10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[chrismb]

Can you imagine if EMC2 had followed Rossi's protocol so far?

LOL

I thought they had! Are they not also relying mostly on hearsay?

[KitemanSA]

EMC2 has not yet made a public demonstration of a working (energy PRODUCING) unit. Rossi claims to have done so. So, no, they are not equivalent.

I wish EMC2 was far enough ahead to show a "demo" unit!

[Betruger]

Can you imagine if EMC2 had followed Rossi's protocol so far?

LOL

I thought they had! Are they not also relying mostly on hearsay?

Certainly EMC2 got its contracts after that peer review by presenting nothing more than hearsay to the review board. And its staff had to start their own "journal" to publish, etc.

[seedload]

ON WL THEORY AND THE E-CAT

I am surprised that Rossi is rejecting WL, especially since he has made claims that seem consistent with WL.

One claim is that he says he depletes the NI of NI58. This seems consistent with not wanting to get any substantial amounts of NI59 out. You might also get a tiny amount of Co59 and if some of this picks up a neutron, you may get trace amounts of Co60. Depleting of NI58 seems like a smart thing to do if WL Theory applies.

Another thing he has said is that only NI62 and NI64 'react'. This seems consistent with WL also because only these two isotopes would beta decay to copper. Others (60,61) would just pick up a neutron and stay stable Nickel.

EDIT - He also says that you can't have Deuterium or it doesn't work. Presumably, if WL applies, you would get some Tritium which he definitely doesn't want. So, saying it doesn't work may just mean, it gets ugly. Again, this claim seems consistent with WL.

ON ROSSI'S THEORY AND THE E-CAT

What I am confused about is that he seems to claim a process that allows the Nickel to pick up a proton becoming Copper. Again, he says that only NI62 and NI64 'react'. I suppose the theory he has (and is keeping a secret) would explain why only these two isotopes react and why we aren't getting any unstable copper out.

Also interesting would be if his theory also explains why none of the copper is reacting in secondary transmutations to form Zinc?!?!?!

Wouldn't we expect some zinc to be coming out?

regards

[KitemanSA]

ON WL THEORY AND THE E-CAT

I am surprised that Rossi is rejecting WL, especially since he has made claims that seem consistent with WL.

I think his main beef with WL is that their theory requires some process for creation of a neutron, absorption of said neutron, and instantaneous beta decay. He states that there is no beta decay. Thus, the nucleon being added to the 62Ni MUST be a proton, and somehow this process hides the proton charge. This is nothing like WL but may be similar in set-up (plasmons and polaritons). The "mini-atom" concept suggests that statistical goupings of p+e is sufficient to allow the "mini-atom" to get close enough. My most recent concept starts off like WL but posits an interaction between p& polaritonic e that is akin to muonic hydrogen and allows the p to get close in a manner similar to muon catalyzed fusion.

One claim is that he says he depletes the NI of NI58. This seems consistent with not wanting to get any substantial amounts of NI59 out. You might also get a tiny amount of Co59 and if some of this picks up a neutron, you may get trace amounts of Co60. Depleting of NI58 seems like a smart thing to do if WL Theory applies.

Actually, I think he says he enriches the 62 and 64 isotopes of Ni.

Another thing he has said is that only NI62 and NI64 'react'. This seems consistent with WL also because only these two isotopes would beta decay to copper. Others (60,61) would just pick up a neutron and stay stable Nickel.

Which he says doesn't happen. No beta decay. It may be that the process needs sufficient excess of n to allow the strong force to overcome the coulomb repulsion at a distance sufficient to react. Maybe the lower isotopes just don't have enough n. And even if a proton does combine with a 61Ni, how would we know? After all, it would just make more 62Ni which would then move on to 63Cu.

ON ROSSI'S THEORY AND THE E-CAT

What I am confused about is that he seems to claim a process that allows the Nickel to pick up a proton becoming Copper. Again, he says that only NI62 and NI64 'react'. I suppose the theory he has (and is keeping a secret) would explain why only these two isotopes react and why we aren't getting any unstable copper out.

It may be that the process needs sufficient excess of n ...

Also interesting would be if his theory also explains why none of the copper is reacting in secondary transmutations to form Zinc?!?!?!

Wouldn't we expect some zinc to be coming out?

If low n Ni won't react, why should low n Cu? And do we really know that there isn't and Zn? I was under the impression that the isotope study mantioned other minor isotopes being present. This has been one of my questions too. Anyone have a connection with the folks who did the isotope search to ask?

[KitemanSA]

Can you imagine if EMC2 had followed Rossi's protocol so far?

I thought they had! Are they not also relying mostly on hearsay?

Certainly EMC2 got its contracts after that peer review by presenting nothing more than hearsay to the review board. And its staff had to start their own "journal" to publish, etc.

Nonsense! They presented data reports and... oh, you were being facetious!

[cg66]

ON WL THEORY AND THE E-CAT

I am surprised that Rossi is rejecting WL, especially since he has made claims that seem consistent with WL.

One claim is that he says he depletes the NI of NI58. This seems consistent with not wanting to get any substantial amounts of NI59 out. You might also get a tiny amount of Co59 and if some of this picks up a neutron, you may get trace amounts of Co60. Depleting of NI58 seems like a smart thing to do if WL Theory applies.

Another thing he has said is that only NI62 and NI64 'react'. This seems consistent with WL also because only these two isotopes would beta decay to copper. Others (60,61) would just pick up a neutron and stay stable Nickel.

EDIT - He also says that you can't have Deuterium or it doesn't work. Presumably, if WL applies, you would get some Tritium which he definitely doesn't want. So, saying it doesn't work may just mean, it gets ugly. Again, this claim seems consistent with WL.

ON ROSSI'S THEORY AND THE E-CAT

What I am confused about is that he seems to claim a process that allows the Nickel to pick up a proton becoming Copper. Again, he says that only NI62 and NI64 'react'. I suppose the theory he has (and is keeping a secret) would explain why only these two isotopes react and why we aren't getting any unstable copper out.

Also interesting would be if his theory also explains why none of the copper is reacting in secondary transmutations to form Zinc?!?!?!

Wouldn't we expect some zinc to be coming out?

regards

seedload - good points - I think the full isotopic analysis the Swedes are doing will be interesting – I’m curious about some of isotopes/concentrations of some of other elements (e.g. Zn, Cr). This paper by Campari et al appears to shows no Zn production (Figure 10).

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Campar ... aceana.pdf

[parallel]

The patent situation will delay widespread implementation of the E-Cat. Rossi has a national patent but the international patent is still pending.

The patent situation has evolved into little more than a farce anyway, where the legal profession tries and often succeeds, in getting more than the inventor. A patent is not worth anything until it has been tested in court.

Then there is the difficulty of an outsider like Rossi even getting a patent. From the kangaroo court set up by DOE to kill cold fusion within six months from P & F's demo, to the US Patent Office refusing to consider ANY patent involving "cold fusion." This is based on the reaction of ivory tower academia, an attitude represented here by Giorgio and chrismb, where the device is only "real" or accepted, if it is fully described (voiding any patent) and test results published in some peer reviewed journal (who won't publish "pathological science.")

The result is seen here:
Dear Mr Riccardo:
I think that the household targeted items will arrive later. We have to resolve the problem to make them self-destructive in case of opening the reactors. Otherwise, with few thousands of dollars anybody has access to the confidential aspects of the technology. In industrial plants this issue is more easy to afford and has been resolved.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Edit added
Riccardo T.
May 31st, 2011 at 2:00 AM

Dear Dott. Rossi,

I’m curios like an e-cat , so I’ve got two “simple” questions for you

1) Do you think that revealing the theory that you think is behind the e-cat reaction will, in some sense, allow any competitor to reproduce a reaction “close” to the one of the e-cat (maybe without the same power magnitude?)

2) Who are the authors of the theory ? You and Focardi? Or there are other contributors (like Stremmenos?)

Thank you and good luck

Riccardo

Andrea Rossi
May 31st, 2011 at 7:02 AM

Dear Mr Riccardo T.:
1- yes
2- I am. Ia the theory which stays at the base of the charge I use in the E-Cats. Until some months ago it was a supposition, upon which I bet, eventually became a theory I am convinced of, after the huge amount of testing I made in these last months in the USA.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

[Betruger]

ON WL THEORY AND THE E-CAT

I am surprised that Rossi is rejecting WL, especially since he has made claims that seem consistent with WL.

What does Rossi lose/gain from lying on this point?

[seedload]

ON WL THEORY AND THE E-CAT
Actually, I think he says he enriches the 62 and 64 isotopes of Ni.

Well, he does say that, but he also says he depletes the NI58. I guess these could be the same thing. See the following:

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.

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

Which he says doesn't happen. No beta decay. It may be that the process needs sufficient excess of n to allow the strong force to overcome the coulomb repulsion at a distance sufficient to react. Maybe the lower isotopes just don't have enough n. And even if a proton does combine with a 61Ni, how would we know? After all, it would just make more 62Ni which would then move on to 63Cu.

I understand he is saying it isn't WL. I am saying that WL makes more sense - for what it is worth.

If low n Ni won't react, why should low n Cu?

I am talking about the Cu63 and Cu65, both stable (like NI62 and NI64) and neither low in n.

And do we really know that there isn't and Zn?

Just based on paper by Campari et al.

[chrismb]

Then there is the difficulty of an outsider like Rossi even getting a patent. ...This is based on the reaction of ivory tower academia, an attitude represented here by Giorgio and chrismb, where the device is only "real" or accepted, if it is fully described (voiding any patent)

P., you're totally wrong on that and it shows a slowness of thought and comprehension that is shameful.

A patent REQUIRES a full description. It REQUIRES a complete enablement such that anyone else can reproduce the same results.

Rossi has stated categorically that he intends to deny anyone any access to his 'special sauce', therefore NO PATENT CAN BE GRANTED.

This is absolutely nothing to do with whatever attitude, experiment or other related waffle you might wish to attribute it to, it is, simply PATENT LAW.

Read up and educate yourself.

[tomclarke]

ON WL THEORY AND THE E-CAT

I am surprised that Rossi is rejecting WL, especially since he has made claims that seem consistent with WL.

One claim is that he says he depletes the NI of NI58. This seems consistent with not wanting to get any substantial amounts of NI59 out. You might also get a tiny amount of Co59 and if some of this picks up a neutron, you may get trace amounts of Co60. Depleting of NI58 seems like a smart thing to do if WL Theory applies.

Another thing he has said is that only NI62 and NI64 'react'. This seems consistent with WL also because only these two isotopes would beta decay to copper. Others (60,61) would just pick up a neutron and stay stable Nickel.

EDIT - He also says that you can't have Deuterium or it doesn't work. Presumably, if WL applies, you would get some Tritium which he definitely doesn't want. So, saying it doesn't work may just mean, it gets ugly. Again, this claim seems consistent with WL.

ON ROSSI'S THEORY AND THE E-CAT

What I am confused about is that he seems to claim a process that allows the Nickel to pick up a proton becoming Copper. Again, he says that only NI62 and NI64 'react'. I suppose the theory he has (and is keeping a secret) would explain why only these two isotopes react and why we aren't getting any unstable copper out.

Also interesting would be if his theory also explains why none of the copper is reacting in secondary transmutations to form Zinc?!?!?!

Wouldn't we expect some zinc to be coming out?

regards

seedload - good points - I think the full isotopic analysis the Swedes are doing will be interesting – I’m curious about some of isotopes/concentrations of some of other elements (e.g. Zn, Cr). This paper by Campari et al appears to shows no Zn production (Figure 10).

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Campar ... aceana.pdf

I don't know if anyone has duplicated the Campari rsults, but they show why many people rightly view LENR with such suspicion.

(1) The control sample is not properly specified. Does it get cleaned, like the cell sample? The decsription would appear to indicate not, in which case any differences could be caused by differential element removal from surface during cleaning.

(2) The differences are not analysed, with attempts made to discover why they are what they are, and construct non-LENR explanations.

I would dearly like to find some LENR results of high quality that were not within the range of experimental error. I have not yet found any such...

Best wishes, Tom

[cg66]

I don't know if anyone has duplicated the Campari rsults, but they show why many people rightly view LENR with such suspicion.

(1) The control sample is not properly specified. Does it get cleaned, like the cell sample? The decsription would appear to indicate not, in which case any differences could be caused by differential element removal from surface during cleaning.

(2) The differences are not analysed, with attempts made to discover why they are what they are, and construct non-LENR explanations.

I would dearly like to find some LENR results of high quality that were not within the range of experimental error. I have not yet found any such...

Best wishes, Tom

tomclarke - I agree - sadly I’ve only found two on Ni-H gas systems - the other is a focus on radiation production and briefly touches on an increase in Cr and Mn. Most of the other studies are the Pd or Ni electrolysis systems. Miley has done a lot of work on transmutation including focusing on contamination. He has a paper summarizing transmutation studies here:

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

I’ve been reading some of Miley’s other papers/presentations here:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html

[KitemanSA]

Which he says doesn't happen. No beta decay. It may be that the process needs sufficient excess of n to allow the strong force to overcome the coulomb repulsion at a distance sufficient to react. Maybe the lower isotopes just don't have enough n. And even if a proton does combine with a 61Ni, how would we know? After all, it would just make more 62Ni which would then move on to 63Cu.

I understand he is saying it isn't WL. I am saying that WL makes more sense - for what it is worth.

I think WL may have a good start (plasmons, polaritons) but I can't quite get behind the ULMN part. I think, personally, that some form of masked proton mechanism makes more sense.

If low n Ni won't react, why should low n Cu?

I am talking about the Cu63 and Cu65, both stable (like NI62 and NI64) and neither low in n.

You may be correct wrt 65Cu. 63Cu would fall somewhere between 61Ni and 62Ni, the first of which is not supposed to react much. But a seperate point is that Cu has an ODD number of protons which may interfere. I have been thinking that the protons in a nucleus tend toward forming alpha-units and the odd Z elements have a spare p. Might that get in the way?

And do we really know that there isn't and Zn?

Just based on paper by Campari et al.

Campari is about the Focardi Piantelli experiment, not this. Anyone have an in with the Swedes doing the review of the Rossi product?

[Ivy Matt]

Then there is the difficulty of an outsider like Rossi even getting a patent. From the kangaroo court set up by DOE to kill cold fusion within six months from P & F's demo, to the US Patent Office refusing to consider ANY patent involving "cold fusion." This is based on the reaction of ivory tower academia, an attitude represented here by Giorgio and chrismb, where the device is only "real" or accepted, if it is fully described (voiding any patent) and test results published in some peer reviewed journal (who won't publish "pathological science.")

Hold on a sec, I think you're getting your antagonists mixed up and, in doing so, failing to grasp what Giorgio, chrismb, and others have been getting at. Publication is only important as a necessary preliminary step to replication. As long as the experiment can be independently replicated, the publication could be as a full-page ad in the New York Times, for all I care. Talk Polywell isn't exactly Physical Review, you know.

The result is seen here:
Dear Mr Riccardo:
I think that the household targeted items will arrive later. We have to resolve the problem to make them self-destructive in case of opening the reactors. Otherwise, with few thousands of dollars anybody has access to the confidential aspects of the technology. In industrial plants this issue is more easy to afford and has been resolved.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I'm trying to see this as a tragedy, but for some reason it keeps cracking me up. I think I may be starting to go soft on Mr. Rossi.

Until some months ago it was a supposition, upon which I bet, eventually became a theory I am convinced of, after the huge amount of testing I made in these last months in the USA.

So, completely new theory, perhaps, maybe nothing to do with the mini-atom theory. It's anybody's guess what it may be. I hope he's written it down somewhere, like the catalyst, so it doesn't get lost.

Rossi has stated categorically that he intends to deny anyone any access to his 'special sauce', therefore NO PATENT CAN BE GRANTED.

Well, supposedly there's a patent application for the special sauce. It may be a while before it's subject to publication, though. For various reasons I don't expect it to be published this year.