Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. Bob Higgins On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
The fact the the Ni62 particle was still functional and had its tubericles intact points to the fact the particles was not melted and was no hotter than the outside of the reactor. To explain this LENR miracle, see my thread called: Super-fluidic heat flow. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. Bob Higgins On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Following on to this line of thought ... Given the temperatures that the reactor had been operating in actual operation, many of the constituents of the fuel powder would have either melted, vaporized, or sintered to the inside of the reactor core vessel. Thus, when removing the ash for test, the components that emerged may be completely unrepresentative of the active components which may have remained firmly attached to the inside of the reactor vessel. Perhaps only more benign and refractory components could have been extracted after the experiment. Thus, the analysis of this ash material should not necessarily be directly compared with the powder input at the beginning of the experiment as a before and after reaction analysis. Given this, the question arises, did the starting powder that was supplied by Rossi as about 1 g actually represent the active powder of the reaction? If the reactor had been used before, its ceramic core may not have been virgin. There could remain remnants, perhaps intentionally active remnants, sintered to the inside of the reaction tube. In which case, Rossi may have supplied only the consumables - perhaps mostly hydride. This would make analysis of the input powder of less value because it is not the whole fuel for his reaction. My question is, Had the reactor used in this experiment ever been used by anyone for an active LENR test prior to the test conducted by your group? Conversely, was the reactor virgin in the respect of having never before been used for a LENR reaction? Of course, this will still not entirely answer the question of whether the input powder was actually representative of the entire active LENR material. It could be that the active Ni portion had already been sintered onto the inside of the reactor vessel as part of preparing the apparatus. Then Rossi would only have added the consumable portion at the beginning of the experiment. Even if this active material had been sintered onto the inside of the reactor, it would not have been active in the dummy experiment without the consumable portion having been added. I can imagine Rossi essentially thick film coating his active Ni powder onto the inside of the central alumina tube as part of creating the reactor. Perhaps this would also include an alpha alumina washcoat that would render the alumina impermeable to hydrogen. Bob Higgins On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. Bob Higgins On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Particle 1 was analyzed and found to contain Ni62. Its photo shows that its tubercles were not melted and the particle was therefore cold. Your reasoning must be reversed. Particle 1 came from the COLDEST part of the reactor. The induction coil is also cold and must have been located close to the nickel powder. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Following on to this line of thought ... Given the temperatures that the reactor had been operating in actual operation, many of the constituents of the fuel powder would have either melted, vaporized, or sintered to the inside of the reactor core vessel. Thus, when removing the ash for test, the components that emerged may be completely unrepresentative of the active components which may have remained firmly attached to the inside of the reactor vessel. Perhaps only more benign and refractory components could have been extracted after the experiment. Thus, the analysis of this ash material should not necessarily be directly compared with the powder input at the beginning of the experiment as a before and after reaction analysis. Given this, the question arises, did the starting powder that was supplied by Rossi as about 1 g actually represent the active powder of the reaction? If the reactor had been used before, its ceramic core may not have been virgin. There could remain remnants, perhaps intentionally active remnants, sintered to the inside of the reaction tube. In which case, Rossi may have supplied only the consumables - perhaps mostly hydride. This would make analysis of the input powder of less value because it is not the whole fuel for his reaction. My question is, Had the reactor used in this experiment ever been used by anyone for an active LENR test prior to the test conducted by your group? Conversely, was the reactor virgin in the respect of having never before been used for a LENR reaction? Of course, this will still not entirely answer the question of whether the input powder was actually representative of the entire active LENR material. It could be that the active Ni portion had already been sintered onto the inside of the reactor vessel as part of preparing the apparatus. Then Rossi would only have added the consumable portion at the beginning of the experiment. Even if this active material had been sintered onto the inside of the reactor, it would not have been active in the dummy experiment without the consumable portion having been added. I can imagine Rossi essentially thick film coating his active Ni powder onto the inside of the central alumina tube as part of creating the reactor. Perhaps this would also include an alpha alumina washcoat that would render the alumina impermeable to hydrogen. Bob Higgins On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. Bob Higgins On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
FYI, you can search all of Rossi's blogs using this handy link: http://www.rossilivecat.com/all.html Here is an entry from Aug. 28 2014 where Rossi states that his Rossi effect seems to enrich nickel to Ni62, and that Ni62 seems to improve the efficiency of the reaction. H http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853cpage=12#comment-992087 Quoting Rossi We think that our process, the so called “Rossi Effect”, is , as a serendipity, also a system to produce 62Ni, because only this fact can explain the formation of atoms of stable Cu, even if in very small amounts; we also noticed that using eventually powders of Ni enriched this way, the efficiency of the E-Cats increases. But we are not sure of this fact, because there may have been errors in the analysis, so we are studying , as a side effect , this phenomenon. Obviously, I cannot add information regarding this issue, pending the patents relative to it. -Brad Lowe On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: I f I read the information correctly reactor is only transparent to I.R. below a wavelength of about 5 microns ( almost 0% transmissive at wavelengths longer than 5 microns) and they used I.R. cameras that were sensitive in the range of 7.5 microns and 13 microns. Therefor the cameras would never detect any I.R. (of very, very, little 1% ) emitted from the inside of the reactor. The reactor was opaque to infrared from the interior of the reactor. Robert Dorr At 05:41 PM 10/11/2014, you wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com ...and besides there is the little matter of all that excess energy. All that excess? In fact, here is nothing that can be called scientifically proved excess energy at all... this is because the experiment is fatally flawed in using a IR translucent reactor - and failing to coat it with a black coating - which any grad student would know to do. Where were the Swedes? Asleep at the wheel? Apparently, there is an small hermetically sealed ampoule inside the alumina, containing reactants. This ampoule is inside the larger translucent tube, and there is net gain from it. We can agree on that. The calculations of an expert with whom I am corresponding thinks the excess could be in the range of COP 1.2 to 1.5 based on an assumed size for this ampoule. It cannot be large. If it were to fill the entire open space, then OK gain would be larger but far below the claim. Yet this is still gain and I am overjoyed by that but not by these problems with the isotopes. That stinks. Anyway, I would not classify this result as all that excess... and in fact the low COP could explain why these other things (suspicious isotopic anomalies) have been included in a report that is well below expectations. I will agree there is some gain, but perhaps half of what is claimed. That provides motivation for fraud - when one is on record as claiming much more. Jones - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
-Original Message- From: Brad Lowe http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853cpage=12#comment-992087 Quoting Rossi: We think that our process, the so called “Rossi Effect”, is, as a serendipity, also a system to produce 62Ni, because only this fact can explain the formation of atoms of stable Cu ... ** but ... catch 22... no copper is seen in either the SIMS or the ICP-MS in this paper, and transmuting 58Ni all the way to 62Ni would be far more energetic anyway - if it could happen without a mélange of intermediate precursors which are absent so transmuting 58Ni to get to stable copper is kind of a joke. No mention of lithium in August, even though - at only .01 grams out of 1 g total fuel, or one percent of all fuel atoms, the lithium count in the ash is 4 times more than all other atoms combined and it has almost all transmuted (apparently) - when in fact, the lithium is expected to have left the system after 30+ days. Instead, we find a factor of about 400 times more 6Li than expected, yet too months ago, the inventor appears not to have a clue about this being a part of the gain. Recent press release of interest: http://www.y12.doe.gov/global-security/lithium-based-technologies The Y‑12 National Security Complex supplies lithium, in unclassified forms, to customers worldwide through the DOE Office of Science, Isotope Business Office. Historically, the typical order of 6Li was only gram quantities used in research and development. However, over the past three years demand has increased steadily with typical orders of around 10–20 kg each. Such increase in demand is a direct result of the use of 6Li in neutron detectors
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: - The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes produced? Regarding the absence of 64Ni in the after ash assay -- Pomp seems to have overlooked the fact that there are too few data points to conclude much in this regard (i.e., n=1). It's possible that a second sample would have shown the same amount as found at the start. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of material that was taken from within the reactor as ash. Did they recover approximately the same amount as was put in? Approximately 1 gram of fuel was added at the start of the trial. At the end of the trial, one (and I think only one) of the experimenters was present to choose 10 mg from the spent fuel. From this smaller sample, they appear to have set aside two (or three?) grains of different shapes and compositions for analysis. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Sorry – but this reactor is made of alumina – which is a proton conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after startup. Please see the section Diffusion Barrier to Oxygen and Hydrogen from this link, shared earlier on Vortex (sorry, I forget who shared it): http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560 From the article: The alpha-Al2O3 oxide structure, once formed, serves as a nearly perfect diffusion barrier for oxygen and hydrogen. I'm guessing the fact that alumina can be made a near perfect barrier to the diffusion of hydrogen is one of the reasons it was chosen (another is that it appears to be refractory). It would seem to be premature to assume that hydrogen quickly escapes. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: more magic involved? fusion + fission transmutations that release copious neutrinos with no gammas, betas, neutrons or alphas? Apart from a few suggestions here and there, the main reactions that have been considered in the isotope threads are Ni(7Li,6Li)Ni reactions. These yield 6Li daughters and kinetic energy, and little kinetic energy per nucleon, relatively speaking. See: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98050.html At the highest energy of 4.14 MeV, the energy per nucleon is ~ 0.6 MeV. At the lowest, 0.57 MeV, the average per nucleon is ~ 95 keV. There would be little in the way of neutrinos, gammas, neutrons or alphas. There might be some betas. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
So its may be possible the main energy source is pepD and associated reactions. This may also gives D for neutron striping reactions. Torulf. On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:42:26 -0700, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Sorry - but this reactor is made of alumina - which is a proton conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after startup. Please see the section Diffusion Barrier to Oxygen and Hydrogen from this link, shared earlier on Vortex (sorry, I forget who shared it): http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560 [2] From the article: The alpha-Al2O3 oxide structure, once formed, serves as a nearly perfect diffusion barrier for oxygen and hydrogen. I'm guessing the fact that alumina can be made a near perfect barrier to the diffusion of hydrogen is one of the reasons it was chosen (another is that it appears to be refractory). It would seem to be premature to assume that hydrogen quickly escapes. Eric Links: -- [1] mailto:jone...@pacbell.net [2] http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560
RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Please read the paper. Levi says the tube is sintered. Sintered alumina would have about 6% porosity. It will not contain hydrogen at high or low temperature. However, it is unclear as to whether the fuel was admitted already inside a separate hermetically sealed ampoule. If so, that could be a situation which could work. The problem there is the surface area of that ampoule is what should be used as the IR emitter surface for emissivity - and it would be at least 20 times less than the number which was used. From: Eric Walker Sorry – but this reactor is made of alumina – which is a proton conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after startup. Please see the section Diffusion Barrier to Oxygen and Hydrogen from this link, shared earlier on Vortex (sorry, I forget who shared it): http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560 From the article: The alpha-Al2O3 oxide structure, once formed, serves as a nearly perfect diffusion barrier for oxygen and hydrogen. I'm guessing the fact that alumina can be made a near perfect barrier to the diffusion of hydrogen is one of the reasons it was chosen (another is that it appears to be refractory). It would seem to be premature to assume that hydrogen quickly escapes. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
I looked into the diffusion of tritium from reactor pipes and discovered that oxygen, carbon, moly, and silicon can slow hydrogen diffusion by 20 orders of magnitude. You might wonder why all of these elements were present in the fuel load. Rossi is very cleaver. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Sorry – but this reactor is made of alumina – which is a proton conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after startup. Please see the section Diffusion Barrier to Oxygen and Hydrogen from this link, shared earlier on Vortex (sorry, I forget who shared it): http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560 From the article: The alpha-Al2O3 oxide structure, once formed, serves as a nearly perfect diffusion barrier for oxygen and hydrogen. I'm guessing the fact that alumina can be made a near perfect barrier to the diffusion of hydrogen is one of the reasons it was chosen (another is that it appears to be refractory). It would seem to be premature to assume that hydrogen quickly escapes. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
That is what I concluded as well when I reread the article carefully. The small quantity tested would thus not represent a total sample in the analysis, so there is no way to ensure that all of the input nickel was converted into that single 62Ni isotope. This fact leaves unanswered the question as to whether or not all of the input nickel was consumed and any discussion about the concern that the reaction was near its conclusion moot. We have no way of knowing whether or not the enhanced nickel is merely remaining on the surface of the ash sample or throughout its volume. IIRC the amount of material tested in the actual mass spectrometry instrument is extremely tiny. Remember how difficult it was to seperate out any significant amount of uranium isotopes during the Manhattan Project and you can appreciate how little would be obtained in a small scale test. For the above reasons I conclude that the mere fact that the metals on the surfaces are transformed to such a degree as being quite important. There remains hidden other possibilities within the bulk of the ash that may become exposed with further, time consuming analysis. I only hope that someone is pursuing this avenue in order for a thorough understanding of the reactions taking place. This energy source is of great importance and needs any amount of attention that can be directed towards its development. Ultimately, a clear understanding of exactly what is taking place within the fuel will be required. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 11, 2014 11:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of material that was taken from within the reactor as ash. Did they recover approximately the same amount as was put in? Approximately 1 gram of fuel was added at the start of the trial. At the end of the trial, one (and I think only one) of the experimenters was present to choose 10 mg from the spent fuel. From this smaller sample, they appear to have set aside two (or three?) grains of different shapes and compositions for analysis. Eric
Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
David, I strongly disagree with the conclusions you have expressed regarding the ash sample isotope fraction. First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. While this still only represents a small sample of the complete reactor ash, I have a difficult time believing that a substantial fractionation of nickel isotopes occurred. I suspect that most of the other fuel elements are not appearing in the ash because they migrated elsewhere in the reactor vessel and were missed by sample bias, but I have a difficult time imagining how the 99.3% Ni62 grain could be the result of isotope fractionation, all things considered here. -Bob From: David Roberson Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:56 AM That is what I concluded as well when I reread the article carefully. The small quantity tested would thus not represent a total sample in the analysis, so there is no way to ensure that all of the input nickel was converted into that single 62Ni isotope. This fact leaves unanswered the question as to whether or not all of the input nickel was consumed and any discussion about the concern that the reaction was near its conclusion moot. We have no way of knowing whether or not the enhanced nickel is merely remaining on the surface of the ash sample or throughout its volume. -Original Message- From: Eric Walker Sent: Sat, Oct 11, 2014 11:29 am On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of material that was taken from within the reactor as ash. Did they recover approximately the same amount as was put in? Approximately 1 gram of fuel was added at the start of the trial. At the end of the trial, one (and I think only one) of the experimenters was present to choose 10 mg from the spent fuel. From this smaller sample, they appear to have set aside two (or three?) grains of different shapes and compositions for analysis.
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
the key argument is that we don't have a theory on how it works, and we have no idea if Ni62 is active, an ash, or anything... heat is produced, and this man have to learn calorimetry like Huizenga, Parks, and most nuclear physicist who imagine that they are the center of the world, and disdain what they don't master, chemistry. 2014-10-11 17:25 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: - The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes produced? Regarding the absence of 64Ni in the after ash assay -- Pomp seems to have overlooked the fact that there are too few data points to conclude much in this regard (i.e., n=1). It's possible that a second sample would have shown the same amount as found at the start. Eric
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Robert, Whether you know it or not, you may have put another nail in coffin of any faint hope that this report is valid, and not a fraud. What's more, in answer to Ransom, it could be a deliberate fraud. Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? That is because several months ago, I personally talked to the person who sold Rossi enriched Ni-62 in what was for all practical purposes that same purity. The coincidence is stunning. OK - for the benefit of true believers, let's say that there is a small chance that Rossi did not arrange some kind of deceit here, and that although he purchased the same purity material, it also showed up in a properly tested sample as a matter of pure random coincidence ... (Jon Stewart pause) ... but please explain to me how any known nuclear reaction produces virtually pure isotope going all the way from Ni58 to Ni63 in one step with no intermediary products. If that can happen in this Universe, then ok maybe it is a coincidence that Rossi just happened to buy the same material that turned up in the tested sample. Thank you for speaking up, Robert Ellefson. I have not noticed you on this group before this story broke, but this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson David, I strongly disagree with the conclusions you have expressed regarding the ash sample isotope fraction. First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. While this still only represents a small sample of the complete reactor ash, I have a difficult time believing that a substantial fractionation of nickel isotopes occurred. I suspect that most of the other fuel elements are not appearing in the ash because they migrated elsewhere in the reactor vessel and were missed by sample bias, but I have a difficult time imagining how the 99.3% Ni62 grain could be the result of isotope fractionation, all things considered here. -Bob From: David Roberson Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:56 AM That is what I concluded as well when I reread the article carefully. The small quantity tested would thus not represent a total sample in the analysis, so there is no way to ensure that all of the input nickel was converted into that single 62Ni isotope. This fact leaves unanswered the question as to whether or not all of the input nickel was consumed and any discussion about the concern that the reaction was near its conclusion moot. We have no way of knowing whether or not the enhanced nickel is merely remaining on the surface of the ash sample or throughout its volume. -Original Message- From: Eric Walker Sent: Sat, Oct 11, 2014 11:29 am On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of material that was taken from within the reactor as ash. Did they recover approximately the same amount as was put in? Approximately 1 gram of fuel was added at the start of the trial. At the end of the trial, one (and I think only one) of the experimenters was present to choose 10 mg from the spent fuel. From this smaller sample, they appear to have set aside two (or three?) grains of different shapes and compositions for analysis. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? _ From: Robert Ellefson Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? _ From: Robert Ellefson Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
In reply to Robert Ellefson's message of Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:24:55 -0700: Hi, [snip] While this still only represents a small sample of the complete reactor ash, I have a difficult time believing that a substantial fractionation of nickel isotopes occurred. I suspect that most of the other fuel elements are not appearing in the ash because they migrated elsewhere in the reactor vessel and were missed by sample bias, but I have a difficult time imagining how the 99.3% Ni62 grain could be the result of isotope fractionation, all things considered here. I agree, and besides there is the little matter of all that excess energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Bob, This makes sense to me, thanks - but an important question still remains. Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which were pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this clear. Do you agree that the tested sample in question - should have been fully loaded with the step-wise intermediaries Ni59, Ni60 and Ni61 - as opposed to almost pure Ni63? Jones _ From: Robert Ellefson Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? _ From: Robert Ellefson Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which were pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this clear. There was an earlier thread about the possibility of burn-in, where early in the test the nickel isotopes incremented up to 62Ni and then reached a barrier, after which reactions with nickel were not energetically favorable. Presumably this would be two-body reactions, incrementing one isotope each step. Depending upon how fast such burn occurred, an implication would seem to be that the nickel was not the entire source of heat. Eric
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Page 42: Thus, as expected from the EDS analysis the appearance of the ToF-SIMS spectra will differ depending on particle analyzed. A test was done on one particle. It is possible that one particular particle (page 53...sample 1 ash) - could have been in a certain position that just so happened to produce almost pure Ni62). Transmutation may be a very chaotic process. In figures 6 through 11, I see no Ni62 at all. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bob, This makes sense to me, thanks - but an important question still remains. Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which were pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this clear. Do you agree that the tested sample in question - should have been fully loaded with the step-wise intermediaries Ni59, Ni60 and Ni61 - as opposed to almost pure Ni63? Jones _ From: Robert Ellefson Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? _ From: Robert Ellefson Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition.
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Page 28: It should be stressed, that the quantities of most elements differ substantially depending on which granule is analyzed. In addition to these elements there are small quantities of several other elements, but these can probably be considered as impurities. I believe the agenda of the testers is to convince the reader of the repost that nuclear processes are going on and they used this isotopic result from on single particle to make their case. Clearly, looking over all of the results analyzing Rossi's powder, this Ni62 result is an outlier and should not be used to characterize his reaction. To draw any conclusions from this Ni62 result is a mistake other then transmutation is a nuclear based process. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Page 42: Thus, as expected from the EDS analysis the appearance of the ToF-SIMS spectra will differ depending on particle analyzed. A test was done on one particle. It is possible that one particular particle (page 53...sample 1 ash) - could have been in a certain position that just so happened to produce almost pure Ni62). Transmutation may be a very chaotic process. In figures 6 through 11, I see no Ni62 at all. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bob, This makes sense to me, thanks - but an important question still remains. Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which were pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this clear. Do you agree that the tested sample in question - should have been fully loaded with the step-wise intermediaries Ni59, Ni60 and Ni61 - as opposed to almost pure Ni63? Jones _ From: Robert Ellefson Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? _ From: Robert Ellefson Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com ...and besides there is the little matter of all that excess energy. All that excess? In fact, here is nothing that can be called scientifically proved excess energy at all... this is because the experiment is fatally flawed in using a IR translucent reactor - and failing to coat it with a black coating - which any grad student would know to do. Where were the Swedes? Asleep at the wheel? Apparently, there is an small hermetically sealed ampoule inside the alumina, containing reactants. This ampoule is inside the larger translucent tube, and there is net gain from it. We can agree on that. The calculations of an expert with whom I am corresponding thinks the excess could be in the range of COP 1.2 to 1.5 based on an assumed size for this ampoule. It cannot be large. If it were to fill the entire open space, then OK gain would be larger but far below the claim. Yet this is still gain and I am overjoyed by that but not by these problems with the isotopes. That stinks. Anyway, I would not classify this result as all that excess... and in fact the low COP could explain why these other things (suspicious isotopic anomalies) have been included in a report that is well below expectations. I will agree there is some gain, but perhaps half of what is claimed. That provides motivation for fraud - when one is on record as claiming much more. Jones
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
I f I read the information correctly reactor is only transparent to I.R. below a wavelength of about 5 microns ( almost 0% transmissive at wavelengths longer than 5 microns) and they used I.R. cameras that were sensitive in the range of 7.5 microns and 13 microns. Therefor the cameras would never detect any I.R. (of very, very, little 1% ) emitted from the inside of the reactor. The reactor was opaque to infrared from the interior of the reactor. Robert Dorr At 05:41 PM 10/11/2014, you wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com ...and besides there is the little matter of all that excess energy. All that excess? In fact, here is nothing that can be called scientifically proved excess energy at all... this is because the experiment is fatally flawed in using a IR translucent reactor - and failing to coat it with a black coating - which any grad student would know to do. Where were the Swedes? Asleep at the wheel? Apparently, there is an small hermetically sealed ampoule inside the alumina, containing reactants. This ampoule is inside the larger translucent tube, and there is net gain from it. We can agree on that. The calculations of an expert with whom I am corresponding thinks the excess could be in the range of COP 1.2 to 1.5 based on an assumed size for this ampoule. It cannot be large. If it were to fill the entire open space, then OK gain would be larger but far below the claim. Yet this is still gain and I am overjoyed by that but not by these problems with the isotopes. That stinks. Anyway, I would not classify this result as all that excess... and in fact the low COP could explain why these other things (suspicious isotopic anomalies) have been included in a report that is well below expectations. I will agree there is some gain, but perhaps half of what is claimed. That provides motivation for fraud - when one is on record as claiming much more. Jones - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by commercially available enriched isotopes? Most people on this list seem to be very good about raising technical objections to criticisms of the calorimetry, but they counter Pomp's claim with non-technical arguments about how it would be irrational of Rossi to fake the ash. Harry On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? _ From: Robert Ellefson Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition.
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Harry and Jones, I do not believe that the discovery of highly-enriched isotopes is the result of fraud. I think that the variable fractions of isotopes between the surface and the bulk of the ash indicates that isotopic enrichment was occurring in-situ. The apparent fact (if true) that the bulk of the nickel is 99.3% Ni-62, while it is 98.7% Ni-62 on the surface, along with an even larger lithium isotope gradient from surface-to-bulk, demonstrates that we are looking at the ash of a nuclear reaction, and not a faked result. I have no idea how Rossi could achieve such gradients in with a laboratory-supply feedstock of enriched nickel achieving both the surface morphology that the ash grain displayed and the isotope fractionation gradient that it displayed. I highly doubt this would be possible to fake even with tremendous effort. So, rather than providing evidence of fraud, I very much believe that this isotope fractionation gradient clearly indicates that some kind of nuclear reaction is taking place in during this experiment. -Bob From: H Veeder Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:20 PM Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by commercially available enriched isotopes? On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com mailto:vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Thanks! Harry On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Harry and Jones, I do not believe that the discovery of highly-enriched isotopes is the result of fraud. I think that the variable fractions of isotopes between the surface and the bulk of the ash indicates that isotopic enrichment was occurring in-situ. The apparent fact (if true) that the bulk of the nickel is 99.3% Ni-62, while it is 98.7% Ni-62 on the surface, along with an even larger lithium isotope gradient from surface-to-bulk, demonstrates that we are looking at the ash of a nuclear reaction, and not a faked result. I have no idea how Rossi could achieve such gradients in with a laboratory-supply feedstock of enriched nickel achieving both the surface morphology that the ash grain displayed and the isotope fractionation gradient that it displayed. I highly doubt this would be possible to fake even with tremendous effort. So, rather than providing evidence of fraud, I very much believe that this isotope fractionation gradient clearly indicates that some kind of nuclear reaction is taking place in during this experiment. -Bob *From:* H Veeder Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:20 PM Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by commercially available enriched isotopes? On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Page 28: *The ash has a different texture than the powder-like fuel by having grains of different sizes, probably developed from the heat. The grains differ in element composition, and we would certainly have liked to analyze several more grains with SIMS, but the limited amount of ash being available to us didn’t make that possible. The main result from our sample is nevertheless clear, that the isotopic composition deviates dramatically from the natural composition for both Li and Ni. * It is hard to accept the necessity that just a handful of particles were provided for isotopic analysis. Just two or three of these grains were nickel particles. It is unwise to draw any type of pattern from such a small sample. The testers got everything that they could from industrial heat and that wasn't near enough for a decent scientific report. The audience that the testers were aiming their spin at was Elforsk and their CEO. Why, they want to get up to their ears in well funded LENR research. Their presentation of data was not for Rossi's benefit or that of industrial heat; it was for their own benefit and the good of LENR as they view it through their own interests. For this game of the century, everybody wants their seat at the table. On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:19 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by commercially available enriched isotopes? Most people on this list seem to be very good about raising technical objections to criticisms of the calorimetry, but they counter Pomp's claim with non-technical arguments about how it would be irrational of Rossi to fake the ash. Harry On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? _ From: Robert Ellefson Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
this question can change the COP, not the bottom line : at lower input power, the temperature is much higher for the active version. 2014-10-10 7:40 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is wonderfully simple calorimetry. The easiest I have seen in cold fusion. If you cannot understand this, you cannot understand any experiment, and you know nothing about this subject. To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion. - The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than the live run. - The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine. I don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind of additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the calibration run). Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at the same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working fluid, calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the control and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the live run. The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a distraction. That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not a physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number, and it probably a much better number than that. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
It may be hard to get ro operating temp with only the electric power supply and no LENR. Bob Cook Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneRobert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Excellent point. Would be easy enough to do a second control run even now to add some confidence to the calorimetry. The alumina + wire will be off-the-shelf all someone need do is ask Rossi for specs of tube and wire - he should be happy to provide them in the interests of clarity. On 10 October 2014 13:40, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is wonderfully simple calorimetry. The easiest I have seen in cold fusion. If you cannot understand this, you cannot understand any experiment, and you know nothing about this subject. To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion. - The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than the live run. - The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine. I don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind of additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the calibration run). Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at the same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working fluid, calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the control and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the live run. The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a distraction. That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not a physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number, and it probably a much better number than that. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
The dimethyl siloxane type of polymer will confine hydrogen since oxygen carbon and silicon all keep hydrogen from escaping. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Lithium Aluminum Hydride was not added to the fuel mix for its good looks. The Hydride had a definite purpose. Sorry, the reactor is a Nickel Hydrogen reactor. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Sorry – but this reactor is made of alumina – which is a proton conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after startup. All of the initial hydrogen is gone within an hour due to hydrogen diffusion. This looks like a lithium-nickel reactor. *From:* Axil Axil NiH2 Zn* Ni + He 2H(1) + Ni(64) Zn(66)* Step1 Zn(66)* Ni(62) + He(4) Step 2 You also suffer from the nuclear physics syndrome where reactions are fixed over all systems. Each LENR system has a unique transmutation character based on the way the magnetic field emitters are deployed. In fact, each nickel particle produces a different reaction. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: so the claim is essentially that this soup of elements were also consumed to exhaustion, without changing power input or output as their quantities reduced, in an amazingly perfect process that has as its only product the highest binding energy Ni62 (also consuming Ni64) and without creating any observable radiation during the process and no radiative ash. It will require a very high level of proof to convince the world of the truth of that. On 9 October 2014 11:15, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same assumption that the testers suffer from. The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. Did you see this line on page 53? Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: De-cloaking long term lurker. Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions: · The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes produced? · The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni just happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must have done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly. · Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet the reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the test. To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) behaviour. If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into the unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes, focused microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and facilities to make any judgement on things like this. I'm happy with black box reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better. Unless and until truly independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the world. I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track record of sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will need independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi. On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was the best way to do so. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the contrary, that will only
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
this is an old tactic that Beaudette debunked. the physicist ignore voluntarily that heat above chemistry level is a nuclear ash. maybe Jed can make a better historical perspective than me. as I've read, the chemist were so bad in particle detection, and physicist so bad in calorimetry, that since the physicist were assumed better, the chemist were assumed incompetent... nobody imagined that calorimetry is a job, and that physicist can make errors. 2014-10-09 2:02 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com: I have to admit that it would be trivially easy for an apprentice magician to construct a container into which you insert (say) white powder as fuel and later on extract black powder as ash. But the calorimetry stands. Pomp doesn't even denigrate the calorimetry : he just ignores it Because none of the measurements presented on the previous 26 pages matter ...
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
bad logic even a fraudster cannot change the physics of heat. a fraudster need to control his environment. he makes pony show. he ensure condition for his fraud. he does not let people play with his reactor, choose methods... the fraud hypotheis are empty... they don't even consider the consequences of their hypothsis and how it will have been spotted... how it could have been spotted according to the protocol. the fraud theory have to propose a reliable way to fraud... not just luck. they have to prove that it cannot be spotted, not only the the measurement don, but by the one that could have been done reasonably... moreover Rossi is not a convicted fraudster, but a loose polluting industrialist as the justice said. this is an urban myth. his numerous mistakes and failures are not incoherent with Italian justice opinion, with his clients opinion, with his bosses opinions, with Mats lewan ... creative, yes. real yes, loose and stubborn, sometime... that is what makes disruptive inventors. nice and cautious guys follow the train, don't lead it. 2014-10-09 3:58 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com: Jed, it doesn't matter. If the ash is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud. Plain and simple. I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry. There are no such complexities in the ash which makes the discussion very straightforward. He either switched it out or he didn't. He's either a liar or he isn't. It's pretty simple.. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several hundred other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds? In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera? If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, it was caused by invisible unicorns. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to FP. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
tthe isotopic shift observed is probably only a side effect of the real reaction. from others LENR experiments one can suspect that hydrogen is the fuel, and that Ni is just modified. that the surface of the powder is pure Ni62 maye be simply that it is cooked by the reactions, stay stable, and work anyway. it is like a barbecue made with bricks. at the end the bricks are all black, and they stay black. they don't burn, but they are blackened. that someone tweaked the isotopic shift is not logic, as it is useless... heat is the question. forbidding isotopic measurement was possible as it is IP protected. that Ni62 is consumed just when they stop the reactor, while it show no evidence of exhaustion, is not logic. one possible idea is that the Ni62 transmutation may be the cause of the COP improvement after few days of test. only an idea... not sure at all. it can be lattice reorganisation, decontaminations... 2014-10-09 5:29 GMT+02:00 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com: so the claim is essentially that this soup of elements were also consumed to exhaustion, without changing power input or output as their quantities reduced, in an amazingly perfect process that has as its only product the highest binding energy Ni62 (also consuming Ni64) and without creating any observable radiation during the process and no radiative ash. It will require a very high level of proof to convince the world of the truth of that. On 9 October 2014 11:15, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same assumption that the testers suffer from. The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. Did you see this line on page 53? Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: De-cloaking long term lurker. Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions: - The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes produced? - The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni just happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must have done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly. - Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet the reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the test. To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) behaviour. If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into the unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes, focused microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and facilities to make any judgement on things like this. I'm happy with black box reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better. Unless and until truly independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the world. I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track record of sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will need independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi. On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was the best way to do so. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research. 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find out he is faking. Long term,
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
beware of the streelight effect. we have no isotopic evidence about hydrogen and helium one of my hypothesis is that hydrogen is fused with symmetric p-e-p d-e-d t-e-t and fission, and anecdotal fusion with heavy compounds like Li or Ni, or Fe, of even number of hydrogen as iwamura observed... maybe Li6 is not transmuted, but created from t-e-t - he6 - li6+beta- 2014-10-09 6:06 GMT+02:00 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com: P29: By the researchers calculations there are 3MWh released from transmutation of Li7, and Ni isotopes, and supposedly all of the other initial chemicals transmuted into Ni too as not present in Ash (which would release huge, though unquantified amounts of binding energy), yet only 1.5MWh output recorded, and calorimetry which is supposed to be accurate to ~10%. more magic involved? fusion + fission transmutations that release copious neutrinos with no gammas, betas, neutrons or alphas? It's starting to smell. On 9 October 2014 11:52, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of material that was taken from within the reactor as ash. Did they recover approximately the same amount as was put in? Also, I do not recall how much of the ash by weight was nickel and lithium. Perhaps I need to read the report again to look for these details. Does anyone know whether or not the isotropic shifted metals actually added up to the total amount of nickel, etc. at the beginning? I would not be surprised to find that some of the metals from the fuel found their way to being attached to the body of the reactor due to the extreme temperatures. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 8, 2014 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I can't imagine how, but perhaps what was left behind inside the reactor when added to the ash would show that no isotopic shifts took place. Sorry, but that makes no sense. The material that came out proves there are isotopic shifts. What stayed behind cannot unprove that. What did you have in mind? That the other isotopes all got left behind? That would be an isotope separation technology of a totally unexpected and inexplicable new type. It would be as miraculous as transmutation. Also, if you cannot imagine how then your assertion has no place in a serious scientific discussion. You have to imagine how, and other people have to agree that what you imagine is plausible. This is not a fantasy role playing game, where you can invoke dragons or miracles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Two things: On 10/08/2014 11:07 PM, Robert Lynn wrote: The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes produced? Patterson, in 1996-1998, had a nickel-hydrogen system. He noticed, as well, that the system would reduce the amount radioactive material in uranium and water. http://consciouslifenews.com/patterson-power-cell-cold-fusion-energy-clean-radioactive-waste/ * The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni just happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must have done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly. It does look like the system ran until its fuel was exhausted. The unused fuel shows the natural isotope composition from both SIMS and ICP-MS, i.e. 58 Ni (68.1%), 60 Ni (26.2%), 61 Ni (1.1%), 62 Ni (3.6%), and 64 Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58 Ni (0.8.%), 60 Ni (0.5%), 61 Ni (0%), 62 Ni (98.7%), 64 Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58 Ni (0.8%), 60 Ni(0.3%), 61 Ni (0%), 62 Ni (99.3%), 64 Ni (0%). Craig
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
And being a 3rd part test I would assume Rossi does not have access or opportunity to switch out anything. From: Blaze Spinnaker [mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was the best way to do so. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.commailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research. 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find out he is faking. Long term, he will fail. So what short term gain can there be? 3. Along the same lines, if it is not true, he cannot get a patent for it, or a Nobel, or anything else. 4. Since people would soon distrust him, this would get in the way of proving the excess heat is real, and setting up commercial ventures. The excess heat is the only thing with commercial value at this stage, and Rossi is only interested in commercial development. He does not give a fig about science. Levi and Rossi's backers also have zero motivation to fake the Ni results. It would not benefit them at all, for the same set of reasons. Can you suggest any reason he would want to do this? Since this is your hypothesis, it is up to you to give a plausible reason why it might be true. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
On 10/09/2014 07:00 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: And being a 3^rd part test I would assume Rossi does not have access or opportunity to switch out anything. From page 7 of the report: The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration. Craig
RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
OTOH… If it wasn’t new physics then it would have been solved long ago. There is enough information disclosed now for knowledgeable researchers to gather their own data. There is almost certainly efforts to borrow design and material property disclosed in this report by Rossi’s competitors and a host of researchers trying to replicate the results. I think we will start to hear much more from both individuals and industry in that respect now that the race is suddenly on to grab the IP responsible for these “miraculous” results. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 8:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Many things do not add up here, especially the drastic changes from the original E-Cat. The more I read the more skeptical is my outlook on this. Could some clever troll have gotten hold of the manuscript and changed it just enough to make it barely believable, so long as one does not look too deeply ? Are we getting off on the13th Floor? From: Blaze Spinnaker The simple reality is this - either Rossi has just changed reality as we know it or not. There is no longer a gray area at all. I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. I'm not betting my life though. There's a possibility, not that slim, that he might actually have done it.
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
A point of clarification if I might. The siloxane was never present in the reactor. It was the adhesive used to fix the ash particles, after removal from the reactor, so they could be analyzed for isotopic composition. The odd thing about the isotopic analysis: if you read the appendix you will note that the analyzers had a SEM with dozens of differently sized and shaped particles present, they chose three specific particles for analysis and got different results for each. That seems to introduce a bias that makes drawing conclusions problematic. If some of the other dozens of particles that were present had been analyzed as well would that have painted a different picture? On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The dimethyl siloxane type of polymer will confine hydrogen since oxygen carbon and silicon all keep hydrogen from escaping. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Lithium Aluminum Hydride was not added to the fuel mix for its good looks. The Hydride had a definite purpose. Sorry, the reactor is a Nickel Hydrogen reactor. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Sorry – but this reactor is made of alumina – which is a proton conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after startup. All of the initial hydrogen is gone within an hour due to hydrogen diffusion. This looks like a lithium-nickel reactor. *From:* Axil Axil NiH2 Zn* Ni + He 2H(1) + Ni(64) Zn(66)* Step1 Zn(66)* Ni(62) + He(4) Step 2 You also suffer from the nuclear physics syndrome where reactions are fixed over all systems. Each LENR system has a unique transmutation character based on the way the magnetic field emitters are deployed. In fact, each nickel particle produces a different reaction. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: so the claim is essentially that this soup of elements were also consumed to exhaustion, without changing power input or output as their quantities reduced, in an amazingly perfect process that has as its only product the highest binding energy Ni62 (also consuming Ni64) and without creating any observable radiation during the process and no radiative ash. It will require a very high level of proof to convince the world of the truth of that. On 9 October 2014 11:15, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same assumption that the testers suffer from. The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. Did you see this line on page 53? Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: De-cloaking long term lurker. Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions: · The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes produced? · The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni just happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must have done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly. · Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet the reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the test. To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) behaviour. If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into the unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes, focused microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and facilities to make any judgement on things like this. I'm happy with black box reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better. Unless and until truly independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the world. I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track record of sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will need independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi. On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and
RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
From: Axil Axil The dimethyl siloxane type of polymer will confine hydrogen since oxygen carbon and silicon all keep hydrogen from escaping. No, that is incorrect. As Steve High says, this material was never in the reactor. This is a high temperature polymer adhesive, yet it will not confine hydrogen at extreme high temperature, even if was in the reactor (which it wasn’t). You will see a complete de-polymerization at about 400 C. * The Lithium Aluminum Hydride was not added to the fuel mix for its good looks. The Hydride had a definite purpose. This is a well-known hydrogen storage material. Hydrogen is apparently required for startup of this reactor. That is its purpose. According to Wiki, LiAlH4 contains 10.6 wt% hydrogen, and … Due to its high thermodynamic stability this requires temperatures in excess of 400°C to release hydrogen, which is not considered feasible for transportation purposes. Above 400 C, the hydrogen is completely gone from the LiAlH4 - and from the reactor itself. In a 30 day run, approximately 29 days and 22 hours will be hydrogen free. The reason for the initial hydrogen seems to be to startup the reaction, attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
That is true, Fran - but as of now – this is looking more unbelievable to me than the very first Rossi demo – the “steam or hot-air” version. This is no longer a hydrogen reactor. That is a huge change in focus. As someone else has commented, at least now Rossi has now backed himself into a corner and presented details which are open to verification at many levels. It should not take more than a few months for someone to partially replicate the main finding, assuming that a critical detail was not left out. From: Roarty, Francis X OTOH… If it wasn’t new physics then it would have been solved long ago. There is enough information disclosed now for knowledgeable researchers to gather their own data. There is almost certainly efforts to borrow design and material property disclosed in this report by Rossi’s competitors and a host of researchers trying to replicate the results. I think we will start to hear much more from both individuals and industry in that respect now that the race is suddenly on to grab the IP responsible for these “miraculous” results. From: Jones Beene Many things do not add up here, especially the drastic changes from the original E-Cat. The more I read the more skeptical is my outlook on this. Could some clever troll have gotten hold of the manuscript and changed it just enough to make it barely believable, so long as one does not look too deeply ? Are we getting off on the13th Floor? From: Blaze Spinnaker The simple reality is this - either Rossi has just changed reality as we know it or not. There is no longer a gray area at all. I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. I'm not betting my life though. There's a possibility, not that slim, that he might actually have done it. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
At 05:46 PM 10/8/2014, Jones Beene wrote: Many things do not add up here, especially the drastic changes from the original E-Cat. I don't have any problem with the design evolution. The original warm cat went from a large tube boiler to a small tube boiler to a kettle. The hotcat went from a large ceramic+steel tube (with a cavity in the middle), to a closed ceramic+steel tube (both with the heating resistors lengthways) and now to a smaller ceramic tube with helical resistors. But the heating resistors were always on the outside.
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: The fraud hypothesis is an obvious option. If it is so obvious then please explain how it would be done. By Rossi, I mean. Obviously if Levi et al. wanted to commit fraud they could simply publish fake data. They could make up the whole thing without doing an experiment. You should please explain how Rossi made Levi's instruments give the wrong answer. If you cannot do this then you have no business saying that the fraud hypothesis is an obvious option. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
--On Thursday, October 09, 2014 5:07 AM -0400 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: It does look like the system ran until its fuel was exhausted. The unused fuel shows the natural isotope composition from both SIMS and ICP-MS, i.e. 58 Ni (68.1%), 60 Ni (26.2%), 61 Ni (1.1%), 62 Ni (3.6%), and 64 Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58 Ni (0.8.%), 60 Ni (0.5%), 61 Ni (0%), 62 Ni (98.7%), 64 Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58 Ni (0.8%), 60 Ni(0.3%), 61 Ni (0%), 62 Ni (99.3%), 64 Ni (0%). Craig They only analyzes a few grains of the ash. I doubt that the ash is homogenous isotropic so it is likely incorrect to assume that system ran to exhaustion. Maybe the ash is predominately spent fuel while most of the fuel remains active. Ron
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
yes, they probably choosed the most extreme sample to make a statement. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Ron Wormus prot...@frii.com wrote: --On Thursday, October 09, 2014 5:07 AM -0400 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: It does look like the system ran until its fuel was exhausted. The unused fuel shows the natural isotope composition from both SIMS and ICP-MS, i.e. 58 Ni (68.1%), 60 Ni (26.2%), 61 Ni (1.1%), 62 Ni (3.6%), and 64 Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58 Ni (0.8.%), 60 Ni (0.5%), 61 Ni (0%), 62 Ni (98.7%), 64 Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58 Ni (0.8%), 60 Ni(0.3%), 61 Ni (0%), 62 Ni (99.3%), 64 Ni (0%). Craig They only analyzes a few grains of the ash. I doubt that the ash is homogenous isotropic so it is likely incorrect to assume that system ran to exhaustion. Maybe the ash is predominately spent fuel while most of the fuel remains active. Ron
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Jones, I think you have far insufficient data to jump to the conclusion that this is no longer a Ni-H reaction. Earlier, the hotCat used stainless, and it worked just fine. Before that, it was just added H2 gas. Just because alumina is used now does not mean it is beta alumina or even uncoated alumina and that all of the H2 leaked out. Here is an example of an alpha alumina coating that can be added to prevent diffusion of hydrogen: http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560 . I believe the process to still be a Ni-H reaction. That having been said, the 1g of active fuel powder + hydride would not be enough hydride to provide much H2 pressure in the large alumina tube (of course, we don't have a good idea what the internal volume looks like). Apparently when the powder was added, the device was shaken vigorously to disperse the small amount of powder inside the cylinder. Storms has noted before that there appears to be an unusual radiation coming from some of his tests that activated the window in his GM tube. It appears that transmutation could be caused at a distance; probably with a 1/r^2 sort of density of transmutation. Of course, there is sparse evidence for this too. Bob Higgins On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Sorry – but this reactor is made of alumina – which is a proton conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after startup. All of the initial hydrogen is gone within an hour due to hydrogen diffusion. This looks like a lithium-nickel reactor.
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Thanks this looks fine. Rossi have to declare watt material he used. On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:41:33 -0600, Bob Higgins wrote: Jones, I think you have far insufficient data to jump to the conclusion that this is no longer a Ni-H reaction. Earlier, the hotCat used stainless, and it worked just fine. Before that, it was just added H2 gas. Just because alumina is used now does not mean it is beta alumina or even uncoated alumina and that all of the H2 leaked out. Here is an example of an alpha alumina coating that can be added to prevent diffusion of hydrogen: http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560 [1] . I believe the process to still be a Ni-H reaction. That having been said, the 1g of active fuel powder + hydride would not be enough hydride to provide much H2 pressure in the large alumina tube (of course, we don't have a good idea what the internal volume looks like). Apparently when the powder was added, the device was shaken vigorously to disperse the small amount of powder inside the cylinder. Storms has noted before that there appears to be an unusual radiation coming from some of his tests that activated the window in his GM tube. It appears that transmutation could be caused at a distance; probably with a 1/r^2 sort of density of transmutation. Of course, there is sparse evidence for this too. Bob Higgins On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Sorry - but this reactor is made of alumina - which is a proton conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after startup. All of the initial hydrogen is gone within an hour due to hydrogen diffusion. This looks like a lithium-nickel reactor. Links: -- [1] http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560 [2] mailto:jone...@pacbell.net
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Stephen Pomp asserts that it is possible to use commercially available isotopes to make an ash sample that gives the same values as measured in the report. Setting aside the issues of how Rossi would switch samples and his motivation for doing so, we should ask if Pomp is exaggerating the correspondence between the measured ash values and the commercially available materials. Harry On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: bad logic even a fraudster cannot change the physics of heat. a fraudster need to control his environment. he makes pony show. he ensure condition for his fraud. he does not let people play with his reactor, choose methods... the fraud hypotheis are empty... they don't even consider the consequences of their hypothsis and how it will have been spotted... how it could have been spotted according to the protocol. the fraud theory have to propose a reliable way to fraud... not just luck. they have to prove that it cannot be spotted, not only the the measurement don, but by the one that could have been done reasonably... moreover Rossi is not a convicted fraudster, but a loose polluting industrialist as the justice said. this is an urban myth. his numerous mistakes and failures are not incoherent with Italian justice opinion, with his clients opinion, with his bosses opinions, with Mats lewan ... creative, yes. real yes, loose and stubborn, sometime... that is what makes disruptive inventors. nice and cautious guys follow the train, don't lead it. 2014-10-09 3:58 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com: Jed, it doesn't matter. If the ash is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud. Plain and simple. I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry. There are no such complexities in the ash which makes the discussion very straightforward. He either switched it out or he didn't. He's either a liar or he isn't. It's pretty simple.. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several hundred other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds? In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera? If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, it was caused by invisible unicorns. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to FP. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
I think this report was very good from many aspects. I understand from the comments that the Pomp's of this world now have one and only one way to deny the existence of Rossi's E-cat and that is to say that Rossi is an fraud and a magician. As much as I want to be critical and as much as it is OK to be skeptic, there are too many people involved in the process to say that fraud is an option. I am sure that Rossi have had to demonstrate that the E=cat works for his investors-they do not want to lose capital. I know that the people doing the test are concerned about there reputation - they do not want to lose credibility as scientists. If Rossi is able to fool us all I am sure that he could go to Vegas and compete with David Copperfield earning much more money. (and status). The alternative is that all others involved are :) Nae!! Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:08 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen Pomp asserts that it is possible to use commercially available isotopes to make an ash sample that gives the same values as measured in the report. Setting aside the issues of how Rossi would switch samples and his motivation for doing so, we should ask if Pomp is exaggerating the correspondence between the measured ash values and the commercially available materials. Harry On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: bad logic even a fraudster cannot change the physics of heat. a fraudster need to control his environment. he makes pony show. he ensure condition for his fraud. he does not let people play with his reactor, choose methods... the fraud hypotheis are empty... they don't even consider the consequences of their hypothsis and how it will have been spotted... how it could have been spotted according to the protocol. the fraud theory have to propose a reliable way to fraud... not just luck. they have to prove that it cannot be spotted, not only the the measurement don, but by the one that could have been done reasonably... moreover Rossi is not a convicted fraudster, but a loose polluting industrialist as the justice said. this is an urban myth. his numerous mistakes and failures are not incoherent with Italian justice opinion, with his clients opinion, with his bosses opinions, with Mats lewan ... creative, yes. real yes, loose and stubborn, sometime... that is what makes disruptive inventors. nice and cautious guys follow the train, don't lead it. 2014-10-09 3:58 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com: Jed, it doesn't matter. If the ash is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud. Plain and simple. I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry. There are no such complexities in the ash which makes the discussion very straightforward. He either switched it out or he didn't. He's either a liar or he isn't. It's pretty simple.. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several hundred other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds? In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera? If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, it was caused by invisible unicorns. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to FP. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: yes, they probably choosed the most extreme sample to make a statement. I do not think they chose the samples. I think they only analyzed two and they reported on both. If they had analyzed 10 or 20 I think they would've said so. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
I think a line is being crossed in regard to the accusations made. While there are many points to be debated, accusing professionals of being part of a fraud is something that should answered in a courtroom as defamation. -
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
This is correct thinking and a real path to truth. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: tthe isotopic shift observed is probably only a side effect of the real reaction. from others LENR experiments one can suspect that hydrogen is the fuel, and that Ni is just modified. that the surface of the powder is pure Ni62 maye be simply that it is cooked by the reactions, stay stable, and work anyway. it is like a barbecue made with bricks. at the end the bricks are all black, and they stay black. they don't burn, but they are blackened. that someone tweaked the isotopic shift is not logic, as it is useless... heat is the question. forbidding isotopic measurement was possible as it is IP protected. that Ni62 is consumed just when they stop the reactor, while it show no evidence of exhaustion, is not logic. one possible idea is that the Ni62 transmutation may be the cause of the COP improvement after few days of test. only an idea... not sure at all. it can be lattice reorganisation, decontaminations... 2014-10-09 5:29 GMT+02:00 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com: so the claim is essentially that this soup of elements were also consumed to exhaustion, without changing power input or output as their quantities reduced, in an amazingly perfect process that has as its only product the highest binding energy Ni62 (also consuming Ni64) and without creating any observable radiation during the process and no radiative ash. It will require a very high level of proof to convince the world of the truth of that. On 9 October 2014 11:15, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same assumption that the testers suffer from. The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. Did you see this line on page 53? Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: De-cloaking long term lurker. Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions: - The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes produced? - The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni just happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must have done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly. - Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet the reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the test. To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) behaviour. If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into the unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes, focused microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and facilities to make any judgement on things like this. I'm happy with black box reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better. Unless and until truly independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the world. I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track record of sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will need independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi. On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was the best way to do so. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research. 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this technology ever goes anywhere it will
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: I think a line is being crossed in regard to the accusations made. While there are many points to be debated, accusing professionals of being part of a fraud is something that should answered in a courtroom as defamation. I agree with your sentiments, but people have been making these accusations since March 23, 1989. There is no escaping it. This is the only argument the skeptics have left. In March 1989 the profs at MIT made accusations of fraud which were recorded on audiotape by a reporter for the Boston Globe. Is a good thing he made a recording. Otherwise he would have been fired when he published the attacks, because the profs denied what they said. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This is correct thinking and a real path to truth. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: tthe isotopic shift observed is probably only a side effect of the real reaction. from others LENR experiments one can suspect that hydrogen is the fuel, and that Ni is just modified. that the surface of the powder is pure Ni62 maye be simply that it is cooked by the reactions, stay stable, and work anyway. I agree this is the most plausible-sounding scenario proposed here so far. It beats my suggestion that only the surface layers of material transmuted. So-called host metal transmutations have been observed in several experiments. We assume they are host metal rather than the main energy generating reactions. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
From an electromagnetic point of view, nickel and lithium perform the same no matter how many neutrons are included in their nuclei. The testers should not have run the reactor at 1400C. That high operational temperature would have partially melted many of the nickel particles thereby reducing the power output of the test reactor. Melted particles are pictured in appendix 3 of the test results. The testers may have wanted to increase the COP to as high a level as they could push the reactor to provide. This may have had a reverse effect and the reactor might have begun to fail. To keep the test positive, this could be the reason for the early test termination. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This is correct thinking and a real path to truth. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: tthe isotopic shift observed is probably only a side effect of the real reaction. from others LENR experiments one can suspect that hydrogen is the fuel, and that Ni is just modified. that the surface of the powder is pure Ni62 maye be simply that it is cooked by the reactions, stay stable, and work anyway. I agree this is the most plausible-sounding scenario proposed here so far. It beats my suggestion that only the surface layers of material transmuted. So-called host metal transmutations have been observed in several experiments. We assume they are host metal rather than the main energy generating reactions. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The testers should not have run the reactor at 1400C. I do not think they knew it would get that hot. That high operational temperature would have partially melted many of the nickel particles thereby reducing the power output of the test reactor. Melted particles are pictured in appendix 3 of the test results. The testers may have wanted to increase the COP to as high a level as they could push the reactor to provide. No, they said just the opposite. They avoided pushing the reactor to its limits. They avoided the use of pulsed input. Quote: In order to assure that the reactor would operate for a prolonged length of time, we chose to supply power to the E-Cat in such a way as to keep it working in a stable and controlled manner. For this reason, the performances obtained do not reflect the maximum potential of the reactor, which was not an object of study here. And earlier: . . . In a few minutes, the reactor body reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is wonderfully simple calorimetry. The easiest I have seen in cold fusion. If you cannot understand this, you cannot understand any experiment, and you know nothing about this subject. To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion. - The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than the live run. - The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine. I don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind of additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the calibration run). Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at the same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working fluid, calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the control and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the live run. The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a distraction. That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not a physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number, and it probably a much better number than that. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Excellent point. Would be easy enough to do a second control run even now to add some confidence to the calorimetry. The alumina + wire will be off-the-shelf all someone need do is ask Rossi for specs of tube and wire - he should be happy to provide them in the interests of clarity. On 10 October 2014 13:40, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is wonderfully simple calorimetry. The easiest I have seen in cold fusion. If you cannot understand this, you cannot understand any experiment, and you know nothing about this subject. To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion. - The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than the live run. - The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine. I don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind of additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the calibration run). Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at the same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working fluid, calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the control and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the live run. The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a distraction. That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not a physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number, and it probably a much better number than that. Eric
[Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Pomp, pomp, pomp: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html He apparently believes that calorimetry does not work, Prof. Stephan Boltzman are frauds, and the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Incorrigible is the word that comes to mind. I am not a bit surprised. I had no doubt the skeptics would respond this way. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Who took the fuel-ash samples, and there? I can not find a account for this. On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:57:13 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Pomp, pomp, pomp: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html [1] He apparently believes that calorimetry does not work, Prof. Stephan Boltzman are frauds, and the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Incorrigible is the word that comes to mind. I am not a bit surprised. I had no doubt the skeptics would respond this way. - Jed Links: -- [1] http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
it seems to be as Beaudette observed with nuclear physicist. they imagine calorimetry is not science by cooking (and even cooking is serious) 2014-10-08 23:57 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Pomp, pomp, pomp: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html He apparently believes that calorimetry does not work, Prof. Stephan Boltzman are frauds, and the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Incorrigible is the word that comes to mind. I am not a bit surprised. I had no doubt the skeptics would respond this way. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Pomp makes a point though... the whole document is meaningless compared to the ash measurement. Who cares about heat / input / blah blah lbah if we're doing transumation without radiation. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: it seems to be as Beaudette observed with nuclear physicist. they imagine calorimetry is not science by cooking (and even cooking is serious) 2014-10-08 23:57 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Pomp, pomp, pomp: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html He apparently believes that calorimetry does not work, Prof. Stephan Boltzman are frauds, and the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Incorrigible is the word that comes to mind. I am not a bit surprised. I had no doubt the skeptics would respond this way. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
The simple reality is this - either Rossi has just changed reality as we know it or not. There is no longer a gray area at all. I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. I'm not betting my life though. There's a possibility, not that slim, that he might actually have done it. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Pomp makes a point though... the whole document is meaningless compared to the ash measurement. Who cares about heat / input / blah blah lbah if we're doing transumation without radiation. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: it seems to be as Beaudette observed with nuclear physicist. they imagine calorimetry is not science by cooking (and even cooking is serious) 2014-10-08 23:57 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Pomp, pomp, pomp: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html He apparently believes that calorimetry does not work, Prof. Stephan Boltzman are frauds, and the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Incorrigible is the word that comes to mind. I am not a bit surprised. I had no doubt the skeptics would respond this way. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
I have to admit that it would be trivially easy for an apprentice magician to construct a container into which you insert (say) white powder as fuel and later on extract black powder as ash. But the calorimetry stands. Pomp doesn't even denigrate the calorimetry : he just ignores it Because none of the measurements presented on the previous 26 pages matter ...
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I have to admit that it would be trivially easy for an apprentice magician to construct a container into which you insert (say) white powder as fuel and later on extract black powder as ash. But the calorimetry stands. Pomp doesn't even denigrate the calorimetry : he just ignores it Because none of the measurements presented on the previous 26 pages matter ...
RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Many things do not add up here, especially the drastic changes from the original E-Cat. The more I read the more skeptical is my outlook on this. Could some clever troll have gotten hold of the manuscript and changed it just enough to make it barely believable, so long as one does not look too deeply ? Are we getting off on the13th Floor? From: Blaze Spinnaker The simple reality is this - either Rossi has just changed reality as we know it or not. There is no longer a gray area at all. I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. I'm not betting my life though. There's a possibility, not that slim, that he might actually have done it.
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Transmutation has be seen in LENR experiments for many years and even Ed Storms says that Transmutation has nothing to do with the LENR reaction. This test result does not tell us anything new. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Many things do not add up here, especially the drastic changes from the original E-Cat. The more I read the more skeptical is my outlook on this. Could some clever troll have gotten hold of the manuscript and changed it just enough to make it barely believable, so long as one does not look too deeply ? Are we getting off on the13th Floor? *From:* Blaze Spinnaker The simple reality is this - either Rossi has just changed reality as we know it or not. There is no longer a gray area at all. I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. I'm not betting my life though. There's a possibility, not that slim, that he might actually have done it.
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
From the last line on page 53... Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. Does this not mean that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn was consumed by the reaction? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Transmutation has be seen in LENR experiments for many years and even Ed Storms says that Transmutation has nothing to do with the LENR reaction. This test result does not tell us anything new. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Many things do not add up here, especially the drastic changes from the original E-Cat. The more I read the more skeptical is my outlook on this. Could some clever troll have gotten hold of the manuscript and changed it just enough to make it barely believable, so long as one does not look too deeply ? Are we getting off on the13th Floor? *From:* Blaze Spinnaker The simple reality is this - either Rossi has just changed reality as we know it or not. There is no longer a gray area at all. I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. I'm not betting my life though. There's a possibility, not that slim, that he might actually have done it.
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several hundred other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds? In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera? If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, it was caused by invisible unicorns. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to FP. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
I meant that Rossi is NO more miraculous than what FP and hundreds of others have done. Only the scale is larger. The Chicago Pile 1 one-watt nuclear reactor was as momentous as the fission bomb explosion. The scale was different, but they were equally convincing. If you do not believe that, or you do not understand it, you fail to understand science. A fraction of a watt from Fleischmann, Miles or McKubre is harbinger of the future just as much as Rossi's present reactors are. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Jed, it doesn't matter. If the ash is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud. Plain and simple. I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry. There are no such complexities in the ash which makes the discussion very straightforward. He either switched it out or he didn't. He's either a liar or he isn't. It's pretty simple.. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several hundred other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds? In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera? If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, it was caused by invisible unicorns. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to FP. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
One possibility that I haven't seen discussed is that the internals of the reactor are responsible for the change in composition in some way. I can't imagine how, but perhaps what was left behind inside the reactor when added to the ash would show that no isotopic shifts took place. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, it doesn't matter. If the ash is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud. Plain and simple. I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry. There are no such complexities in the ash which makes the discussion very straightforward. He either switched it out or he didn't. He's either a liar or he isn't. It's pretty simple.. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several hundred other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds? In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera? If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, it was caused by invisible unicorns. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to FP. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Jed, don't you think it is strange that the isotopic composition of the ash closely resembles what is commercially available. Also the ash is free of other elements that were present before the run. That would make sense if the ash came from a commercial source which didn't contain these elements. This issue deserves prompt attention. Harry On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, it doesn't matter. If the ash is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud. Plain and simple. I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry. There are no such complexities in the ash which makes the discussion very straightforward. He either switched it out or he didn't. He's either a liar or he isn't. It's pretty simple.. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several hundred other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds? In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera? If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, it was caused by invisible unicorns. It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that we know. That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to FP. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
From Blaze I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry. But Mom! Why can't I stay up till 10:00 PM? Because I told you so. Now go to bed! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Jed sez: Pomp, pomp, pomp: Because the bible of nuclear physics tells me so. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Blaze sed: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model See item #3: Bargaining Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Another possibility is that someone switched out the ash on Rossi to discredit him However, I would have assumed that Rossi would have complained about that immediately on his blog On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Blaze sed: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model See item #3: Bargaining Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research. 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find out he is faking. Long term, he will fail. So what short term gain can there be? 3. Along the same lines, if it is not true, he cannot get a patent for it, or a Nobel, or anything else. 4. Since people would soon distrust him, this would get in the way of proving the excess heat is real, and setting up commercial ventures. The excess heat is the only thing with commercial value at this stage, and Rossi is only interested in commercial development. He does not give a fig about science. Levi and Rossi's backers also have zero motivation to fake the Ni results. It would not benefit them at all, for the same set of reasons. Can you suggest any reason he *would* want to do this? Since this is your hypothesis, it is up to you to give a plausible reason why it might be true. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Lithium and nickel are just the spark plugs of the reaction. Other elements were transmuted but the ash analysis did not pick this part of the reaction mechanism up. There was a preconception of what the reaction should look like that has no basis in reality. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Another possibility is that someone switched out the ash on Rossi to discredit him However, I would have assumed that Rossi would have complained about that immediately on his blog On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Blaze sed: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model See item #3: Bargaining Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was the best way to do so. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research. 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find out he is faking. Long term, he will fail. So what short term gain can there be? 3. Along the same lines, if it is not true, he cannot get a patent for it, or a Nobel, or anything else. 4. Since people would soon distrust him, this would get in the way of proving the excess heat is real, and setting up commercial ventures. The excess heat is the only thing with commercial value at this stage, and Rossi is only interested in commercial development. He does not give a fig about science. Levi and Rossi's backers also have zero motivation to fake the Ni results. It would not benefit them at all, for the same set of reasons. Can you suggest any reason he *would* want to do this? Since this is your hypothesis, it is up to you to give a plausible reason why it might be true. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Unfortunate that in this day and age of trivial-cost 24/7 video surveillance that there isn't a complete audio-video log of such a critical experiment. Such precautions would, of course, be unprecedented but no more so than the purported impact of the technology. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Another possibility is that someone switched out the ash on Rossi to discredit him However, I would have assumed that Rossi would have complained about that immediately on his blog On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Blaze sed: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model See item #3: Bargaining Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
notice that there was no copper transmutation in this test. The reason: whenever you deploy the power in a different way, you change what the powder will produce in the reaction. Rossi glued the powder down using a silicon glue. He wanted to spread the powder out. He did not pack the powder into a condensed volume and copper was not produced. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research. 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find out he is faking. Long term, he will fail. So what short term gain can there be? 3. Along the same lines, if it is not true, he cannot get a patent for it, or a Nobel, or anything else. 4. Since people would soon distrust him, this would get in the way of proving the excess heat is real, and setting up commercial ventures. The excess heat is the only thing with commercial value at this stage, and Rossi is only interested in commercial development. He does not give a fig about science. Levi and Rossi's backers also have zero motivation to fake the Ni results. It would not benefit them at all, for the same set of reasons. Can you suggest any reason he *would* want to do this? Since this is your hypothesis, it is up to you to give a plausible reason why it might be true. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was the best way to do so. Do you mean, someone else swapped out the ash, putting in unnatural isotopic materials? I do not think that is possible. Only Levi et al. and Rossi came in contact with the reactor. The reactor was recorded on video the whole time. No one else had an opportunity to do this. They have a sample of the material from before the test, and it has no isotopic anomalies. The only people physically capable of going this would be the researchers, Rossi, or the people conducting the mass spec. analysis. None of them has any motive to fake the result. On the contrary, it is certain they would be caught, and this would end their careers. And why would any of them want to discredit themselves or Rossi in the first place? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunate that in this day and age of trivial-cost 24/7 video surveillance that there isn't a complete audio-video log of such a critical experiment. Such precautions would, of course, be unprecedented but no more so than the purported impact of the technology. They made a complete video of the experiment, plus a IR camera video. If someone tinkered with the cell both would show it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry. This is wonderfully simple calorimetry. The easiest I have seen in cold fusion. If you cannot understand this, you cannot understand any experiment, and you know nothing about this subject. For me, anyway, the calorimetry is much easier to understand than the mass spectroscopy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I can't imagine how, but perhaps what was left behind inside the reactor when added to the ash would show that no isotopic shifts took place. Sorry, but that makes no sense. The material that came out proves there are isotopic shifts. What stayed behind cannot unprove that. What did you have in mind? That the other isotopes all got left behind? That would be an isotope separation technology of a totally unexpected and inexplicable new type. It would be as miraculous as transmutation. Also, if you cannot imagine how then your assertion has no place in a serious scientific discussion. You have to imagine how, and other people have to agree that what you imagine is plausible. This is not a fantasy role playing game, where you can invoke dragons or miracles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunate that in this day and age of trivial-cost 24/7 video surveillance that there isn't a complete audio-video log of such a critical experiment. Such precautions would, of course, be unprecedented but no more so than the purported impact of the technology. They made a complete video of the experiment, plus a IR camera video. If someone tinkered with the cell both would show it. Good. That nails a big piece of this jellyfish to the wall.
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
It is strange if the ash contents really do resemble what is available commercially. I read one suggestion on facebook, that the reactor could contian special compartments like a magician's trick box . One thing goes in and a different thing comes out depending on how the box is manipulated. Harry On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunate that in this day and age of trivial-cost 24/7 video surveillance that there isn't a complete audio-video log of such a critical experiment. Such precautions would, of course, be unprecedented but no more so than the purported impact of the technology. They made a complete video of the experiment, plus a IR camera video. If someone tinkered with the cell both would show it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
De-cloaking long term lurker. Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions: - The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes produced? - The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni just happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must have done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly. - Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet the reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the test. To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) behaviour. If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into the unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes, focused microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and facilities to make any judgement on things like this. I'm happy with black box reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better. Unless and until truly independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the world. I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track record of sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will need independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi. On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was the best way to do so. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research. 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find out he is faking. Long term, he will fail. So what short term gain can there be? 3. Along the same lines, if it is not true, he cannot get a patent for it, or a Nobel, or anything else. 4. Since people would soon distrust him, this would get in the way of proving the excess heat is real, and setting up commercial ventures. The excess heat is the only thing with commercial value at this stage, and Rossi is only interested in commercial development. He does not give a fig about science. Levi and Rossi's backers also have zero motivation to fake the Ni results. It would not benefit them at all, for the same set of reasons. Can you suggest any reason he *would* want to do this? Since this is your hypothesis, it is up to you to give a plausible reason why it might be true. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same assumption that the testers suffer from. The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. Did you see this line on page 53? Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: De-cloaking long term lurker. Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions: - The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes produced? - The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni just happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must have done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly. - Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet the reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the test. To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) behaviour. If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into the unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes, focused microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and facilities to make any judgement on things like this. I'm happy with black box reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better. Unless and until truly independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the world. I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track record of sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will need independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi. On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was the best way to do so. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research. 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find out he is faking. Long term, he will fail. So what short term gain can there be? 3. Along the same lines, if it is not true, he cannot get a patent for it, or a Nobel, or anything else. 4. Since people would soon distrust him, this would get in the way of proving the excess heat is real, and setting up commercial ventures. The excess heat is the only thing with commercial value at this stage, and Rossi is only interested in commercial development. He does not give a fig about science. Levi and Rossi's backers also have zero motivation to fake the Ni results. It would not benefit them at all, for the same set of reasons. Can you suggest any reason he *would* want to do this? Since this is your hypothesis, it is up to you to give a plausible reason why it might be true. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same assumption that the testers suffer from. The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. Did you see this line on page 53? Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. Unfortunately, it is also consistent with the fraud theory that the ash came from a commercial source. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Can you get Ni62 at 90% enragement from a commercial source? Why not just add some copper to the ash, it is cheaper to create that fraud. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:21 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same assumption that the testers suffer from. The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. Did you see this line on page 53? Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. Unfortunately, it is also consistent with the fraud theory that the ash came from a commercial source. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Each nickel particle had a different surface presentation and isotopic content. That would be hard to get COTS. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Can you get Ni62 at 90% enragement from a commercial source? Why not just add some copper to the ash, it is cheaper to create that fraud. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:21 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same assumption that the testers suffer from. The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. Did you see this line on page 53? Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. Unfortunately, it is also consistent with the fraud theory that the ash came from a commercial source. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
so the claim is essentially that this soup of elements were also consumed to exhaustion, without changing power input or output as their quantities reduced, in an amazingly perfect process that has as its only product the highest binding energy Ni62 (also consuming Ni64) and without creating any observable radiation during the process and no radiative ash. It will require a very high level of proof to convince the world of the truth of that. On 9 October 2014 11:15, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same assumption that the testers suffer from. The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. Did you see this line on page 53? Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: De-cloaking long term lurker. Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions: - The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes produced? - The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni just happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must have done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly. - Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet the reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the test. To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) behaviour. If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into the unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes, focused microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and facilities to make any judgement on things like this. I'm happy with black box reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better. Unless and until truly independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the world. I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track record of sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will need independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi. On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was the best way to do so. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research. 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find out he is faking. Long term, he will fail. So what short term gain can there be? 3. Along the same lines, if it is not true, he cannot get a patent for it, or a Nobel, or anything else. 4. Since people would soon distrust him, this would get in the way of proving the excess heat is real, and setting up commercial ventures. The excess heat is the only thing with commercial value at this stage, and Rossi is only interested in commercial development. He does not give a fig about science. Levi and Rossi's backers also have zero motivation to fake the Ni results. It would not benefit them at all, for the same set of reasons. Can you suggest any reason he *would* want to do this? Since this is your hypothesis, it is up to you to give a plausible reason why it might be true. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
NiH2 Zn* Ni + He 2H(1) + Ni(64) Zn(66)* Step1 Zn(66)* Ni(62) + He(4) Step 2 You also suffer from the nuclear physics syndrome where reactions are fixed over all systems. Each LENR system has a unique transmutation character based on the way the magnetic field emitters are deployed. In fact, each nickel particle produces a different reaction. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: so the claim is essentially that this soup of elements were also consumed to exhaustion, without changing power input or output as their quantities reduced, in an amazingly perfect process that has as its only product the highest binding energy Ni62 (also consuming Ni64) and without creating any observable radiation during the process and no radiative ash. It will require a very high level of proof to convince the world of the truth of that. On 9 October 2014 11:15, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same assumption that the testers suffer from. The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. Did you see this line on page 53? Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: De-cloaking long term lurker. Latest test result issues that raise my suspicions: - The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive isotopes produced? - The test is stopped at a pre-determined time where all the Ni just happens to have been converted, and nearly all the Li7, Rossi must have done exhaustive development to judge it so perfectly. - Huge consumption of Li, Ni 'fuel' - almost to exhaustion, yet the reaction power and COP appears to not change significantly through the test. To me that is exceptionally strange (practically magical) behaviour. If I were setting up a fake there are simple means to get power into the unit invisibly- like IR or UV lasers, fiber lasers, x-ray tubes, focused microwaves etc but I don't have enough info about the setup and facilities to make any judgement on things like this. I'm happy with black box reactor approach, and optical thermography/calorimetry is OK for these COPs, but flow calorimetry would be better. Unless and until truly independent testers have full control over the environment and calorimetry in facilities not controlled by Rossi these tests will not convince the world. I'll continue to observe, and hold some hope, but given the track record of sub-par demos and rumours of unpublished negative results I will need independent external testing by other than old associates of Rossi. On 9 October 2014 10:26, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, perhaps someone is trying to discredit Rossi and thought this was the best way to do so. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi switched out the ash, he's a fraud. End of story. Here is something you think about. Why would he switch out the ash? What possible benefit would that bring to him? What motivation would he have? The answers are no reason, none and none. Reasons: 1. The people paying for this work do not care about what causes the effect. They are interested in excess heat. Whether it comes from Ni transmutation or zero-point-energy is beside the point. It will not be more convincing to them if Rossi puts unnatural Ni isotopes into the mix. On the contrary, that will only confuse the issue and delay the research. 2. Suppose he did it. He is bound to be caught sooner or later. If this technology ever goes anywhere it will be independently replicated by people Rossi never meets, in labs he never goes to. It is certain they will find out he is faking. Long term, he will fail. So what short term gain can there be? 3. Along the same lines, if it is not true, he cannot get a patent for it, or a Nobel, or anything else. 4. Since people would soon distrust him, this would get in the way of proving the excess heat is real, and setting up commercial ventures. The excess heat is the only thing with commercial value at this stage, and Rossi is only interested in commercial development. He does not give a fig about science. Levi and Rossi's backers also have zero motivation to fake the Ni results. It would not
Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
According to Pomp you can fake the ash with commercially available samples. Now perhaps Pomp's claim is an exaggeration and it is only possible to roughly approximate the ash. I'll let the experts decide. Harry On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Can you get Ni62 at 90% enragement from a commercial source? Why not just add some copper to the ash, it is cheaper to create that fraud. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:21 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have some unfounded assumptions in your thinking that are the same assumption that the testers suffer from. The reaction does not center on the nickel or the lithium. The LENR transmutation is done in the hydrogen and the aluminum and other elements. Did you see this line on page 53? Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash. This means that C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn were consumed in the LENR reaction. Unfortunately, it is also consistent with the fraud theory that the ash came from a commercial source. Harry
