RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
From: noone noone * * The natural isotope ratio issue is not an issue at all. Of course it is an issue. IT IS THE MAIN ISSUE as to the identity of the type of reaction. * Copper was found. There is no source of copper inside the reactor other than transmutations. Wrong. Read the patent. It is all that counts legally. Rossi cannot be trusted in his verbal comments. * The reactor is composed of stainless steel that does not contain copper. Wrong. Read the patent. It is all that counts legally. Rossi cannot be trusted in his verbal comments. I read the V and B report. The simple fact is that cold fusion does not work like hot fusion, and they refuse to accept that. Wrong again. You just do not get it! There is no refusal. These are well educated physicists and they want to know if it is a nuclear reaction or not. They have found it is NOT nuclear. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Correct me if I have misunderstood the most important relevant facts being debated here, but I believe Jones is making a strong claim that the percentages of isotopes allegedly found distributed throughout the copper found within one of Rossi's used e-cats clearly indicates that the Rossi-effect cannot be nuclear in origin. I've thought about this claim for a spell, but for now the only conclusion I can come up with is: Why not? What do any of us really know about how Mother Nature chooses to go about rearranging isotopes such as those belonging to copper. For all we know the speculated Rossi-Effect may exploit natural environmental conditions that tend to encourage a natural distribution of copper isotopes, such as what we tend to find in the ground. Seems to me that at this stage of the game we just don't have enough facts at hand to warrant any kind of a definitive conclusion about what is considered a nuclear effect and what isn't. Yeah, yeah, we know what the nuclear fizicists will say on the matter. What do they know. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
No, you seem to worship Randall Mills of Black Light Power and seem to be on this forum for one purpose, to push an anti-Rossi agenda. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 3, 2011 6:22:14 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis. From:noone noone Ø Ø The natural isotope ratio issue is not an issue at all. Of course it is an issue. IT IS THE MAIN ISSUE as to the identity of the type of reaction. Ø Copper was found. There is no source of copper inside the reactor other than transmutations. Wrong. Read the patent. It is all that counts legally. Rossi cannot be trusted in his verbal comments. Ø The reactor is composed of stainless steel that does not contain copper. Wrong. Read the patent. It is all that counts legally. Rossi cannot be trusted in his verbal comments. I read the V and B report. The simple fact is that cold fusion does not work like hot fusion, and they refuse to accept that. Wrong again. You just do not get it! There is no “refusal”. These are well educated physicists and they want to know if it is a nuclear reaction or not. They have found it is NOT nuclear. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Why not? You probably recall a test that was done on implants and some material which fell through the roof in Ufology. That test was an isotope ratio test. The claim was that elements originating outside our star system would likely have different isotope ratios. Fact is that (with possible exception of recently theorized x-ray transmutation) all elements other than hydrogen and possibly helium are created in stars. You and I are made of stardust. Those stellar processes which generate different isotopes depend on many factors including the size of the star. The composition and energy of the novae or supernovae would vary thus causing varying isotopic ratios. The age of the isotopes and their level of stability would also change those ratios. There is absolutely no reason isotopic ratios would he homogeneous. It's why ufology did the tests on those implants! T
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:21 AM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote: No, you seem to worship Randall Mills of Black Light Power and seem to be on this forum for one purpose, to push an anti-Rossi agenda. Actually, Jones is quite skeptical of RandEll's theories. That doesn't mean Dr. Mills is *all* wrong. T
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
That's the mini supernova argument. We don't know what's inside the reactor, but we know it doesn't resemble a supernova, so we are obliged to assume that any copper found is just regular copper that migrated. It's way too fanciful to assume otherwise at this point. Sent from my iPhone. On May 3, 2011, at 9:47, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Correct me if I have misunderstood the most important relevant facts being debated here, but I believe Jones is making a strong claim that the percentages of isotopes allegedly found distributed throughout the copper found within one of Rossi's used e-cats clearly indicates that the Rossi-effect cannot be nuclear in origin. I've thought about this claim for a spell, but for now the only conclusion I can come up with is: Why not? What do any of us really know about how Mother Nature chooses to go about rearranging isotopes such as those belonging to copper. For all we know the speculated Rossi-Effect may exploit natural environmental conditions that tend to encourage a natural distribution of copper isotopes, such as what we tend to find in the ground. Seems to me that at this stage of the game we just don't have enough facts at hand to warrant any kind of a definitive conclusion about what is considered a nuclear effect and what isn't. Yeah, yeah, we know what the nuclear fizicists will say on the matter. What do they know. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
From Terry: On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Why not? You probably recall a test that was done on implants and some material which fell through the roof in Ufology. That test was an isotope ratio test. The claim was that elements originating outside our star system would likely have different isotope ratios. Fact is that (with possible exception of recently theorized x-ray transmutation) all elements other than hydrogen and possibly helium are created in stars. You and I are made of stardust. Those stellar processes which generate different isotopes depend on many factors including the size of the star. The composition and energy of the novae or supernovae would vary thus causing varying isotopic ratios. The age of the isotopes and their level of stability would also change those ratios. There is absolutely no reason isotopic ratios would he homogeneous. It's why ufology did the tests on those implants! Indeed, as an old veteran spectator of the UFO scene I do remember some of those test very well. I seem to recall that nothing of great significance ever came of those tests. I assume earthly origins were concluded. I'm mindful of the stardust hypothesis. I certainly don't dispute such conjecture either. Different stars... different isotope percentages. Makes sense to me. The point I was trying to get across was is the fact that there has occasionally been some lively conjecture on the premise that nature, right here on our own planet, might also provide natural mechanisms that could possibly induce transmutation, such as within in the earth's crust. I know nothing about how such a natural transmutational processes might go about happening, assuming that it DOES. The concept of transmutation itself is obviously controversial and highly speculative. Nevertheless, if natural transmutations DO occur, it seems to me that currently we know next to nothing about what kinds of isotopic rations might be involved. It also seems to me that some of us may be guilty of trying to pigeonhole this highly speculated transmutation distribution ratios based on star fusion physics. Such pigeonholing might turn out to be inappropriate. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
-Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson Yeah, yeah, we know what the nuclear fizicists will say on the matter. What do they know. ;-) Well that's it, isn't it ... what do the experts know? Of course, one can throw all of nuclear physics out the door, but why? Ask yourself why do I want so badly for this to be nuclear? Do I want it to be nuclear so badly that I will throw out - not only all of nuclear physics, but common sense and logic as well? What do I gain by alienating most of science to blindly insist that it is nuclear, when there is no evidence for that ? ANSWER: this tactic is beyond stupid. Analyze your real motive and you will see that it is ego-driven, not intellect-driven. It gets down to this: most of them were wrong about deuterium, which we proved is nuclear, so why can't they be wrong about hydrogen? The logical error is that that there is no them and every isotope stands on its own merits. In simplest terms there are NO isotopes in all of nature that are more different from each other than D and H. The are extremely different and you simply cannot make the connection between cold fusion and the Rossi effect. Deuterium LENR is nuclear, but that is because of physical evidence - the known indicia were eventually found (helium and tritium) but this reaction using only hydrogen is NOT in that category: no helium, no tritium, no radioactivity. That is what intellect-driven observation tells us. There is no helium here, no tritium and no radioactivity, and NO non-natural isotopic distribution, so how could it be nuclear? Isn't it a lot simpler to accept that the billions of man-hours put into the field of physics is worth something, and that we DO NOT NEED to reject that? Or is the reason for reaction to be nuclear, because it is gainful? Put you self into the position of the Curie's before they discovered a new source of energy. They could have decided to make it look like new chemistry, and they may have tried for a while - but they went where the facts led them. We should do the same. The Rossi effect is simply not nuclear, based on the best available evidence. Why are observers so reluctant to accept Roarty's suggestion for instance, or something along the lines of ZPE being involved? Or Randell Mills? These are not new suggestions. Mills published in 1990, only months after PF and in a peer-reviewed journal (Fusion Technology, ironically - even though he stated NO FUSION) Both explanations offer insightful non-nuclear pathways that should be carefully investigated before ever even considering a nuclear reaction that produces no radioactivity and no ash ... and rather than thumbing one's nose at all of physics, just because you want it to be nuclear for some god-forsaken personal reason (like you think deuterium LENR is comparable, when in fact it is not comparable). Jones
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
T, I agree and if there were stronger evidence of the relationship between Casimir effect and catalytic action I Think Mills would have had a shot at a patent - He claims a different extraction method than my MAHG like scenario or the H-M method with noble gas but that doesn't mean it is wrong. IMHO the patent office considers catalytic disassociation already rolled into COE but allows for other the possibility with respect to Casimir geometry - an unfair assumption that doomed his patent application but allowed H-M to exploit the same environment using a different extraction method. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis. On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:21 AM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote: No, you seem to worship Randall Mills of Black Light Power and seem to be on this forum for one purpose, to push an anti-Rossi agenda. Actually, Jones is quite skeptical of RandEll's theories. That doesn't mean Dr. Mills is *all* wrong. T
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Hi Jones, Yeah, yeah, we know what the nuclear fizicists will say on the matter. What do they know. ;-) Well that's it, isn't it ... what do the experts know? Of course, one can throw all of nuclear physics out the door, but why? I'm certainly not arguing that we throw present knowledge of nuclear physics out the door. Unfortunately, I don't believe I've made myself sufficiently clear on this point. Ask yourself why do I want so badly for this to be nuclear? I don't. I don't know if it's nuclear, transmutation, Memorex, or some other interesting combination of all three. ;-) Do I want it to be nuclear so badly that I will throw out - not only all of nuclear physics, but common sense and logic as well? What do I gain by alienating most of science to blindly insist that it is nuclear, when there is no evidence for that ? Again, just to clear on this point. It certainly does not serve me to possess an invested interest nor an egotistical need to believe that the Rossi effect is a nuclear process. All I care about is making sure we verify as accurately as possible whether the heat is a genuine phenomenon, or not. Speaking of egos, hopefully I'm not egotistically invested in having to believe that nuclear physicists have it all figured out either. I doubt they do. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell There is no helium here, no tritium and no radioactivity, and NO non-natural isotopic distribution, so how could it be nuclear? JR: How do you know there is no helium, tritium or radioactivity here? As I said stated: from the best available evidence - which is the Swedish isotopic analysis and the spectrographs in the patent. Helium and 3He do NOT fuse from hydrogen alone, as I am sure that you are aware - and that reaction would require deuterium. No deuterium, no helium. Tritium is radioactive, it is easy to detect in extremely small quantities, as are the radioactive copper isotopes. Again, the best available evidence suggests no nuclear reaction on the time frame of days. VB would have seen something. You cannot expect 10^17 nuclear reactions and not see anything at all - and expect to hear any other conclusion than NON-NUCLEAR, at least for that time frame. Of course, if better evidence becomes available, then it will alter the working premise - but one purpose of this forum as I see it, is to provide those experimenting in this field of nickel-hydrogen with the best possible working premise. It is an ongoing and evolving process and anyone can contribute. You are free to present your own hypothesis or to echo that of Rossi. Actually I would like to hear yours, if it is different from AR. It could be helpful to see how any of these will evolve over time as more and more physical evidence is put into the record. My working hypothesis as of May 3, is that spillover hydrogen is formed catalytically, at a threshold temperature and collects in Nickel nanopores, gaining thermal energy from an unknown source at very close to the Curie point of the nickel. It is that simple. The reaction is temperature sensitive. The source of excess energy could be ZPE, dark energy, Mills' shrinkage and so forth. However, if there are nuclear reactions at all, they are greatly delayed, for days or weeks. VB saw none at all, so this would indicate a long delay, most likely indicating that a QM 'makeup reaction' of some kind is involved. There are lots of good experimenters tackling this problem. Two months ago, I was aware of only three, and now at least a dozen. I am approaching this from the PoV of finding real understanding in a timely fashion to help others who are not associated with Rossi. You seem to be looking for further ways to please Rossi, even though you do not see it as pandering. Nothing that Rossi says can be taken at face value. It is the George Kelly effect, combined with his prior arrest record, failure to produce under DoE contract, and his acknowledged desire for no independent replication. At this point in time, Rossi's statements, efforts or 'clues' can be argued to be almost immaterial to further progress in the USA, since nothing he says can be trusted. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Jones Beene wrote: JR: How do you know there is no helium, tritium or radioactivity here? As I said stated: from the best available evidence - which is the Swedish isotopic analysis and the spectrographs in the patent. I would say the best available is hardly adequate for anything. So far, all we have are puzzling hints. Who knows what the history of that Swedish sample might have been. This has to be done from start to finish under controlled circumstances. Rossi is good at doing calorimetry and brilliant at optimizing this system, but he does not strike me as the kind of person you would pick to do mass spectroscopy studies or sort out isotopes. I have seen lots of people try to do that sort of thing unsuccessfully in this business. It is difficult. It is even difficult just to keep a sample uncontaminated so that someone in another lab can look at it. That's why I say we need a start to finish analysis by experts. Helium and 3He do NOT fuse from hydrogen alone, as I am sure that you are aware . . . Helium-4 is a byproduct of many fusion and fission reactions. I wouldn't know but if the metal is involved somehow, helium might show up. Anyone, no one has looked for it, and with the equipment used so far you could never look for it. - and that reaction would require deuterium. No deuterium, no helium. Tritium is radioactive, it is easy to detect in extremely small quantities, as are the radioactive copper isotopes. Tritium is easy to detect, but only if you try to detect it. As far as I know, no one has. Also, you cannot detect it if it is allowed to escape from the cell into the air. You would have to open the cell carefully in a controlled environment to capture it. Rossi does not seem like the kind of person who would do that. No one else has had the opportunity yet, as far as I know. Again, the best available evidence suggests no nuclear reaction on the time frame of days. Rossi says they have looked the second day, but not within the first 24 hours or so. Note that many Pd-D cells produce no radiation or radioactive particles, yet that is definitely a nuclear reaction as far as I am concerned. Some do, of course, produce tritium. You are free to present your own hypothesis or to echo that of Rossi. My hypothesis is that it is much too early to be spinning hypotheses. We do not have enough information. At this point in time, Rossi's statements, efforts or 'clues' can be argued to be almost immaterial to further progress in the USA, since nothing he says can be trusted. You keep saying that. So far, everything he has claimed that has been tested for has been verified. Many of the things he has claimed have not yet be tested for, such as enhanced nickel isotopes or the production of copper with natural isotopes. You cannot claim these are lies or mistakes until someone does a serious test to see if they are real. Rossi is, of course, often wrong. An experimentalist who does something worthwhile will always be wrong. Fleischmann was wrong about neutrons, for example. As Stan Pons says, if we get it half right, that's a victory. I think Rossi is often confusing, and sometimes confused himself, but with regard to technical issues I see no evidence that he cannot be trusted. Frankly, you seem to have it in for Rossi, for some reason. I think you are biased. You have made many statements against Rossi without evidence, or contrary to evidence, such as your claim yesterday that they used the same device in all tests, instead of a 1 L cell in the first test, and a 50 ml cell in the most recent tests. That kind of thing hurts your credibility. You should admit you were wrong, and set the record straight. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Jones sez: ... My working hypothesis as of May 3, is that spillover hydrogen is formed catalytically, at a threshold temperature and collects in Nickel nanopores, gaining thermal energy from an unknown source at very close to the Curie point of the nickel. It is that simple. The reaction is temperature sensitive. It's an interesting hypothesis. Certainly worth exploring. Acksully, I kind'a hope your working-hypo is headed in the right direction as we try to get a better handle on the physics involved. I would infer from your hypo that its probably irrelevant what the percentages of nickle isotopes might be in Rossi's e-cats. It would also suggest that we will not be using up Earth's precious reserves of nickel anytime soon. Heading to the asteroid belt can wait a little longer! ...In the meantime it would imply that we can have as many heated sidewalks swimming pools as we want. Where's my inner tube. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
I've heard He is hard to detect, but leak detectors are portable and quite common and sound simple enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_mass_spectrometer Maybe they're really really expen$ive or have other problems. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:26 AM Jones Beene wrote: There is no helium here, no tritium and no radioactivity, and NO non-natural isotopic distribution, so how could it be nuclear? How do you know there is no helium, tritium or radioactivity here? They have hardly begun to look. Helium in particular is very difficult to detect... - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
I wrote: Tritium is easy to detect, but only if you try to detect it. As far as I know, no one has. Also, you cannot detect it if it is allowed to escape from the cell into the air. You would have to open the cell carefully in a controlled environment to capture it. I should have said vent the cell carefully. You do not need to open it to find tritium. You do need to open it to look for copper. It does have only one gas connection. I do not know if the stopcocks are adequate for the job. Many people such as Miles and Mizuno have told me that transferring gas to a collection flask or directly into a mass spectrometer is tricky. There is a lot of helium in the air, which has to be purged. I would feel a lot better about the Rossi device if a few hundred university and corporate labs were busily engaged in tests of this sort. We are not going to learn anything substantive about this system until people other than Rossi get cells into their hands. Rossi praises some academic researchers, such as Levi and Kullander. He like them, personally. But he is adamant about his plans. He will not distribute cells to EK until after the 1 MW demonstration. That is his first priority, and he will let nothing interfere with it. As I said, I with the thought of building a 1 MW prototype had never entered his head! It is unclear to me whether Levi et al. still have a cell and are working on it. I have heard they have one, but there was also talk about problems getting permission and funds. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
I wrote: It does have only one gas connection. I do not know if the stopcocks are adequate for the job. As opposed to an electrochemical cell which typically leaks out of several holes and the lid, or an Arata DS-cathode which has no holes at all. McKubre had to design a tool to puncture the DS-cathode, as shown in some of his slides such as Fig. 1 here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHprogressto.pdf - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell At this point in time, Rossi's statements, efforts or 'clues' can be argued to be almost immaterial to further progress in the USA, since nothing he says can be trusted. JR ... I see no evidence that he cannot be trusted. Frankly, you seem to have it in for Rossi, for some reason. Then you are essentially blind to his past misdeeds, and essentially pandering, as I have said repeatedly. I cannot say it more emphatically, the man has a history as a SCAMMER. Take the collaboration with the university of New Hampshire, where he showed the DoD a fabulous device with 100 watts of TEG power, and got big bucks for further funding. He took the money to Italy and founded a biofuel venture with funds from somewhere, who knows if they were the same funds? Then on delivery in 2002, the devices proved incredibly faulty. 'Pure crap' was one description. Out of 27 devices - just 8 worked at all, and instead of the claimed 800 to 1000 watt they produced about 1 Watt of power. He then had a convenient lab fire to destroy the evidence, and avoided deportation apparently. He could have funded EON with the money which was supposed to go into building good devices. THIS COULD HAPPEN AGAIN Many who followed Rossi's work in thermoelectrics at UNH are amazed to see him back in action at what could be a similar scam. However, I break with them in believing, as I have said repeatedly, the Rossi most likely got incredibly lucky this time, chose the right mentor (Forcardi) and does have something valid. Who knows what it is, however? Curiously - the 2002 demo, like the Bologna demo - was greatly anticipated and supposed to be exactly the same kind of massive breakthrough from prior art. Pure BS, as it turned out. He CANNOT be trusted, but he could be incredibly lucky! Here is a sanitized version of the story cleansed by LTI, but the true grit is worse than this sounds. Bottom of Page 5 is where it gets interesting: http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo%282004%29.pdf There were suspicious fires, and had his criminal background been known at the time, he could and should have been sent back to Italy, but lo and behold, he may turn out to be the luckiest man on earth. LTI is very well-connected, and apparently pulled string with DoD to avoid a 'third strike'. We have to ask, is this new work real, or just an improved version of prior Rossi scams (including Petrodragon)? YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS RECENT HISTORY. IT IS VERY RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT SITUATION. Again, personally - I think Rossi did get very lucky and now has a valid device, but scam has not been ruled out and it is probably far less robust than it appears.
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It does have only one gas connection. I do not know if the stopcocks are adequate for the job. The ECat in the reporter's video actually has two H valves of different types. T
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
He was never a scammer. You are intentionally twisting the entire history. Everything you post on this forum has an anti-Rossi slant. You will even make the most illogical of technical comments just to spread FUD about the Rossi technology. It seems like you are pandering to Randall Mills, who is probably concerned right now that Rossi has actually produced a working system based on cold fusion, while his technology has never been able to produce practical levels of output. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, May 3, 2011 12:54:50 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell At this point in time, Rossi's statements, efforts or 'clues' can be argued to be almost immaterial to further progress in the USA, since nothing he says can be trusted. JR ... I see no evidence that he cannot be trusted. Frankly, you seem to have it in for Rossi, for some reason. Then you are essentially blind to his past misdeeds, and essentially pandering, as I have said repeatedly. I cannot say it more emphatically, the man has a history as a SCAMMER. Take the collaboration with the university of New Hampshire, where he showed the DoD a fabulous device with 100 watts of TEG power, and got big bucks for further funding. He took the money to Italy and founded a biofuel venture with funds from somewhere, who knows if they were the same funds? Then on delivery in 2002, the devices proved incredibly faulty. 'Pure crap' was one description. Out of 27 devices - just 8 worked at all, and instead of the claimed 800 to 1000 watt they produced about 1 Watt of power. He then had a convenient lab fire to destroy the evidence, and avoided deportation apparently. He could have funded EON with the money which was supposed to go into building good devices. THIS COULD HAPPEN AGAIN Many who followed Rossi's work in thermoelectrics at UNH are amazed to see him back in action at what could be a similar scam. However, I break with them in believing, as I have said repeatedly, the Rossi most likely got incredibly lucky this time, chose the right mentor (Forcardi) and does have something valid. Who knows what it is, however? Curiously - the 2002 demo, like the Bologna demo - was greatly anticipated and supposed to be exactly the same kind of massive breakthrough from prior art. Pure BS, as it turned out. He CANNOT be trusted, but he could be incredibly lucky! Here is a sanitized version of the story cleansed by LTI, but the true grit is worse than this sounds. Bottom of Page 5 is where it gets interesting: http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo%282004%29.pdf There were suspicious fires, and had his criminal background been known at the time, he could and should have been sent back to Italy, but lo and behold, he may turn out to be the luckiest man on earth. LTI is very well-connected, and apparently pulled string with DoD to avoid a 'third strike'. We have to ask, is this new work real, or just an improved version of prior Rossi scams (including Petrodragon)? YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS RECENT HISTORY. IT IS VERY RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT SITUATION. Again, personally - I think Rossi did get very lucky and now has a valid device, but scam has not been ruled out and it is probably far less robust than it appears.
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Jones Beene wrote: Then you are essentially blind to his past misdeeds, and essentially pandering, as I have said repeatedly. You have said it, but you have not demonstrated how he might fool a thermocouple or make a flow of water seem to be many times faster than it is. Machines do not respond to lies. A flow calorimeter is not something you can fake. I have no idea whether these stories about his past are true or false, but I am sure they have no bearing on calorimetry. Any number of important scientists, inventors and professional people have been obnoxious, unreliable, or even dreadful people as individuals. That has no bearing on their work. Their claims were independently verified and then replicated. Rossi has been verified, and his work is itself a replication. Many other researchers have seen heat from Ni-H. Many famous scientists have exploited their co-workers or plagiarized ideas. There are many nasty lying sons of bitches who would cheat at poker or embezzle your fortune, but whose technical achievements are unimpeachable. An extreme example of a top-notch scientist who was personally repugnant was Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz. He was a homicidal maniac, but his book on caring for birds is excellent, reliable, and still in print. For that matter, many upstanding, kind, loyal, and honest-to-a-fault people have made ridiculous mistakes and published worthless results. You simply cannot judge the validity of a claim by personality. That metric does not work. The only valid method is to have someone else verify the claim and then independently replicate it. Furthermore, there is no need to for you to drag your opinion of Rossi into these discussions so often. We get it. You don't trust Rossi. You don't take anything he says on face value, even when there is no reason for him to lie, and a lie will soon be exposed at his expense. You say he is using a copper cell even though he says it is stainless steel. We will find out soon enough, so there is no point to arguing about this. In the meanwhile, I suggest you treat this more like a scientific discussion and less like a legal proceedings, what with the best available evidence and this kind of thing: Wrong. Read the patent. It is all that counts legally. Rossi cannot be trusted in his verbal comments. What counts legally has no bearing on this discussion. I will decide what I think is the best available evidence. I don't need your assistance. I am aware of these allegations about Rossi's past. I assume for now that Rossi changed his mind and decided to use stainless steel. I think that assumption is more productive -- more likely to lead to the truth. You are scrounging around trying to think up reasons why he might lie about this matter. You say he may be lying to to put people off his trail. Since this will only work for a short time, why would he bother?!? Besides, anyone wanting to replicate would be well advised to try stainless steel even if Rossi does use copper. You are also wasting your time running around everywhere looking everywhere for evidence that he is cheating, for example with weird claims that he used a 50 ml cell in every test. Levi and others saw that the first machine has a 1 L cell. There is no doubt about it. Why did you waste your time disputing this? To reiterate: I cannot say it more emphatically, the man has a history as a SCAMMER. On the contrary, you have already said too emphatically. Thanks for informing us of this again. I choose to ignore this information for the reasons given above -- because in science, only the experiment counts, not the person, not the person's past, not whether he is a scammer or homicidal maniac in Alcatraz or someone writing definitions for the Oxford English Dictionary at Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum (see The Professor and the Madman). The whole point of science is that a claim can be evaluated on its own merit by purely objective standards, and no one can fake results. At least, not this kind of result. All the talk here about how Rossi might have pulled off a sleight of hand stunt is nonsense. No one -- not you or anyone else -- has suggested a plausible method by which the 4 parameters in a flow calorimeter can be faked to this extent. Or wrong to this extent. You and others keep insisting it can be done, but you give no credible example of how it might be done, so I conclude you have no idea. Waving your hands and saying there might be way is not a falsifiable assertion. No sleight of hand trick has succeeded in the history of modern science, except for the case in which a performer actually did use his hands and the scientists used visual observations instead of instruments, which is a stupid mistake. Obviously, that does not count! I and others have said, time after time, yes there is still a slight chance this is a scam. Yes, it needs more independent replication. No one disputes
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Jones writes: Here is a sanitized version of the story cleansed by LTI, but the true grit is worse than this sounds. Bottom of Page 5 is where it gets interesting: http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo%282004%29.pdf Frankly, I'd prefer to read the unsanitized 'true grit'! Its usually much more interesting and entertaining! In the interest of fairness, I think we should put the text from that report here and let the readers decide for themselves... My reading of the text below is that its about as antiseptic as it gets! It indicates that the New Hampshire facility, which was set up by LTI and CTC (people in the USA) and under their control, had the same kinds of manufacturing problems as occurred at the Italian manufacturer. Perhaps its because Rossi hadn't given them the proper recipe for making the TE devices? Did LTI 'sanitize' the Report to save face with the DoD because their decision to work with Rossi turned sour and didn't produce anything of value??? Only the LTI Execs and Rossi know the answer to that Q. I do wonder why LTI/DoD didn't take the TE devices that were generating 20% efficiencies and sacrifice one in order to perform XRD and other forensic analyses on it to determine if they had the right 'recipe'... It also wouldn't surprise me if the fire in Rossi's lab was caused by an early prototype of the E-Cat going into a run-away condition and Rossi not being able to stop it in time.. Or it happening at night when no one was there! -Mark == EXCERPT FROM DOD REPORT == Leonardo Technologies, Inc. LTI was incorporated as a response to the thermoelectric power generation research by Dr. Andre Rossi. Dr. Rossi indicated that his devices would produce 20 percent efficiencies, a vast increase from the current science of 4 percent conversion of waste heat to electrical power. Dr. Rossi believed that he could increase the physical size of the TE Devices and maintain superior power generation. In furtherance of his research, in early 2000, LTI had tests conducted at the University of New Hampshire (UNH), Durham, NH, using a small scale LTI TE Device. Over a period of 7 days, the UNH power plant staff recorded voltage and amperage readings every 1/2 hr. The TE Device produced approximately 100 volts and 1 ampere of current, providing 100 watts of power. After this initial success, and a fire that destroyed his Manchester, NH location, Dr. Rossi returned to Italy to continue the manufacture of the TE Devices. In Italy, Dr. Rossi believed that LTI could manufacture more cost-effective TE generating devices with lower labor and assembly costs. Accordingly, Dr. Rossi engaged a subcontractor to fulfill the requirements of manufacturing and assembly. Unfortunately, the Italian subcontractor was unable to provide second-generation TE Devices with satisfactory power generation. Nineteen of 27 TE devices shipped to CTC, Johnstown, PA, were incapable of generating electricity for a variety of reasons, from mechanical failure to poor workmanship. The remaining eight produced less than 1 watt of power each, significantly less than the expected 800-1000 watts each. Appendix C documents TE Device testing. In an effort to determine, and possibly correct the reasons for TE Device failures, LTI personnel traveled to the Italian laboratory. The common theme that began to emerge was the inability to upgrade from small-scale TE modules to large scale multiple module TE Devices with large footprints. The most fundamental reason for the LTI second-generation TE Devices' failure was the complex thermal expansion interplay among the various components. Contributing to the TE Device failure were the large number of soldered electrical connections (over 80), the inability to match the thermal expansion rates of the mono-block cooling tanks to the circuit boards and to the semiconductor materials, all within the clamp pressure or the retaining hardware in the grip of high temperature adhesives. After a month of research and observation at the Italian laboratory, it was determined that the best way to proceed would be to develop an independent laboratory in New Hampshire so that two development facilities could work at the problems from two separate locations and viewpoints. During this period of time, the Italian laboratory continued to deliver TE materials, but none that exceed the current science of TE power generation. LTI Develops New Hampshire Laboratory Beginning in mid-2002, the LTI-NH laboratory was designed with the technical assistance of CTC personnel. By September, TE materials were being manufactured. The final piece of equipment, the Directional Fusion Machine, was installed by December of 2002, at which time ingot manufacture was possible. As in Italy, the New Hampshire laboratory encountered manufacturing challenges. Outside experts were engaged and were able to assist laboratory personnel in working through the roadblocks.
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Terry Blanton wrote: The ECat in the reporter's video actually has two H valves of different types. I noticed that. That's what I was thinking about. I don't know a thing about them, but the ones used by Miles and Mizuno to study the gas are uniform and they look like they are of higher quality. They cost a fortune. Of course tritium is radioactive so it is easier to detect in the sample, and there is none in the air so you don't have to worry as much about contamination . . . But still, a serious effort to search for gas products calls for a lot of care, top notch stopcocks, connectors and whatnot. There are involved procedures for hooking the thing up to the flask and flushing the atmosphere out with nitrogen. You are never allowed to touch the surfaces of the pipes. You have to wear surgical gloves. I can't see Rossi doing that! A rough and ready test for tritium or copper isotopes would prove nothing, in my opinion. Rossi is a rough and ready kind of guy. He doesn't care about heat at levels below a kilowatt. He and Focardi dismiss it as useless. Other researchers would love to get 100 W reliably. He reminds me a little of the late Les Case. Only Rossi is way more successful. There is nothing wrong with the rough-and-ready approach, if it works. There is also nothing wrong with the extreme opposite McKubre approach. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Regarding the latest on-going spat between Jed Jones ... Jed recently sed: ... I suggest you [Jones] treat this more like a scientific discussion and less like a legal proceedings, what with the best available evidence ... It's my understanding that Mr. Beene was at one time a lawyer. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg26922.html I think this is one of the reasons I occasionally find the Jed Jones show entertaining, even informative. Very different perceptions. Very different approaches on how to analyze a vexing puzzle. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Just to clarify, Mark Iverson wrote: Jones writes: Here is a sanitized version of the story cleansed by LTI, but the true grit is worse than this sounds. Bottom of Page 5 is where it gets interesting: http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo%282004%29.pdf Frankly, I'd prefer to read the unsanitized 'true grit'! Its usually much more interesting and entertaining! The narrative in question is then appended below, starting here: == EXCERPT FROM DOD REPORT == Leonardo Technologies, Inc. LTI was incorporated as a response to the thermoelectric power generation research by Dr. Andre Rossi. Dr. Rossi indicated that his devices would produce 20 . . . This is a tale of woe, quite familiar to anyone who tried to develop a product, even one as easy, malleable and predictable as computer software. I do not find anything fishy about this. Or even unusual. I have never heard of anyone who developed an interesting, valuable, novel product who did not go through experiences such as this, usually lasting for years. Often ending in failure. That is how things go!!! That is what you have to expect. My grandfather spent years in the 1930s trying to make a blood processing and transfusion machine on his back porch, bringing home bottles of cow's blood from the butcher and scaring grandma to death. That project did not pan out. He invented lots of things that did work (everything made by Exacto, including medical stuff that worked) but the failures, trials, tribulations, fires, trade-show demos run amok, the heartbreak and setbacks ALWAYS outnumber the successes. No inventor or scientist succeeds once without first failing dozens of times. No profession is more discouraging. It is like being a doctor where most of your patients die for no reason you can discern. These Wall Street ninnies who think they are taking risks, usually with other people's money, do not know the meaning of the word compared to a person who tries to invent something. To hold this kind of thing up as an example of suspicious behavior or nefarious conduct is to totally misunderstand the nature of experimental discovery. One of the greatest scientists and inventors in history, Benjamin Franklin, wrote: For [an inventor's] attempts to benefit mankind in that way, however well imagined, if they do not succeed, expose him, though very unjustly, to general ridicule and contempt; and if they do succeed, to envy, robbery, and abuse. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
I said: Perhaps its because Rossi hadn't given them the proper recipe for making the TE devices? Let me explain a bit more... I've been following (and occasionally helping) with a colleague's company that has carbon-based photovoltaic cells that are consistently getting 40% more power than Shell/BP panels, and don't degrade with temperature (interesting stuff!)... This has been going on for over a year now and they are in the process of working with a semiconductor foundry to commercialize the technology... I've visited the foundry in San Jose and I listen in on the weekly phone conferences, and the film stacks and process flows can be very detailed and complex, and even a few degrees of temperature or what one would think of as insignificant 'contamination' from some other molecule or gas can mean the difference between working as expected and dismal failure -- sometimes not much grey area! The small foundry that produced the cells that are beating out the BP panels did not keep good notes/logs and we've had some trouble figuring out exactly what recipe was used to produce those cells!! At this point, it could even have been a contaminant that has resulted in the much greater efficiency! My point is that, given the fact that Rossi is probably not the best of a lab-note taker, even he may not have the exact recipe that created the 20% TE devices that were originally working at LTI... And maybe he did and didn't divulge it. Its useless to speculate on these kinds of topics and just diverts our collective neurons from focusing on what really matters... -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Mark, Interesting story, and maybe it is a premonition of what the lame excuse from Rossi will be if there is no megawatt demo in October. Rothwell can whine, hem, and haw all day about how he believes in his heart-of-hearts that the sordid TEG business with LTI was not a true scam, but since he has not taken the time to personally investigate the details, his opinion is more of the same pampering and pandering of a really strange character who will probably disappoint all his new fans, in the end. My prediction is that even before Rossi has a chance to disappoint, others who are considerable more qualified, and honest, will come to the rescue with the answers of what is going-on in nickel hydrogen. If you look at the big picture from the perspective of who has the skill, funding, desire and teamwork, we should be very glad that NASA is jumping into Ni-H. They may lack the spark of creativity, or the incredible good luck, of the lone inventor - but they will not lose the recipe. Jones -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson I said: Perhaps its because Rossi hadn't given them the proper recipe for making the TE devices? Let me explain a bit more... I've been following (and occasionally helping) with a colleague's company that has carbon-based photovoltaic cells that are consistently getting 40% more power than Shell/BP panels, and don't degrade with temperature (interesting stuff!)... This has been going on for over a year now and they are in the process of working with a semiconductor foundry to commercialize the technology... I've visited the foundry in San Jose and I listen in on the weekly phone conferences, and the film stacks and process flows can be very detailed and complex, and even a few degrees of temperature or what one would think of as insignificant 'contamination' from some other molecule or gas can mean the difference between working as expected and dismal failure -- sometimes not much grey area! The small foundry that produced the cells that are beating out the BP panels did not keep good notes/logs and we've had some trouble figuring out exactly what recipe was used to produce those cells!! At this point, it could even have been a contaminant that has resulted in the much greater efficiency! My point is that, given the fact that Rossi is probably not the best of a lab-note taker, even he may not have the exact recipe that created the 20% TE devices that were originally working at LTI... And maybe he did and didn't divulge it. Its useless to speculate on these kinds of topics and just diverts our collective neurons from focusing on what really matters... -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Hi Jones! I guess at this point my impression of how Rossi optimized the effect is more akin to how Edison discovered what material to use for filaments -- painstakingly long process of trial and error! When you don't have a theoretical model from which to design, TE is about your only option. In the video with Mat Lewan's, Rossi looked very stressed/worried... I get the impression that the RD phase for the 1MW plant E-Cats is not quite out of the 'R' phase! :-) And at this time, I think it's a CLOSE horserace as to who crosses the finish line first -- Rossi, or one of your more competent groups. I noticed Dennis ended his subscription here... Suppose he got enough info and jumped onto his thoroughbred? And they're off and running... Hey, I want to be riding one of them horses! :-) Did you guys ever hear that humorous audio titled, Marriage as a horse-race? ROTFLMAO! As for NASA getting involved -- mixed feelings at this point. First thought is great; they have extremely competent scientists and engineers, and just the fact that they will have a 'sanctioned' Ni-H research program is an immediate elevation of this fields credibility, however, if they were to succeed in understanding the physics, and in fully optimizing the effect, would the technology make it out to the public sector... BEFORE we die! I didn't spend most of my spare time over the last 30+ years following fringe science just to have its commercialization delayed by govt bureaucracy until after I die! That would be a major pisser... No, NASA won't lose the recipe --- the DoD/Govt will simply classify it as TS! But there are plenty of competent people, in this and other countries, who won't let anything stop them assuming they can solve the mystery. -Mark -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis. Mark, Interesting story, and maybe it is a premonition of what the lame excuse from Rossi will be if there is no megawatt demo in October. Rothwell can whine, hem, and haw all day about how he believes in his heart-of-hearts that the sordid TEG business with LTI was not a true scam, but since he has not taken the time to personally investigate the details, his opinion is more of the same pampering and pandering of a really strange character who will probably disappoint all his new fans, in the end. My prediction is that even before Rossi has a chance to disappoint, others who are considerable more qualified, and honest, will come to the rescue with the answers of what is going-on in nickel hydrogen. If you look at the big picture from the perspective of who has the skill, funding, desire and teamwork, we should be very glad that NASA is jumping into Ni-H. They may lack the spark of creativity, or the incredible good luck, of the lone inventor - but they will not lose the recipe. Jones -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson I said: Perhaps its because Rossi hadn't given them the proper recipe for making the TE devices? Let me explain a bit more... I've been following (and occasionally helping) with a colleague's company that has carbon-based photovoltaic cells that are consistently getting 40% more power than Shell/BP panels, and don't degrade with temperature (interesting stuff!)... This has been going on for over a year now and they are in the process of working with a semiconductor foundry to commercialize the technology... I've visited the foundry in San Jose and I listen in on the weekly phone conferences, and the film stacks and process flows can be very detailed and complex, and even a few degrees of temperature or what one would think of as insignificant 'contamination' from some other molecule or gas can mean the difference between working as expected and dismal failure -- sometimes not much grey area! The small foundry that produced the cells that are beating out the BP panels did not keep good notes/logs and we've had some trouble figuring out exactly what recipe was used to produce those cells!! At this point, it could even have been a contaminant that has resulted in the much greater efficiency! My point is that, given the fact that Rossi is probably not the best of a lab-note taker, even he may not have the exact recipe that created the 20% TE devices that were originally working at LTI... And maybe he did and didn't divulge it. Its useless to speculate on these kinds of topics and just diverts our collective neurons from focusing on what really matters... -Mark
[Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis. As revealed on the Rossi web site as follows: Dear Mr Mauro Rossi: 1- we consume about 1 gram of hydrogen in 24 hours 2- I never saw neutrons and neutrinos, with exception of few times, when I saw neutrons, captured in bubble columns, but for a very particular experiment I made by myself, being very dangerous. 3- No, I didn’t. Warm regards, A.R. One gram of hydrogen per day is a HUGE amount of hydrogen inputted into a closed system and consumed. Where could it all be going? If one hydrogen atom transmutes 1 nickel atom into copper that means about 64 grams of copper would be transmuted every day. Since we know that there is only 100 grams of nickel used in the Cat-E, the theory that nickel fusion with hydrogen just does not add up. There are about 30 some odd elements transmuted in addition to copper present in the Cat-E ash. Where did they come from and how are they formed? The theory that Rossi puts forward on what happens atomically in the Cat-E just does not make sense. If the Cat-E can run for 6 months without shutdown, then about 180 grams of hydrogen enter the Cat-E. Where does it all go? If the Cat-E can run for two years without shutdown, about 730 grams of hydrogen enter the Cat-E. Where does it all go? Constrained by common sense, does anyone have a theory that can deal with these facts that have been revealed by Rossi. Wouldn’t the gas pressure rise in the reaction vessel over time if all that hydrogen was fed into the Cat-E?
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Axil, I like your systematic break down of the process. I sure don't know WTF is going on! ;-) I luv a good mystery. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Axil Axil wrote: One gram of hydrogen per day is a HUGE amount of hydrogen inputted into a closed system and consumed. Where could it all be going? Some of it is absorbing into the metal hydride, and some is leaking out of the cell into the air. It would only be a huge amount if it were all undergoing nuclear fusion (fusion with itself or with copper). Assuming this is fusion, only a tiny fraction of it is doing that. Hydrogen is difficult to contain. The pipes and stopcocks shown in this video are gas-tight, but not up the standards of expensive Swaglok fittings, so I am sure there is significant leakage. In a commercial unit there would also be a certain amount of hydrogen leakage. I do not think this would present any danger. Overall it would be less than the leakage of natural gas from your stove and oven before the gas ignites. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Also, by the way, knowing Rossi as I do, that estimate of 1 g per 24 hours probably means something like: ~1 gram every day or every week, whenever we get around to checking, but it might be one-tenth gram because we measure the entire tank with a weight scale. Rossi is not the kind of person who cares about precision. At all. If you are looking for highly accurate numbers backed by rigorous methods, read McKubre. Rossi is a rough-and-ready factory-floor engineer who deals with equipment heavy enough and dangerous enough to kill you if you make a mistake. He is the kind of guy who checks to see if steam is dry by running his bare hand through invisible steam, to see if it hurts like hell. If it does not hurt much, the steam is dry and that's all he cares. The precise extent of dryness makes no different. You can bet your life it is within 10% of the textbook figure for steam enthalpy, 2260 kJ/kg. You do, in fact, bet your life on that being true. Every time you ride in a train or fly in an airplane, you bet your life that factory-floor managers know what they are doing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Axil Axil wrote: Jed you are doing well, now tell me how the other 30 elements are formed? No idea, but bear in mind that things tend to leak out of pressurized tanks, not in. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
The leakage of hydrogen argument is a good new bad news explanation. If hydrogen leaks out of the Rossi reactor with little or no resistance, then this “good news” can explain and justify the theory behind Rossi’s explanation (aka hydrogen-nickel fusion). However, the Cat-E will leak tritium with a vengeance and produce tritiated water. *Tritiated water* is a form of water where the usual hydrogen atoms are replaced with tritium. This unfortunate characteristic would prohibit the commercialization of the Cat-E worldwide. I believe that the Cat-E is hydrogen tight because it contained a goodly amount of oxygen (reduces hydrogen exfiltration by 5 orders of magnitude.) and Silicon carbide (reduces hydrogen exfiltration by another 5 orders of magnitude) coating the walls of the reaction vessel. Other coatings can be applied to the reaction vessel to increase the hydrogen tightness by another 10 orders of magnitude. IMHO, the Cat-E is capable of keeping the tritium inside the reaction chamber conformant with tritium exfiltration statutory limits if design attention is paid to this need. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil wrote: Jed you are doing well, now tell me how the other 30 elements are formed? No idea, but bear in mind that things tend to leak out of pressurized tanks, not in. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
From: Axil Axil * One gram of hydrogen per day is a HUGE amount of hydrogen inputted into a closed system and consumed. * Where could it all be going? It is really difficult to seal against leaks of pressurized H2 with top quality equipment and this appears to be far from top quality - more like Home Depot overstock. But looks can be deceiving. Therefore, if the figure is accurate, and Rossi should know by now after two years of operation and thousands of reactors built, then the output appears to be less than Millsean and far less than nuclear, it would appear. Although the Mills device on paper can be more, according to Robin - in operation it produces 200 times more than chemical on average, at least that is what Randell Mills has said can be expected. Correct me if this is wrong, but he has said this repeatedly over the years. But anyway - here is what Mats Lewan sez The tests lasted for two and three hours respectively and the total net energy developed was calculated to be 5.6 and 6.9 kWh OK, I will leave it to Stephen or Robin to do the numbers but it would seem on first blush that since this is net energy, then the first test operated at 5.6/2 or an average rate of energy production of 2.8 kW/hr and the second was 6.9/3 or 2.3 kW/hr so the average of the two for continuous output is about 2.6 kW/hr which is below the earlier testing but this is with the supposedly small cell. I say supposedly since the Jan. large cell was never shown. The heating value of H2 is 130 kJ/g which is equal to .04 kWhr. This seems to work out to the Rossi reactor being about 65 time more than chemical. A nuclear reaction should be about one million times more energetic, and a Millsean reaction should be about 200 times. Are we in agreement so far?
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Axil Axil wrote: The leakage of hydrogen argument is a good new bad news explanation. If hydrogen leaks out of the Rossi reactor with little or no resistance, then this “good news” can explain and justify the theory behind Rossi’s explanation (aka hydrogen-nickel fusion). However, the Cat-E will leak tritium with a vengeance and produce tritiated water. *Tritiated water* is a form of water where the usual hydrogen atoms are replaced with tritium. This unfortunate characteristic would prohibit the commercialization of the Cat-E worldwide. I wouldn't worry about that. If they can contain tritium in exit signs I suppose they can contain it in Rossi cells. Probably not in the prototypes he is making now, but anyone can see they are crude. There is lots of radioactive material in the natural background, such as radon. This is a concern, and you might need an alarm on a Rossi machine to detect tritium leaks. The alarm would be very similar to a smoke detector, only without the Am. It would be very cheap, in other words. I do not think the overall hazard would be as great as for a conventional gas fired boiler or space heater. It has not even been established that Rossi reactors produce tritium, but other cold fusion reactors do, occasionally. When the technology matures, I expect they will be able to tune the reaction to prevent this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Jones Beene wrote: The heating value of H2 is 130 kJ/g which is equal to .04 kWhr. This seems to work out to the Rossi reactor being about 65 time more than chemical. A nuclear reaction should be about one million times more energetic, and a Millsean reaction should be about 200 times. The Rossi cell did not peter out in this test. It did not stop producing energy. For all anyone knows, it might have gone on for months, or years. Supposedly some cells have run for months. So you cannot draw any conclusions about the limits of the potential energy from any of these tests. Even if it is consuming 1 g of H2 per day, as I pointed out, most of that is probably leaking out. It will take much better, more leak-proof equipment to determine whether the fuel uses up in the Mills' range (200 times chemistry?) or the nuclear range (~1 million times chemistry). The present test is analogous to driving a car around the block, parking it, and declaring that the maximum range of the gas tank is 0.5 km. We have no idea how much gas is left in the tank. Actually you can never measure a nuclear effect by detecting a decrease in the available fuel if the fuel is H2. Maybe you could if the fuel is one or two Ni isotopes. For anything involving H2, you have to find a product, such as helium. This experimental apparatus cannot possibly contain helium. A commercial unit will surely be a lot more leakproof than this, as Beene points out. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Your caviler attitude toward conforming to the world wide nuclear regulatory infrastructure is counterproductive to the commercialization of cold fusion. This attitude worries and saddens me. There is no doubt; no exceptions will be made in the licensing requirements of the Rossi Cat-E as a nuclear reactor. This is the main reason why fusion reactor designers want to avoid the production of neutrons in their designs; to avoid nuclear regulations via boron fusion. The tritium exfiltration nuclear limits are so strict, only heroic efforts by expert engineers can meet them. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene wrote: The heating value of H2 is 130 kJ/g which is equal to .04 kWhr. This seems to work out to the Rossi reactor being about 65 time more than chemical. A nuclear reaction should be about one million times more energetic, and a Millsean reaction should be about 200 times. The Rossi cell did not peter out in this test. It did not stop producing energy. For all anyone knows, it might have gone on for months, or years. Supposedly some cells have run for months. So you cannot draw any conclusions about the limits of the potential energy from any of these tests. Even if it is consuming 1 g of H2 per day, as I pointed out, most of that is probably leaking out. It will take much better, more leak-proof equipment to determine whether the fuel uses up in the Mills' range (200 times chemistry?) or the nuclear range (~1 million times chemistry). The present test is analogous to driving a car around the block, parking it, and declaring that the maximum range of the gas tank is 0.5 km. We have no idea how much gas is left in the tank. Actually you can never measure a nuclear effect by detecting a decrease in the available fuel if the fuel is H2. Maybe you could if the fuel is one or two Ni isotopes. For anything involving H2, you have to find a product, such as helium. This experimental apparatus cannot possibly contain helium. A commercial unit will surely be a lot more leakproof than this, as Beene points out. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
From: Jed Rothwell * The heating value of H2 is 130 kJ/g which is equal to .04 kWhr. This seems to work out to the Rossi reactor being about 65 time more than chemical. A nuclear reaction should be about one million times more energetic, and a Millsean reaction should be about 200 times. JR: The Rossi cell did not peter out in this test. Neither does Mills' devices - but Rossi should know after these many months of testing and thousands of reactors, the average consumption within a close range, and even if it leaks out twice as much as it consumes - based on that and the newer tested output - then this device appears to be absolutely consistent with Mills' theory and the BLP prior results. In fact a leakage rate in that range puts it spot-on to Mills. Add in the VB finding of zero gammas, and there is no doubt in my mind that this device is based, wittingly or unwittingly, to some significant degree on Mills' CQM theory (not the patents however). The bad news for Mills is that he appears not to have covered the simple gas-phase device in prior art IP, but the Thermacore gas-phase reactor, done for Wright AFB under DARPA contract 18 years ago - did use Ni-H gas phase with potassium catalyst. So the only thing left for Rossi to patent a different catalyst. Did he do that adequately? We will not know until the new application (WIPO) comes out (soon) but the good news for the rest of the World is that this device is probably open to development by any and every entrepreneur with imagination and a Home Depot account :-) Jones
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
You are completely off base, Axil. Do you not know Mills' work at all? It is NOT nuclear. There is NO tritium. There is NO problem with any regulation. Please - for you own edification, do your homework and read and learn CQM before making silly comments like this. Jones From: Axil Axil Your caviler attitude toward conforming to the world wide nuclear regulatory infrastructure is counterproductive to the commercialization of cold fusion. This attitude worries and saddens me.
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 16:13:20 -0400: Hi, [snip] If the Cat-E can run for 6 months without shutdown, then about 180 grams of hydrogen enter the Cat-E. Where does it all go? ..once it has been converted into Hydrinos, it can leak out through the walls. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 17:26:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] However, the Cat-E will leak tritium with a vengeance and produce tritiated water. *Tritiated water* is a form of water where the usual hydrogen atoms are replaced with tritium. What makes you think the E-cat produces any Tritium at all? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 02 May 2011 17:56:14 -0400: Hi, [snip] The Rossi cell did not peter out in this test. It did not stop producing energy. For all anyone knows, it might have gone on for months, or years. Supposedly some cells have run for months. So you cannot draw any conclusions about the limits of the potential energy from any of these tests. Even if it is consuming 1 g of H2 per day, as I pointed out, most of that is probably leaking out. It will take much better, more leak-proof equipment to determine whether the fuel uses up in the Mills' range (200 times chemistry?) or the nuclear range (~1 million times chemistry). The present test is analogous to driving a car around the block, parking it, and declaring that the maximum range of the gas tank is 0.5 km. We have no idea how much gas is left in the tank. A 4 kW cell that consumed 1 gm of H2 / day implies a per atom energy release of 3582 eV (assuming it is all used). Perhaps coincidentally this coincides with a Hydrino level of 16, which is the level for which the binding energy of the second electron in Hydrinohydride is at a maximum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Tue, 03 May 2011 08:55:06 +1000: Hi, [snip] Perhaps coincidentally this coincides with a Hydrino level of 16 not exactly the best choice of words :( Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Well it is a big surprise, if it is exact. However, the Swedes at least are backing off the high power numbers and these cells are probably in the range of 2500 watts if Mats' numbers are correct. BTW - the cells could not be leaking very much hydrogen at all - if they are able to fill once, and then disconnect the H2, and still run it for three hours ! - which is what appears to be the case. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Perhaps coincidentally this coincides with a Hydrino level of 16 not exactly the best choice of words :( Regards,
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
If there is no tritium, then there is no need for tritium regulation. If the Rossi reactor does not produce tritium, then it does not require regulation. If its does not produce tritium then the Rossi reaction would be a different type of reaction manifest than other cold fusion reactions. Non radioactive tritium would be something new, something never seen before, and something to contend with. This new isotope might start a new field of material science in its own right. IMHO,the gaseous isotope production of the Rossi reactor has not yet been determined. Until these gas isotope products are established, commercialization of the Rossi reactor cannot proceed. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You are completely off base, Axil. Do you not know Mills’ work at all? It is NOT nuclear. There is NO tritium. There is NO problem with any regulation. Please – for you own edification, do your homework and read and learn CQM before making silly comments like this. Jones *From:* Axil Axil Your caviler attitude toward conforming to the world wide nuclear regulatory infrastructure is counterproductive to the commercialization of cold fusion. This attitude worries and saddens me.
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
This makes no sense. All tritium is radioactive. Where does the hypothetical tritium in the Rossi reactor come from? You seem to be confusing tritium with the hydrino. You do understand the Mills' hydrino theory, no? It does not involve tritium and neither does Rossi's reaction. The only recent mention of tritium is that this particular isotope, because of its low beta decay energy - *would be the only one in nature* that VB could possibly have not seen with their setup. That does not mean it is actually there, by any means. Did you jump to the conclusion that it had to be there - and thereby assume that it was present by default, since it is the only one which could have been missed in their fine analysis? I do not think that conclusion is warranted in any way. It is far more likely that there is no radioactivity at all, and that this Reactor is based on some other modality which can include either Mills, or Fran Roarty's version of Mills, etc. or new physics . but tritium would have stood out like a sore thumb when they sent the sample to Uppsala, since the nickel was not shielded then - and it wasn't there or it would have been in Essen's report. Jones From: Axil Axil If there is no tritium, then there is no need for tritium regulation. If the Rossi reactor does not produce tritium, then it does not require regulation. If its does not produce tritium then the Rossi reaction would be a different type of reaction manifest than other cold fusion reactions. Non radioactive tritium would be something new, something never seen before, and something to contend with. This new isotope might start a new field of material science in its own right. IMHO,the gaseous isotope production of the Rossi reactor has not yet been determined. Until these gas isotope products are established, commercialization of the Rossi reactor cannot proceed. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You are completely off base, Axil. Do you not know Mills' work at all? It is NOT nuclear. There is NO tritium. There is NO problem with any regulation. Please - for you own edification, do your homework and read and learn CQM before making silly comments like this. Jones From: Axil Axil Your caviler attitude toward conforming to the world wide nuclear regulatory infrastructure is counterproductive to the commercialization of cold fusion. This attitude worries and saddens me.
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Neither does Mills’ devices – but Rossi should know after these many months of testing and thousands of reactors, the average consumption within a close range, and even if it leaks out twice as much as it consumes - based on that and the newer tested output – then this device appears to be absolutely consistent with Mills’ theory and the BLP prior results. In fact a leakage rate in that range puts it spot-on to Mills. Jones, it's clear that AR doesn't know $hit about WTF is going on in his reactor. I seriously doubt that he has kept the records that you discussed in your moonie post. He, like Edison, does know that he can blow up copper pipe and create a $hitload of heat. He allegedly has paid the UoB to try to find out WTF is going on. I doubt they will. Do you think there is a Casimir expert there? We just have to wait until he either 1) Fails or 2) Generates a 1 MW cellular reactor before he is going to talk. I hope he doesn't either 1) Wig out when he fails or 2) Kill himself in a runaway explosion And I hope he is true to his word (cough) that he has given the secret ingredients to SOMEONE! Otherwise, we might need another decade or two to find our WTF is going on. T
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, the Swedes at least are backing off the high power numbers and these cells are probably in the range of 2500 watts if Mats' numbers are correct. No one has backed off from any high power numbers as far as I know. There have been no retractions. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Neither does Mills’ devices – but Rossi should know after these many months of testing and thousands of reactors, the average consumption within a close range, and even if it leaks out twice as much as it consumes . . . I do not see how he would know this, unless all of his cells produce roughly the same amount of energy per gram of hydrogen. He has not said anything like that as far as I know. It might be leaking out 100 times as much for all anyone knows. If it is cold fusion (H-H fusion) and it used 1 g per day, I think it should be leaking or absorbing roughly 10,000 times more than it fuses. I would not know what the ratio should be if it is the Mills effect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Your caviler attitude toward conforming to the world wide nuclear regulatory infrastructure is counterproductive to the commercialization of cold fusion. This attitude worries and saddens me. It is much too early to reach any conclusions about any of this. We do not even know if this produces tritium, but only that the Pd-D system does, occasionally. If you are worried about dangerous energy systems, I suggest you have a look at the effects of coal, oil, or the Fukushima reactors. It is not as if we now have ideal, perfectly safe energy! If you are looking risk free energy you are probably about 1,000 years too early. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
The E-Cat does not produce Tritium or any other radioactive waste. The E-Cat has been approved for use in Greece, and this would obviously not be allowed if it produced radioactive waste. From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 2:26:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis. The leakage of hydrogen argument is a good new bad news explanation. If hydrogen leaks out of the Rossi reactor with little or no resistance, then this “good news” can explain and justify the theory behind Rossi’s explanation (aka hydrogen-nickel fusion). However, the Cat-E will leak tritium with a vengeance and produce tritiated water. Tritiated water is a form of water where the usual hydrogen atoms are replaced with tritium. This unfortunate characteristic would prohibit the commercialization of the Cat-E worldwide. I believe that the Cat-E is hydrogen tight because it contained a goodly amount of oxygen (reduces hydrogen exfiltration by 5 orders of magnitude.) and Silicon carbide (reduces hydrogen exfiltration by another 5 orders of magnitude) coating the walls of the reaction vessel. Other coatings can be applied to the reaction vessel to increase the hydrogen tightness by another 10 orders of magnitude. IMHO, the Cat-E is capable of keeping the tritium inside the reaction chamber conformant with tritium exfiltration statutory limits if design attention is paid to this need. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil wrote: Jed you are doing well, now tell me how the other 30 elements are formed? No idea, but bear in mind that things tend to leak out of pressurized tanks, not in. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 20:59:42 -0400: Hi, [snip] It is much too early to reach any conclusions about any of this. We do not even know if this produces tritium, but only that the Pd-D system does, occasionally. But that's to be expected, because T is frequently a product of DD fusion in hot fusion, so even though the output of CF is primarily He4, it stands to reason that occasionally a hot fusion reaction would take place producing a little T. With ordinary Hydrogen that is orders of magnitude less likely, because of the low level of D in ordinary Hydrogen. Perhaps a more likely product would be the occasional He3 atom (from P + D), but He3 is harmless. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
The fact is that none of the E-Cats tested have ran out of hydrogen fuel. They have all kept working until they were turned off. To say that an E-Cat only produces less than a hundred times the energy of burning hydrogen is ridiculous. If the E-Cat was left on for an extended period of time it could have produced thousands of times the energy of burning hydrogen. The E-Cat is producing nuclear reactions. I do not dismiss the possibility it is producing hydrinos as well, but the fact is that nuclear reactions are taking place. Your constant efforts to convince everyone that Rossi's technology is purely a hydrino technology is getting old. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 2:44:08 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis. From:Axil Axil Ø One gram of hydrogen per day is a HUGE amount of hydrogen inputted into a closed system and consumed. Ø Where could it all be going? It is really difficult to seal against leaks of pressurized H2 with top quality equipment and this appears to be far from top quality – more like Home Depot overstock. But looks can be deceiving. Therefore, if the figure is accurate, and Rossi should know by now after two years of operation and “thousands of reactors” built, then the output appears to be less than Millsean and far less than nuclear, it would appear. Although the Mills device “on paper” can be more, according to Robin - in operation it produces 200 times more than chemical on average, at least that is what Randell Mills has said can be expected. Correct me if this is wrong, but he has said this repeatedly over the years. But anyway – here is what Mats Lewan sez “The tests lasted for two and three hours respectively and the total net energy developed was calculated to be 5.6 and 6.9 kWh” OK, I will leave it to Stephen or Robin to do the numbers but it would seem on first blush that since this is net energy, then the first test operated at 5.6/2 or an average rate of energy production of 2.8 kW/hr and the second was 6.9/3 or 2.3 kW/hr so the average of the two for continuous output is about 2.6 kW/hr which is below the earlier testing but this is with the “supposedly” small cell. I say “supposedly” since the Jan. large cell was never shown. The heating value of H2 is 130 kJ/g which is equal to .04 kWhr. This seems to work out to the Rossi reactor being about 65 time more than chemical. A nuclear reaction should be about one million times more energetic, and a Millsean reaction should be about 200 times. Are we in agreement so far?
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 16:11:31 -0700: Hi, [snip] Well it is a big surprise, if it is exact. I assume you mean if the 16 is exact. No it isn't. To start with, it's highly unlikely that all Hydrinos would shrink to exactly the same level, though it is possible that a vast majority do under the right circumstances. Furthermore note that I just used 4 kW and 1 gm / day. Neither of those figures are necessarily exact either. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
In reply to noone noone's message of Mon, 2 May 2011 19:03:56 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] The fact is that none of the E-Cats tested have ran out of hydrogen fuel. They have all kept working until they were turned off. To say that an E-Cat only produces less than a hundred times the energy of burning hydrogen is ridiculous. If the E-Cat was left on for an extended period of time it could have produced thousands of times the energy of burning hydrogen. Actually, if it's only consuming 1 gm of Hydrogen per day, while running at 4 kW, then it's already producing thousands of times the energy of burning Hydrogen. The E-Cat is producing nuclear reactions. I do not dismiss the possibility it is producing hydrinos as well, but the fact is that nuclear reactions are taking place. Your constant efforts to convince everyone that Rossi's technology is purely a hydrino technology is getting old. It's quite possible that Hydrinos are the facilitators of nuclear reactions. But perhaps the number of such reactions varies from one run to the next, /or from device to device. All interesting questions that need to be investigated. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
*“Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”* On the contrary, it is perfect. Is that possible? What angel let this thing through the gates of heaven? *“The E-Cat does not produce Tritium or any other radioactive waste.”* Is it possible that some flaw has been overlooked? I have not yet encountered a singularly perfect thing in this life, but anything is possible. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Your caviler attitude toward conforming to the world wide nuclear regulatory infrastructure is counterproductive to the commercialization of cold fusion. This attitude worries and saddens me. It is much too early to reach any conclusions about any of this. We do not even know if this produces tritium, but only that the Pd-D system does, occasionally. If you are worried about dangerous energy systems, I suggest you have a look at the effects of coal, oil, or the Fukushima reactors. It is not as if we now have ideal, perfectly safe energy! If you are looking risk free energy you are probably about 1,000 years too early. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
From: noone The E-Cat is producing nuclear reactions. You have amply demonstrated your ignorance on this subject. If it is producing nuclear reactions where is the proof? Only a fool would take Rossi’s word over the fine study by VB …. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
The proof is the copper produced by nuclear transmutations. Once again, those scientists did not have a probe inside of the reaction vessel. They could not detect if radiation was being produced there. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 7:36:49 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis. From:noone The E-Cat is producing nuclear reactions. You have amply demonstrated your ignorance on this subject. If it is producing nuclear reactions where is the proof? Only a fool would take Rossi’s word over the fine study by VB …. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
From: noone noone * The proof is the copper produced by nuclear transmutations. No absolutely not. The natural isotope ratio means just the opposite. It means that this CANNOT be a nuclear reaction. * Once again, those scientists did not have a probe inside of the reaction vessel. They could not detect if radiation was being produced there. Once again you have no clue. I suspect you did not bother to even read the VB report or if you did, you were incapable of understanding what they said. Please take this nonsense to a fanboy forum where your comments will be loved. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.
The natural isotope ratio issue is not an issue at all. Copper was found. There is no source of copper inside the reactor other than transmutations. The reactor is composed of stainless steel that does not contain copper. I read the V and B report. The simple fact is that cold fusion does not work like hot fusion, and they refuse to accept that. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 7:59:43 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis. From:noone noone Ø The proof is the copper produced by nuclear transmutations. No absolutely not. The natural isotope ratio means just the opposite. It means that this CANNOT be a nuclear reaction. Ø Once again, those scientists did not have a probe inside of the reaction vessel. They could not detect if radiation was being produced there. Once again you have no clue. I suspect you did not bother to even read the VB report or if you did, you were incapable of understanding what they said. Please take this nonsense to a fanboy forum where your comments will be loved. Jones
