RE: [Vo]:Will report on Rossi soon

Jed wrote: "I think the likelihood of fraud is vanishingly small. There is no way you could fool the professors involved in this, and I am sure they are not all engaged in a conspiracy to fool the rest of us." I think all those involved in any way with this demo are keenly aware of the consequ

Re: [Vo]:Will report on Rossi soon

Dear Jed, You are right. I am working out- in the frame of my blog a system for real life problem solving. The painful puzzle of CF's bad reproducibility seemed to be a "*wicked problem" (*see Wikipedia etc- it is an fundamental concept) Now it has one solution. I think we have to wait for the qu

[Vo]:method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, Andrea Rossi USA patent application 2011.01.13: role of impurities: future developments: Rich Murray 2011.01.15

method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, Andrea Rossi USA patent application 2011.01.13: role of impurities: future developments: Rich Murray 2011.01.15 [ minor typos corrected, and spacing added to increase clarity and highlight special points: some possibili

Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

Jones Beene wrote: The best way to validate the claim is to test a sample of spent fuel for > copper isotope ratio. We can probably expect the heavier 65Cu to be > completely absent. That would constitute almost indisputable proof. > > Why wasn't this done? > I do not know if this was or was not

[Vo]:Will report on Rossi soon

Okay, I spoke with one of the people in the project about the calorimetry. Then I typed up the notes from our conversation as a brief report (400 words). I e-mailed the report to the researchers so they can confirm I got the numbers and other details correct, and also add the name and model numbers

Re: [Vo]: Corp world is watching closely...

- Original Message > From: Jones Beene > He is not likely to hook up with IBM if they closely read his bio. I suspect > that we will probably see an official retraction of some kind from U. > Bologna soon, due to these problems. > > Even on this sympathetic site, there a few trou

RE: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

Robin, We cannot assume that this is directly comparable to a known hot fusion reaction, assuming it is real. Why should we? There is every reason to suspect that LENR is based on previously unknown pathways. The best way to validate the claim is to test a sample of spent fuel for copper isotope

Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:02:36 -0800: Hi, [snip] >In one of the translations yesterday - it was said that there was lead >shielding in place already - so the small signal seen. 50% over background >would not be unusual, and is entirely consistent with such shielding

RE: [Vo]: Corp world is watching closely...

Mark, He is not likely to hook up with IBM if they closely read his bio. I suspect that we will probably see an official retraction of some kind from U. Bologna soon, due to these problems. Even on this sympathetic site, there a few troubling details ... http://ingandrearossi.com/cat/biografia/

[Vo]: Corp world is watching closely...

I've just been reading thru the comments on the Rossi/Focardi website... Seems this is being watched by the corporate world... Dr.Kathrine Martinez-Martignoni January 14th, 2011 at 11:24 AM GOOD LUCK !!! I WILL OBSERVE YOU DIRECTLY FROM ZÜRICH (SWITZERLAND). SINCERELY, DR.KATH

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

At 05:39 PM 1/15/2011, Jed Rothwell, of the censored LENR/CANR site, wrote: Rothwell: " I pointed that given the average water intake of a rat ... " Even a broken (non digital) clock appears accurate twice a day with some local truth. === Roth

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

Peter, I like what you have to say. I have been dealing with transformations and cold fusion for a little while now and I understand there are some simple ground rules and basic understandings that have to be adhered to. People just don't go onto the public platform with bogus claims anymore.

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

At 05:23 PM 1/15/2011, you wrote: Mitchell Swartz wrote:    First, the setup WAS a flow calorimetric system.  Not the way I used it. I changed the configuration for my tests. I diverted the flow into a cup. It was being used as a flow calorimeter by Patterson et al., in th

RE: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

In one of the translations yesterday - it was said that there was lead shielding in place already - so the small signal seen. 50% over background would not be unusual, and is entirely consistent with such shielding were under the insulation. Also I see a "Gamma Scout" device on the table. These ar

Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

In reply to francis 's message of Sat, 15 Jan 2011 12:58:15 -0500: Hi, [snip] >SECOND, I'm having serious doubts regarding the gamma-ray measurement. Rising >50% above background levels is completely inconsistent with the 6,000 watt >(proposed) output. Back-calculating the earlier work I did, th

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

I wrote: > I was careful to hold the cut at the same height as the reservoir . . . > Meant "cup." Actually, I think I just moved the cup under the hose, which was pouring the water back into the reservoir. The reservoir was a fishtank, as I recall. They needed a fairly large volume of water beca

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

Mitchell Swartz wrote: > First, the setup WAS a flow calorimetric system. > Not the way I used it. I changed the configuration for my tests. I diverted the flow into a cup. It was being used as a flow calorimeter by Patterson et al., in the data reported by them. But my data came from another

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

WELL SAID! Jones Beene said [snip] Randell Mills, in contrast - chose a commonly available form of nickel early on - Raney nickel - which since the 1920s was made in such a way (leaching out aluminum from an alloy) that it was already "nano" in an inverse sense . and therefore Mills had a for

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

You can find a coauthored paper in 1998 too. FYI Piantelli is 77 years old and ill- asthma, he cannot travel. And is a very bright scientist. The other authors as Vera Montalbano have done the analytical chemistry, microscopy etc part. Peter On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

At 03:08 PM 1/15/2011, Rothwell wrote: Mitchell Swartz wrote:     For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and HOW Jed Rothwell erroneously measured his "kilowatt" levels of pseudoexcess heat with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow calorimetric  system

Re: [Vo]:RE: real heat wrong theory?

The really interesting thing is that very small quantities of hydrogen are consumed and of Ni are transmuted. (picograms during such an experiment. Goat guys' perception and logic are both absolutely flawed. The worst individuals of this category are in the anti-vaccine camp, very nasty and aggress

[Vo]:RE: real heat wrong theory?

Goat guy’s first sentence was interesting “the rapidly technology "turned off" when the hydrogen supply was cut. Anyone else catch the slip?” – Again it reinforces his closed minded position of nuclear or nothing but if the observation is correct it does lend support to a need for circulation

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

You could be right, and my-bad for passing on rumor . unless, that is, this is one of the papers which caused a falling-out, which continues to the present. Was Piantelli present? For instance, it appears the Italians were in the habit of listing co-authors alphabetically, to wit: S. FOCARD

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Jones wrote: "Who says that rational science is immune from the "soap opera effect" of petty jealousy and multiple layers of intrigue and 'white lie' dishonesty?" It most definitely is NOT, especially when big $ are at stake... -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Might I provide some different points of view from real-world (i.e., personal) experiences... Sometimes decisions are not so clear-cut... I've come to a conclusion in my life that those who live by absolutes probably live in a box, or have not been involved in a sufficient number of situations

Re: [Vo]:Focardi Rossi Piantelli

Nick Palmer wrote: Are there any "big" media interested yet? > The Huffington Post. I hope it is a while before mass media notices, to give us time to write a decent report in English. Actually, I hope the big mass media does not notice. They will only screw up the report. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

Mitchell Swartz wrote: > For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and HOW > Jed Rothwell erroneously measured his "kilowatt" levels of > pseudoexcess heat with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow > calorimetric system . . . > The water was not flowing vertically or in any

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Jones Beene wrote: > 4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy > of Focardi, going back to the early nineties > They co-authored a paper in 1994, so I doubt they were bitter enemies then. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

At 02:03 PM 1/15/2011, Rothwell, of the censored LENR/CANR site, wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: Rossi says the input is 600-700 W. Output at least 14 x input. My comment was directed at people who do not believe Rossi, or who suspect there may be a complicated waveform at work

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

Peter Gluck wrote: Rossi says the input is 600-700 W. Output at least 14 x input. My comment was directed at people who do not believe Rossi, or who suspect there may be a complicated waveform at work, which makes it hard to measure input power. Such arguments always arise when people make clai

[Vo]:Focardi Rossi Piantelli

Are there any "big" media interested yet? Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

At the risk of appearing to 'beat a dead horse' let me make a couple of other comments relevant to the 'big picture' of nano-nickel technology. 1)Mills and BLP may try to distance themselves from Rossi due to one critical detail: *radioactivity*. Mills' entire patent protection is vulnerabl

Re: [Vo]:Rossi website bandwidth exceeded

The videos are available on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0WvK2b7dU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHZrhTQhUc T On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > This site not available: > > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

[Vo]:New section in LENR-CANR.org

A handy guide to the ICCF conference proceedings: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/BooksProceedings.htm - Jed

[Vo]:Rossi website bandwidth exceeded

This site not available: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com It generates an error: Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later. Apparently the news generated a lot of in

Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

Goat Guy wrote: "FOURTH were they condensing the water-vapor into a vessel for weighing? The heat-of-vaporization of water is very well known, and a very useful proxy for figuring out thermal-energy production rates. It isn't (unfortunately) a very quick responder to thermal-generator fluctuations

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

hey...This is Italian science ...not WASP science. ;-) Harry

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Jones Beene wrote: > The operative word is “proof”. Since even Focardi himself admits that he is > not permitted to see inside the reactor, and since chemical reactions could > provide this level of excess for a few hours . . . > I have heard from reliable sources that the thing has been run fo

Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

Goat repeats the same old dismissive argument, that if it doesn't show the signatures of hot fusion then the experimenters are deluded. harryFrom: francis To: vortex-l@eskimo.comSent: Sat, January 15, 2011 12:58:15 PMSubject: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?From Goat Guy on Next Big Future:· 

Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

As I said, using logical fallacies (and pseudo-scientific linguage) you can demonstrate anything. Peter On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:58 PM, francis wrote: > From Goat Guy on Next Big Future: > > · > > Well... I smell a rat, *unfortunately*. > > FIRST, the rapidly technology "turned off" when the hy

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

No dear Jones, Focardi has looked inside the reactors starting 1994. It is an other professor who made the black box measurements. I like your mode of thinking re methods of crookery, but do not think they are realistic- in this case. Randy is a different subject. Peter On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at

[Vo]:real heat wrong theory?

>From Goat Guy on Next Big Future: · Well... I smell a rat, unfortunately. FIRST, the rapidly technology "turned off" when the hydrogen supply was cut. Anyone else catch the slip? If the reaction is hydrogen-atomic consolidation with nickel nuclei, and it is presup

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

We are talking past each other. The operative word is "proof". Since even Focardi himself admits that he is not permitted to see inside the reactor, and since chemical reactions could provide this level of excess for a few hours, or since an fairly safe alpha emitter could provide it for longe

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Dear Jones, I don't understand what you say exactly. What I know for sure is that Piantelli has a perfect reproducible Ni-H process and this one developed by Piantelli's former collaborator and an inventor is very similar to that. Why do you believe that I am speaking about Ni-H technology in gene

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

Jones Beene wrote: > I strongly suggest that nothing … absolutely NOTHING … seen so far, proves > that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on things not > in the record. > Well, I do not speak Italian, but based on the blogger's comments and the caliber of the people who wor

RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

From: Peter Gluck * Suppose Rossi is the Al Capone of science and the Ostap Bender of technology, how many non working damned generators will he sell? I think his past, character, are not relevant. You miss the point almost completely, Peter. This is not about the nickel hydride technolog

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

The allegations about Rossi reported by Krivit have been circulating for some time. I described Rossi as "eccentric" and I mentioned the havoc he has reportedly caused. This is what I had in mind. When evaluating a claim of this nature you should try to ignore the personality and history of person

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

Theory is fine, practice is that they are very sticky. stickier than gekko's foot- that's van der Waals forces. But even something very similar to a chemical combination. It depends on their nature, size and polarity too. If you want scientific data, I can help. On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Te

Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

All beginnings are messy, why should be the LENR era be an exception? I know that the merits belong, first of all to Prof Piantelli. However it had been a very long period when the process had not been reproducible and upscalable- till the critical know how elements have been discovered. It is fi

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Congratulations are due to Piantelli, Focardi and Rossi > and their supporters > > In one of his patents, Piantelli describes a cleaning process > of the nanometric nickel- vacuum 10 exp -10 Torr, 350 deg > Celsius, pllied at least 10 times. T

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

Congratulations are due to Piantelli, Focardi and Rossi and their supporters In one of his patents, Piantelli describes a cleaning process of the nanometric nickel- vacuum 10 exp -10 Torr, 350 deg Celsius, pllied at least 10 times. That's drastic, isn't it? Now, patents are the mythical variants

[Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi

A word of caution, thanks to Steve Krivit http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/15/rossi-discovery-what-to-say/ Since Krivit has come forward with this today, I guess it is OK for others to publish the same information that has been floating around Italy for a couple of days regarding Rossi's tw

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

As far I know, absolutely nobody agrees with me. It seems my thinking is special as explained at my blog's first page. On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Peter Gluck > wrote: > > > Removing those poisons is a "sine qua non" condition for CF

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Removing those poisons is a "sine qua non" condition for CF, a necessary > condition but it is not sufficient. I must admit, it certainly explains many issues including reproducibility of experiments. Does Dennis Cravens concur that it was

Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

Rossi says the input is 600-700 W. Output at least 14 x input. On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > The Rossi device appears to have ordinary power supplies plugged into an > ordinary wall socket. It could not be drawing ~10 kW. That would trip a > circuit breaker. It must be o

[Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW

The Rossi device appears to have ordinary power supplies plugged into an ordinary wall socket. It could not be drawing ~10 kW. That would trip a circuit breaker. It must be over unity. I will ask Celani to confirm this, but I think it is proof that the effect is real. We can put aside all complica

Re: [Vo]:F/R Demo

They have promissed to publish all the data and calculations soon. On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > How very frustrating. We need an online voice translator for Italian. > > It does look like the process initialized in less than 45 minutes and > a temperature rise of arou

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

Not oxygen, there are ppm and ppb impurities containing S, C and N including light hydrocarbures that are adsorbed on the nuclear active sites and destroy them- inactivate them almost irreversibly. For example laser irradiation of Cravens and Letts is able to partially and temporary remove these po

[Vo]:F/R Demo

How very frustrating. We need an online voice translator for Italian. It does look like the process initialized in less than 45 minutes and a temperature rise of around 75 degrees Celcius occurred somewhere. A temperature of approximately 100 degrees was achieved SOMEWHERE! That's enough to boi

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Dear Rich. > It is here- http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110005506 I am now an expert > websearcher  if you have such problems, do not hesitate to write me. As > regarding the press conference of today I am worried for the unadequate > questi

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

Dear Rich. It is here- http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110005506 I am now an expert websearcher if you have such problems, do not hesitate to write me. As regarding the press conference of today I am worried for the unadequate questions- see please my blog at http://egooutpeters.blogspotcom The

Re: [Vo]:A report on the Focardi Rossi press conference, which apparently already took place

Thanks, it's a nice informative confirming account, with useful photo -- I'm online here in Santa Fe, New Mexico, at 1:30 AM MST, waiting for their online demo... Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:53 PM, wrote: > In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:2

Re: [Vo]:A new energy source from nuclear fusion, S Focardi, A Rossi, 9p text 2010.03.22: Rich Murray 2011.01.14

Thanks! Can you send me a link for the full text of the patent? I'm online at home at 1:15 AM MST in Santa Fe, New Mexico, waiting for their online demo in 45 minutes -- looks like the real thing, for sure... Rich rmfor...@gmail.com On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Dear R