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

[Bob Higgins]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

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

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

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

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

Jones

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

[H LV]

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

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

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

Harry

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

[Bob Cook]

Bob Higgins--

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

Bob Cook

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

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


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


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

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


On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

  Bob Cook

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

  From: Teslaalset 

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


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

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


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

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

[Bob Cook]

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

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

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

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

Bob Cook

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

From: Bob Cook 

Ø  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Higgins]

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

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

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

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

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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

[Jones Beene]

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

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

[Bob Cook]

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

Bob Cook

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Cook

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

From: Teslaalset 

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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

[Bob Cook]

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Cook

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

From: Teslaalset 

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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

So – in conclusion – the LENR “surprise” in the upcoming report is very likely 
to be partially hidden away, once again. Since the year-long report will be 
positive in terms of gain – that will divert attention from the big problem. 
The report will probably not show that the secret sauce – the one which allowed 
it all to happen, is a rare isotope which costs around $10,000 per gram, unless 
you make it yourself. But the accolades and “told-you-so” boasts from the Rossi 
fan-boys could regrettably cover up the hidden reality… that the emperor has