Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: In another post you said Levi will soon get to see inside the cell. I didn't think Rossi would let anyone (except those involved in the manufacturing?)see inside a cell until his patent was granted. Does this mean he expects his patent will be granted soon? He said he hopes to get a patent at about the time of the 1 MW reactor roll-out, which is October. He and Levi both said that Levi will look inside the cell sooner than that. I do not know the schedule. I suppose Levi signed a non-disclosure agreement. I think they want to run the cell for a long time before opening it, for obvious reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: OMG I going to be sick … with laughter. This is much better than SNL ever was …. Cough, cough … yup it’s gotta be that micro-super-nova, [slaps forehead] how could we have missed it !! We didn't miss it. It was discussed here at length. You proposed a preposterous theory that different super-nova produce elements different isotopic ratios. Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the 1940s, would know that is wrong. So far you have added the most misinformation and mistaken information to this particular subject, but I am not sick with laughter. I think you should do your homework before blurting out such mistakes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Regarding this micro-super-nova, note that I said this is improbable meaning I do not believe it. I entertain the hypothesis, which Beene finds entertaining. So far, three improbable ideas have been proposed: 1. Cu amounting to 10% of the cell volume migrates in through stainless steel walls. Presumably, 10% of the Ni migrates out. 2. The cell acts as a micro-super-nova. 3. Actual super-novas produce different isotopic ratios, which is contrary to the last 70 years of astronomy. Beene apparently believes #1 and #3. I do not believe any of them, so Beene is evidently a better candidate for SNL than I am. I have never seen SNL, except for the Palin impersonations, so I wouldn't know about that. Beene also subscribes to a number of other highly improbable notions, such as the idea that professors cannot read digital scales, or that they might overlook a factor of 10 difference between two methods of determining a flow rate. I do not find that laughable. I do not think that laughing at people is appropriate at this forum. I don't see anything funny about any of this. It is rather annoying. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
From: Jed Rothwell * You proposed a preposterous theory that different super-nova produce elements different isotopic ratios. This is not a theory. It is known fact. It is not my proposal. It is seen every day in cosmology. Every supernova is different and even in any one, like the one that preceded our sun, after the initial coalescence of elements, isotopes were redistributed among the planets according to mass, and the isotopic composition of elements varies slightly from planet to planet. EVEN IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. To suggest earth could have a universal ratio of isotopes is beyond preposterous since it is not even the same between planets !!! * Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the 1940s, would know that is wrong. You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data? I challenge you to present a single piece of real evidence for Universal isotope ratios. * So far you have added the most misinformation and mistaken information to this particular subject, but I am not sick with laughter. You should be sick with embarrassment! . and to look like such a uneducated and yet vocal proponent - for this field of LENR. I am ashamed, for the entire field, that you are so misinformed on this important point, and not just that - so stubbornly misinformed. This casts a shadow over everything you have said about Rossi. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ø Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the 1940s, would know that is wrong. You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data? See the work of Townes and, for example, Interstellar isotope ratios from mm-wave molecular absorption spectra. These studies would not be meaningful if isotopic ratios varied in different parts of the universe. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of January 14 wrong?
From: Jed Rothwell * Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the 1940s, would know that is wrong. JB: You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data? * JR: See the work of Townes and, for example, Interstellar isotope ratios from mm-wave molecular absorption spectra. These studies would not be meaningful if isotopic ratios varied in different parts of the universe. LOL. I see you haven't understood this at all, let alone read Townes. Townes measured the `primordial' abundance of the `light elements', in the ISM. This has absolutely nothing to do with heavy elements in planets, all of which have isotopes that come from second or third generation stars, and all of which are vastly different from 'primordial' abundances, and each galaxy will have incorporated literally trillions of unique isotope balances . ..or do you really think that out earth has a primordial balance of copper - which was unaffected by the stellar event which formed out sun? This is preposterous. Again you are showing an incredible intellectual deficit in this argument - and that reflects poorly on Rossi. I am sure that in time, skeptics like Bob Park will pick up on this and beat you into the dirt with it! It is so foolish for you to be promoting this kind of bogosity! There are no heavy elements in the ISM spectrum which can be measured accurately BTW and subsequent stellar processing of the light elements has altered the relative abundances in every single star if you look close enough. That's right every single star has its own ratio of deuterium to hydrogen to helium, and every single nova also produced heavier elements such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in absolutely unique ratios. Copper-63 exists in a different ratio on our own moon, for goodness sake! There dozens of analyses of moon rocks online. When Kullander say it is natural - that is for earth but do you really think that the Rossi reactor, if one ever gets to the moon - will then magically shift gears and start producing fusion debris that matches the natural abundance there? Geeze can't you see the shallowness of your position? Stellar nucleosynthesis is a function of initial mass and composition - and larger mass stars and planets have isotopes which are very different from low mass - so Townes work was on the ISM was essentially meaningless to this, and like Newton's work on alchemy - primitive! Give it up Rothwell - you are beyond wrong and I do not want to make you look even more imbecilic by continuing this thread ad infinitum - but if you want that as part of the record, then so be it. Please do take the time to read your references, though, as it makes things work so much more smoothly . Jones
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of January 14 wrong?
This very interesting paper http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~srf/isotopes/li1.pdf is all about isotope ratios varying from region to region. Sent from my iPhone. On Apr 30, 2011, at 15:56, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jed Rothwell Ø Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the 1940s, would know that is wrong. JB: You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data? Ø JR: See the work of Townes and, for example, Interstellar isotope ratios from mm-wave molecular absorption spectra. These studies would not be meaningful if isotopic ratios varied in different parts of the universe. LOL. I see you haven’t understood this at all, let alone read Townes. Townes measured the `primordial' abundance of the `light elements', in the ISM. This has absolutely nothing to do with heavy elements in planets, all of which have isotopes that come from second or third generation stars, and all of which are vastly different from ‘primordial’ abundances, and each galaxy will have incorporated literally trillions of unique isotope balances … ….or do you really think that out earth has a primordial balance of copper - which was unaffected by the stellar event which formed out sun? This is preposterous. Again you are showing an incredible intellectual deficit in this argument – and that reflects poorly on Rossi. I am sure that in time, skeptics like Bob Park will pick up on this and beat you into the dirt with it! It is so foolish for you to be promoting this kind of bogosity! There are no heavy elements in the ISM spectrum which can be measured accurately BTW and subsequent stellar processing of the light elements has altered the relative abundances in every single star if you look close enough. That’s right every single star has its own ratio of deuterium to hydrogen to helium, and every single nova also produced heavier elements such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in absolutely unique ratios. Copper-63 exists in a different ratio on our own moon, for goodness sake! There dozens of analyses of moon rocks online. When Kullander say it is natural – that is for earth but do you really think that the Rossi reactor, if one ever gets to the moon – will then magically shift gears and start producing fusion debris that matches the natural abundance there? Geeze can’t you see the shallowness of your position? Stellar nucleosynthesis is a function of initial mass and composition - and larger mass stars and planets have isotopes which are very different from low mass - so Townes work was on the ISM was essentially meaningless to this, and like Newton’s work on alchemy – primitive! Give it up Rothwell – you are beyond wrong and I do not want to make you look even more imbecilic by continuing this thread ad infinitum – but if you want that as part of the record, then so be it. Please do take the time to read your references, though, as it makes things work so much more smoothly … Jones
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of January 14 wrong?
I would like to reset the tenor of this recent discussion - back towards our jointly shared goal on this forum of finding the truth about this important breakthrough of A. Rossi. I have come down too hard on Jed, who we all know is articulate and bright and seldom this wrong. However, there comes a point in any give-and-take when things can get out hand and it leaves a deep scar on the record, as preserved in the archives. None of us come away as victors in such a debate. For this I am as guilty as anyone by not being more moderate in framing the argument and the response. In this recent flare-up, being on the correct side of a debate, which is not always the case by any means, has no rewards. As we all know, to be human is to be imperfect; and all of us post in haste and wish we had spent more time with reading the literature, or in the underlying assumptions; or in my case most recently - conflating power vs energy. Mea Culpa. None of us is as smart as all of us is my credo for participation in these debates - and we all are seeking the same kind of clearer understanding in the end. So please - let's drop the contention on this particular point, with all (or most) of us agreeing (or at least acknowledging the overwhelming probability) that the natural ratio of isotopes as seen on earth CANNOT be a universal ratio. That is simply not the way that cosmology works; even if we want it to be different, for the purpose of Rossi's credibility. Furthermore, if and when a natural ratio is seen in nuclear debris, the most likely conclusion to be derived from that is that this particular isotope was NOT involved in whatever reaction created the anomaly. My apologies to other vorticians for the wasted bandwidth, and the edginess of the heated exchanges. This is crucible from which understanding emerges (we hope). Jones
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of January 14 wrong?
Whew! T
[Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
See this interesting discussion on a sceptic page in Sweden: http://www.e-catalyzer.se/viewtopic.php?f=2t=4#p11 -- GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 Euro/mtl.! Jetzt mit gratis Handy-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Angela Kemmler wrote: See this interesting discussion on a sceptic page in Sweden: http://www.e-catalyzer.se/viewtopic.php?f=2t=4#p11 It is a little hard for me to tell which section you are pointing to, but the part about the pump is incorrect. The flow rate was confirmed by leaving the reservoir on the weight scale. Rossi told me that was the main method they use of determining how much water was used. That method is foolproof. Plus they also measured the flow at the end of the hose before turning on the heat. If the pump specifications say it cannot support that flow rate, evidently this is not the pump these commentators think it is, or the specifications are wrong. (In my experience, pump and flowmeter specifications and operator manuals are highly imaginative, and usually intended for some other model.) It says here: Rossi was asked in January 2011 which type of pump was used, but could not or was not willing to tell the pump model. His response was clear. He said Levi brought the pump and the rest of the stuff, and he does not know a thing about it. That's what he said on his blog, and what he told me. I find that reassuring. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
The message below that from Ekstrom says: As the real water throughput was something around 0.6 * 12.1 = 7.3 l/hr, or 121 ml/min. . . . That is incorrect. The real water throughput was 292 ml/min, according to the weight scale and the water collected in the liter cylinder. These people make an assumption about the pump, and then decide it must be true, and from that they reach all sorts of faulty conclusions. I will grant, a more detailed report from Levi would help. His report states they measured the flow rate with a liter cylinder: Before igniting the reactor the water flux was set and measured by collecting, and then weighting, an amount of water in a container in a given time. But Levi does not mention they left the reservoir on the weight scale. (I don't think he does.) The photos show that, and Rossi said it in his blog. Anyway, measuring it into a cylinder trumps some guy's speculation about the pump performance as listed in a manual. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell Rossi was asked in January 2011 which type of pump was used, but could not or was not willing to tell the pump model. His response was clear. He said Levi brought the pump and the rest of the stuff, and he does not know a thing about it. That's what he said on his blog, and what he told me. *I find that reassuring.* Do you really find that reassuring? The most important piece of evidence for excess heating is called into question, and there is no datalogging, no explanation of the large discrepancy in the pumps specifications and Levi's has not presented his notes about the beginning and ending weight - which could have been simply human error - but yet it is nevertheless reassuring that so little firm evidence can be presented in support of extraordinary claims? Hmmm ... I guess if you do not have enough interest in analyzing the claims to actually read the patent, then you can fall for anything. I mention this again, since you stated earlier: I do not think that this much copper can migrate through stainless steel, so I doubt that can explain the presence of the copper. Here is a direct quote from Publication number: US 2011/0005506 “An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that said nickel powder filled metal tube is a *copper tube, said copper tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance,* said tube being encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water” Oh well, let's not let a few difficult little factual problems get in the way of the deification of this genius inventor ... Jones
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jones Beene wrote: used, but could not or was not willing to tell the pump model. His response was clear. He said Levi brought the pump and the rest of the stuff, and he does not know a thing about it. That's what he said on his blog, and what he told me. *I find that reassuring.* Do you really find that reassuring? Yes. It shows this wasn't Rossi's test. It wasn't under his control. The most important piece of evidence for excess heating is called into question, and there is no datalogging, no explanation of the large discrepancy in the pumps specifications and Levi's has not presented his notes about the beginning and ending weight Measuring the change in weight of the reservior is far superior to any method of data logging or trying to measure the flow. Flow meters are a pain in the butt. McKubre, Storms and others prefer to weigh the water. They use a siphon, but it amounts to the same thing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jones Beene wrote: and Levi's has not presented his notes about the beginning and ending weight - which could have been simply human error - but yet it is nevertheless reassuring that so little firm evidence can be presented in support of extraordinary claims? Anything might be human error. But noting changes on a weight scale is easy. I do not think human error is likely in this instance. Here is a direct quote from Publication number: US 2011/0005506 “An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that said nickel powder filled metal tube is a *copper tube, said copper tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance,* said tube being encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water” Oh well, let's not let a few difficult little factual problems get in the way of the deification of this genius inventor ... Does it occur to you that they might have used a copper vessel back then, and they might be using a stainless steel vessel now? Why do you assume this is a lie? If he were still using copper, why would he say it is stainless steel? As soon as Levi opens up the cell, he will see what it is made of. That is supposed to happen soon. How could Rossi benefit by lying about it now? No one is deifying Rossi, least of all me. I have posted numerous messages describing my difficulties with him. You, however, are attacking him -- and me, and Kullander and others -- for no reason. I suggest you tone it down, or shut up. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell and Levi has not presented his notes about the beginning and ending weight - which could have been simply human error - but yet it is nevertheless reassuring that so little firm evidence can be presented in support of extraordinary claims? JR: Anything might be human error. But noting changes on a weight scale is easy. I do not think human error is likely in this instance. Given a well known corollary to Murphy's Law that the probability of an error is inversely proportional to the assumed likelihood of it being correct due to apparent simplicity - I vote for Levi leaving out a zero ... JR: Does it occur to you that they might have used a copper vessel back then, and they might be using a stainless steel vessel now? Why would you even suggest that anyone who goes to the trouble and expense of obtaining a patent would not rely on the application's clear wording? You will lose your protection if you do not follow your own directions as enumerated in the disclosure. Why do you assume this is a lie? Hmm... let's see ... could it be that Rossi seldom tells the truth? By that I mean, have you found the infamous Dr. George Kelly yet? Or the mysterious sale of a company that financed the experiments. Or the thousands of reactors. LOL. The guy is inherently dishonest. This is not an attack - it is factual truth. If he were still using copper, why would he say it is stainless steel? Duh! Of course he would lie about it. He does not want replication but does like to be in the Media Spotlight, so he tries to act like he is being forthright, on occasion. JR: No one is deifying Rossi, least of all me. LOL. It's clear that you are being extremely naïve in your support for these wild claims in their fullest extreme. You, however, are attacking him - and me, and Kullander and others for no reason. I suggest you tone it down, or shut up. Is stating the truth an attack? Is truth not its own justification? I would never have guessed it would get to this on a forum which is supposed to be focused on finding the truth. Sad. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: JR: Anything might be human error. But noting changes on a weight scale is easy. I do not think human error is likely in this instance. Given a well known corollary to Murphy's Law that the probability of an error is inversely proportional to the assumed likelihood of it being correct due to apparent simplicity - I vote for Levi leaving out a zero ... You do realize this would cause a major discrepancy with the value they measured using the 1 liter cylinder. Do your really think they would not notice this? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If he were still using copper, why would he say it is stainless steel? Duh! Of course he would lie about it. He does not want replication but does like to be in the Media Spotlight, so he tries to act like he is being forthright, on occasion. Again, you are missing the point I made. In a few months, or weeks, Levi will open the cell. If it is made of copper on the inside, he will tell everyone. (He has already seen the outside; he would have noticed if it was copper.) So what would be the point of hiding this fact now? It will only delay replications for a short time. It will only embarrass Rossi when the facts come out. I believe you are not thinking these things through. Your assertions seem like hand-waving improbabilities. There is no point to hiding something that will be be made public any day now. It is not likely people made an order-of-magnitude error reading a digital weight scale, and if they did, it is not likely they would fail to notice that the numbers are completely different from the measurement made with the liter cylinder and the stopwatch. You, however, are attacking him - and me, and Kullander and others for no reason. I suggest you tone it down, or shut up. Is stating the truth an attack? Is truth not its own justification? I would never have guessed it would get to this on a forum which is supposed to be focused on finding the truth. Sad. You are certain it is the truth that Kullander is senile? You are certain the cell is copper, even though Levi and others have looked at the outside and seen it is steel, and they will soon look inside? You are certain they read the weight scale wrong and did not notice the discrepancy? These things are not the truth. They are your speculation, based on nothing. The truth is that there is not the slightest chance they read the digital weight scale numbers wrong and did not catch that problem. That's preposterous. The truth is that all of your assertions are groundless. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
From: Jed Rothwell JB - I would never have guessed it would get to this on a forum which is supposed to be focused on finding the truth. Sad. JR. You are certain it is the truth that Kullander is senile? That is not what I said. I am certain that he claimed the Rossi reaction was nuclear because an extraordinary amount of copper was found. I am certain he said the copper tested out isotopically as the natural ratio. I am certain that this means that the copper CANNOT be the result of a nuclear process. ERGO - Kullander is completely wrong, foolishly wrong - for a scientist of his caliber, although that certainly does not mean that he is senile. However, being so wrong does lowers the number of choices for explaining why one can be so completely wrong, to fewer than if one were not of emeritus status. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: JR. You are certain it is the truth that Kullander is senile? That is not what I said. I am certain that he claimed the Rossi reaction was nuclear because an extraordinary amount of copper was found. Here is what you said: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45708.html I find it closer to delusional than conclusive. These two Swedes are acting more like cheer-leaders than top scientists. Kullander is emeritus and could be approaching senility, as far as a few of his comments are concerned. Where did you get the information that he may be approaching senility? Have you consulted with his doctor? I am certain he said the copper tested out isotopically as the natural ratio. I am certain that this means that the copper CANNOT be the result of a nuclear process. I am sure EK appreciate that as much as you do, but if it turns out the copper has natural isotopes and yet it is a transmutation product . . . that will be a fact, and you will be wrong. Science is based on experiments, not theory. In any case we are still a long way from determining that. For now, it seems likely to me that the copper is contamination. How it got there I cannot imagine. There seems to be no satisfactory explanation for it. EK are looking for an explanation. I do not consider that a sign of senility or being completely, foolishly wrong. ERGO - Kullander is completely wrong, foolishly wrong - for a scientist of his caliber, although that certainly does not mean that he is senile. If it certainly does not mean that, then WHY DID YOU SAY IT MEANS THAT?!? If you have now changed your mind, I suggest you retract your first message. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:12:49 -0700: Hi, [snip] I am certain that this means that the copper CANNOT be the result of a nuclear process. ..it could be if Rossi enhanced the Ni62/64 isotopes as he claims to have done. (however I must admit that I find Rossi's claim a bit far fetched.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
From: Jed Rothwell * but if it turns out the copper has natural isotopes and yet it is a transmutation product . . . that will be a fact, and you will be wrong. Right . and if frogs grow wings they will not bump their butts on every leap. Do you realize how silly you are sounding on every incremental try - with this nonsense? Jones
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Robin wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:12:49 -0700: Hi, [snip] I am certain that this means that the copper CANNOT be the result of a nuclear process. ..it could be if Rossi enhanced the Ni62/64 isotopes as he claims to have done. (however I must admit that I find Rossi's claim a bit far fetched.) hmmm...If the copper results from migration rather than from transmutation the contents of the reactor would weigh relatively more than you would expect from transmutation. Harry
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:50:57 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] hmmm...If the copper results from migration rather than from transmutation the contents of the reactor would weigh relatively more than you would expect from transmutation. Harry That depends on what you include/exclude when doing the weighing. Actually this would probably all be a lot clearer if we knew for certain whether or not an obvious source of copper is initially present in the reactor. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ø but if it turns out the copper has natural isotopes and yet it is a transmutation product . . . that will be a fact, and you will be wrong. Right … and if frogs grow wings they will not bump their butts on every leap. Do you realize how silly you are sounding on every incremental try - with this nonsense? I know how improbable this is. I know it just as well as you do. So do EK. However, unlike you, we will wait to see what the data reveals. No matter how improbable it may seem, it cannot be 100% ruled out by theory, only by experiment. You say that's nonsense but people such as Kullander and I call it science. We are not idiots or senile; we just have a different world-view than you do. I do not understand why this upsets you so much, or why you call people names because of it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I am certain that this means that the copper CANNOT be the result of a nuclear process. ..it could be if Rossi enhanced the Ni62/64 isotopes as he claims to have done. (however I must admit that I find Rossi's claim a bit far fetched.) I find it far fetched too. But if he can do this . . . and if it turns out that only a few isotopes of nickel are useful . . . I wonder if he could use this technique (whatever it might be!) to stretch out the supply of nickel. I recall that someone asked him if he can transmute all kinds of elements into other elements. He said he cannot. People have been speculating for years that cold fusion might eventually evolve into industrial scale transmutation. I think Gene Mallove first suggested that. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
From: Jed Rothwell Do you realize how silly you are sounding on every incremental try - with this nonsense? * I know how improbable this is. I know it just as well as you do. So do EK. However, unlike you, we will wait to see what the data reveals. No matter how improbable it may seem, it cannot be 100% ruled out by theory, only by experiment. You say that's nonsense but people such as Kullander and I call it science. If that were true, then why did no Kullander say up front, yes I know that copper can migrate easily, that the patent clearly states nickel in a copper tube and that we found the isotope distribution was completely natural insert Jon Stewart sly grin . and the great Dr Kullander continues: yet even so, we decided to issue the headline that this proves a nuclear source for the reaction - for the reason that we want this be true, and lacking real proof, we kinda threw it in there.. * we are not idiots or senile; we just have a different world-view than you do. On that point we are in full agreement. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If that were true, then why did no Kullander say up front, “yes I know that copper can migrate easily . . . I cannot speak for him, but as far as I know copper *cannot* easily migrate through the walls of a stainless steel pressure vessel. A little might come through, but not 10% of the sample. It is hard to compare improbabilities, but that sounds almost as improbable as copper transmuting as if it were inside a micro-super-nova, such that it comes out with the natural isotopes. Who knows what to make of it? We'll find out after extensive tests. Maybe it will turn out that one sample was contamination from a copper vessel, and another, with shifted isotopes, is from transmutation. Rossi claims to have 97 cells in use right now, and I have it on good authority that he has tested dozens of cells with different materials. Most labs I have seen have stuff piled up everywhere, in chaos. Little plastic boxes and vials of materials, with the labels fallen off or illegible, or the wrong dates . . . It wouldn't surprise me if he accidentally mixed up used samples of nickel. That would explain the confusion. , that the patent clearly states “nickel in a copper tube” and that we found the isotope distribution was completely natural” insert Jon Stewart sly grin It does not matter what the patent says. The larger cell is steel on the outside. They will soon find out if it is steel on the inside as well. If it is, we have a mystery. If it turns out to be copper, that will explain things. In that event it will be surprising that Rossi did not say it was copper, but people do odd things. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
From: Jed Rothwell * It is hard to compare improbabilities, but that sounds almost as improbable as copper transmuting as if it were inside a micro-super-nova, such that it comes out with the natural isotopes. OMG I going to be sick . with laughter. This is much better than SNL ever was .. Cough, cough . yup it's gotta be that micro-super-nova, [slaps forehead] how could we have missed it !! Jones
Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of january 14 wrong?
Jed Rothwell wrote: It does not matter what the patent says. The larger cell is steel on the outside. They will soon find out if it is steel on the inside as well. If it is, we have a mystery. If it turns out to be copper, that will explain things. In that event it will be surprising that Rossi did not say it was copper, but people do odd things. In another post you said Levi will soon get to see inside the cell. I didn't think Rossi would let anyone (except those involved in the manufacturing?)see inside a cell until his patent was granted. Does this mean he expects his patent will be granted soon? Harry
