10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Axil]

In the past, their has been some speculation here (Axil I think) that part (all?) of the E-Cat Hi preprosing included isotope separation. Rossi seems to put that to rest here:

http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/andrea-ross ... highlights

Question: Your fuels are both Hydrogen and Nickel if I have understood you correctly, but can we suppose that all the Nickel isotopes participate in the Ni+H reaction or only a particular isotope of Nickel make the reaction and the other isotopes are useless?

Answer: We think that all the Ni participates in the reactions, even if some isotopes should be more efficient. Anyway, we use regular Ni, because the isotopes separation is too expensive, at least right now.

Some of the other highlights included in the summary may be of interest as well.

Please allow me to clarify my original post on isotope enhancement. There is an important difference between separation and enhancement of isotopes; purity.

A sight enhancement of an isotope is relatively easy to do but separation is very hard and expensive.

Rossi seems to put that to rest here:

On the contrary, Rossi confirms isotope enhancement.

Ni62 and Ni64 must enhance the reaction because of the larger supply of neutrons that these nickel isotopes bring to it.

[Axil]

For you scientist naysayers, here is an experiment that confirms Rossi’s process through an identical transmutation mechanism.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf

Transmutation of metal at low energy in a confined plasma in water

Rather than nickel, tungsten is transmuted to elements with atomic numbers just under or just over tungsten’s atomic number. This is the same type of transmutation process that occurs in the Rossi reactor.

Using an SEM (scanning electron microscope), the presence of rhenium, osmium, gold, hafnium, thulium, erbium, and ytterbium are found on the surface of the cathode. These elements were not previously in the apparatus (see Fig. 12, 13, 14).

There was a good deal of radiation produced but not much excess heat due to the lack of coherent matter (atomic coherence converts RF emissions to thermal energy) near the negative tungsten electrode, IMHO.

[Joseph Chikva]

Ni62 and Ni64 must enhance the reaction because of the larger supply of neutrons that these nickel isotopes bring to it.

• In comparison of what "larger"?
• Where the neutrons generally?
• What energy they have?
• Flux?
• How all those parameters were measured?

Is the neutron flux is characteristic for "occurring reaction"?
Like this: one event produces a certain quantity of neutrons with certain energy of each.
E.g. D+T=> He4 (3.5MeV) + n (14.1MeV)
So, knowing how much neutrons has been produced I easily can calculated how much fusion events has been occurred. Also I can calculate the energy yield.
And flux of neutrons is proportional to producing energy.
In your example when claimed that initially Rossi had a burst of neutrons does it mean that some reaction goes very short time?
Or I understand nothing? Or Rossi bubbles nonsenses? And all his funs together with him?

[Giorgio]

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... rorUzZ18Jw

Sorry for the long link.

Conference about the-cat, organised by someone from the University of Pisa.

The appointment is therefore in Viareggio (LU) Saturday, July 23, 16.00-19,30 time, in the conference room of Villa Borbone, located in the address labels that leads from Viareggio to Torre del Lago Admission free

Unless some last minute issue I have already planned to attend.

[Giorgio]

For you scientist naysayers, here is an experiment that confirms Rossi’s process through an identical transmutation mechanism.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf

Transmutation of metal at low energy in a confined plasma in water

Rather than nickel, tungsten is transmuted to elements with atomic numbers just under or just over tungsten’s atomic number. This is the same type of transmutation process that occurs in the Rossi reactor.

Using an SEM (scanning electron microscope), the presence of rhenium, osmium, gold, hafnium, thulium, erbium, and ytterbium are found on the surface of the cathode. These elements were not previously in the apparatus (see Fig. 12, 13, 14).

There was a good deal of radiation produced but not much excess heat due to the lack of coherent matter (atomic coherence converts RF emissions to thermal energy) near the negative tungsten electrode, IMHO.

It does not confirm Rossi at all.
I have already discussed Cirillo and his experiments few pages ago.
They had this weird extra heat results in 2004, but by 2008 they published a report confirming NO extra heat, and the previous results to be measurements errors.
The presence of transmutation elements remains confirmed, but still to be explained.

[DancingFool]

In the past, their has been some speculation here (Axil I think) that part (all?) of the E-Cat Hi preprosing included isotope separation. Rossi seems to put that to rest here:

http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/andrea-ross ... highlights

Question: Your fuels are both Hydrogen and Nickel if I have understood you correctly, but can we suppose that all the Nickel isotopes participate in the Ni+H reaction or only a particular isotope of Nickel make the reaction and the other isotopes are useless?

Answer: We think that all the Ni participates in the reactions, even if some isotopes should be more efficient. Anyway, we use regular Ni, because the isotopes separation is too expensive, at least right now.

Some of the other highlights included in the summary may be of interest as well.

Please allow me to clarify my original post on isotope enhancement. There is an important difference between separation and enhancement of isotopes; purity.

A sight enhancement of an isotope is relatively easy to do but separation is very hard and expensive.

Rossi seems to put that to rest here:

On the contrary, Rossi confirms isotope enhancement.

Actually, what Rossi claims is something else again - isotope elimination. He is adamant that no Ni58 is used.

From http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... ment-35773

Andrea Rossi
April 29th, 2011 at 2:47 PM
Dear Mr Daniel De Francia:
Yes
Warm regards,
A.R.

Daniel de França MTd2
April 29th, 2011 at 2:09 PM
Dr Mr. Rossi,

Concerning the Nickel input in the experiment, do you deplete it of Ni58?

Best,

Daniel.

Also, http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 2#comments

Andrea Rossi
June 2nd, 2011 at 8:23 AM
Dear Dr M.S. Meyers:
The 58-Ni doesn’t work.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

M S Meyers
June 1st, 2011 at 11:06 PM
I recalculated this articles numbers using Ni-58 and Cu-63 masses and come up with a number of ~35% conversion to copper, which matches the claims. This assumes starting with 100% Ni-58, a simplification. I’ve seen several references to Fe and Zn as by products which, if true, means other reactions must be occurring. My only reservation is that FE-58 to Cu-63 requires 5 reactions and this will be intriguing to explain.

So, if Rossi is to be believed, he separates out the higher isotopes and discards all of the Ni58. (And does it for literally pennies per gram, which is a really good trick. What a Renaissance Man that Rossi is!) Under this scenario, there is no apparent need to maintain normal isotope ratios in the processed output.

Ni62 and Ni64 must enhance the reaction because of the larger supply of neutrons that these nickel isotopes bring to it.

No. "must enhance the reaction because"? Talk about speculation based on ignorance. Rossi has always maintained that the process works by proton capture and subsequent (fast) decay. This claim goes all the way back to his patent application. Ni58 would transmute to Cu59, and _that_ has a half-life of 7400 years. And that would be really embarrasing. If Ni58 "doesn't work" (Rossi's words) in the sense that it doesn't transmute, then there would be no need to eliminate it from the reactor powder.

[Axil]

In the past, their has been some speculation here (Axil I think) that part (all?) of the E-Cat Hi preprosing included isotope separation. Rossi seems to put that to rest here:

http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/andrea-ross ... highlights
Some of the other highlights included in the summary may be of interest as well.

Please allow me to clarify my original post on isotope enhancement. There is an important difference between separation and enhancement of isotopes; purity.

A sight enhancement of an isotope is relatively easy to do but separation is very hard and expensive.

Rossi seems to put that to rest here:

On the contrary, Rossi confirms isotope enhancement.

Actually, what Rossi claims is something else again - isotope elimination. He is adamant that no Ni58 is used.

From http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... ment-35773

Andrea Rossi
April 29th, 2011 at 2:47 PM
Dear Mr Daniel De Francia:
Yes
Warm regards,
A.R.

Daniel de França MTd2
April 29th, 2011 at 2:09 PM
Dr Mr. Rossi,

Concerning the Nickel input in the experiment, do you deplete it of Ni58?

Best,

Daniel.

Also, http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 2#comments

Andrea Rossi
June 2nd, 2011 at 8:23 AM
Dear Dr M.S. Meyers:
The 58-Ni doesn’t work.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

M S Meyers
June 1st, 2011 at 11:06 PM
I recalculated this articles numbers using Ni-58 and Cu-63 masses and come up with a number of ~35% conversion to copper, which matches the claims. This assumes starting with 100% Ni-58, a simplification. I’ve seen several references to Fe and Zn as by products which, if true, means other reactions must be occurring. My only reservation is that FE-58 to Cu-63 requires 5 reactions and this will be intriguing to explain.

So, if Rossi is to be believed, he separates out the higher isotopes and discards all of the Ni58. (And does it for literally pennies per gram, which is a really good trick. What a Renaissance Man that Rossi is!) Under this scenario, there is no apparent need to maintain normal isotope ratios in the processed output.

Ni62 and Ni64 must enhance the reaction because of the larger supply of neutrons that these nickel isotopes bring to it.

No. "must enhance the reaction because"? Talk about speculation based on ignorance. Rossi has always maintained that the process works by proton capture and subsequent (fast) decay. This claim goes all the way back to his patent application. Ni58 would transmute to Cu59, and _that_ has a half-life of 7400 years. And that would be really embarrasing. If Ni58 "doesn't work" (Rossi's words) in the sense that it doesn't transmute, then there would be no need to eliminate it from the reactor powder.

The word deplete does not mean completely remove; it means “to reduce”


So sorry for not believing you, You know: “Trust by verify” I looked at


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958PhRv..109..863B

The half-life of Cu59 was measured to be 81.5+/-0.5 seconds

Cu59 decays to Ni59. Ni59 does decay to Co59 in 76,000 years. Mode of decay: Electron capture to Co59. Decay energy: 1.072 MeV ...


If fast decay of Ni59 is happening, this could explain why some cobalt is found in the Rossi and Piantelli ash.

I suspect that Ni58 has a very small cross section for proton fusion because it only has two extra neutrons.

PS. It has been found that a proton has a very strong need to pair with a neutron in the nucleus. Yes passive voice again.

[seedload]

No. "must enhance the reaction because"? Talk about speculation based on ignorance. Rossi has always maintained that the process works by proton capture and subsequent (fast) decay. This claim goes all the way back to his patent application. Ni58 would transmute to Cu59, and _that_ has a half-life of 7400 years. And that would be really embarrasing. If Ni58 "doesn't work" (Rossi's words) in the sense that it doesn't transmute, then there would be no need to eliminate it from the reactor powder.

Exactly.

Rossi claims that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react. Yet, for some unexplained reason, he also claims that he eliminates NI58 and enhances for NI62 and NI64. Why? Probably because he originally made these claims while answering questions regarding the copper isotopic ratio of the ash. He was trying to explain the fact that the copper in the ash had a natural ratio that can't be explained (by simple math) using a natural isotopic ratio of Nickel. So, he had to explain that he changed the ratio of the Nickel.

Basically, he started with the only NI62 and NI64 react stuff to explain the stable copper output, but then had to add the enrichment stuff to explain the copper ratios. In my opinion, he got caught.

And, in the process, he is now left claiming that only NI62 and NI64 react, that NI58 does not react, and that for some reason, he depletes the NI58 anyway.

This exchange and the miraculous claim of cheap enrichment/depleting is the day that I changed from highly skeptical to a probability approaching zero.

[seedload]

Cu59 decays to Ni59. Ni59 does decay to Co59 in 76,000 years. Mode of decay: Electron capture to Co59. Decay energy: 1.072 MeV ...

If fast decay of Ni59 is happening, this could explain why some cobalt is found in the Rossi and Piantelli ash.

I suspect that Ni58 has a very small cross section for proton fusion because it only has two extra neutrons.

PS. It has been found that a proton has a very strong need to pair with a neutron in the nucleus. Yes passive voice again.

But Rossi doesn't claim this!

June 2nd, 2011 at 9:59 AM
Mr. Rossi,

Amazing progress so far and congratulations on having fully formulated the theory even if it has to be kept a mystery from us:) Hopefully you can provide a little confirmation of some information you have already provided without disclosing your theory.

If I am correct, sir, you are saying that only NI62 and NI64 ‘react’ to form copper – presumably through some process that allows it to pick up the proton of Hydrogen. I also understand that you have a theory to explain what is happening.

* Is my understanding correct that only NI62 and NI64 transmute to copper?
* Does your theory explain why only these two isotopes react.
* Does your theory explain why the resultant Cu63 and Cu65 apparently does not react to produce zinc?

Thanks

Andrea Rossi
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Dear Mr Charlie Zimmerman:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.

ONLY NI62 and NI64 'react'! We should probably stick to what Rossi is claiming, no? He is claiming that only NI62 and NI64 react. He is claiming proton capture that transmutes to Cu63 and Cu65. He is claiming that only the Nickel picks up a proton. Stable copper does not. At some other time, he claimed that this has something to do with the surface of the nucleus - presumably of NI62 and NI64 only.

Yet, he depletes for NI58 and enriches for NI64 and NI62 - why is not clear given the above.

[dkfenger]

ONLY NI62 and NI64 'react'! We should probably stick to what Rossi is claiming, no? He is claiming that only NI62 and NI64 react. He is claiming proton capture that transmutes to Cu63 and Cu65. He is claiming that only the Nickel picks up a proton. Stable copper does not. At some other time, he claimed that this has something to do with the surface of the nucleus - presumably of NI62 and NI64 only.

Yet, he depletes for NI58 and enriches for NI64 and NI62 - why is not clear given the above.

If Ni62 and Ni64 have much higher reaction probability than other isotopes, then enriching for them (even modestly - say 3x their natural abundance) should produce a proportional increase in the reaction rate for a given amount of nickel in the reactor.

[Axil]

Rossi is wrong about zinc also, It has been found in the ash of both Piantelli and Rossi.

[Joseph Chikva]

ONLY NI62 and NI64 'react'! We should probably stick to what Rossi is claiming, no? He is claiming that only NI62 and NI64 react. He is claiming proton capture that transmutes to Cu63 and Cu65. He is claiming that only the Nickel picks up a proton. Stable copper does not. At some other time, he claimed that this has something to do with the surface of the nucleus - presumably of NI62 and NI64 only.

Yet, he depletes for NI58 and enriches for NI64 and NI62 - why is not clear given the above.

If Ni62 and Ni64 have much higher reaction probability than other isotopes, then enriching for them (even modestly - say 3x their natural abundance) should produce a proportional increase in the reaction rate for a given amount of nickel in the reactor.

This all very fine and interesting.
Please explain me reaction goes with radiation or without?
If yes, how you can explain the Rossi's words about initial radiation burst and than under background?
Now I see juggling with numbers 58, 59, 64 etc. But do not see any sense.
As your beloved Rossi said: "I can not say you what is happening in reactor".
You are funny guys with your assumptions: “transmutation”, “trasglutation”.

[seedload]

Rossi is wrong about zinc also, It has been found in the ash of both Piantelli and Rossi.

"also"? What else is he wrong about? Is he wrong that only NI62 and NI64 'react"? Is he wrong that he has a fully formulated theory? Rossi is wrong about what is in his own ash? Is he wrong on radiation? Is he wrong on regulation? Is he wrong on production?

[seedload]

If Ni62 and Ni64 have much higher reaction probability than other isotopes, then enriching for them (even modestly - say 3x their natural abundance) should produce a proportional increase in the reaction rate for a given amount of nickel in the reactor.

Or just use three times as much abundant nickel and skip the super expensive (or super miraculous) isotopic enrichment.

[DancingFool]

The word deplete does not mean completely remove; it means “to reduce”

True enough, although it can be used as such. One can speak of "total depletion". That aside, my usage agrees with yours, which is why I used the phrase "isotope elimination".

So sorry for not believing you, You know: “Trust by verify”

Actually, that's "Trust but verify."

Cu59 decays to Ni59. Ni59 does decay to Co59 in 76,000 years. Mode of decay: Electron capture to Co59. Decay energy: 1.072 MeV ...

You are, of course, correct, and the decay time I claimed was a typo.My apologies. Actually, I had realised it just after I submitted the post, but this forum's tools don't allow post editing. Good catch. Nonetheless, my point remains. If Ni58 accepts a proton, the result is a high degree of residual radioactivity, Ni59 to Co59. And Rossi says there is no residual radioactivity.

If fast decay of Ni59 is happening, this could explain why some cobalt is found in the Rossi and Piantelli ash.

Umm, what fast decay of Ni59? The kind that doesn't happen? Please, tell us more.

PS. It has been found that a proton has a very strong need to pair with a neutron in the nucleus. Yes passive voice again.

Passive voice is fine, within limits (I just used it, and I'm not ashamed).