He does not use protium. He uses ordinary hydrogen. In the cell some of it is
broken down into atomic hydrogen. That is what interacts with the nickel.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62cpage=2#comment-273
I said ‘eventually’ because it is exactly what happens. Of course you know
On Jan 21, 2011, at 10:41 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
True, Robin, but Cold Fusion was D + D fusion, this one cannot be
Peter
Nonsense! This is like saying analyzing microfossils is not part of
paleontology because it doesn't involve digging big bones out of the
ground and making museum
OK, let's see what this Ni-H process really is, how many Cu is actually
found and so on. i simply do not believe everything what Rossi
says. The ash has to be analyzed. Do you know reports about such work?
Peter
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
On
On Jan 22, 2011, at 2:06 AM, noone noone wrote:
He does not use protium. He uses ordinary hydrogen. In the cell
some of it is broken down into atomic hydrogen. That is what
interacts with the nickel.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62cpage=2#comment-273
I said ‘eventually’
Sorry for my error
The comment about deuterium poisoning the reaction is a comment Piantelli made
to individuals.
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 6:55:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt
On Jan 22, 2011, at 2:44 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
OK, let's see what this Ni-H process really is, how many Cu is
actually found and so on. i simply do not believe everything what
Rossi
says. The ash has to be analyzed. Do you know reports about such
work?
Peter
I suspect I misunderstood
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/
A rapidly increasing temperature in an enclosed steel container could be a
big,
big problem. He was afraid. He wondered whether he should leave the building.
Instead he called Focardi in Milano—at 2 in the morning—and asked, “What
should
I do?” This was
On Jan 22, 2011, at 3:06 AM, noone noone wrote:
Sorry for my error
No problem!
The comment about deuterium poisoning the reaction is a comment
Piantelli made to individuals.
Oh, OK, that clears it up. It is my bad memory! It seems to get
worse on a daily basis, but I thankfully
On 22 Jan 2011, at 01:43, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Article uses Robert Park as an authority on the subject.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/cold-fusion-claims-resurface.html
Harry
What a horrible article. I'd be ashamed to have written that. It wasn't
reporting by any
Thank you, now everything depend on-Cu is real, or not!
Peter
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:25 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:31:09 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
That device working for 6 months has produced approx. 50,000 kWhours heat.
Can this be
Rich,
Nice translation of a very nice HNi reaction theory. He seems to adopt a very
transient appearance of these mini atoms similar to deflation theory and ties
it to another theory where the whole “neutral” mini atom is captured inside
the columb barrier. The only point I would add is that
Dear Mr Brian Robertson:
I again want to return on your comment, because it is very important, and I
forgot to say a thing that I deem important too.
The same Professors of the University of Bologna who made the test of the 14th
of January, had made a preliminar test, closed doors, on the
Dear Mr William:
We used that extreme mode, closed doors, also for many hours, sometimes having
troubles to stop the reactor.
To stop the rreactor we cut the injection of hydrogen and increase the water
flow to cool down the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
From:
On 01/21/2011 11:40 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
The DN paper is an exercise in logical fallacies. And it shows how
facts can be ignored. Only the press says that what happened is cold
fusion
i.e. fusion at cold, due to its (the press') inherent sensationalism.
The world is infinitely
On 01/22/2011 02:41 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
True, Robin, but Cold Fusion was D + D fusion, this one cannot be
Peter
Stuff and nonsense. That's like saying 'thermonuclear fusion is D + T
so when Li fuses, later in the chain, it's not thermonuclear fusion.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:05 AM,
This is important! Rossi is saying that on Monday, they will upload a report
by Levi et al. describing a self-sustaining run. This is the Holy Grail of
cold fusion: a self-sustaining device that produces commercially useful
levels of power.
People may have some doubts about Rossi's credibility,
Please indicate when you are quoting and when you are writing original
material. The style you have been using indicates that /all/ that you
post is original material, which is false.
On 01/22/2011 09:09 AM, noone noone wrote:
Dear Mr Brian Robertson:
I again want to return on your comment,
It's a problem of definition. Let's it be Cold Fusion, the essential fact is
that it works reproducibly, in a controlled way and it can be scaled up snd
used commercially.
Peter
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
On 01/22/2011 02:41 AM, Peter Gluck
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Please indicate when you are quoting and when you are writing original
material.
Yes, that is a good idea. I sometimes insert the word QUOTE to make it clear
where the dividing line is.
Also, when you copy text from a web site, please copy the URL
So if this turns out to be legit (I'm 99.9% convinced it is) what is the global
significance?
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 10:15:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Monday Update to Release Information on
Jed, all
Yes, this development is important, but not exactly for the reason
specified. In fact, IMO - it makes the device far riskier in the eyes of
authorities. (and more subject to eventual political interference by Oil
interests).
Not to nitpick, but going from 20:1 P-out/P-in is
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Otherwise a runaway is more likely. In fact as far as the ‘grail’ metaphor
goes, I think most engineers would STRONGLY prefer to control the reaction
via P-in.
If N quenches the reaction, tweeking by nitrogen injection
I think it is a very good development.
It is even more evidence that the reaction is real and robust.
Safety is NOT the big issue here. The biggest issue is if this works.
If the NRC has a problem with this technology I think that Rossi should just go
to African nations, China, or India and
Let me expand the following thought a bit:
The fact that the Rossi reaction will self-sustain without external input
energy is a strong negative.
Why, you ask? In two words - chain reaction. This ability to self-sustain
is a very clear indication of at least a limited chain reaction. I
noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:
Safety is NOT the big issue here. The biggest issue is if this works.
On the contrary, some of Rossi's messages indicate that safety is a big
issue, and it is not assured.
If the NRC has a problem with this technology I think that Rossi should
Here is Ed Storms' take on the latest info, from an off-line discussion.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
The reaction is expected to be self sustaining if it has an over unity value
as measured. As I explained previously, the temperature has a natural upper
limit that will be reached if no power is
On the contrary, some of Rossi's messages indicate that safety is a big issue,
and it is not assured.
Safety is an issue, but it is not the big issue. The big issue is proving to
the
world this technology works. If it is proven this technology works then it will
be implemented around the
If the powers that be try to get in the way of this technology being utilized
then I think Rossi needs to offer the technology to China, India, North Korea,
or some third world nation and vow to never license it to the USA.
From: Jones Beene
My opinion is that the time for conspiracies by oilies to halt new
energy sources has passed. Evidence indicates that we achieved the
Hubble Peak in 2006. Saudi oil fields are in decline (seawater
injection is killing them faster due to greed). Venezuela now has
greater reserves than the
noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:
I am sure they [NRC] know it exists. They might not be taking it seriously.
Why are you sure they know it exists? Have you been in contact with someone
in the NRC who says it exists? (You need not reveal the name of your
contact.)
I disagree. I
The issue is not if global warming is happening, but if we are prepared for the
challenges facing us. There are changes coming. Nothing ever stays the same.
Sooner or later we will face significant global warming, a mini ice age, a
solar
flare, an asteroid impact, or some other issue that
I wrote:
I say this because they contact me from time to time expressing great
surprise, asking rather uniformed question . . .
That is suppose to be uninformed questions. Naive questions that reveal
they know nothing about the subject. Usually, the first thing they say is:
I thought this
First of all, I doubt that everyone at the NRC knows it exists, but the way the
government monitors EVERYTHING these days I'm sure at least someone in the NRC
has heard of it. I do not have a source.
Second of all, I understand what you are saying about how it would benefit him
if the NRC told
noone wrote:
So if this turns out to be legit (I'm 99.9% convinced it is) what is the
global significance?
Big. Very big. As Douglas Adams, describing space, said:
Space is big. Really big. You just won't
believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big
it is. I mean you may think it's a long way
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:35 PM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote
I also think we are in peak oil.
Others disagree:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/is-peak-oil-behind-us/?src=twttwt=nytimesgreen
The Hubbard peak actually occurred in 2008, not 2006.
T
On 01/22/2011 10:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is important! Rossi is saying that on Monday, they will upload a
report by Levi et al. describing a self-sustaining run. This is the
Holy Grail of cold fusion: a self-sustaining device that produces
commercially useful levels of power.
It
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:09 AM, noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Mr Brian Robertson:
I again want to return on your comment, because it is very important, and I
forgot to say a thing that I deem important too.
Oh, and I think Rossi's response was to Nobel laureate Brian D.
On 01/22/2011 11:11 AM, noone noone wrote:
I think it is a very good development.
It is even more evidence that the reaction is real and robust.
Safety is NOT the big issue here. The biggest issue is if this works.
If the NRC has a problem with this technology I think that Rossi
should
I can confirm the problems which occur during plasma electrolysis: The
excess heat measured by Rossi would be correct if indeed all the water is
converted into steam , but in practice water can be taken away with the
watervapour in e.g plasma electrolysis experiments. In the past I did many
P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote:
I can confirm the problems which occur during plasma electrolysis: The
excess heat measured by Rossi would be correct if indeed all the water is
converted into steam , but in practice water can be taken away with the
watervapour . . .
This is ruled
The 59Cu explanation seems to be nonsensical, at least with the
conventional reaction explanation implied below, because (1) it does
not explain the presence of gram quantities of observable copper (due
to the 1.36 minute half-life of 59Cu), (2) the huge flux of 0.5 MeV
gammas from
Ed Storms' take on the latest info:
* Fortunately, Nature has a control built-in to the process making the
process safe from explosion.
* JR: The reaction is inherently stable. It has what Pons called a
memory meaning it tends to go back the same power level after a
perturbation, which
A close look at the patent application indicates specific mention of
copper in the disclosure.
The only way to eliminate the expected migration of copper from one part of
the reactor to another - is a comparison of the two isotopes: 63Cu and 65Cu.
The correct ratio in nature is 69.17 /
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Ø JR: “The reaction is inherently stable. It has what Pons called a
memory meaning it tends to go back the same power level after a
perturbation, which means it must have a built-in control mechanism.”
I am not so sure. These comments overlook the
Boilingpoint depends on air pressure and can be 101 C with an airpressure of
770 mmHg.
Peter
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: Loss of heavy water as mist instead of as vapor,
From Rossi's blog:
BEGIN {QUOTE}
It may be interesting for you to get some account of the reactions on your
presentation.
I can tell you what has been written i news media in Sweden so far.
If you go to the largest technology magazine you will find your presentation
as the first news item on
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
What a beautifully ironic possibility! We could quickly go from assertions
from powerful experts that CF doesn't exist, CF is ludicrous, to assertions
it is dangerous!
Well, in all seriousness: Mizuno's cell and at least 5 others
exploded; Rossi
Yes, It is so bizarre to imagine that I am rendered speechless.
However not keyboard-less . adjust your spam filter accordingly :-)
From: Horace Heffner
What a beautifully ironic possibility! We could quickly go from assertions
from powerful experts that CF doesn't exist, CF
In reply to francis 's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:54:20 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Rich,
Nice translation of a very nice HNi reaction theory. He seems to adopt a very
transient appearance of these mini atoms similar to deflation theory and ties
it to another theory where the whole neutral mini
On Jan 22, 2011, at 3:54 AM, francis wrote:
Rich,
Nice translation of a very nice HNi reaction theory. He seems to
adopt a very transient appearance of these mini atoms similar to
deflation theory and ties it to another theory where the whole
“neutral” mini atom is captured inside the
Robin,
Not necessary. He has completely missed the possibility of enhanced
electron capture as an alternative to beta+ decay.
Yes. In fact, speaking of EC - in a way it is too bad that Rossi did not
find cobalt instead of copper as the main transmutation product.
There are a number of
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:52:29 -0900:
Hi,
The 59Cu explanation seems to be nonsensical, at least with the
conventional reaction explanation implied below, because (1) it does
not explain the presence of gram quantities of observable copper (due
to the 1.36
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The new terms each have distinct meanings, but still fall under the
umbrella of the general field of cold fusion. Cold fusion is the fusion of
atomic nuclei without the kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier,
and without the high energy
Greetings Vortex,
Am I reading this blog correctlly?
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/12/secretary-chu-calling-all-cold-fusion-inventorsand-other-revolutionaries/
Respectfully,
Ron Kita, Chiralex
I was a friend of the late Dr Mallove- we attended Temple University
Frontier
Jed sez:
...
We have about 1,000 readers a week normally. I do not know how many are
repeat visitors. Word is getting out, gradually, but the population of the
world is large, and people like Robert Park have access to the mass media,
which reaches a far larger audience than LENR-CANR.org
About an hour ago I sed:
Shouldn't we have expected commentary from the doctor [Dr. Park] by now?
I wonder what's going on in that department. Does he have a cold or something?
Well, the doctor has finally spoken
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/index.html
... and he has decided not to mention
Jones wrote:
Why, you ask? In two words - chain reaction. This ability to self-sustain is
a very clear
indication of at least a limited chain reaction. I will define the limited
part in another post.
It may be a chain reaction, but most likely NOT the kind that escalates as fast
as in a
Hi
Imagine a ball lying on a plane. The wheight is the mass times the
gravitational acceleration.
Imagine a bouncing ball. Momentarilly the force from it on the plane is
higher and when it is in the air the force is zero.
My question is if the time averaged force from the two different
In reply to noone noone's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:45:09 -0800 (PST):
Hi,
[snip]
So if this turns out to be legit (I'm 99.9% convinced it is) what is the
global
significance?
The Golden Age of Man.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:08:03 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Otherwise a runaway is more likely. In fact as far as the grail metaphor
goes, I think most engineers would STRONGLY prefer to control
It Should be the same surely.
No doubt about that, now is it? That is a different question.
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 2:39 PM, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi
Imagine a ball lying on a plane. The wheight is the mass times the
gravitational acceleration.
Imagine a
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 8:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I doubt Nitrogen can be used as a regulatory mechanism. It probably poisons
the
whole lattice, so I suspect that the reactor wouldn't work again until you got
rid of it. IOW it was a good idea to shut down a run-away (like dumping
On 01/22/2011 08:39 PM, David Jonsson wrote:
Hi
Imagine a ball lying on a plane. The wheight is the mass times the
gravitational acceleration.
Imagine a bouncing ball. Momentarilly the force from it on the plane
is higher and when it is in the air the force is zero.
My question is if
Rossi used this electronic device for electronic measurement (as was
reported) - model HD37AB1347. Relative Humidity probe model HP474AC
was attached to it.
Page three of this link (thanks to Horace) shows details of that probe
connected to the electronic device. HP474AC has the following
I hope monday's update includes some isotopic and elemental analysis of the
nickel.
Harry
From: noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 10:45:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Monday Update to Release Information on Self
Of course, in practice the results can sometimes indicate that momentum
isn't conserved.
This example is in principle not dissimilar to some inertial propulsion
concepts and there is evidence that some may work.
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
On
I can't believe you are talking like this right after you suggested the NRC
shut
down Rossi's factory and force him to spend 100 million dollars on testing.
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 4:41:26
Fusing Fear and Science - Lets stick to Nickel and Hydrogen
Humans fear the unknown. If they do not understand something their first
reaction is usually to run from it or attack it. Certain parties that
understand
this can use that fear to their advantage. There are examples of this
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:10:17 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 8:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I doubt Nitrogen can be used as a regulatory mechanism. It probably poisons
the
whole lattice, so I suspect that the reactor wouldn't work again
In reply to Jeff Driscoll's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:24:36 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
This probe does not measure the amount of liquid water droplets in the
steam (ie. mass fraction of water vapor to to total water). It measures
Relative Humidity (Relative Humidity measures how saturated the air is
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Consider that droplets can't form unless the RH is 100%. Anything less than
that
and no droplets form.
In short if they measure an RH 100% then the steam must be dry.
So, if the RH is below 100% you can surmise the steam is fully dry (0% wet)but
if the RH is
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote
I think it could be purged by a *net* flow of H *through* the reactor, but
AFAIK
Rossi only uses pressure swings superimposed on a net flow *into* the reactor.
IOW there is no H stream exiting the reactor to carry the N away, so it
From: Mark Iverson
Jones wrote:
Why, you ask? In two words - chain reaction. This ability to self-sustain
is a very clear indication of at least a limited chain reaction. I will
define the limited part in another post.
It may be a chain reaction, but most likely NOT the kind that escalates as
On 01/22/2011 10:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Jeff Driscoll's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:24:36 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
This probe does not measure the amount of liquid water droplets in the
steam (ie. mass fraction of water vapor to to total water). It measures
Relative
Reading thru the comments page on Rossi's website we find this posting:
Bernard E Souw, Ph.D.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:09 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Is your novel invention somehow related to Dr. Randell Mills (Blacklight
Power, Inc.) hydrogen
reactor based on hydrino reaction?
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:05:10 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
If it's pure steam (no entrained air) at 100 C, then the RH must be
100%, a priori, since the vapor pressure of water at 100 C is 1
atmosphere.
True, but they are likely to have measured somewhere past the
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:01:37 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
At this juncture, giving the inventor benefit of doubt, and since Rossi
seems convinced that the main reaction involves a proton and a nickel
nucleus, then we would have to conclude the relatively cold hydrogen
In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:49:32 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Why do you suppose he is asking the above question to Dr. Rossi? Either he
will use
the answer to deny Rossi any patents in the US, or, perhaps he may convince
the USPTO
to begin taking these patent
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:36:13 -0800 (PST):
Hi,
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Consider that droplets can't form unless the RH is 100%. Anything less than
that
and no droplets form.
In short if they measure an RH 100% then the steam must be dry.
So, if the RH
On Jan 22, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Jeff Driscoll wrote:
Rossi used this electronic device for electronic measurement (as
was reported) - model HD37AB1347. Relative Humidity probe model
HP474AC was attached to it.
Page three of this link (thanks to Horace) shows details of that
probe
I've spent some time reading comments on other sites reporting about the
Rossi-Focardi demo, and I
must say that there might be 1 or 2 negative comments for every 20 to 40
positive ones (and I'm not
counting people who frequent this site)... And those few are just plain
ignorant of the data.
So, reiterating what others are saying in reply to my email:
The HD37AB1347 device with the HP474AC probe is designed to measure air with
0% to 100% humidity. It is not designed to measure pure water vapor with
tiny liquid droplets (including zero liquid droplets) in it.
It isn't even close -
On Jan 22, 2011, at 4:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:08:03
-0500:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene
jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Otherwise a runaway is more likely. In fact as far as the ‘grail’
metaphor
In order to make any accurate assessment of the dryness of the steam, wouldn't
one have to measure
it as close to the reactor as possible? Could there be some condensation on
the inside walls of the
tube and the steam picking up liquid water from that? Do we know how far from
the reactor they
84 matches
Mail list logo
