Am 09.09.2011 22:28, schrieb Peter Gluck:
Thanks for the answers.
We have to use statistics to draw false conclusions from true/real
data but nothing can help in order to draw good conclusions from false
or imaginary data. If they are contradictory even worse.
There is one constant data. Rossi repeats over and over to present the
1MW plant at end of october and to present his theory. He repeats this
mantra 100 times each hour ;-) The statistics is easy ;-)
NASA and Bushnell have not tested Piantelli's method, they have never
written to him and it is also not sure that NASA is Rossi's Great
American Partner.
I have repeatedly found on the web that they used the Piantelli method
to test the Widom Larsen theory.
It is clear, there are no evident scientific results ready to publish
now. You will not find any official that confirms inpublic to be working
on that.
I dont think they want to repeat Fleischmann & Pons failure and give it
into the media before it is ready and seriously scientifically published.
If Rossi will win, then he will win and other persons that did not
contribute will not win much from this.
If Rossi looses then all will loose. Even the passive observers will be
blamed and ridiculed.
So nobody else than Rossi and Focardi has a chance to win something.
Why should anybody take the risk and make official statements and to be
ridiculed later?
Rossi is the most unpredictable individual I ever met on the Web.
You can see at my blog that I am fond of interestingness
but NOT this kind of interestingness.
Peter
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Peter Heckert <peter.heck...@arcor.de
<mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de>> wrote:
Am 09.09.2011 20:24, schrieb Peter Gluck:
How could they know that it was air in the reactor? I
Dont know. You must ask them. Maybe it was open and exposed to air
long before, or they asked Rossi.
If it was how can 50 cc air be transforrned in a small
impurity?
At 20 bar pressure 50 cc compresses to 2.5 cc.
Why does noiw Rossi say he is flushing too?
We dont know. It makes sense to do that, even if not necessary,
because eliminating unknown and unneeded factors is always good.
Maybe he got the idea just now, from the question ;-)
Ask Rossi. He will say: Cannot give information about the the
reactor ;-)
Lack of reliable, serious data. Or the additive (not catalyst)
can be molecular sieves?
There is not much information in Rossis Forum. Rossi repeats his
mantra over and over in the forum and shows that he is still alive.
NASA and Bushnell should know more. They had already tested the
Piantelli experiments, and if they are still working with Rossi,
there must be something behind, but they dont want to tell us now
-obviously.
Maybe they obfuscate it by purpose.
Kullander and Essen could know, in case they have received a real
cell with the original core material for
analysis- but I doubt, how could they find natural isotopic
distribution of Ni and Cu?
Dont know. Dont know if they found something else. If yes, then
they might not want to make it public now in the media and must
investigate this scientifically. Maybe they all smoke something ;-)
Peter
Peter
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Peter Heckert
<peter.heck...@arcor.de <mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de>> wrote:
Kullander and Essen reported, that the reactor was not flushed.
<http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.>
Page 2 , "Startup":
"The air of atmospheric pressure was remaining in the
container as a small impurity."
Am 09.09.2011 06:18, schrieb Peter Gluck:
I have found this as interesting too, because Rossi has
repeatedly suggested that his system can tolerate air in
contact with the core material:
*
Andrea Rossi
September 4th, 2011 at 3:17 PM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=6#comment-68499>
Dear Alan De Angelis:
We have to purge also.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*
Alan DeAngelis
September 4th, 2011 at 1:33 PM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=6#comment-68481>
Dear Ing. Rossi:
I’m just curious. When organic chemists do catalytic
hydrogenations (with palladium, nickel, et cetera) in a
pressurized
shakerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenation they
first purge air out of the system by cycling back and
forth between vacuum (with a vacuum pump) and hydrogen
several times before they finally pressurize with
hydrogen. Do you do this with the E-Cat or do you just
blow the air out with some hydrogen and go straight to
the pressurization? (Don’t feel obliged to answer this
if it would reveal too much about the process.)
All the best,
Alan DeAngelis
According to Piantelli (see WO 2010/058288 for example)
deep degassing is a sine qua non condition of
success/reproducibility because gas molecules adsorbed
on the active clusters compete with hydrogen.
Peter
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:44 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent
Johnson <orionwo...@charter.net
<mailto:orionwo...@charter.net>> wrote:
Jed sez:
> Alan: Thanks again for monitoring Rossi's blog.
It's a dirty job and Alan is the right man to do it.
I ditto Jed's sentiments.
Thanks, Alan.
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com <http://www.OrionWorks.com>
www.zazzle.com/orionworks <http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks>
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
