10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

KitemanSA
Posts: 6180
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

raelik wrote:... unless he's either a) being an evasive con-artist or b) has completely deluded himself by being a very, very poor scientist. His claims would be self-evident if they were true.
Unless of course there was something going on that he just can't quite nail down, like it works for ten times in a row and then for some unknown reason it fails. Or, maybe it works fine and he doesn't want anyone to believe it until he has convinced enough investors to actually have a chance of keeping the technology when the proof finally does go public.

I vacillate between your a) and b) as being the most likely scenarios with the others as fairly low likelihood alternatives.

ladajo
Posts: 6264
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by ladajo »

Rossi has lied. Rossi is a liar.

This is not tirad, and never has been. It is how I see it. I did not enter the Rossi equation with this opinion. He earned it.

It is a pity you have not done your homework. If you had, you more than likely would have the same opinion. But, I can't and won't speak for you. The choice is yours to make. Once you do some homework (as time permits), there is plenty of fact to back it up. Enough even for court decisions. And it has all been presented here, several times in many cases.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

KitemanSA
Posts: 6180
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

ScottL wrote:Kite's assumption that we can have an honest challenge of any contradiction with Rossi is absurd. We've done this before. I've specifically posted questions to his blog before for the benefit of this thread. If you point out a contradiction, he calls you a snake, so how does one make a conclusion if the man is unwilling to explain any seemingly contradictory statements? You can't according to Kite, so Kite will always have a way out in these discussions just as Rossi.
This is an interesting sidestep. I ask whether anyone knows how to present this issue to Rossi and ScottL jumps in to dissuade any such attempt. Curious.

Betruger
Posts: 2327
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by Betruger »

raelik wrote: Nothing Rossi is doing is going to affect that, beyond possibly wasting the time of people who might otherwise be doing other work in the field.
Enabled by e.g. Kiteman. Analogs of patent trolls gaming the game with technicalities that fly in the face of any lucid reality/sanity check.

What a scientific fraud. Rossi, if scientific fraud was actually meaningful to average public morality, oughta be tried and condemned for his behavior; condemned not with some schadenfreudian punishment but with plain simple boot to the ass from ever again hampering proper R&D. He's nothing but a parasitic cockblock.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

Just for the record:
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2004 ... 7020.shtml
Recycling toxic waste Acquitted Andrea Rossi
The prosecutor had asked for a sentence of three years and a half Silvia Underwire: polluter gets
away
MILAN - Acquittal "because the fact does not exist" for Andrea Rossi, accused of conspiracy to commit money laundering of toxic and hazardous waste of 80 tons between Hoofddorp and Lacchiarella. Rossi was arrested in 1995, when he claimed to be able to turn that waste into oil. He remained in jail six months. The prosecutor had asked for a sentence of three years and six months. This is the third acquittal, the other two had been obtained at Monza and Ariano Irpino, where they were transferred into two sections of investigation. After years of investigation and controversy, Rossi was finally sanctioned only for minor events related to non-compliance with the authorizations he had obtained for the disposal of waste. Appeal is still pending in the trial for fraudulent bankruptcy due to the collapse of Omar, the company that took over from Petrol Dragon refinery Lacchiarella and meant to be distilled waste: for this process, in 2000, Andrea Rossi was sentenced to summary
proceedings by the Gup Milan to eight years in prison. To rehabilitate approximately 70,000 tons of accumulated waste accumulated, the Lombardy Region has paid about € 41 million over 10 years. "The acquittal of Rossi clearly shows how the principle of "polluter pays" principle is often applied in reverse: the polluter earns and gets away with it", said Silvia Clementi, regional director of An. G. Gua.

Betruger
Posts: 2327
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by Betruger »

http://youtu.be/vBHNmw0A80M
In the city of Naples, Italy, the Mafia has controlled the waste-management industry for decades -- dumping and burning trash across its rolling hills and vineyards. In 1994, the European Union declared the situation an official environmental emergency, and things have only gotten worse since then. When we investigated the situation we found mutated sheep, poisoned mozzarella, alarming rates of cancer, and pissed off farmers ready to push back against the Camorra, Italy's most powerful and dangerous criminal organization (and the government that enables it).
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:This is an interesting sidestep. I ask whether anyone knows how to present this issue to Rossi and ScottL jumps in to dissuade any such attempt. Curious.
Seriously? You are kidding, right? If by chance you are't kidding, just ask him on his blog. No registration necessary. Just post your comment. He sometimes answers. Multiple people here have posted on his blog, received answers, and then posted those to this thread. It is hard to imagine that you haven't noticed.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote:Just to be unambiguous in the light of Kite's obfuscation, I would like to go back in time to the sequence of events that led me to believe that Rossi was full of shit.

5) Rossi, in a comment on his blog, states that only NI62 and NI64 'react' to form stable copper. Two problems. a) what happened to the claims in 1, 2, and 3 above? b) how does only 4% of naturally occuring isotopes of nickel (NI62 and NI64) transmute to more than 30% copper in the ash?

Just wanted to be clear that there is a basis for my position and conclusion and it is not 'nothing'.

Thanks
I don't recall any of the points except #5 which is one of those examples of such a monumentally DUMB question that I remembered it. The question went something like, "is it true that only Ni62 and Ni64 react to form stable copper?" And the answer was "Yes." Well DUH.. There are only two stable isotopes of copper, Cu63 and Cu65. Given the speculated Ni(p,?)X reaction, then only Ni62 will react to form stable Cu63, and only Ni64 will react to for stable Cu65. Anything else will react to form something else.

As to the other stuff, I will investigate as time permits.
I doubt you will investigate anything, whether in due time or not. Most of the items in my list are just restatements of his original paper on the ECAT. Obviously, if you can't recall having heard these claims, then you haven't read the paper. Amazing. 700 pages of blog posts which you are actively involved in and you haven't even read the original paper on the subject (only a few pages) which claims that the energy comes from proton capture by all isotopes of Nickel with subsequent decays. You are arguing, calling people ignorant and worms and most recently "DUMB" for SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES, and you haven't even read the paper that describes the device being argued over. WOW! You are a piece of work.

Regarding your comments on item 5, I provide the following from Rossi's blog.

Q - On this blog you have said that only NI62 and NI64 react. Do all isotopes react?
Rossi - No.

Q - Is my understanding correct that only NI62 and NI64 transmute to copper?
Rossi - yes.

Q - Can you tell us if you believe only 62Ni and 64Nickel are actively involved in the eCat reaction? Are the other stable isotopes of Nickel not in the reaction?
Rossi - Yes.

Q - Italian
Rossi - We enrich the Ni with the 62 and 64 isotopes, which are the sole to work...

Q - [regarding potential NI59]
Rossi - You missed all the explication I gave many times regarding the Ni in our E-Cat, and I cannot repeat many times the same thing. In our process only Ni 62 and 64 react

Q - [no important]
Rossi - As I have explained many times, we use Ni enriched of 62 and 64 Ni, which are the sole to react,

Q - Italian
Rossi - The Cu produced is 63 and 65, because only Ni 62 and 64 react...

I really don't understand why you must object to EVERYTHING anyone says. He is clearly claiming that ONLY NI62 and NI64 'react'. BTW, I did a search for "stable copper" on his blog trying to find reference to the "DUMB" question you are referring to. I assumed you were referring to one of my questions that I posted here, and that calling it DUMB was another personal statement about me, but I just wanted to make sure that you were referencing the right quote. So, here it is:

My Question - Prof. Focardi in a recent interview talked about all nickel reacting and a series of decays which seems inconsistent with your statements of only NI62 and NI64 reacting to produce stable copper. Are you guys in agreement about the process?
Rossi - I cannot answer to this question, until I will disclose the theory of the effect we get.

I wasn't asking if only NI62 and NI64 react, It was already established at that point. Rather, I was trying to understand why Focardi was saying something completely different (consistent with the original paper and the patent) than Rossi was saying. Seems like a reasonable question to me.

Finally, if you want to find anything out at all, it is really easy to search on his blog. There is a blog reader set up. Just go here: http://www.rossilivecat.com/all.html

So, can we agree that Rossi is claiming that only NI62 and NI64 react/transmute?
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

Does he provide any explanation for why he says boron is included in the shield?

Boron is exclusively a neutron shield, but if the only reaction is a gamma emitting Ni to Cu EM mediated protonisation, then boron would serve zip zero purpose.

It sounds like someone who has half-read about fission reactor shielding, and doesn't really understand what he has read.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by seedload »

chrismb wrote:Does he provide any explanation for why he says boron is included in the shield?

Boron is exclusively a neutron shield, but if the only reaction is a gamma emitting Ni to Cu EM mediated protonisation, then boron would serve zip zero purpose.

It sounds like someone who has half-read about fission reactor shielding, and doesn't really understand what he has read.
" We put boron just for safety, as Prof. Focardi teached to me. Kind of just in case…"
"After 2 hours we still have thermal emission, but still we don’t have radiations out of the reactor. Of course, the lasting of thermal emission means that readiation (gamma) continues to be thermalized. We ( Focardi and me) are convinced that neutrons don’t reach the energy to exit the nuclea, with some exception, which is thermalized in 20′,also because our shielding od boron and lead is much lower that you calculated."

Agree regarding "half-read".
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

Rossi wrote:Of course, the lasting of thermal emission means that readiation (gamma) continues to be thermalized.
Image

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by seedload »

the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end of the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was integrally bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which has worked for 6 monthes, 24 hours per day, at the end had a percentage of Cu superior to 30%
If only NI62 and NI64 react, then in order to achieve 30% transmutation to copper, the amount of NI58/NI60/NI61 must be reduced by 10X relative to the amount of NI62,NI64.
Two different samples of material used in the experiments ... were analysed at Padova University SIMS. In the long period sample, the mass analysis showed the presence of three peaks in the mass region 63-65 a.m.u. which correspond respectively to Cu63, elements (Ni64 and Zn65) deriving from Cu64 decay and Cu65.... These allowed us the determination of the ratio Cu63/Cu65=1,6 different from the value (2,24) relative to the copper isotopic natural composition.
To achieve a 1/6 ratio of CU63 relative to CU65 in the ash, assuming 30% transmutation to copper, then approximately 26% of the nickel in the 'charge' would have to have been NI64. In order to get 26% NI64, the amount of NI58,NI60,NI61, and NI62 would have to be reduced by approximately 97% from natural nickel isotopic composition. Note, that it is also required that NI62 be far less reactive than NI64 or further reduction in NI62 would be necessary to produce the 1/6 ratio claimed by independent analysis.

Based on the above, here is what I think happened. When faced with questions regarding the long half lived NI59 by-product of his original paper and patent, Rossi came up with an answer that would avoid the issue - that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react. This new answer, though completely inconsistent with his original paper and patent, avoided the problem of long lived radioactivity entirely. However, it also created a new problem with regards to the claim of 30% transmuted copper. My opinion is that Rossi then overcame this by claiming the unlikely isotopic enrichment. But, in my strong opinion, the claim of cheap enrichment is very unlikely to be true and, more importantly, the enrichment numbers don't seem to work. Futher, long after Rossi made the only NI62 and NI64 reacting claims, Focardi was interviewed about the process. In this interview, he continued to support the original theory, that all isotopes of NI react and that much of the energy comes from the radioactive decay of short lived isotopes of Nickel. It seems that Focardi was not on the same page as Rossi at that point - ie, he hadn't caught up with Rossi's lies.

I would also like to mention that Rossi said in an interview that a rare isotope of copper is produced. While he denied ever saying that, Georgio confirmed the translation. Obviously, this is not reasonable if only NI62 and NI64 are 'reacting'.

Finally, I would further say that, if Rossi is right and only NI62 and NI64 react, then there is no apparent reason to enrich for them. Just use a bigger charge of the natural isotopic ratio. In fact, Rossi can be quoted as saying that enrichment is not necessary. My opinion is that the reasoning behind enriching for these isotopes is dubious even if the math worked.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

KitemanSA
Posts: 6180
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

Betruger wrote:What a scientific fraud. Rossi, if scientific fraud was actually meaningful to average public morality, oughta be tried and condemned for his behavior; condemned not with some schadenfreudian punishment but with plain simple boot to the ass from ever again hampering proper R&D. He's nothing but a parasitic cockblock.
What a scientific idiocy. Rossi is not a scientist and applying scientific criteria to him is... well, dumb.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6180
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:This is an interesting sidestep. I ask whether anyone knows how to present this issue to Rossi and ScottL jumps in to dissuade any such attempt. Curious.
Seriously? You are kidding, right? If by chance you are't kidding, just ask him on his blog. No registration necessary. Just post your comment. He sometimes answers. Multiple people here have posted on his blog, received answers, and then posted those to this thread. It is hard to imagine that you haven't noticed.
Link?

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by seedload »

BTW, and this one is funny. Rossi says that the Nickel in the charge can be recycled. He says this repeatedly in many different posts on his page. If only NI62 and NI64 can react and they are transmuted to copper, then what nickel is left to recycle? The stuff without the isotopes that react? If there is any significant quantity of NI62 or NI64 left in the charge, which he plans to enrich further to create a new charge, then how much must he have enriched the initial charge? This is just stupid, plain and simple.

Oh yeah, and also interesting to consider is that, if only NI62 and NI64 are reacting, then the ratio of these isotopes must be going down significantly over the lifetime of a charge. ie - the power output must be dropping substantially. If 30% of the nickel left at the end was turned into copper, then there was way more than 30% of NI62/NI64 in the original charge or the power drop off would have been too pronounced to continue operation for that long. So how enriched did the charge need to be? Double it to 60% of the isotopes 62/64 and something else happens, how the hell do you get 1 CU63 to every 6 CU65s without also significantly changing the ratio of NI62 to NI64 (naturally almost 4-1 the wrong way). So, his enrichment requires a HUGE elimination of 58/60/61 and then a massive change in ratios of 62 to 64.

Oh yeah, and after having figured all of this out and fined tuned the remarkable enrichment so that everything works great, Rossi can say the following:

Q - Are you reasonably certain that both Ni62 and Ni64 are indeed reacting? If so; which one reacts fastest?
Rossi - I do not know which one reacts fastest.

Seems like a pretty important thing to know if you are going to go to all this trouble to mystically and monumentally adjust the isotopic ratios to maximize the reaction.

There was never a reason to look past these ridiculous isotopic enrichment claims for any other reason not to believe Rossi. Even so, there are plenty of other reasons.
Last edited by seedload on Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

Post Reply