So you are asking for a "scientific" reason why the coffe cup does not exist.KitemanSA wrote:I don't. Indeed, I am increasingly sceptical myself. But when people use "scientific" reasons to "support" their skepticism, I ask for the science (or in one case the statistics).
For some strange reason, you do so only for people who are sceptic.KitemanSA wrote: When people make final judgements based on fallacy (or lack of real data) I question their reasoning.
If I was wrong, you could easily disproof me, but like Rossi you chose not to do so. I guess, you want to sell your enrichment machine, not please the critics. I do not believe in extraterrestric coffe cups, and i do not believe you know a cheap method for enrichment. Sorry.KitemanSA wrote:Mind reader are you? Know what I can think of do you? That is a rare gift. You shouldn't waste it here. Go forth unto the world and read minds. Make millions on outsider trading.bk78 wrote:No, you can't.KitemanSA wrote:I can think of several ways to massively reduce the content of Ni58 in a sample of natural Ni without spending the bank.![]()
You know, I've seen claims of isotope evaluations. I've never seen one on the Rossi output. I've seen traces from Piantelli's work that has been attributed to Rossi, but none of his stuff. Link please?bk78 wrote: After you did that, I suggest, you check the istope spectrum from before and after the powder was in the reactor (you find it somewhere on krivits site). While you are at it, explain why there is more copper in the "after" spectrum than there was nickel in the original powder, and why the spectrum is mainly iron and almost no nickel at all.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/ ... ixd4.shtml
About 90% iron and ca. 0.01% Nickel in both probes (Argon is probably carrier gas).
Copper before about 0.1%, after 10%.
Note: If you put piece of iron in a ionic copper solution, the copper will stick to the iron.
Any comments?
Not shown, opined.bk78 wrote:Cheaply? Where was that shown?No, some third-world country dude shows what he is able to do cheaply and it suggests the requirements are not as difficult as you make them out to be.
It was not opined either, except by you.
But the no one has shown the contrary either.
Coffe cup.
I guess those thousands of scientists who were thinking of new methods for enrichment for decades are all morons compared to Rossi. Who now can't even do highschool physics anymore.
The only thing I've seen is the cost of 5 or 6 nines fine 58Ni. That stuff is expensive. But this is not the same thing at all.
Kiteman, EITHER you claim that Rossi only has to deenrich Ni58 to, let's say, a few percent. Then your claim that Rossi does this to reduce gamma emmissions makes no sense, because if it was not deenriched, it would still not be harmful. OR you say, it will emit harmful levels of gamma if it was natural nickel, then you will have to deenrich it to ppm level so that no more radiation is detected. Between "harmful" and "nothing above background detected" there is a difference of at least 4 orders of magnitude. If you had thought about my earlier question for numbers instead of evading it, you might have noticed that yourself.