Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:29:59 -0400: Hi, [snip] mix...@bigpond.com wrote: 15 kW for 18 hours at 5 MeV / reaction equates to 120 mg of Nickel. IOW the amount that would actually react is 120 mg. I gather you are suggesting that much of the Ni will eventually react, but in the 18-hour experiment only 120 mg did react. In this case I suspect that is what Rossi was saying. The rest is unburned fuel if you will. It will eventually . . . do what? Transmute into copper? Supposedly. I wonder what keeps the whole shebang from going off at once? According to Rossi, sometimes it (nearly) does (note the 130 kW output for a short period). A catalyst is a material that promotes a reaction, and is then freed up to promote it again. Catalysts are not used up. So perhaps it is a misnomer to call this a catalyst. Mills catalysts need to be recycled. I think that means the conditions under which they form are different to the conditions under which they are destroyed, though there is no net change over a full cycle in either quantity or energy content. That may also be true of Rossi's catalyst. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
On 2011-04-14 01:16, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] We could organize this info in a Wiki, with categories: Materials, Operation method, Performance characteristics . . . [...] This is a good idea and I was thinking exactly about it yesterday when I sent that list to the group. The end result should be interesting. If there's enough interest I might even resume my information collecting task from JONP. By the way, all info previously listed was from the JONP thread: JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS CONFERENCE from page 1 to page 8. There are loads of information in older threads too, in which for some reason from time to time questions from new users and answers by Rossi appear. I know that well because I enabled RSS feeds for new comments on that blog. There's definitely more activity than meets the eye. In order to get RSS feeds for JONP thread comments you have to append feed=rss2 to thread URLs. For example: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360feed=rss2 Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: ANSWER: THE PUMP IS A PERISTALTIC PUMP. THE FLOW OF WATER HAS BEEN MEASURED BEFORE TURNING ON THE REACTOR BY THE PROFESSORS WHO MADE THE TEST, BY OPENING THE CIRCUIT AND CHRONOMETRING THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT FILLED UP A RESERVOIR OF 1 LITER. Note that the flow rate was measured before the pump was connected to the reactor. If the reactor itself contained some mechanical restriction that reduced the flow rate, then the actual flow during the test would have been less. This is another reason why the output flow should be collected. I think this refers to the Jan. 14 test. What Rossi is saying here is that they left the reservoir on a weight scale (as you see in the photos), and they measured the total reduction in weight over the course of the run. This method is as good as collecting the output flow. You could not easily collect the flow in this test because it was steam. Probably a mixture of steam and hot water by the time it reached the sink. The only way to collect is would be to sparge it into a tank of cold water, which you weigh before and after. You also measure the temperature of the tank before and after to determine total enthalpy. As I said at the time, I wish they had done that. But it takes a lot of effort and heavy containers of water. It is easier to do in a factory using a steel drum and fork lift, which is what they do at Hydrodynamics. After the test, they drive the steel drum full of ~80°C water out into the parking lot and dump it. It is kind of dangerous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
I wrote: I think this refers to the Jan. 14 test. What Rossi is saying here is that they left the reservoir on a weight scale (as you see in the photos), and they measured the total reduction in weight over the course of the run. This method is as good as collecting the output flow. Okay, that is not what Rossi is saying, but that is what he said elsewhere. What he said here is: CHRONOMETRING THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT FILLED UP A RESERVOIR OF 1 LITER. Pretty sure that means: Measuring the time it takes for the water to fill a 1 liter container. They did that as well as keeping track of the weight of water lost from the reservoir. They could only do that at the end of the hose before steam generation began. It is a good idea to measure key parameters using a variety of methods. Chronometering is not standard English but perhaps it is how you say this in Italian. The meaning is clear. Google finds 107 examples of this word in English documents. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
Dear Jed, In most European languages (e.g. German, Dutch, Italian, French, Spanish) 100,000 mg means actually 100.000 mg and vice versa. It is the English language that is in this case the odd one out, which causes sometime hilarious conversions! B.t.w. Rossi would otherwise probably have written 100 gr. i.s.o. 100,000 mg. Kind regards, MoB On 13-4-2011 23:34, Jed Rothwell wrote: SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: You made me remember that a few weeks ago I started writing down (or more like, copy/pasting) a list of questions answered by Rossi on his blog . . . Yikes, what a lot of work! When he refuses to answer that may be as telling as when he answers. Some of these responses are contradictory, and some have to be wrong. He says there milligrams of nickel. Really? Like 100,000 mg? I weigh 81 million milligrams. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: In most European languages (e.g. German, Dutch, Italian, French, Spanish) 100,000 mg means actually 100.000 mg and vice versa. I am reviewing these statements. I now think he meant there are milligram level amounts of nuclear-active Ni. There is about ~100 g of Ni, but most of it is inert. He says that is the best they can do with present technology. It is awesome that 100 g of any material can produce 15 kW to 130 kW. If only a tiny fraction of it -- a few milligrams -- is active, that goes beyond awesome. It is either scary or unbelievable. What would happen if you managed to activate, let us say, 1 ton of the stuff? That would produce the kind of power you want for an interstellar space probe. Storms also says that most of material is inert in his new paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is awesome that 100 g of any material can produce 15 kW to 130 kW. If only a tiny fraction of it -- a few milligrams -- is active, that goes beyond awesome. Well, there *is* this stuff called antimatter. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:24:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] 15 kW for 18 hours at 5 MeV / reaction equates to 120 mg of Nickel. IOW the amount that would actually react is 120 mg. Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: In most European languages (e.g. German, Dutch, Italian, French, Spanish) 100,000 mg means actually 100.000 mg and vice versa. I am reviewing these statements. I now think he meant there are milligram level amounts of nuclear-active Ni. There is about ~100 g of Ni, but most of it is inert. He says that is the best they can do with present technology. It is awesome that 100 g of any material can produce 15 kW to 130 kW. If only a tiny fraction of it -- a few milligrams -- is active, that goes beyond awesome. It is either scary or unbelievable. What would happen if you managed to activate, let us say, 1 ton of the stuff? That would produce the kind of power you want for an interstellar space probe. Storms also says that most of material is inert in his new paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf - Jed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: 15 kW for 18 hours at 5 MeV / reaction equates to 120 mg of Nickel. IOW the amount that would actually react is 120 mg. I gather you are suggesting that much of the Ni will eventually react, but in the 18-hour experiment only 120 mg did react. The rest is unburned fuel if you will. It will eventually . . . do what? Transmute into copper? I wonder what keeps the whole shebang from going off at once? A catalyst is a material that promotes a reaction, and is then freed up to promote it again. Catalysts are not used up. So perhaps it is a misnomer to call this a catalyst. Perhaps only some of it transmutes, some of the time, and the rest is used over and over again to promote light element fusion. - Jed
[Vo]:What Rossi Says list
This was formerly titled What We Know from Rossi. It is a list of major assertions made by Rossi and others, mainly Rossi in his blog 1) The catalyst is not copper. 2) The catalyst is not iron. 3) The catalyst is not a precious metal. 4) The catalyst is not radioactive. 5) The catalyst is not expensive. 6) The catalyst is not Raney Nickel 7) The catalyst is not an additional gas placed in the reactor. 8) The Ni processing system increases the cost of Ni by ~10%. 9) The catalyst consists of Ni plus two other elements. 10) A small percentage (2% to 3%) of deuterium will kill the reaction. 11) The reaction is modulated with resistance heaters. 12) The reaction can be killed by injecting N to displace the H. 13) Much of the Ni transmutes to Cu during the reaction. 14) The Cu has slightly unnatural isotopic ratios. - Rossi 15) No, the Cu ratios are natural. - Essen 16) Fe appears, whether from transmutation or contamination is not clear. 17) The Ni isotopes in the starting material are enriched, by some revolutionary technique that costs little. - Rossi 18) No, the Ni isotopes are not enriched! - Essen New item: 19) The minimum power of the e-Cat reactor unit is 2.5 kW. See: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=2#comment-32831 When you assemble this puzzle you are allowed to leave pieces on the table. You do not have to account for every claim. #14 cancels #15, and #17 cancels #18. Pick whichever you prefer. In groundbreaking science it is not uncommon to find that some of the evidence did not fit because it turned out to be wrong. Some of these statements may be mistakes. So may be deliberate misdirection, or perhaps even lies. There is a long history of this in science, going back to the days of Newton. There was a famous example in 1987. Ching-Wu Chu described his high temperature superconductor formula before publication. He gave it out as including Yb (ytterbium) when he meant Y (yttrium). He said it was a typo. It threw his rivals off the trail for weeks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
On 2011-04-13 23:00, Jed Rothwell wrote: This was formerly titled What We Know from Rossi. It is a list of major assertions made by Rossi and others, mainly Rossi in his blog You made me remember that a few weeks ago I started writing down (or more like, copy/pasting) a list of questions answered by Rossi on his blog, but eventually dropped the task as I realized it would have been a huge deal of work. Anyway this is what I ended up with. I hope somebody else more determined or with more free time than me will pick this up and continue what I started (which includes arranging questions/answers in a more coherent manner, fixing typos and wording, etc): ** how much nickel is used? If the nickel is spread on the tungsten: how much is the estimation about the power released by the system for unit of surface or unit of volume? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=1#comment-19090 Dear Enrico: we estimate the consumption of Ni and H has been in the order of picograms. We do not use W. * * * What is the ratio of hydrogen isotope to metal atoms you reach at your preferred operating level? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=1#comment-19091 This information is confidential. I am very sorry, but our patent is still pending, therefore there will be some data that we cannot release, to avoid heavy legal issues with our licensees. * * * It is unclear from the translation as to the amount of H2 consumed. Next big future has a picture of your apparatus and I can see the pressure gauge on the H2 tank but no flowmeter on the H2 line. So my question is what was the gas cylinder pressure before the demo and after the demo? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=1#comment-19093 Your question is important. The pressure of Hydrogen gas in the tank before the test was 80 bars and at the end of the test was 80 bars. The consumption of Hydrogen is in the range of picograms, not enough to determine a delta P in the tank. * * * 1) What is the evidence for copper production? 2) Is there any evidence for isotopic anomalies? 3) How is the power switched on and off? 4) Is there evidence of consumption of a fuel? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=1#comment-19099 What you are requesting is contained in our patent application. Other Scientists already have reached the effect using the informations contained in the patent application, which is published also on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics. But you must be careful about this: this work must be done only in professional laboratories and with respect of all the safety requirements. Hydrogen is highly explosive and nickel powder is very toxic. To make such experiments without the necessary experience and professional instrumentation can be lethal. * * * How much Ni is in the cell? How much total energy, heat and radiation, is produced per hour for a gram of Ni? Are some other elements used to facilitate the reactions? How small can a working cell be made ? for instance, for home power units buried in the yard? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=1#comment-19105 In the cell there are several milligrams of Ni To make 10 kWh/h the consume of Ni and H is in the order of several picograms, but considering that not all the Ni in the reactor reacts, the actual consumption, to make 10 kWh/h is of about 0,1 g of Ni and 0,01 g of H Yes, other elements are used, upon which we have to maintain confidentiality until the patent pending becomes a patent The dimensions of a unit like the one you are thinking of, of course not considering the authorization issues, could be about one cm 50 x 100 x 50 with the present technology. * * * One picogram is 1/1000 of a billionth of a gram. Why do you refer to picograms as they are many orders of magnitude smaller than grams? According to your figures (.1 g per 10 kwh), 1 Kg of Nickel would deliver 10 kW for 10 000 hours, roughly 14 months. Is this correct? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=1#comment-19116 You are correct, but I distinguished between the mass of Ni which reacts and the mass of Ni that you need in the reactor to obtain that the necessary mass reacts. The efficiency is very low, due to the probabilistic issue. * * * We hear a pulsating sound in the video of the operating catalyzer. What is causing the sound? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=1#comment-19117 The sound ( kind of tac, tac, tac…) is made by the water pump, which is a precision dosator . * * * Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=1#comment-19118 Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons
RE: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list... add emissions seen in the 100keV-300keV range
Jed: Add that he has seen energetic particle emissions in the 100keV to 300keV range... I put this in a posting a few days ago and no one even noticed! This from a Ny Teknik QA session with Rossi... Rossi: No radioactivity has been found in the residual metals, it is true, but the day after the stop of the operation. In any case you are right, if 59-Cu is formed from 58-Ni we should have the couples of 511 keV at 180° and we never found them, while we found keV in the range of 100-300 keV. -Mark _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list This was formerly titled What We Know from Rossi. It is a list of major assertions made by Rossi and others, mainly Rossi in his blog 1) The catalyst is not copper. 2) The catalyst is not iron. 3) The catalyst is not a precious metal. 4) The catalyst is not radioactive. 5) The catalyst is not expensive. 6) The catalyst is not Raney Nickel 7) The catalyst is not an additional gas placed in the reactor. 8) The Ni processing system increases the cost of Ni by ~10%. 9) The catalyst consists of Ni plus two other elements. 10) A small percentage (2% to 3%) of deuterium will kill the reaction. 11) The reaction is modulated with resistance heaters. 12) The reaction can be killed by injecting N to displace the H. 13) Much of the Ni transmutes to Cu during the reaction. 14) The Cu has slightly unnatural isotopic ratios. - Rossi 15) No, the Cu ratios are natural. - Essen 16) Fe appears, whether from transmutation or contamination is not clear. 17) The Ni isotopes in the starting material are enriched, by some revolutionary technique that costs little. - Rossi 18) No, the Ni isotopes are not enriched! - Essen New item: 19) The minimum power of the e-Cat reactor unit is 2.5 kW. See: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473 http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=2#comment-32831 cpage=2#comment-32831 When you assemble this puzzle you are allowed to leave pieces on the table. You do not have to account for every claim. #14 cancels #15, and #17 cancels #18. Pick whichever you prefer. In groundbreaking science it is not uncommon to find that some of the evidence did not fit because it turned out to be wrong. Some of these statements may be mistakes. So may be deliberate misdirection, or perhaps even lies. There is a long history of this in science, going back to the days of Newton. There was a famous example in 1987. Ching-Wu Chu described his high temperature superconductor formula before publication. He gave it out as including Yb (ytterbium) when he meant Y (yttrium). He said it was a typo. It threw his rivals off the trail for weeks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list... add emissions seen in the 100keV-300keV range
From Mark: Rossi: No radioactivity has been found in the residual metals, it is true, but the day after the stop of the operation. In any case you are right, if 59-Cu is formed from 58-Ni we should have the couples of 511 keV at 180° and we never found them, while we found keV in the range of 100-300 keV. Is the 100 - 300 KeV range within the speculated reality rage of hydrino formation? Just curious. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
SHIRAKAWA Akira shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: You made me remember that a few weeks ago I started writing down (or more like, copy/pasting) a list of questions answered by Rossi on his blog . . . Yikes, what a lot of work! When he refuses to answer that may be as telling as when he answers. Some of these responses are contradictory, and some have to be wrong. He says there milligrams of nickel. Really? Like 100,000 mg? I weigh 81 million milligrams. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
20) process can be killed by forced cooling (high water flow) -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote: 20) process can be killed by forced cooling (high water flow) Don't forget Nitrogen injection. Note the N2 tank in his original test. T
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote: 20) process can be killed by forced cooling (high water flow) That probably means sudden cooling or what is called a thermal shock. Other researchers have said this is one way to quench a reaction. I mean that if you gradually increase the flow rate, I do not think this would work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
In reply to SHIRAKAWA Akira's message of Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:12:59 +0200: Hi, [snip] Conservatively, I would say 0,01 g/kWh of Ni is the actual demand of Ni is necessary, even if the mass that really reacts is in the order of picograms. I think he's talking about actual mass to energy conversion. 1 kWh = 4E-8 gm (E=mc^2) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
I am going to print Shirakawa-san's list and add some items. I will annotate them SL (Shirakawa List) There are some repetitions and many questions Rossi refuses to answer. Lots of interesting stuff too. We could organize this info in a Wiki, with categories: Materials, Operation method, Performance characteristics . . . Rossi is dropping many crumbs. Someone may follow him into the woods. Even if some of this is indirection there's gotta be a lotta direction, too. His patent attorney must be tearing his hair out. I have been re-reading accounts of Edison's invention of the incandescent light, and looking at his notebook pictures and diagrams. If Edison had kept a blog, it would have resembled Rossi's. It would be filled with apparent mistakes, backtracking, dead ends, seat-of-the-pants estimates and half-baked assumptions. Also assertions that sound impossible because it turned out they were impossible, and others that sounded impossible to Edison's contemporaries but turned out to be true. He fed his investors a steady stream of exaggerations, non-reassuring reassurances that it was all but ready, on track at last, any day now, don't pay any attention to those burning curtains; let's adjourn for lunch shall we, gentlemen? -- and so on. The sort of thing anyone in RD says while showing top managers around the project. I imagine his investors felt much the way Jones Beene does. Edison was juggling dozens of problems simultaneously in a very tight schedule. Not only did he invent the lights, he invented generators, meters, controls, improved vacuum equipment and bunch of other vital stuff. He might have left much of that for later and concentrated on the bulbs only, but he wanted to roll out a complete system of related technology -- which he did. Rossi has not only cracked the cold fusion problem, he is trying to make a 1 MW reactor. There are many interesting parallels. Incandescent electric lights had been demonstrated for 20 years when Edison began serious RD. No one previously could make them into a practical product. Mainstream scientists said that Edison was a fraud and what he was trying to accomplish was impossible, based on their theories. They said this despite the fact that he was one of the most famous inventors in the world, with loads of credibility. I think this can be compared to Ekstrom's assertion that Rossi is surely a fraud because his device does not fit theory, despite the fact that Essen and Kullander are among the world's top experts in energy, with loads of credibility. Essen and Kullander are probably not happy with Ekstrom. If Edison had blogged the experience, he would not have been granted a patent. Others were working on the problem. They would have stolen his ideas. As I recall one of the generators Edison constructed during this period is now on the first floor of Peter Hagelstein's building at MIT. It has a slightly off-color name, long-legged Mary-Ann and you can see why. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
In reply to SHIRAKAWA Akira's message of Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:12:59 +0200: Hi, [snip] The question is; how can the 6.15MeV mass-energy increase of 62Ni+p-63Cu account for a total binding energy increase of 8.7MeV, and yet also be exothermic? The difference in *total* binding energy is 6.12 MeV, and this is precisely the definition of the energy release when a proton is added to Ni62 to get Cu63, because binding energy is calculated based upon the creation of a nucleus from free particles, and a proton is a free particle (i.e. has zero binding energy). IOW if you calculate the energy released, based upon mass difference, you get 6.12 MeV for the reaction, as expected. The per nucleon binding energy for Cu63 is actually a little less than for Ni62, nevertheless, the additional nucleon more than makes up for this in the total, ensuring that the total for Cu63 is larger than for Ni62. The questioner actually has it backwards. Addition of a proton yields about 8.7 MeV of binding energy, but about 2.6 MeV of this is lost due to the decrease in per nucleon binding energy for Cu63 compared to Ni58, thus of the additional 8.7 MeV, only 6.12 MeV is left over as exothermal energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list
In reply to SHIRAKAWA Akira's message of Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:12:59 +0200: Hi, [snip] ANSWER: THE PUMP IS A PERISTALTIC PUMP. THE FLOW OF WATER HAS BEEN MEASURED BEFORE TURNING ON THE REACTOR BY THE PROFESSORS WHO MADE THE TEST, BY OPENING THE CIRCUIT AND CHRONOMETRING THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT FILLED UP A RESERVOIR OF 1 LITER. Note that the flow rate was measured before the pump was connected to the reactor. If the reactor itself contained some mechanical restriction that reduced the flow rate, then the actual flow during the test would have been less. This is another reason why the output flow should be collected. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list... add emissions seen in the 100keV-300keV range
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:30:59 -0500: Hi, [snip] From Mark: Rossi: No radioactivity has been found in the residual metals, it is true, but the day after the stop of the operation. In any case you are right, if 59-Cu is formed from 58-Ni we should have the couples of 511 keV at 180° and we never found them, while we found keV in the range of 100-300 keV. Is the 100 - 300 KeV range within the speculated reality rage of hydrino formation? Just curious. Not from direct Hydrino reactions, however a fusion initiated by a Hydrino may result in fast electrons which could easily have this much energy (and in fact much more). Note that by the time the fast electron gets out of the device to the detector it will usually have lost a considerable amount of energy through collisions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list... add emissions seen in the 100keV-300keV range
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:26:35 +1000: Hi, [snip] I should add that x-rays resulting from these electrons could easily lie in this range. In reply to OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:30:59 -0500: Hi, [snip] From Mark: Rossi: No radioactivity has been found in the residual metals, it is true, but the day after the stop of the operation. In any case you are right, if 59-Cu is formed from 58-Ni we should have the couples of 511 keV at 180° and we never found them, while we found keV in the range of 100-300 keV. Is the 100 - 300 KeV range within the speculated reality rage of hydrino formation? Just curious. Not from direct Hydrino reactions, however a fusion initiated by a Hydrino may result in fast electrons which could easily have this much energy (and in fact much more). Note that by the time the fast electron gets out of the device to the detector it will usually have lost a considerable amount of energy through collisions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
