10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[ScottL]

He told them something that they reported differently on two successive days. It is obvious that the state of Florida was confused, and not a reliable reporter. Next?

I find this absurd. So you read the initial assessment post-interview and then OH MY GOD the official report contained more details. Come on now, if you aren't going to at least take the word of an official investigator about their state, then I see no reason for you to take the word of any court document or any other link I gave you. You sir, have crossed that line. Out of morbid curiousity, what, to you, constitutes official evidence exactly? At this point I'm prone to believe you won't trust anything until it comes out of Rossi's mouth and even then you might come up with some reason not to believe it....."it was a video, CGI clearly!"

[KitemanSA]

He told them something that they reported differently on two successive days. It is obvious that the state of Florida was confused, and not a reliable reporter. Next?

I find this absurd. So you read the initial assessment post-interview and then OH MY GOD the official report contained more details. Come on now, if you aren't going to at least take the word of an official investigator about their state, then I see no reason for you to take the word of any court document or any other link I gave you. You sir, have crossed that line. Out of morbid curiousity, what, to you, constitutes official evidence exactly? At this point I'm prone to believe you won't trust anything until it comes out of Rossi's mouth and even then you might come up with some reason not to believe it....."it was a video, CGI clearly!"

It contained fewer IIRC. And it changed the meaning. So, no, I don't find it trustworthy. I see it as a bureaucrat who had to do a job he felt was absurd and doing as little as he could to fulfill his task. I also didn't see anywhere that he asked "do you own or contract out to a factory in the US".

"CGI Clearly"... Nope, I never gave anyone here that much credit as an antagonist. Mainly folks here seem to want to judge folks whether they have the data or not.

Me, I feel no need to judge before it is necessary, and it ain't been necessary. I keep seeking specific information that would allow me to conclude one way or the other regarding ECats but so far, none.

[ladajo]

And you still believe in Santa Claus apparently.

You dug a hole, and are too stubborn to climb out of it. Period.

Lots of hand waving, no specifics. Even had someone give a long list of Rossi quotes, but when asked to point out specific instances where Rossi "lied" ... more hand waving and pointing to conflicts between Rossi's words and someone else's statement about what Rossi said.

This is bullshit. You did not fully read what I posted, you never have, and you have even admitted so. So how is it now you are so certain what the posts contained? Did you actually go back and read them and follow the links? This paints you as a liar. If you continue to refuse to read what Rossi has said, where he has directly contradicted himself numerous times, that just makes you look like an idiot. You are not an idiot. But you are serving up some bullshit on this one, and looking like an idiot while you do it. I also really like how you claim that no one can get in Rossi's head, but you do not hesitate to jump inside the Florida BRC Inspector's head. Obviously he did not take his job seriously.

As for tests and theorys. Show me a theory from Rossi. Then we can talk about how it may be wrong. Show me a test from Rossi, and we can talk about that as well. Oh, I think we have covered the tests thing a number of times already. Let's just focus on his theory. Now what was it again? Refresh me, I forgot.
Would this be the one where this is radiation, then there isn't, then there is? There are nuclear reactions, then there are not? Or is it the one where gammas are heating sheilding which is how the energy is transmited from the device? Or the one where there are no gammas and pretty much no shielding? Which one is it again? Help me out here. Oh, I remember now, it is the one where there is a secret cheap method to enrich Nickel Isotopes, and then once the machine is "run" the residue isotopes are the same as naturally occuring nickel. THe one where he makes copper. or not. Because his latest claim is that the change is too small to measure...unlike before when he said he measured it. Would that be a lie? Let's ask Santa and see what he thinks.

Steven N. Karels
April 3rd, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

You are correct. Measuring a change of roughly one part in a million (assuming the eCat mass is around a kilogram) would be difficult. You might be able to do it using an un-fueled eCat kept in a environmentally sealed bag and do a differential measurement between the active eCat and the unfueled eCat over time. An interesting experiment but I suspect you have other things to do. I would assume the third-party testers will have made before and after mass measurements but their operating time would be insufficient to observe a significant mass difference.

Andrea Rossi
April 3rd, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Dear Steven N.Karels,
To compare 2 E-Cats to find a difference of few mg is impossible, because the variation of weight between the E-Cats is of tens of grams, let alone milligrams…and the margin of error of the scales are such that a difference of weight of few mg is impossible to detect anyway, also considering many other factors ( humidity, powder, fulfilling of microcaves of the steel surface, etc) that make impossible to detect if the delta M is really due to a conversion of the charge.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Steven N. Karels
April 3rd, 2013 at 6:15 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

If you have a single 10kW eCat reactor running for 1 year (8,760 hours), you will have output 87,600 kWh of energy. Assuming an average COP of 6 means 5/6 of the energy will have come from the internal reaction or 73,000 kWh. If one gram of mass equals 23 x 10^6 kWh, then you should observe a mass change of about 3.1 milligrams.

I understand that some immediate loss of mass of an eCat due to initial heating is normal. But precisely weighing an eCat over a year long operation should result in measuring the mass loss as a linear (in time) process. In other words, the first short operating period of a new eCat results in mass loss due to water vaporization, outgassing, etc, but after awhile, the loss rate should be linear with power. Milligrams of mass loss may be detectable and measureable. Perhaps another validation to eCat operation?

Andrea Rossi
April 3rd, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Even if you stay 1 year the delta mass is so small that other factors, as well as the margin of error, would make the results very shaky.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Steven N. Karels
April 2nd, 2013 at 9:23 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

When you operate an eCat for extended periods, do you observe a measureable decrease in mass appropriate with the total energy output of the device?

Andrea Rossi
April 3rd, 2013 at 6:24 AM
Dear Steven N. Karels:
You are right, but please do not forget that
1- there are error margins of the scales
2- there are many macroscopic factors that can change the weight: several mg are a so small amount, that errors are very probable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Caroly Witkowsky
January 16th, 2013 at 2:04 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You told us that Nickel enrichment still is necessary for your reactors. Since we know that the standard procedures for isotopic enrichment are very expensive and taken into account the very low cost that you offer for a fuel replacement the enrichment procedure that you have invented must be unique and truly miraculous. Therefore it should be a rather straight forward process to protect this invaluable IP with appropriate patents. These patents could easily provide you with economical leverage for further development of your energy solutions. Perhaps you can tell us something about the patent situation?
Kind regards, Caroly

Andrea Rossi
January 16th, 2013 at 5:06 AM
Dear Caroly Witkowsky:
Our patent situation and strategy is confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Caroly Witkowsky
January 15th, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi,
It was a long time since you mentioned the matter of Nickel isotope enrichment for which you have developed an entirely new enrichment methodlogy. I was much intrigued by this and now I wonder, is it still required for your nuclear reactors?
Kind regards, Caroly

Andrea Rossi
January 15th, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Dear Caroly Witkowsky:
Yes, it is still necessary,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Steven N. Karels
November 4th, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

I am searching for an understanding of Nickel enrichment, no production of 59Ni and Copper production as a secondary energy process. Isotope enrichment is really a depletion of an unwanted isotope leaving a larger percentage of the desired isotope(s).

a. Can you reveal what isotope distribution is present in your “fuel” before the start of the eCat energy production process?

b. Are substantial quantities of 60Ni and 61Ni still present?

c. Do you think the significant reactions for energy production are based on 60Ni and 61Ni? (62Ni -> 63Cu and 64Ni -> 65Cu)

d. Does the elevated isotopic presence of 62Ni and 64Ni act as a catalyst to enable the 60Ni and/o 61Ni reactions?

Translate

Andrea Rossi
November 4th, 2012 at 5:03 PM
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Further information about this issue is confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
November 4th, 2012 at 8:01 AM
Dear Daniel De Caluwe’:
1- No
2- No
3- No
4- Confidential
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Daniel De Caluwé
November 4th, 2012 at 6:18 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi,

Although I don’t want to take part in a Q&A game, where you gradually (step by step) and eventually are forced to reveal the secret working of the E-cat (even when that maybe is against your initial will), the questions of some participants and your answers also make me curious, and therefore these questions: (but of course, if some of these questions would reveal too much of your secrets, I accept that you don’t answer them or even remove some of them)

1) Did you initially enrich Ni (to get more 62Ni and 64Ni) because you initially thought/presumed that the energy maybe was coming from the transmutation tot Cu (62Ni + proton -> stable 63Cu; and 64Ni + proton -> stable 65Cu)?

2) But, from the moment you knew that the transmutation to copper (Cu) only was a side-effect, did you try normal (not enriched) Ni back again?

3) And if yes (to question 2), did normal (not enriched) Ni also work and produces the same amount of energy?

4) If the enrichment of Ni (to get more 62Ni and 64Ni than naturally occuring) really is necessary to get the E-cat work (or to get the necessary amount of energy), could the fact that 62Ni and 64Ni, who are the most heavy of the stable isotopes of Ni, have most free (excess-) neutrons (6 neutrons in excess for 62Ni and 8 neutrons in excess for 64Ni), and that, thinking on QRT of Wladimir Guglinsky (where the structure of the nucleus is supposed/hypothised by a He-core, surrounded by deuterions (proton-neutron pairs) in hexagonal layers (with max 6 deuterons per layer)), so that more excess neutrons tend to enhance ‘proton-capture’ (to form deuterons in the outside hexagonal layers)?

Could that possibly be a mechanism? : ‘Proton-capture’ (62Ni/64Ni + proton -> (63Cu/65Cu)*, but not yet completely formed/finished, and therefore falling back (and/or via ‘pseudo electron-capture’ with beta and gamma radiaton that produces the heat) and going back and forth (because of the applied ‘frequencies’)?

But of course, I accept if you don’t want to answer the last question.

Kind Regards,

Charlie Zimmerman
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.

Luca M
July 13th, 2011 at 6:46 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi, I apologize for intervening in the discussion between you and Mario Voltaggio, but I think there was a misunderstanding relative to the question n. 2. Voltaggio said that he did not understand if the copper isotopic composition is the natural one, and you answered that the Cu produced is 63 and 65. I think that, when he asked about the isotopic composition, he intended the ratio between Cu 63 and 65, which are the only Cu stable isotopes. Actually all the copper (non radioactive) is in any case composed by Cu 63 and 65.
Or may be that your answer was due to the fact this is a confidential information?
Thank you for your attention, best regards.

Andrea Rossi
July 13th, 2011 at 6:51 AM
Dear Luca M:
You have not to apologize, we welcome the fact that Readers intervene with comments regarding other comments, of course.
Answer: since we enrich in Ni 62 and 64 the enrichment compensates the consumption in good measure, I assume. Besides, as you correctly say, I cannot deepen this issue for confidential reasons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
July 11th, 2011 at 7:56 PM
Dear Dr. Mario Voltaggio:
The answers to your questions have been given in this blog already, anyway, repeating rapidly:
1- The isotopic composition of Ni after 6 mo is slightly different, but the difference is also compensated from the enrichment we make in the Ni
2- The Cu produced is 63 and 65, because only Ni 62 and 64 react in this sense
3- the heating is due to the gamma radiation, which is contained from the lead shielding. The gamma produced in the reactor have mainly low energy. The reason of this will be clear when I will disclose the theory at the base of the process.
4- the medium by means of which the heat is exchanged with the water is the wall of the reactor, properly designed.
5- The patent of the invention discloses enough information to allow an expert of the matter to replicate the effect. In fact , many persons have replicated the effect using the text of my patent application. A totally different thing is the industrial secret regarding information useful to make a product with best performances.
6- Public demos were opportune for R&D purposes, and also for commercial purposes. Patent processes can take up to 6-7 years, and a private industry, not financed by the taxpayer, cannot wait. Therefore, maintains the industrial secrets, while the production takes place and the patent application is cropped.
7- The Journal Of Nuclear Physics is not dedicated to my process: most of the articles are indipendent from it, sometimes alternative.
Thank you for your sincere critics,
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

Translate

Mario Voltaggio
July 11th, 2011 at 6:37 PM
Gentile Dr. Andrea Rossi,
dopo aver letto con attenzione quanto riportato su questo sito, mi sfugge completamente l’utilità di queste discussioni(almeno dal mio punto di vista).
Comprendo che questi commenti possano esserle utili per avere dei contatti che possono aiutarla nella commercializzazione del suo prodotto ma come ricercatore ho letto molte contraddizioni.
Espongo brevemente quali contraddizioni ho rilevato:
1) non si comprende se la composizione isotopica del nichelio prima e dopo il funzionamento prolungato dell’e-cat sia cambiata o sia rimasta la stessa.
2) non si comprende se la composizione isotopica del rame prodotto sia o no uguale a quella naturale
3) non si comprende se il riscaldamento sia dovuto alla radiazione gamma dal momento che la schermatura di piombo dovrebbe essere insufficiente per schermarla completamente
4) non si comprende quale sia il mezzo attraverso il quale il calore viene trasmesso alla parete della cella a contatto con l’acqua immessa con la pompa peristaltica
5)non si comprende perchè la composizione dell’addittivo dovrebbe rimanere segreta se si vuole ottenere un brevetto da tale invenzione.
6)non si comprende perchè se si voleva arrivare al mercato prima dell’ottenimento del brevetto si siano anticipati i risultati con delle dimostrazioni pubbliche.
7) infine non comprendo perchè ha indetto questa specie di ricerca del santo Graal della teoria sul funzionamento della sua cella con questi articoli riportati sul Journal of Nuclear Physiscs che sa tanto di “vediamo chi si avvicina di più alla spiegazione avendo a disposizione pochi dati e ben confusi”.
Chiedo perdono per la sincerità, ma questo è ciò che penso (per il momento).
Cari saluti
Dr. Mario Voltaggio

Charlie Zimmerman
July 8th, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

Your method of isotopic enrichment/depletion is a momentous discovery unto itself, that seems to have hugely exciting applications outside of your field.

Do you have any plans to patent/commercialize this process as well?

Best Regards,
Charlie Zimmerman

Translate

Andrea Rossi
July 8th, 2011 at 4:36 PM
Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
Yes.
Warm regards,
A.R.

Franco Ragazzi
July 2nd, 2011 at 3:51 PM
Dear Mr. Rossi.
the absence of gamma ray is due to internal shield or to intrinsic operating principle of the catalyzer?
Best Regards

Translate

Andrea Rossi
July 3rd, 2011 at 2:53 AM
Dear Franco Ragazzi:
There are gamma rays inside the reactor during the operation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
June 1st, 2011 at 7:56 AM
Gent. Sig. Guido B.:
1- The isotopoical concentration is not equal, and the equations after the enrichment of Ni are not that simple
2- The R&D program with UNIBO is a private, not a public, issue
3- Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Translate

Guido B.
June 1st, 2011 at 7:34 AM
Gentile Dott. Rossi,
cerco di seguire il più possibile la vicenda e-cat,
spero francamente che tutto vada per il meglio.
Avrei qualche domanda alle quali spero che Lei possa rispondere:
1) Avete sostenuto più volte che dopo diversi mesi di funzionamento nel reattore il rame prodotto dalla fusione non aveva concentrazione isotopica naturale, i fisici svedesi Essen e Kulander sostengono di aver ricevuto da Lei delle scorie di un reattore che aveva funzionato diversi mesi e che le scorie stesse hanno un rapporto isotopico del rame in concentrazioni naturali. C’è qualche spiegazione a questa apparente contraddizione ?
2)Ci sono novità per il programma di sperimentazione all’ Unibo ? Sarà operativo entro giugno ?
3)La commercializzazione dell’ecat partirà in ogni caso entro fine anno ?

Grazie

Cordiali saluti e buon lavoro

[ladajo]

Luca
April 30th, 2011 at 11:53 PM
Dear Mr Rossi, I have a question about a point that is unclear to me.
Of course fell free to not answer if you do not have time.

The question is about the nickel enrichment. In a former answer to a blogger question, you said that you use nickel with normal isotopic composition.
Also the analisys made by Kullander on the nickel powder report that the isotopic composition is normal.

But in a later post, you said that the nickel is enriched.

Both post are reported below so you do not have to waste time to look for it.

I though that it could be useful to clarify this point, if possible.

Last but not least, a non-technical comment. You said that you are the only and sole guy, so far, that knows what happens inside the reactor. So presently there is only one man in the world (you) that knows the solution to the world energy problems. I seems a risky situation to me. My personal suggestion, if of any interest, is to provide some evidence that whatever may happen to you this unvaluable knowledge will not be lost.
The so called “cold fusion” or LENR, have been hampered at all levels since now. Also in the mainstream academic world it will be continued to be considered a sort of crackpot science until it will impossible to deny that the phenomenon is real. Only that point they will rush to find the thoretical explanation they said it was impossible to find. I looking forward to it.

Thank you for your time, best regards.

——————————————————-
• Andrea Rossi
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:25 AM
Dear Mr Gianluca:
We use regular Ni, so the isotopic composition is the normal one.
We give not information about what is in the reactor beside Ni, H.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
——————————————————-
• Andrea Rossi
April 8th, 2011 at 9:33 AM
Dear Mr Mattias Carlsson:
Yes, we do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Mattias Carlsson
April 8th, 2011 at 9:08 AM
Dear Rossi,
As I understand from your answers you confirm or suspect that only Ni 62 and Ni 64 react to produce Cu 63 and Cu 65 respectively.
The Swedish professor Kullander says in the magazine “Ny teknik” that in the ‘spent’ fuel there is 10% copper 63 and 65 (70:30) and 11% iron.
Since nickel 62 and 64 is present in the proportions of 3.6% and 0.9% totaling 4.5% in normal natural nickel. Did you enrich for heavier nickel isotopes to make the nickel fuel?
Best regards
Mattias Uppsala Sweden

[ladajo]

William
April 11th, 2011 at 8:34 PM
Hello Mr. Rossi,

Thank you for revealing that your nickel fuel is enriched to include more Ni 62 and Ni 64. To many of us, your technology is like an addictive and exciting puzzle just waiting to be put together! It holds the potential to change the world and our entire civilization for the better!

Your revelation also brings a few questions to mind.

1) If the enrichment process removes some isotopes from a certain quantity of nickel powder, the final quantity of refined fuel would be less than the quantity of nickel powder you started with. Can you tell us what percentage of nickel powder remains (from lets say one kilogram of ordinary nickel powder) after the enrichment processing takes place?

2) You once stated that the nickel powder you utilize costs approximately $20 dollars per kilogram. If we add a 10% processing cost to this (probably to pay for the chemicals you use) the cost goes up to $22 dollars. However, if lets say only a small percentage of the original powder remains after processing, the cost per kilogram of enriched fuel would be higher than the cost of the raw nickel powder. Can you give us an idea of how much a kilogram of enriched fuel costs?

3) Are the catalysts added during the processing of the nickel powder?

Thanks for being willing to continue communicating with us! You have made the past few months very exciting for me and have personally given me a great deal of hope for the future.

Sincerely,
William

Andrea Rossi
April 11th, 2011 at 10:05 PM
Dear William:
1- I cannot give more information about this issue
2- I can say that the cost for enrichment is not substantial for the global economy of the process
3- I cannot gove this information
Warm regards,
A.R.

Jed Rothwell
April 11th, 2011 at 8:44 PM
Mattias Carlsson asked “Did you enrich for heavier nickel isotopes to make the nickel fuel?” and you replied:

“Yes, we do.”

Elsewhere you said that processing the Ni adds only about 10% to the cost. Yet monoisotopic elements are very expensive. To enrich the sample even 1% would make it cost far more than normal Ni.

How do you explain this? Perhaps there is some confusion.

(Incidentally, Piantelli says in his patent that his Ni is enriched. See patent WO 2010/058288)

Andrea Rossi
April 11th, 2011 at 10:01 PM
Dear Jed Rothwell:
I am not going to give more information about this issue. Just can say we have invented a process of ours to enrich Ni without relevant costs. To elaborate Ni powders along classic processes is the invention of the hot water. It is as invent and patent the sputtering in 2010…
Warm regards,
A.R.

[ladajo]

H. Hansson
October 10th, 2011 at 3:57 PM
Dear Rossi,
Good answer to Jan, may I add that using a fuel such as thermite/aluminum would probably burn a hole in your fat-cat and would be very hard to control, a engineering challenge.

30g of thermite/aluminum are enough to create a hole in 2 cm of steel plate. Mixing water with thermite/aluminum or pouring water onto burning is very dangerous because it can cause a phreatomagmatic explosion, spraying flaks in all directions. IN SHORT: a fat-cat with that kind of fuel would be IED (improvised explosive device).

(above info snapped from diffident sources)

Andrea Rossi
October 10th, 2011 at 4:23 PM
Dear H. Hansson:
Thank you for your info: I didn’t even know what the hell is thermite/Al, all I know is that my E-Cat weighted more after the test then it weighted before the test. You want not to know where the snake can put, along my suggestion, the thermite/aluminum.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

[ladajo]

Simon Knight
October 10th, 2011 at 1:13 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

According to Mats Lewan’s report from the October 6 demo he considered the test proper to start when the self-sustained regime was entered. This means that the effective testing time was limited to 3:15 hours whereas prior to the test you announced that 12 hours would be the minimum testing time.

Because of this premature shut down the Fat-Cat was only allowed to cross the border to the improbable. It would have been so much more impressive if you had allowed the Fat-Cat to also cross the border of what the nasty skeptics consider to be the impossible.

Please forgive me for asking, but why did you miss out on such an opportunity?

Kind regards, Simon

Andrea Rossi
October 10th, 2011 at 2:00 PM
Dear Simon Knight:
The test started at 9,30 and finished at 24.
Inside this timeframe we had to: weight everything, heat up, operate, cool down, re-weight, disassemble, analyze.
The 3 anf half hours of self sustaining mode have been more then enough for unbiased People.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

[KitemanSA]

Luca
——————————————————-
• Andrea Rossi
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:25 AM
Dear Mr Gianluca:
We use regular Ni, so the isotopic composition is the normal one.
We give not information about what is in the reactor beside Ni, H.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
——————————————————-
• Andrea Rossi
April 8th, 2011 at 9:33 AM
Dear Mr Mattias Carlsson:
Yes, we do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Mattias Carlsson
April 8th, 2011 at 9:08 AM
Dear Rossi,
As I understand from your answers you confirm or suspect that only Ni 62 and Ni 64 react to produce Cu 63 and Cu 65 respectively.
The Swedish professor Kullander says in the magazine “Ny teknik” that in the ‘spent’ fuel there is 10% copper 63 and 65 (70:30) and 11% iron.
Since nickel 62 and 64 is present in the proportions of 3.6% and 0.9% totaling 4.5% in normal natural nickel. Did you enrich for heavier nickel isotopes to make the nickel fuel?
Best regards
Mattias Uppsala Sweden

FINALLY! A pair of statements that at least has the appearance of a contradiction! Unfortunately, the first statement is in response to a question we don't have access to here, so we have no idea what the statement refers to. Can you find that original question? Can we be sure that Gianluca wasn't asking about what goes into the "enrichment process"? This s the first plausible direct contradiction. Keep at it, you may get one yet.

Ladajo,
You remind me of a lawyer with a very weak case who is trying to overwhelm his opponent by flooding him with meaningless paperwork. I ask for SPECIFIC cases and you flood me with nonsense. Please, if you have specific cases, provide them, not a book of Rossi quotes. This one is a maybe; best try yet.

[paperburn1]

Sir : "I reject your reality and substitute my own" -Mythbusters
I decided to throw my humble opinion into the fray. The method of testing Rossi has explained leaves a large amount of potential error. The difference between actual power and apparent power could easily explain his excess power production. This leaves two distinct Possibilities, One is he just a poor EE OR the other is he is committing some kind of a scam. As he has made no effort in my opinion to correct this perception the latter is more likely to be true.
As my friend's father is a city inspector in Miami I ask if Leonardo corporation or Andrea Rossi had a factory listed in Miami. He can back with there is only a register corporation headquarters there and no listed factory to either of the two names referenced. To be fair he said it would be possible for him to be subcontracting out to someone else and it not show up.
You can check this out by a simple Google web search yourself.
So once again we were left with two unverifiable positions and unless Rossi reveals any more details still unverifiable. This with all the other smoke and mirrors do not leave me with any great faith in the man or the process. I believe LENR is possible and proven but I do not know if it is economical to produce energy and seriously doubt that Rossi has it.

[KitemanSA]

What he said.

[paperburn1]

What he said.

Did ya read my post??
Rossi does not have it.

[KitemanSA]

In your original post, and you even bolded it, you stated your opinion that you "seriously doubt that Rossi has it".
I concur with your opinion.
In your later post you changed to a statement of purported fact to whit "Rossi does not have it". To that I ask, "specific evidence please".

[paperburn1]

Ahh I understand now. To clarify I believe there is less than .00001% chance of rossi haveing anything.

[polyill]

Ahh I understand now. To clarify I believe there is less than .00001% chance of rossi haveing anything.

SNAKESSSS!!!


Mental condition, is what he has, with a probability much higher than what you state.

[KitemanSA]

Ahh I understand now. To clarify I believe there is less than .00001% chance of rossi haveing anything.

The basis for your probability is? And what is your confidence interval?