. He is an
> entrepreneur and not somebody who is paid by society… Give Rossi a bit
> more credit on what he shares and what he doesn’t share. From his angle it
> very understandable.
>
> I agree with your synopsis – as far as it goes. But there is more to the
> big picture of understanding what is going on - behind the scenes. We
> have discussed this before, circa 2013, but never really took the thread
> about Rossi’s real secret (not-so-secret secret) to its logical conclusion
> .
>
> On the larger stage of commercial reality - Rossi has had no choice but
> to put the identity of the secret sauce on the table (and then try to hide
> it in practice by a string of deceptive disinformation). It has been
> crystal-clear for 3 years that the one and only public detail which is
> relevant for the successful Rossi-effect  reaction, and is protected by
> Patent - is the use of nickel-62 as the active isotope. Everything else
> is smoke and mirrors.
>
> 62Ni is the only major detail which is protected in Rossi’s granted
> Italian patent, according to experts, and also it is in the pending EPO
> application (EP2259998). Rossi’s wife is a top Italian Lawyer, so it can
> be assumed that she knew the importance of disclosing (and then trying to
> cover-up) the one critical detail – the active ingredient. Yet, the
> requirement for the rare isotope could now be the thorn in Rossi’s heel,
> since it is expensive and renders the entire device commercially
> non-competitive, if no substitute is found.
>
> Rossi has tried to gloss-over this fact in the past - by claiming that he
> could enrich bulk 

RE: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Cook 
*   
*   What on earth make Ni-62 a good catalyst?.  It would nice to at least 
to have a suggested catalytic mechanism… it is a singularity with the highest 
binding potential energy per nucleon of any nucleons.  That means it’s stable.  
Yes, a lot of thought has gone into this mystery. Why should the most stable 
isotope in the periodic table be the one which is active for gain in the Rossi 
effect? That runs contrary to commons sense about nuclear stability.
Without going back to billions of years to nucleogenesis (in a putative big 
bang), here is a partial explanation which is “out of the box” so to speak 
(hopefully not Pandora’s box). Think about what makes an isotope not only 
stable, but the most stable. Obviously it is a peak in binding energy.
Next, and this is most important - consider that 62Ni is NOT the most abundant 
isotope of nickel, far from it. In fact, it is only 3.6% of the natural 
abundance. Logic would seem to indicate that if it was the most stable nucleus 
in the periodic table, then nickel should be almost all this isotope instead of 
only a tiny fraction.
When you consider both of these facts together, it becomes possible to consider 
that binding energy itself can reach a peak which is superfluous to long-term 
nucleon stability and even counter-productive – in the sense that it is “too 
stable.” In short this is saying that binding energy and nucleon stability are 
not in a linear and predictable relationship but in a progression which ‘flips’ 
and becomes negative.
I realize that this is not the answer you are looking for, and everyone wants 
to know precisely how “superfluous binding energy” gets translated into thermal 
gain. Is it via a reaction with lithium or with hydrogen? I do not pretend to 
know that mechanism, but it is clear to me that when we are talking about 
roughly 8.8 MeV of binding energy, then it could easily be possible to remove 
several hundred keV per nucleus without changing the identity of the isotope. 
If nuclear stability maximizes at say 8.5 MeV, then there is a lot of excess to 
share.
Answering that question is why LENR needs and deserves funding in the $10 
billion per annum range – once the effect is proved beyond doubt. As of now, 
there is still a reasonable chance that it is a sophisticated scam. 
That is where we are now: awaiting the “proof beyond doubt”… and sadly, 
depending on a very unreliable source to provide it. If one is only concerned 
with personal enrichment, at the expense of science, then it could take decades 
to understand this problem to be resolved.
Jones

Re: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:Eric and Bob 
Higgins comments comments on tests regarding the issue of Ni-62 can be found at 
the following Vortex-l thread: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 20:33:07 –0700 

Bob Cook

From: Bob Cook 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9:59 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

What on earth make Ni-62 a good catalyst?.  It would nice to at least to have a 
suggested catalytic mechanism.

As Jones notes, it is a singularity with the highest binding potential energy 
per nucleon of any nucleons.  That means its stable.  Maybe it was a required 
Ni lattice constituent to avoid damage to the lattice and, hence,  a productive 
home for the Li-7 H reaction.  I would think that would have to be disclosed in 
a real patent and not assumed to be state of art knowledge.  

The Swedish inspection team must have looked at confirming the absence of other 
isotopes in the ash.  Has there been any additional Lugano testing of ash to 
anybody’s knowledge?

Lastly, I find it surprising to expect the purity of Ni-62 found in the Lugano  
ash consistent with the commercial separation schemes that may have been 
available to Rossi.  Does anybody have a spec for the purity of such an 
isotope.  Jones suggested its cost  would be high at $10,000 per gram.  

The production planning advertised by Rossi/Industrial heat would have to take 
Ni-62 expense into account.  There is not evidence that this is a consideration 
to my knowledge.  

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 8:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

From: Teslaalset 

Ø  Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden 
because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur and 
not somebody who is paid by society… Give Rossi a bit more credit on what he 
shares and what he doesn’t share. From his angle it very understandable. 


I agree with your synopsis – as far as it goes. But there is more to the big 
picture of understanding what is going on - behind the scenes. We have 
discussed this before, circa 2013, but never really took the thread about 
Rossi’s real secret (not-so-secret secret) to its logical conclusion.

On the larger stage of commercial reality - Rossi has had no choice but to put 
the identity of the secret sauce on the table (and then try to hide it in 
practice by a string of deceptive disinformation). It has been crystal-clear 
for 3 years that the one and only public detail which is relevant for the 
successful Rossi-effect  reaction, and is protected by Patent - is the use of 
nickel-62 as the active isotope. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.


62Ni is the only major detail which is protected in Rossi’s granted Italian 
patent, according to experts, and also it is in the pending EPO application 
(EP2259998). Rossi’s wife is a top Italian Lawyer, so it can be assumed that 
she knew the importance of disclosing (and then trying to cover-up) the one 
critical detail – the active ingredient. Yet, the requirement for the rare 
isotope could now be the thorn in Rossi’s heel, since it is expensive and 
renders the entire device commercially non-competitive, if no substitute is 
found. 


Rossi has tried to gloss-over this fact in the past - by claiming that he could 
enrich bulk nickel in this isotope cheaply. Can he? It is clear from the Lugano 
report that he ran the test with a reactor (one of 3 which he brought) which 
contained pure isotope at the start, in the hope of throwing competitors 
off-guard by claiming that the reaction produced it in pure form - as ash! 

Wow – what a brilliant deception. Hats off to AR. Most surprising is that many 
observers, including Levi and his crew, actually bought into this ridiculous 
falsehood. The Lugano reactor did not produce nickel-62 as ash, which is what 
AR wants the world to believe. The nearly pure isotope was there from the 
start. 

One of the remaining reactors which Rossi brought to Lugano (of 3) was indeed 
opened to show the “starting fuel” content - but of course, this one had no 
isotopic enrichment. That is the crux of the deception which has lingered on 
for years. Brilliant.


The reliance on a rare and expensive isotope is why Craven’s started the thread 
below some time ago – trying to find a logical substitute based on the physical 
parameter of 62Ni which makes it unique (ironically: it is high nuclear binding 
energy). In fact 62Ni is a singularity in the periodic table, but its 
characteristics are almost the same as an iron isotope. 


https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg80458.html

So – in conclusion – the LENR “surprise” in the upcoming report is very likely 
to be partially hidden away, once again. Since the year-long report will be 
positive in terms of gain – that will divert attention from the big 

[Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:What on 
earth make Ni-62 a good catalyst?.  It would nice to at least to have a 
suggested catalytic mechanism.

As Jones notes, it is a singularity with the highest binding potential energy 
per nucleon of any nucleons.  That means its stable.  Maybe it was a required 
Ni lattice constituent to avoid damage to the lattice and, hence,  a productive 
home for the Li-7 H reaction.  I would think that would have to be disclosed in 
a real patent and not assumed to be state of art knowledge.  

The Swedish inspection team must have looked at confirming the absence of other 
isotopes in the ash.  Has there been any additional Lugano testing of ash to 
anybody’s knowledge?

Lastly, I find it surprising to expect the purity of Ni-62 found in the Lugano  
ash consistent with the commercial separation schemes that may have been 
available to Rossi.  Does anybody have a spec for the purity of such an 
isotope.  Jones suggested it would be high at $10,000 per gram.  

The production planning advertised by Rossi/Industrial heat would have to take 
Ni-62 expense into account.  There is not evidence that this is a consideration 
to my knowledge.  

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 8:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

From: Teslaalset 

Ø  Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden 
because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur and 
not somebody who is paid by society… Give Rossi a bit more credit on what he 
shares and what he doesn’t share. From his angle it very understandable. 


I agree with your synopsis – as far as it goes. But there is more to the big 
picture of understanding what is going on - behind the scenes. We have 
discussed this before, circa 2013, but never really took the thread about 
Rossi’s real secret (not-so-secret secret) to its logical conclusion.

On the larger stage of commercial reality - Rossi has had no choice but to put 
the identity of the secret sauce on the table (and then try to hide it in 
practice by a string of deceptive disinformation). It has been crystal-clear 
for 3 years that the one and only public detail which is relevant for the 
successful Rossi-effect  reaction, and is protected by Patent - is the use of 
nickel-62 as the active isotope. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.


62Ni is the only major detail which is protected in Rossi’s granted Italian 
patent, according to experts, and also it is in the pending EPO application 
(EP2259998). Rossi’s wife is a top Italian Lawyer, so it can be assumed that 
she knew the importance of disclosing (and then trying to cover-up) the one 
critical detail – the active ingredient. Yet, the requirement for the rare 
isotope could now be the thorn in Rossi’s heel, since it is expensive and 
renders the entire device commercially non-competitive, if no substitute is 
found. 


Rossi has tried to gloss-over this fact in the past - by claiming that he could 
enrich bulk nickel in this isotope cheaply. Can he? It is clear from the Lugano 
report that he ran the test with a reactor (one of 3 which he brought) which 
contained pure isotope at the start, in the hope of throwing competitors 
off-guard by claiming that the reaction produced it in pure form - as ash! 

Wow – what a brilliant deception. Hats off to AR. Most surprising is that many 
observers, including Levi and his crew, actually bought into this ridiculous 
falsehood. The Lugano reactor did not produce nickel-62 as ash, which is what 
AR wants the world to believe. The nearly pure isotope was there from the 
start. 

One of the remaining reactors which Rossi brought to Lugano (of 3) was indeed 
opened to show the “starting fuel” content - but of course, this one had no 
isotopic enrichment. That is the crux of the deception which has lingered on 
for years. Brilliant.


The reliance on a rare and expensive isotope is why Craven’s started the thread 
below some time ago – trying to find a logical substitute based on the physical 
parameter of 62Ni which makes it unique (ironically: it is high nuclear binding 
energy). In fact 62Ni is a singularity in the periodic table, but its 
characteristics are almost the same as an iron isotope. 


https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg80458.html

So – in conclusion – the LENR “surprise” in the upcoming report is very likely 
to be partially hidden away, once again. Since the year-long report will be 
positive in terms of gain – that will divert attention from the big problem. 
The report will probably not show that the secret sauce – the one which allowed 
it all to happen, is a rare isotope which costs around $10,000 per gram, unless 
you make it yourself. But the accolades and “told-you-so” boasts from the Rossi 
fan-boys could regrettably cover up the hidden reality… that the emperor has no 

[Vo]:Think Pink

[H LV]

NASA's Pink X-15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-dtqDirCS0

Harry

[Vo]:the necessary level of competence of the ERV of the TEST

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-22-2016-lenr-how-competent-must-be.html

and a rumor of a surprise... developing

Peter

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

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

The Lugano reactor did not produce nickel-62 as ash, which is what AR wants
> the world to believe. The nearly pure isotope was there from the start.


What you say may be true. Bob Higgins's interpretation of the strange
Lugano ash assay result, where one is led to believe that all nickel
transmuted to 62Ni, but really didn't, because the samples were
unrepresentative, is consistent with this.

Here's another take on the larger context, however: the 62Ni could in fact
be a byproduct of whatever is releasing heat in the system. Rossi had a
series of analyses done and noted a correlation between heat and 62Ni.
Mistaking correlation with causation, he concluded, or tentatively
concluded, that 62Ni is doing something, and so has behaved in a manner
consistent with this understanding ever since.  In this scenario, a more
thorough analysis would show that 62Ni is, in fact, just a byproduct,
contrary to the understanding that led Rossi to purchase the 62Ni and
include it in the fuel (assuming this is what has happened).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Brad Lowe]

I don't get it. Dump the 1 MW of heat energy into an Olympic sized
swimming pool and in a few days it would be uncomfortably hot.. in 9
days the whole pool would be boiling. If he used diesel for the input
energy, the test would be conclusive in days. What are they doing for
the other 11 months?

That said, anyone know where the test was run? Where the heat energy
was supposed to go? The input (natural gas or electricity?) Does Rossi
have other units running, and if so, where? I'm heading to FL and
happy to knock on a few doors or look for massive quantities of steam.

The only thing I can think of is that results look convincing with
thermocouples and IR cameras, but for some reason,extracting the
energy is proving impossible... which would explain positive "reports"
and zero proof.

- Brad



On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Teslaalset  wrote:
>
>> Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden
>> because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur and
>> not somebody who is payed by society. What he tells us and what he doesn’t
>> tell us is up to him.
>
>
> I agree. That is what I said. However, I think he makes a big mistake when
> he does half-assed public tests and then publishes incomplete,
> poorly-written descriptions of them. Of course he has a right to do this. Of
> course it is up to him. But it is still a stupid thing to do. It hurts his
> credibility and it makes the whole field look bad to some extent, so I wish
> he would cut it out.
>
> It is ironic, but in some ways his tests have been better than the published
> descriptions of them indicate. He could have made a more convincing case for
> himself just by publishing more details. For example, in one test, he used
> flow calorimetry. He listed the approximate flow rate in the report, with no
> indication of how it was measured. I asked him how he measured the flow
> rate. He did not respond so I asked other people who were involved. No one
> responded. Other people asked -- still no response. This made the entire
> test questionable. A flow rate might vary without your noticing it. In the
> past, he said he measured the flow rate with a bucket and a stopwatch
> periodically. This is a good idea but it is not adequate for a multi-hour or
> multi-day test. Plus you have to say how periodically, how many times, and
> what the results were.
>
> Several months after this, someone pointed out to me that a photograph
> showed a flowmeter attached to the equipment. I zoomed in, read the make and
> model, and looked up the specifications. It was a conventional residential
> digital water meter; a low-flow model often used in apartment complexes.
> These meters are very reliable. This model is precise enough to give a good
> answer in the range of claimed heat. Like all water meters it records both
> flow and volume. In short, it was an excellent choice for this test. So, WHY
> DIDN'T THEY LIST IT IN THE REPORT?!? For crying out loud!
>
> Really, what is with that??? Were they trying to make themselves look bad?
> Is McKubre right, and is Rossi deliberately trying to make his own results
> look doubtful? Jim Patterson used to do that; it is not out of the question.
> I don't know. I cannot read Rossi's mind. I can only say that in my opinion
> and in the opinions of most people I know in business, this is a stupid,
> counterproductive, self-destructive thing to do.
>
> - Jed
>

RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Jones Beene]

From: Teslaalset 

*   Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden 
because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur and 
not somebody who is paid by society… Give Rossi a bit more credit on what he 
shares and what he doesn’t share. From his angle it very understandable. 

I agree with your synopsis – as far as it goes. But there is more to the big 
picture of understanding what is going on - behind the scenes. We have 
discussed this before, circa 2013, but never really took the thread about 
Rossi’s real secret (not-so-secret secret) to its logical conclusion.

On the larger stage of commercial reality - Rossi has had no choice but to put 
the identity of the secret sauce on the table (and then try to hide it in 
practice by a string of deceptive disinformation). It has been crystal-clear 
for 3 years that the one and only public detail which is relevant for the 
successful Rossi-effect  reaction, and is protected by Patent - is the use of 
nickel-62 as the active isotope. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

62Ni is the only major detail which is protected in Rossi’s granted Italian 
patent, according to experts, and also it is in the pending EPO application 
(EP2259998). Rossi’s wife is a top Italian Lawyer, so it can be assumed that 
she knew the importance of disclosing (and then trying to cover-up) the one 
critical detail – the active ingredient. Yet, the requirement for the rare 
isotope could now be the thorn in Rossi’s heel, since it is expensive and 
renders the entire device commercially non-competitive, if no substitute is 
found. 

Rossi has tried to gloss-over this fact in the past - by claiming that he could 
enrich bulk nickel in this isotope cheaply. Can he? It is clear from the Lugano 
report that he ran the test with a reactor (one of 3 which he brought) which 
contained pure isotope at the start, in the hope of throwing competitors 
off-guard by claiming that the reaction produced it in pure form - as ash! 

Wow – what a brilliant deception. Hats off to AR. Most surprising is that many 
observers, including Levi and his crew, actually bought into this ridiculous 
falsehood. The Lugano reactor did not produce nickel-62 as ash, which is what 
AR wants the world to believe. The nearly pure isotope was there from the 
start. 

One of the remaining reactors which Rossi brought to Lugano (of 3) was indeed 
opened to show the “starting fuel” content - but of course, this one had no 
isotopic enrichment. That is the crux of the deception which has lingered on 
for years. Brilliant.

The reliance on a rare and expensive isotope is why Craven’s started the thread 
below some time ago – trying to find a logical substitute based on the physical 
parameter of 62Ni which makes it unique (ironically: it is high nuclear binding 
energy). In fact 62Ni is a singularity in the periodic table, but its 
characteristics are almost the same as an iron isotope. 

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg80458.html

So – in conclusion – the LENR “surprise” in the upcoming report is very likely 
to be partially hidden away, once again. Since the year-long report will be 
positive in terms of gain – that will divert attention from the big problem. 
The report will probably not show that the secret sauce – the one which allowed 
it all to happen, is a rare isotope which costs around $10,000 per gram, unless 
you make it yourself. But the accolades and “told-you-so” boasts from the Rossi 
fan-boys could regrettably cover up the hidden reality… that the emperor has no 
(commercial) clothes.

If there is happy note which can arise from the year-long test, it will be that 
Rossi finally discloses the resolution to the problem: which is that he has 
indeed found an inexpensive way to enrich the nickel fuel cheaply in the active 
isotope.

Chances of that happening are slim.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Jed Rothwell]

Teslaalset  wrote:

Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden
> because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur
> and not somebody who is payed by society. What he tells us and what he
> doesn’t tell us is up to him.
>

I agree. That is what I said. However, I think he makes a big mistake when
he does half-assed public tests and then publishes incomplete,
poorly-written descriptions of them. Of course he has a right to do this.
Of course it is up to him. But it is still a stupid thing to do. It hurts
his credibility and it makes the whole field look bad to some extent, so I
wish he would cut it out.

It is ironic, but in some ways his tests have been better than the
published descriptions of them indicate. He could have made a more
convincing case for himself just by publishing more details. For example,
in one test, he used flow calorimetry. He listed the approximate flow rate
in the report, with no indication of how it was measured. I asked him how
he measured the flow rate. He did not respond so I asked other people who
were involved. No one responded. Other people asked -- still no response.
This made the entire test questionable. A flow rate might vary without your
noticing it. In the past, he said he measured the flow rate with a bucket
and a stopwatch periodically. This is a good idea but it is not adequate
for a multi-hour or multi-day test. Plus you have to say how periodically,
how many times, and what the results were.

Several months after this, someone pointed out to me that a photograph
showed a flowmeter attached to the equipment. I zoomed in, read the make
and model, and looked up the specifications. It was a conventional
residential digital water meter; a low-flow model often used in apartment
complexes. These meters are very reliable. This model is precise enough to
give a good answer in the range of claimed heat. Like all water meters it
records both flow and volume. In short, it was an excellent choice for this
test. So, WHY DIDN'T THEY LIST IT IN THE REPORT?!? For crying out loud!

Really, what is with that??? Were they trying to make themselves look bad?
Is McKubre right, and is Rossi deliberately trying to make his own results
look doubtful? Jim Patterson used to do that; it is not out of the
question. I don't know. I cannot read Rossi's mind. I can only say that in
my opinion and in the opinions of most people I know in business, this is a
stupid, counterproductive, self-destructive thing to do.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Teslaalset]

Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden
because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur
and not somebody who is payed by society. What he tells us and what he
doesn’t tell us is up to him.

The field he is trying to explore is unique and started by pure
experimenting things. Some of his findings contradict conclusions on
earlier ones. Some find that amateuristic and unreliable but in fact it is
quite understandable if you think about it for a moment.

>From what currently has been shared by Rossi it’s very clear that the core
principle of creating LENR his way is extremely simple compared to what the
ITR community is doing. Rossi understands very well that it will be very
hard for him to control the market with his technology. Secondly he, in the
mean time, also knows that this technology is so new and not well
understood that his progression is mainly based on trial and error, so
sharing all details will compromise his reputation if there is lot of
contradiction in his shared insights. An example of that can be noticed
from the patent applications he has filed so far. Originally he indicated
that nickel powder requires a catalyst, later he claims that nickel powder
is the catalyst. This shows he’s still building up knowledge. I bet there
will be completely new claims to follow that may contradict some of his
earlier ones.

Give Rossi a bit more credit on what he shares and what he doesn’t share.
>From his angle it very understandable.

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Russ George  wrote:
>
> What part of my qualifying word about Rossi’s test “as openly” did you not
>> understand.
>>
>
> I understand perfectly, but I disagree. He has not been very open. He has
> repeatedly withheld critical details. He has refused to answer questions,
> or to allow qualified people to attend his demonstrations. Other
> researchers have been more open than this.
>
> As I said, he has no obligation to be open. No one could object if he kept
> everything secret. But, if you are going to be open, and you wish to
> establish credibility, I think you should be more forthcoming than he has
> been. Assuming the machine works as claimed, it would not be difficult to
> do a definitive test with many qualified witnesses. Of course it might not
> work on the day you try to do a test. In that case, you try again some
> other day.
>
> I do not see the point of doing a demonstration if you do not wish to
> establish credibility. I think you should either do a good job, or do
> nothing.
>
>
>
>> I see no complaints about Rossi’s work coming from those who have a
>> history of work at the lab bench as opposed to the keyboards.
>>
>
> Many professional and academic scientists in this field have complained
> about Rossi. Most of them have the same objections I do: the tests are
> often sloppy and poorly documented.
>
>
>
>> I am all for an open society, let’s begin with the revelation of all
>> computer code everywhere.
>>
>
> Open source code is very popular these days.
>
> Rossi is engaged in commercial development, so obviously he cannot reveal
> technical details before he files a patent application. However, there is
> no need to reveal such details. IBM, Intel and many other companies
> demonstrate products in a convincing fashion without revealing technical
> details. Rossi could easily convince expert observers by doing good
> calorimetry with a black-box device. Many people have urged him to do that,
> but he refuses.
>
> McKubre speculates that Rossi does not want to establish credibility. He
> wants there to be a margin of doubt about his work, to reduce competition.
> Perhaps that is true. I wouldn't know, and I will not speculate about the
> reasons. But I am sure this is deliberate. Rossi told me repeatedly that he
> will not allow "tests" but only demonstrations. He told me he will do
> nothing to improve the calorimetry. Many qualified people have recommended
> improvements. He categorically refused to consider these suggestions.
> Again, let me reaffirm that he has every right to do things his way, and to
> refuse advice, but his credibility suffers because of it.
>
> I am talking about the calorimetry in his public demonstrations. I have no
> knowledge of the calorimetry in his lab or in the 1-year test.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Terry Blanton]

My guess is that this test is to determine if the customer is going to convert 
an entire factory boilers to this unproven technology. Probably to decide 
whether to make a $50,000,000 investment or more.
Probably doesn't care how it works. :-)

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone