10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[icarus]

measures 20 MeV D2

Is this cold fusion?
If the goal of "hot" is to get 3.5MeV from D-D reaction.
Do you not tired to post nonsenses?

How can you keep D2 at 20MeV
What dissiciation energy D2 has? And what ionization energy?

Hey, stop shooting the messenger I'm just posting what I saw in the youtube clip 13:12 "D+ at 20 MeV". Take it up with Prof. G. Miley if you got something to beef about.

Gawd, talk about close-minded ... these are real experiments he's reporting. Science is always decided in the lab and the workshop whether you like the results or not.

Edit: oh I see you caught me out with a typo... bet you feel superior about that one eh? Nonsense?

[KitemanSA]

Worse, I am ASSuming that what a third world country can do, a first world country can do "cheaply".

Wrong. As a rule all works done in the "third countries" are much cheaper. If measuring in money. As "big money" for third country may be not so big for the first.

Again with the absolutes! bk78, you really... Oh, its you again Joe.
I opine that your statement is actually true where first world companies do their work in third world countries. They have all the "shoulders of giants" to stand on and the low cost of resourses like labor. For third world countries to generate a capability and exploit it "in house" so to speak, takes generally more resourses than for first world folk to copy the work. At least, that is my observation of the state of things.

Regarding to your statement that nickel enrichment process via magnetic separation of beam, you are wrong again. As "high current cyclotron" produces about mA order current and so 6.25E15/Z particles per second.
There are ion diodes producing even hundreds thousands Amperes but with high energy spread - less suitable for separation. You should totally strip all ions till nucleus that is not easy. Than estimate the cost of cyclotron and compare to how much nickel you should separate in this way. Not big amount. The idea of process is simple, process is universal for all elements including Uranium but that is not cheap. No individual not owing even coffee machine can do that. Licensing? You can enrich Uranium.

Hey, if you go that way, it may be expensive. So don't go that way. Sounds like you don't believe that magnetic seperation of single ionized Nickel is possible. I guess we will have to disagree on that.

And this doesn't really effect my opinion one way or the other since I suspect that IF he is in fact limiting the 58Ni in his fuel, he is using a different means.

[tomclarke]

G. Miley gives a talk about his unit ... seems real confident about repeatability ... I'd say LENR is now busting through the windows of cathedral science.

http://www.youtube.com/user/kiholobay#p/u/2/N1m2wQevFAY

starts around 4:30 in, terrible sound quality.

Has some interesting ideas about clusters of D2 or H, 100 or so atoms forming (condensing?) in the metal nanoparticles defects and then a trigger setting off a cascade of reactions at that site with pressure pulses (?), measures 20 MeV D+ and excess heats ... jumps over a slide about BEC's.

Throw it in the mix.

edit: fixed D2 to D+ typo

"Throw it into the mix".

These putative LENR results are orthogonal to the others, with completely different mechanism. Thus Miley proposes (weirdly) that ultra-dense deuterium should form. It does not work with hydrogen (he has a mechanism, and has also tested his results D2 vs H2). This ultra-dense deuterium is virtually fusing already, and can be made to fuse very easily.

The obervations of this are clever and come from eliminating (he thinks) all the other possible reasons for these higher energy detected particles.The initial paper was quite convincing, followups less so as he found more and more anomalous readings, and had to posit more complex mechanisms for getting them from his (completely weird) ultra-dense D.

So I like this work, because it is well written up experimental stuff, which is also why it gets published.

The chances of this ultra-dense D existing are pretty small, it requires something which I suspect I would know was impossible were my particle physics better. It is certainly extraordinary, and would be a hithertoo unknown state. Like a neutron star but existing at normal pressures.

But as it stands I remain interested, and better results from Miley's group would make me excited. So far all they have is this very indirect way of deducing they have a few molecules of what they conclude is ultra-dense D. If it really exists they will eventually have better cross-checks.

Of course this mechanism excludes all the stuff with H2, including Roissi.

Unless you think there are two completely diffeent LENR mechanisms....

[tomclarke]

measures 20 MeV D2

Is this cold fusion?
If the goal of "hot" is to get 3.5MeV from D-D reaction.
Do you not tired to post nonsenses?

How can you keep D2 at 20MeV
What dissiciation energy D2 has? And what ionization energy?

Hey, stop shooting the messenger I'm just posting what I saw in the youtube clip 13:12 "D+ at 20 MeV". Take it up with Prof. G. Miley if you got something to beef about.

Gawd, talk about close-minded ... these are real experiments he's reporting. Science is always decided in the lab and the workshop whether you like the results or not.

Edit: oh I see you caught me out with a typo... bet you feel superior about that one eh? Nonsense?

The trouble is that it is awfully easy to mistake experimental results. So when they appear to indicate something we have never heard of before, it should not be believed wo=ithout lots of cross-checks. In Miley's case the indication involves a lot of assumptions, it is not a direct observation, so I don't rate it highly, even though it is a really interesting idea and worth pursuing on the small off-chance it is something real.

[seedload]

Kite,

Your failed recollections are conveniently well suited to your continued arguments for Rossi having invented a cheap process and for the idea of only partial depletion.

Regarding the idea of cheap isotopic enrichment/separation you said:

Certainly opined by me. That is the definition. Whether anyone else shares the opinion, I don't know. I seem to recall some sort of concurrence, but I am not interested in finding it.

You may not be interested in finding it because the concurrence you recollect was not in concurrence with your opinion.

My opinion is that separating isotopes in a vacuum chamber is unlikely to be illustrative of whatever cheap industrial process Rossi has presumably achieved.

My opinion is that little balls of liquid Nickel in a centrifuge would not achieve the desired results either.

I think that my opinion had a modicum of concurrence while your had, well, none.

In regards to the idea of full vs. partial depletion of NI58, you bring up the question of reactivity.

Secondarily, in at least one post I recall, he stated something along the lines that 64Ni was more reactive than 58Ni, so it may be that there is a non-linear effect. I don't know. If you do, what is your data?

Again, your recollection is flawed. Rossi claims that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react, not partially more or less reactivity. Remember? We talked about this.

First, a professor from Montclair State University asked Rossi a question.

Ludwik Kowalski
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:33 PM
Andrea Rossi wrote (see above, that “the isotopes which are turned into copper are the 62 and 64 Ni.”

1) Yes, the 63Cu and 65Cu, if produced from fusion of protons with 62Ni and 64Ni, would be stable. But natural abundancies of these isotopes of nickel, 3.7% and 1.8%, respectively, are too low to be consistent with the claimed accumulation of 30% of copper. Do you agree, Andrea Rossi?

2) HRG asked for the data on the isotopic composition of Ni and Cu in spent fuel. I am also waiting for the answer.

3) I also would like to know the approximate mass of nickel powder in the 12 kW reactor demonstrated in January.

Thank you in advance. And good luck. The world is waiting for clean, and less expensive, nuclear energy.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA

Andrea Rossi
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:05 PM
Dear Prof. Ludwik Kowalski:
1- Very good question, Professor: from my side, I cannot give information about the treatment we make with the Ni powders, but from your side, if you analyze carefully your question, it contains the answer.
2- Cu is 63 and 65. Ni is…( he,he,he…)
3- The average charge is around 100 g
Thank you very much, Prof. Kowalski, for the great job you made in your life as a professor and as a fighter for freedom. And thank you for your very kind attention,
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

Read his reply 2. Only CU63 and CU65 are coming out. You can easily interpret this as ONLY NI62 and NI64 react.

But, if you were interested in making sure, then you would ask Rossi another question. That is what I did. Remember?

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.

Why do you keep going on about him partially reducing NI58 to minimize side reactions? He says that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react!

Can we agree to work from a common understanding on this?

[KitemanSA]

Kite,

Your failed recollections are conveniently well suited to your continued arguments for Rossi having invented a cheap process and for the idea of only partial depletion.

Your inability (or unwillingness) to read or comprehend is an ever decreasing source of entertainment. I have never argued "for Rossi having invented" ANYTHING. I have no idea what Rossi has done except produce a number of fairly useless "demonstrations". I simply ask that you SUPPORT your contention that he could not have invented such a thing. YOU are making the claims. Not me. Support them or shut up!

Regarding the idea of cheap isotopic enrichment/separation you said:

Certainly opined by me. That is the definition. Whether anyone else shares the opinion, I don't know. I seem to recall some sort of concurrence, but I am not interested in finding it.

You may not be interested in finding it because the concurrence you recollect was not in concurrence with your opinion.

My opinion is that separating isotopes in a vacuum chamber is unlikely to be illustrative of whatever cheap industrial process Rossi has presumably achieved.

I tend to agree with your "opinion".

My opinion is that little balls of liquid Nickel in a centrifuge would not achieve the desired results either.

Ok.

I think that my opinion had a modicum of concurrence while your had, well, none.

That is nice. but the original question was "what new physics" and I keep getting clap-trap about engineering. Oh whell!

In regards to the idea of full vs. partial depletion of NI58, you bring up the question of reactivity.

Secondarily, in at least one post I recall, he stated something along the lines that 64Ni was more reactive than 58Ni, so it may be that there is a non-linear effect. I don't know. If you do, what is your data?

Again, your recollection is flawed. Rossi claims that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react, not partially more or less reactivity. Remember? We talked about this.

Did you miss the fact that Rossi stated that only 62 and 64Ni react "to product stable Copper" ?
Until you can read his statement fully, and understand that there are only TWO stable isotopes of copper (63 & 65) then please keep silent on other things. Only 62 sand 64 react TO STABLE COPPER. Not only 62 and 64 react at all. Keep up dude.

First, a professor from Montclair State University asked Rossi a question.

Ludwik Kowalski
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:33 PM
Andrea Rossi wrote (see above, that “the isotopes which are turned into copper are the 62 and 64 Ni.”

1) Yes, the 63Cu and 65Cu, if produced from fusion of protons with 62Ni and 64Ni, would be stable. But natural abundancies of these isotopes of nickel, 3.7% and 1.8%, respectively, are too low to be consistent with the claimed accumulation of 30% of copper. Do you agree, Andrea Rossi?

2) HRG asked for the data on the isotopic composition of Ni and Cu in spent fuel. I am also waiting for the answer.

3) I also would like to know the approximate mass of nickel powder in the 12 kW reactor demonstrated in January.

Thank you in advance. And good luck. The world is waiting for clean, and less expensive, nuclear energy.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA

Andrea Rossi
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:05 PM
Dear Prof. Ludwik Kowalski:
1- Very good question, Professor: from my side, I cannot give information about the treatment we make with the Ni powders, but from your side, if you analyze carefully your question, it contains the answer.
2- Cu is 63 and 65. Ni is…( he,he,he…)
3- The average charge is around 100 g
Thank you very much, Prof. Kowalski, for the great job you made in your life as a professor and as a fighter for freedom. And thank you for your very kind attention,
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

Read his reply 2. Only CU63 and CU65 are coming out. You can easily interpret this as ONLY NI62 and NI64 react.

Well, you could interpret it that way, or you could interpret that as any other isotope of copper that can be made with a proton + stable nickels will have such a short half life that you won't find them in the results. Look it up. Think a bit. But no, you are to busy objecting to actually think.

But, if you were interested in making sure, then you would ask Rossi another question. That is what I did. Remember?

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.

The others decay back to nickel before you can see them in the result.

Why do you keep going on about him partially reducing NI58 to minimize side reactions? He says that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react!

No, he says only those two react to stable copper.

Can we agree to work from a common understanding on this?

Seems not. You seem to insist on deleting the conditional from the statement and make it unconditional. I don't delete it.

[Crawdaddy]

These putative LENR results are orthogonal to the others, with completely different mechanism. Thus Miley proposes (weirdly) that ultra-dense deuterium should form. It does not work with hydrogen (he has a mechanism, and has also tested his results D2 vs H2). This ultra-dense deuterium is virtually fusing already, and can be made to fuse very easily.

So you claim to know the mechanism of the Rossi reaction? Ultra-dense Deuterium is virtually fusing already?!! really? Incorrect use of the word thus in the second sentence, very uncool.

The chances of this ultra-dense D existing are pretty small, it requires something which I suspect I would know was impossible were my particle physics better. It is certainly extraordinary, and would be a hithertoo unknown state. Like a neutron star but existing at normal pressures.

Well if you suspect something without any basis in reality then it is definitely worth posting here as further proof that ultra dense deuterium is not possible. Of course I am reassured by your analogy to a neutron star, or I would be if you weren't off by several orders of magnitude.

Of course this mechanism excludes all the stuff with H2, including Roissi.

Unless you think there are two completely diffeent LENR mechanisms....

Please share you insights into the mechanism of the rossi reaction!

PS congratulations on finally catching up on literature that Axil posted in January.

[seedload]

The others decay back to nickel before you can see them in the result.

The question was "Is my understanding correct that only NI62 and NI64 transmute to copper?" and the response was "yes". I fail to see how that can be interpreted as all the Nickel transmutes to copper but some decays back.

The question was "Does your theory explain why only these two isotopes react." and the answer is "yes". I fail to see how that can be interpreted as all the isotopes react.

Why do you keep going on about him partially reducing NI58 to minimize side reactions? He says that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react!

No, he says only those two react to stable copper.

He said that originally, and I asked him for clarification. He provided the clarification above.

Can we agree to work from a common understanding on this?

Seems not. You seem to insist on deleting the conditional from the statement and make it unconditional. I don't delete it.

I didn't delete anything. I provided the entire discourse. I provided my interpretation of the statements with 'conditional'. These conditional elements were the REASON I asked for clarification. He provided that clarification WITHOUT conditional statements.

Finally, I wanted to understand whether he was saying that only NI62 and NI64 react because they were the only isotopes that were reactive or whether he was saying that only NI62 and NI64 react because he had depleted/eliminated the other nickel isotopes. Crazy me, I just asked him.

Charlie Zimmerman
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 26th, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
When discussing this with friends, I have heard consistent arguments that the isotopic ratios of Nickel don’t make sense given your claims. I have tried to understand this better, but some of the things they say are good points. Can you shed some light.
1) You said that NI58 is depleted. Does this mean that it is eliminated or just that the ratio is reduced?
2) If NI58 is eliminated, why is it eliminated? Does it react and you are eliminating it to avoid long half life byproducts (NI59 decayed from CU59)?
3) Is (2) inconsistent with your statements that only NI62 and NI64 react?
4) Significant enrichment of the Nickel for NI62 and NI64 is necessary to produce 30% transmuted copper. Do you agree?
5) I have argued that you are not claiming cheap isotopic enrichment but rather that you are saying that the isotopic enrichment is not expensive relative to the overall costs of the production of the powder. Is this correct?
6) Is Leonardo Corp doing the enrichment?
7) Finally, 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?
Thanks,
Charlie Zimmerman

He not only didn't answer these questions. He CENSORED them.

You are saying that I am deleting stuff. I am not. I am recognizing the potential areas where I could be misinterpreting and I am seeking clarification. I am posting my interpretations and my attempts to solidify those interpretations. When I ask him if only NI62 and NI64 react then, without further clarification, I take a "yes" to actually mean yes, not to mean "no, but...".

You on the other hand are simply coming up with alternative explanations, proudly proclaiming they are a possibility, and then portraying your konjectures as if they are enough to dismiss the entire subject matter.

[KitemanSA]

The others decay back to nickel before you can see them in the result.

The question was "Is my understanding correct that only NI62 and NI64 transmute to copper?" and the response was "yes". I fail to see how that can be interpreted as all the Nickel transmutes to copper but some decays back.

Ok, I appreciate your truthfullness about your failings. As it happens, I can see how that interpretation might be made. Since the general discussion at that time seemed centered on what CAME OUT of the reactor after X months of use, saying that only 62 and 64 transmute to copper seems reasonable because there is no other copper there at the end. Doesn't mean it was NEVER there. Just not there at the end.

The question was "Does your theory explain why only these two isotopes react." and the answer is "yes". I fail to see how that can be interpreted as all the isotopes react.

Again, verbal short hand from a long string of statements where he may have assumed you understood the basics of his prior statements. Your basic question was "does your theory explain...". He answered yes. Seems he believes his theory explains it all. One can't alway anticipate the misunderstandings of others and provide a fully detailed and precise answer. Sorry, but that is life.

Why do you keep going on about him partially reducing NI58 to minimize side reactions? He says that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react!

No, he says only those two react to stable copper.

He said that originally, and I asked him for clarification. He provided the clarification above.

Again, he might not have understood a possible misunderstanding. And around and around and around.

Can we agree to work from a common understanding on this?

Seems not. You seem to insist on deleting the conditional from the statement and make it unconditional. I don't delete it.

I didn't delete anything. I provided the entire discourse. I provided my interpretation of the statements with 'conditional'. These conditional elements were the REASON I asked for clarification. He provided that clarification WITHOUT conditional statements.

you asked a question that could be easily misinterpreted and he gave a hurried, one word answer. And from this you believe you have proof that he is a fraud? Whew!

[KitemanSA]

Charlie Zimmerman
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 26th, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
When discussing this with friends, I have heard consistent arguments that the isotopic ratios of Nickel don’t make sense given your claims. I have tried to understand this better, but some of the things they say are good points. Can you shed some light.
1) You said that NI58 is depleted. Does this mean that it is eliminated or just that the ratio is reduced?
2) If NI58 is eliminated, why is it eliminated? Does it react and you are eliminating it to avoid long half life byproducts (NI59 decayed from CU59)?
3) Is (2) inconsistent with your statements that only NI62 and NI64 react?
4) Significant enrichment of the Nickel for NI62 and NI64 is necessary to produce 30% transmuted copper. Do you agree?
5) I have argued that you are not claiming cheap isotopic enrichment but rather that you are saying that the isotopic enrichment is not expensive relative to the overall costs of the production of the powder. Is this correct?
6) Is Leonardo Corp doing the enrichment?
7) Finally, 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?
Thanks,
Charlie Zimmerman

He not only didn't answer these questions. He CENSORED them.

You are saying that I am deleting stuff. I am not. I am recognizing the potential areas where I could be misinterpreting and I am seeking clarification. I am posting my interpretations and my attempts to solidify those interpretations. When I ask him if only NI62 and NI64 react then, without further clarification, I take a "yes" to actually mean yes, not to mean "no, but...".

You on the other hand are simply coming up with alternative explanations, proudly proclaiming they are a possibility, and then portraying your konjectures as if they are enough to dismiss the entire subject matter.

He says "only 62 and 64 react to STABLE COPPER".
You ask "Am I correct that only 62 and 64 TRANSMUTE to copper?"
He says "Yes."
you ask another series of questions.
He ignores you as a pest (ok, that last part is my editorial).
From this you say HE says that NOTHING other that 62Ni and 64Ni reacts at all.
I say. Buffalo muffins. He didn't say that.
You argue.
I yawn and try to explain ONE MORE TIME...

[ndelta]

BTW there is no proof of reaching any milestones. Unless you count getting 470 Kw out of a 500 Kw generator a milestone. Assuming that is what happened. It is possible that nothing happened. Aside from thirty or forty styrofoam boxes covered in tinfoil (no longer fashionable as hats) with various technical protrusions.

Ok. This frustrates me to no end. I see this everywhere. There is constant debating on the smallest of minutia that we have no evidence of and we can't even get the genset rating correct when there is a clear shot of it in this video? I have no idea if Rossi has what he says he has, but unless there were shenanigans with the label on that door, that is video of a 450kw generator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFiJb2Uh ... page#t=55s

[seedload]

Charlie Zimmerman
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 26th, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
When discussing this with friends, I have heard consistent arguments that the isotopic ratios of Nickel don’t make sense given your claims. I have tried to understand this better, but some of the things they say are good points. Can you shed some light.
1) You said that NI58 is depleted. Does this mean that it is eliminated or just that the ratio is reduced?
2) If NI58 is eliminated, why is it eliminated? Does it react and you are eliminating it to avoid long half life byproducts (NI59 decayed from CU59)?
3) Is (2) inconsistent with your statements that only NI62 and NI64 react?
4) Significant enrichment of the Nickel for NI62 and NI64 is necessary to produce 30% transmuted copper. Do you agree?
5) I have argued that you are not claiming cheap isotopic enrichment but rather that you are saying that the isotopic enrichment is not expensive relative to the overall costs of the production of the powder. Is this correct?
6) Is Leonardo Corp doing the enrichment?
7) Finally, 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?
Thanks,
Charlie Zimmerman

He not only didn't answer these questions. He CENSORED them.

You are saying that I am deleting stuff. I am not. I am recognizing the potential areas where I could be misinterpreting and I am seeking clarification. I am posting my interpretations and my attempts to solidify those interpretations. When I ask him if only NI62 and NI64 react then, without further clarification, I take a "yes" to actually mean yes, not to mean "no, but...".

You on the other hand are simply coming up with alternative explanations, proudly proclaiming they are a possibility, and then portraying your konjectures as if they are enough to dismiss the entire subject matter.

He says "only 62 and 64 react to STABLE COPPER".
You ask "Am I correct that only 62 and 64 TRANSMUTE to copper?"
He says "Yes."
you ask another series of questions.
He ignores you as a pest (ok, that last part is my editorial).
From this you say HE says that NOTHING other that 62Ni and 64Ni reacts at all.
I say. Buffalo muffins. He didn't say that.
You argue.
I yawn and try to explain ONE MORE TIME...

My opinion is that you are just in contradiction mode. Anyway, at least I am trying to get more info from the source. You are just speculating.

I reposted my questions today and got answers. Some are going to make you happy. My actual work at clarification has codified at least some of your speculations related to Rossi's claims.

November 2nd, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

Congratulations on the demonstration and sale of the 1MW plant. I am sure many great things are to come for you and the world. I am also super excited to hear more about the theory that you have developed regarding this process. I think you mentioned that you would be revealing this after the 1MW demonstration.

I has a few isotopic questions.
1) You said that NI58 is depleted. Does this mean that it is eliminated or just that the ratio is reduced?
2) If NI58 is eliminated, why is it eliminated? Does it react and you are eliminating it to avoid long half life byproducts (NI59 decayed from CU59)?
3) Is (2) inconsistent with your statements that only NI62 and NI64 react?
4) Significant enrichment of the Nickel for NI62 and NI64 is necessary to produce 30% transmuted copper. Do you agree?
5) I have argued that you are not claiming cheap isotopic enrichment but rather that you are saying that the isotopic enrichment is not expensive relative to the overall costs of the production of the powder. Is this correct?
6) Is Leonardo Corp doing the enrichment?
7) Finally, 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?
Thanks,
Charlie Zimmerman

Andrea Rossi
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:21 AM
Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
1- just reduced
2- not eliminated
3- no
4- no
5- yes
6- yes
7- I cannot answer to this question, until I will disclose the theory of the effect we get.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So, it seems that your speculation regarding him claiming to only reduce the NI58, not eliminate it, is correct.

Regarding the fact that Rossi says that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react, there is a lot more history to this and quotes from him to go back to. I know there is a lot to sort through when having these discussions. I sense that you don't respect my recollection in this area. But, I really don't want to have to look it up. I will respectfully ask you to try to recall that he specifically said that these two isotopes are the only ones that react because of the "surface of the nucleus".

Finally, I so hate my question 5. I gave him the out as part of the question. What was I thinking? LOL.

[Crawdaddy]

BTW there is no proof of reaching any milestones. Unless you count getting 470 Kw out of a 500 Kw generator a milestone. Assuming that is what happened. It is possible that nothing happened. Aside from thirty or forty styrofoam boxes covered in tinfoil (no longer fashionable as hats) with various technical protrusions.

Ok. This frustrates me to no end. I see this everywhere. There is constant debating on the smallest of minutia that we have no evidence of and we can't even get the genset rating correct when there is a clear shot of it in this video? I have no idea if Rossi has what he says he has, but unless there were shenanigans with the label on that door, that is video of a 450kw generator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFiJb2Uh ... page#t=55s

Get with the program dude!

Obviously, the customer was too stupid to measure the volume of diesel used. Oh wait because we don't know the identity of the customer the customer must not exist. Of course if the customer doesn't exist then they could have unhooked the generator and just pretended it worked!

Obviously a fraud based on this solid reasoning.

[seedload]

Kite,

Trying to find a common ground.

Can we agree that Rossi can't hope to sell this thing if he is making NI59 with it?

If so, can we agree that NI58 can't be undergoing the same kind of reaction that transmutes NI62 to CU63 and NI64 to CU65?

Thanks,
Charlie

[Ivy Matt]

Andrea Rossi
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:21 AM
...
7- I cannot answer to this question, until I will disclose the theory of the effect we get.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Has he set a date for that?