Re: [Vo]:Rossis Catalyst = RF+DC?
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: I remember a graduate student in a group in which I was a postdoc, crying (crying!) over a series of IR spectra that resulted from her latest series of experiments, saying I will never graduate, this system just does not work, everything just turns to crap. I looked it over and told her to go show them to the prof. He's going to hug you for these. It was not crap at all, the reaction was not stopping where supposed but continuing in an unexpected and new way forming new species until that point never observed. In other words, a discovery (published on the Journal of the American Chemical Society) instead of a third decimal quantification of a known phenomenon (to be published at most in a small journal). But it was going to be tossed out as crap. But it wasn't. The value may have been overlooked by a graduate student, but both you and the professor recognized it. And you seemed to think it was obvious enough to be sure the professor would recognize it. Obviously it's true that sometimes real phenomena are missed or dismissed as crap when they are not expected, but H-Ni has not just been looked at by a graduate student. It has been widely and extensively studied by very many people. And fusion, or the claimed heat from nuclear reactions, is not a subtle thing. If something had an energy density a million times higher than could be explained by chemistry, it's not likely to have been missed, especially since H-Ni nuclear reactions have been claimed for almost 2 decades, by people looking for it.
Re: [Vo]:Rossis Catalyst = RF+DC?
Am 16.11.2011 09:50, schrieb Joshua Cude: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net mailto:mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: I remember a graduate student in a group in which I was a postdoc, crying (crying!) over a series of IR spectra that resulted from her latest series of experiments, saying I will never graduate, this system just does not work, everything just turns to crap. I looked it over and told her to go show them to the prof. He's going to hug you for these. It was not crap at all, the reaction was not stopping where supposed but continuing in an unexpected and new way forming new species until that point never observed. In other words, a discovery (published on the Journal of the American Chemical Society) instead of a third decimal quantification of a known phenomenon (to be published at most in a small journal). But it was going to be tossed out as crap. But it wasn't. The value may have been overlooked by a graduate student, but both you and the professor recognized it. And you seemed to think it was obvious enough to be sure the professor would recognize it. Obviously it's true that sometimes real phenomena are missed or dismissed as crap when they are not expected, but H-Ni has not just been looked at by a graduate student. It has been widely and extensively studied by very many people. And fusion, or the claimed heat from nuclear reactions, is not a subtle thing. If something had an energy density a million times higher than could be explained by chemistry, it's not likely to have been missed, especially since H-Ni nuclear reactions have been claimed for almost 2 decades, by people looking for it. So far I have read, 10e26 atoms must fuse persecond for a kilowatt or 10e23 atoms persecond for a watt. On the other side, high ignition energy is required to get fusion. It is therefore more probable to discover unexpected radiation or transmutation products than excess energy in experiments. Radiation measurement and chemical analysis are very sensitive methods and if nothing reproducible was discovered by accident during worldwide chemical and physical research of metalhydrides is a little bit strange. However in the Marconi Kohärer, there exist sparcs and melting metal, possibly vaporized metal and high temperature gradients in microscopic regions with a high total inner surface and at 1500° remarkable amounts of hydrogen are atomized (if Langmuire was right about this) and this is something that probably nobody has tried in a pressurized hydrogen athmosphere before, because such experiments are not necessary for metalhydride research. Possibly this should be tried, because this was not done before.
Re: [Vo]:Rossis Catalyst = RF+DC?
yes, we recognized it upon seeing the graphs. But: i) I was not mentoring that student, so I did not have a reason to look at those graphs ii) the professor would have gotten only a weekly report saying: reaction attempted on xxx failed that's how the world works, folks. As far as the simplicity of Ni-H or similar: anything is obvious when it becomes obvious. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: I remember a graduate student in a group in which I was a postdoc, crying (crying!) over a series of IR spectra that resulted from her latest series of experiments, saying I will never graduate, this system just does not work, everything just turns to crap. I looked it over and told her to go show them to the prof. He's going to hug you for these. It was not crap at all, the reaction was not stopping where supposed but continuing in an unexpected and new way forming new species until that point never observed. In other words, a discovery (published on the Journal of the American Chemical Society) instead of a third decimal quantification of a known phenomenon (to be published at most in a small journal). But it was going to be tossed out as crap. But it wasn't. The value may have been overlooked by a graduate student, but both you and the professor recognized it. And you seemed to think it was obvious enough to be sure the professor would recognize it. Obviously it's true that sometimes real phenomena are missed or dismissed as crap when they are not expected, but H-Ni has not just been looked at by a graduate student. It has been widely and extensively studied by very many people. And fusion, or the claimed heat from nuclear reactions, is not a subtle thing. If something had an energy density a million times higher than could be explained by chemistry, it's not likely to have been missed, especially since H-Ni nuclear reactions have been claimed for almost 2 decades, by people looking for it. -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
[Vo]:Rossis Catalyst = RF+DC?
Many universities and prominent institutes make experiments with metal powder and hydrogen. The Max Planck Institute for example examines the heat storge capacity at 400° for such arrangements. They also mill powder in ball mills in hydrogen athmossphere to research the hydrogen storage capacity. Many others do similar experiments and research. They try all tricks possible to optimize the effects. Anomalous energy is not reported. They have probly tried any arrangements one could think about. So I think, all chemicals can been excluded as a catalyst. I remember experiments that I made in my youth: rebuilding Marconis wireless telegraph. As a receiver I used a glass tube filled with iron powder. 2 electrodes where in the iron powder, a battery, a lamp and the antenna and ground where connected to it. In german the name of this device is Kohärer. When this arrangement receives RF frequency, the iron particles melt together, the arrangement becomes conductive and the lamp lits up. When the glass tube is shuttered, the melting points are broken and the current is interrupted. This can be repeated ad infinitum. They used this in early history of wireles telegraphy in combination with an electromagnetic hammer, and automated the process. Without doubt, if the current is high enough, high temperatures will develop at the microscopical contact points. If the current is too high the process is not reversible. Rossi mentioned high temperatures (1500°C) inside his device. It is clear, that at the melting points there is high temperature. It is clear this would not work with nanopowder. The particles would glue together irreversible. There must be a optimal particle size that is above the nanometer scale. Could this be the catalyst? High frequency and low DC current applied to the powder at the same time in a hydrogen athmosphere? Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossis Catalyst = RF+DC?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:26 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Many universities and prominent institutes make experiments with metal powder and hydrogen. The Max Planck Institute for example examines the heat storge capacity at 400° for such arrangements. They also mill powder in ball mills in hydrogen athmossphere to research the hydrogen storage capacity. Many others do similar experiments and research. They try all tricks possible to optimize the effects. Anomalous energy is not reported. They have probly tried any arrangements one could think about. So I think, all chemicals can been excluded as a catalyst. In my experience, in most cases one will not find what one is not looking for. That is, only seldom are we able to get beyond our goals and objectives and see all the possible implications of the experiment we are running. Said another way, if it does not perform as we hoped, we call it trash. If they are looking for hydrogen storage, that's what they are looking for, not heat production. Unexpected results will be treated as an error, a fluke, a bad data point. I remember a graduate student in a group in which I was a postdoc, crying (crying!) over a series of IR spectra that resulted from her latest series of experiments, saying I will never graduate, this system just does not work, everything just turns to crap. I looked it over and told her to go show them to the prof. He's going to hug you for these. It was not crap at all, the reaction was not stopping where supposed but continuing in an unexpected and new way forming new species until that point never observed. In other words, a discovery (published on the Journal of the American Chemical Society) instead of a third decimal quantification of a known phenomenon (to be published at most in a small journal). But it was going to be tossed out as crap. Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
Re: [Vo]:Rossis Catalyst = RF+DC?
Am 16.11.2011 08:00, schrieb Marcello Vitale: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:26 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Many universities and prominent institutes make experiments with metal powder and hydrogen. The Max Planck Institute for example examines the heat storge capacity at 400° for such arrangements. They also mill powder in ball mills in hydrogen athmossphere to research the hydrogen storage capacity. Many others do similar experiments and research. They try all tricks possible to optimize the effects. Anomalous energy is not reported. They have probly tried any arrangements one could think about. So I think, all chemicals can been excluded as a catalyst. In my experience, in most cases one will not find what one is not looking for. Edison did not look for hot cathode electron emission. But he discovered it. He was however unable to make prctical use from it, others made this and the theory. Otto Hahn was not looking for fission. He was looking for Transuran elements. He did not recognice fission but he delivered the experimental evidency. Lise Meitner made the theory and came to the conclusion, it is fission. This was absolutely disbelieved, allmost all major scientists believed the atom is undividable by principle at this time. Hofmann was not looking for LSD. But he discovered it. Michelson and Morley where looking for the ether. But they delivered evidence against it. Millikan did not expect to confirm Einsteins theory about photons and light. But he confirmed it. Alchemists whwere not looking for phosphor. But they discovered it. They where however unable to discover it elsewhere. They had the old animistic fire water earth element theory. Others did this. The scientist who discovered that Uran was able to darken photografic film in darkness did not expect this. The moons of Jupiter where not expected, but discovered. Bacterias where not expected, but discovered. I am sure, this list can been extended easily.
