FYI, you can search all of Rossi's blogs using this handy link: http://www.rossilivecat.com/all.html
Here is an entry from Aug. 28 2014 where Rossi states that his Rossi effect seems to enrich nickel to Ni62, and that Ni62 seems to improve the efficiency of the reaction. H http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=12#comment-992087 Quoting Rossi " We think that our process, the so called “Rossi Effect”, is , as a serendipity, also a system to produce 62Ni, because only this fact can explain the formation of atoms of stable Cu, even if in very small amounts; we also noticed that using eventually powders of Ni enriched this way, the efficiency of the E-Cats increases. But we are not sure of this fact, because there may have been errors in the analysis, so we are studying , as a side effect , this phenomenon. Obviously, I cannot add information regarding this issue, pending the patents relative to it. " -Brad Lowe On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > I > > f I read the information correctly reactor is only transparent to I.R. below > a wavelength of about 5 microns ( almost 0% transmissive at wavelengths > longer than 5 microns) and they used I.R. cameras that were sensitive in the > range of 7.5 microns and 13 microns. Therefor the cameras would never detect > any I.R. (of very, very, little <1% ) emitted from the inside of the > reactor. The reactor was opaque to infrared from the interior of the > reactor. > > Robert Dorr > > > > > > At 05:41 PM 10/11/2014, you wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mix...@bigpond.com >> >> ...and besides there is the "little" matter of all that excess energy. >> >> "All that excess?" >> >> In fact, here is nothing that can be called scientifically proved excess >> energy at all... this is because the experiment is fatally flawed in using >> a >> IR translucent reactor - and failing to coat it with a black coating - >> which >> any grad student would know to do. >> >> Where were the Swedes? Asleep at the wheel? >> >> Apparently, there is an small hermetically sealed ampoule inside the >> alumina, containing reactants. This ampoule is inside the larger >> translucent >> tube, and there is net gain from it. We can agree on that. >> >> The calculations of an expert with whom I am corresponding thinks the >> excess >> could be in the range of COP 1.2 to 1.5 based on an assumed size for this >> ampoule. It cannot be large. If it were to fill the entire open space, >> then >> OK gain would be larger but far below the claim. Yet this is still gain >> and >> I am overjoyed by that but not by these problems with the isotopes. That >> stinks. >> >> Anyway, I would not classify this result as "all that excess"... and in >> fact >> the low COP could explain why these other things (suspicious isotopic >> anomalies) have been included in a report that is well below expectations. >> >> I will agree there is some gain, but perhaps half of what is claimed. That >> provides "motivation" for fraud - when one is on record as claiming much >> more. >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14 > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14 >
