Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Another error in an ongoing comedy. I had intended the link to be this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDAeJ7eLGGg Harry On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > Jones, is it not true that none of ue here at Vortex has invested in Rossi? > If that is

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Jones, is it not true that none of ue here at Vortex has invested in Rossi? If that is true then we can hardly be even upset about what he says. In which way do we have the right to point finger at Rossi? Even if some of his doing and saying is incorrect and he has done that to protect his IP or

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Monty Python - Tim the Enchanter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaDptmMgWQk Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Eric, you are trying to gloss over unscrupulous conduct. It stinks no > matter what name you put on it. I only wonder whether Rossi has committed fraud, illegal or otherwise. I've given at least one reason I think he

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

From: Eric Walker Ø In other words, I don't think there is a need to presume that fraud involved. Eric, you are trying to gloss over unscrupulous conduct. It stinks no matter what name you put on it. If you admit that there was deceit of any kind, I have listed circumstance which

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

I wrote: Another difficulty I have is that there are other plausible explanations > than misdirection for why there was such a big shift in the amounts of > nickel isotopes, even assuming that Rossi intentionally made use of it. > The "it" above refers to 62Ni, which I accidentally left out.

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Ø EW: There is no need to presume that there was any fraud involved… > > > > Wrong. Given the circumstance, fraud is the most logical conclusion based > on the facts. Your stance is similar to saying that OJ was innocent

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

There appears confusion in Parkhomov's Sochi paper about chart 14. The graph on the left appears to be a fuel percentage, perhaps by atomic abundance (not weight). It includes all of the components found in any significant amount. If you go through the estimated values for the before bars, they

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

with that expected in natural Li. Is the Russian Li source different than the MFMP source? What do other Vorts think? Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 7:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress From: Bob Cook Ø The AP test did not run very

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

thing Rossi has going from him is that he does not know too much physics to stymie his experimental approach at finding conditions and materials that work. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 7:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress From: Bob

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Making sense out of the way nuclear reactions occur in LENR is a fruitless endeavor. It might be that the Ni62 was produced by a single cluster fusion event with Li7 in which a trillion atoms were involved. The nickel and lithium might have been included in a Bose condensate where all the atoms

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

AP's 15-day run should have shown a much more significant shift if the Lugano results are true. His COP is not mentioned, but noted 100W of excess for 15-days. Isn't that probably in the range of Lugano's true excess output? Also, AP's best recent results were 100W excess over 15 days. What

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

From: Bob Cook Ø The AP test did not run very long and may not have depleted the Ni to the extent of the Lugano test. Here is the comparative data. The important comparison is on slide 14. As a good scientist, you will change your view after studying this.

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

I am glad that Russ and Jones seem to understand the NI LENR reactions so well. I think they should write science papers on the subject. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 6:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress From: Eric Walker Russ

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

the favored transmutations---I think it is not too well founded to proclaim what should be there after a few days vs a month. I agree with Eric’s assessment. Bob Cook From: Russ George Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 11:14 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress The Lugano

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

From: Eric Walker Russ George wrote: C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64[62]Ni is an impossible bit of data … that number is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece of BS out the window into the garden where it might do some good. Ø EW: There is no need to

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

> On Mar 21, 2016, at 23:14, "Russ George" wrote: > > The Lugano issue is the mono-isotopic signature in Ni… no pure isotope Ni is > available (99%-93% pure isotopes of Ni are available). The instrumentation is > capable of seeing into the second decimal place in % so

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

which is either a gross error or worse – incompetence, mis-direction, ??? Parkhomov’s Ni isotope signatures by comparison look feasible, though anomalous. From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Russ George wrote: C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, > there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be > so pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes.

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

21, 2016 7:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress On the contrary ... The planted particle benefits from being larger than the typical nickel fuel particle as part of a plan which makes it likely to be tested. Having enriched isotope already inside the tube

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

theoretical notion/exercise, as is isotope separation. Perhaps the Lugano 64Ni data if fully presented in raw form with the necessary calibration data might reveal more. From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:38 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

On the contrary ... The planted particle benefits from being larger than the typical nickel fuel particle as part of a plan which makes it likely to be tested. Having enriched isotope already inside the tube prior to the loading is not enough, and you want to make sure it gets noticed at

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

The Ni62 ash particle is unlikely to be a plant because it is a huge paticle(600 by 1000 microns) far larger than any fuel particle in the fuel load and it was melted onto the surface of the center of alumina tube. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

From: Russ George Ø Ø C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number is bogus by gross error or

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

that piece of BS out the window into the garden where it might do some good. From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 1:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress Jones etal.-- I agree with Alain and Lennart for what its worth. I

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Russ and others-- A. Renoir went through the same kind of attacks when he started painting in the 1870’s. The art critics were vicious. Nevertheless one of the large paintings (Au Moulin de la Galette) he made early on (which now occupies a prominent position in the Impressionists Wing of

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Jones etal.-- I agree with Alain and Lennart for what its worth. I doubt the potential salting of the Lugano reactor with Ni-64 had much to do with the excess heat that was apparently observed and believed to have been produced by the Swedes and Italians involved. In addition I consider the

[Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

Adrian-- I tend to agree with you about the establishment knowing a lot about LENR. For example, if you assume Ed Storms was involved with the Establishment via LANL and listen carefully to his recent on-line interview, Ed notes that LANL was making tritium early, on apparently with D and H