10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[seedload]

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?

Previously he said after the 1MW plant. Personally, I would not expect it soon.

[Luzr]

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.

Another proof that Rossi actually reads this forum?

[seedload]

Kite,

Regarding only NI62 and NI64 reacting. I asked Rossi about that on his blog. Note this is in reaction to a YouTube video where he did actually talk about a rare isotope of Copper.

You said that a rare isotope of copper is produced. Can you elaborate on this more? I thought only NI62 and NI64 are reacting to produce copper 63 and 65.

Rossi responded:

No, I did not say that. There has been a misunderstanding. Is correct what you thought.

Anyway, that question/answer was sans conditionals.

[Joseph Chikva]

Sounds like you don't believe that magnetic seperation of single ionized Nickel is possible.

First you should separate differently ionized ions from each other: single from double, triple, etc.
In result you will get two stage process. I need not believing, I know that is possible in principle. But talk is about expediency and also about cost. That is not cheap as you guess. Certainly, if you do not say "cheap" meaning many tens millions USD.

[seedload]

FYI. My attempt to finalize the clarification process regarding isotopes.

Charlie Zimmerman
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:13 PM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

These are very exciting times indeed! Thank you for your attention to my previous questions.

Regarding the remaining NI58, am I correct in assuming that NI58 does not react at all? I ask because if it reacts similarly to the NI62 and NI64 I see no way to avoid the radioactive byproduct of NI59 decayed from CU59.

Is the reason for the reduction in NI58 simply to have a higher ratio of the reactive isotopes NI62 and NI64 or does reducing it somehow reduce it’s reactivity?

Warmest Regards,
Charlie Zimmerman

Andrea Rossi
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:26 PM
Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
You are entering in the mined field of industrial secrets.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

[KitemanSA]

My opinion is that you are just in contradiction mode.

I plead guilty, sort of. I am quite the contrarian, but I do try to consider the real physics of the situation, not (as you say next) "just speculating".

Anyway, at least I am trying to get more info from the source. You are just speculating.

I thank you for the info from the source. You are appearantly set up to do so. I am not. I don't even know where you get this stuff! So I go looking in places like Wikipedia and the US NRC database for the potential physical data behind these things.

I reposted my questions today and got answers.

Excellent!!!

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".

Interesting. My recollection about this is that he said the two were MORE reactive because they have more "handles" IIRC. I think this is the very discussion I was remembering.

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

A valient effort. I wish we had discussed this before you resubmitted. I would have liked to help craft the questions. I would have suggested making more pointed questions like "In your reactor, does the Ni58 undergo a nuclear reaction at all?"

Well, maybe next time.

[KitemanSA]

FYI. My attempt to finalize the clarification process regarding isotopes.

Charlie Zimmerman
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:13 PM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

These are very exciting times indeed! Thank you for your attention to my previous questions.

Regarding the remaining NI58, am I correct in assuming that NI58 does not react at all? I ask because if it reacts similarly to the NI62 and NI64 I see no way to avoid the radioactive byproduct of NI59 decayed from CU59.

Is the reason for the reduction in NI58 simply to have a higher ratio of the reactive isotopes NI62 and NI64 or does reducing it somehow reduce it’s reactivity?

Warmest Regards,
Charlie Zimmerman

Andrea Rossi
November 2nd, 2011 at 12:26 PM
Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
You are entering in the mined field of industrial secrets.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

My supposition is the IF the Rossi Machine Is Real (RMIR) then he is trying to keep that Ni59 low enough to blend into the background. Yes, it is just a supposition. But it makes sense to me.

I suspect that IF the RMIR there is an interaction between the reactivity of the isotope and the quantity such that if he reduces the stuff to a lower, but not miniscule level, he achieves that situation. Yes this is speculation. But it is not inconsistant with the physics I know.

[Kahuna]

Hank Mills is hopelessly biased in favor of Rossi, but this article does have a fair amount of detailed information on the test setup and process.

http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501943_Ross ... ay--E-Day/

[ladajo]

More crocks of shyte. Too many for me to list on a knee jerk post after reading the article. Gahhh!

I am becoming more and more suspect of the entire endeavour with this latest round.

[bk78]

Really? There have been THOUSANDS of scientists looking to enrich NICKEL? Really? Why?
Obviously enriching 235UF6 which is ~ 0.8% different in weight is not their intent. And that fact that it starts at <1% of the total rather than ~70% makes no difference. Really? Seems apples and aardvarks to me.

Why would be Nickel any special? U-235 is enriched by a factor 6 from 0.7% to 4%.
Ni-62/64 is enriched from 4.6% to, what do you propose, 99%? 99,9999%?

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.

Boy you just can't keep up, can you?
Your "either" phrase is nonsense. First I don't claim anything. REMEMBER THAT. Otherwise you will continue to be afflicted by your fuzzy thinking.
I am sorry that the possibility that limiting the content of 58Ni to a low but not zero content may reduce the resultant gamma emission is beyond your cognative skills.

Actually, this was what I was talking about.You COMPLETELY ignored my point. If deenrichment of Ni-58 to a few percent is enough to make it undetectable, why should he bother the first place. If he did not, the radiation would be 100 times that much... so what?

Your OR statement is purely strawman. You state that it would have to get down to PPM. 4 orders of magnitude you proclaim. Based on what? What data supports your proclamation. None? Well, then you are just flapping your unknowing trap. Put up, or shut up? Or at least acknowledge that you are spouting "opinion", not fact.

Regarding the 4 orders of magnitude:
The detector was maybe 20..30cm away. For a person at 1m distance, dose rate is reduced by a factor of about 10. By summing up scintillator counts over a minute, you can easily detect changes at a few percent of natural background. Millions of people live all their life in areas with high natural background, and receive doses about an order of magnitude higher than someone in Bolgna, without known negative effects on health. Thats 4 orders of magnitude. Considering the limited time someone spends near the reactor, much higher levels could be regarded as harmless.

Considering radiation issues in general:
Let's say, the reactor produces his power in form of 6MeV (was it?) beta radiation. If you have kWs of this beta radiation, you get hundreds of watts of bremsstrahlung with a few MeV. 1 cm of lead will roughly half the intensity, 10 cm of water will half it again. Thats still many 10s of Watts coming outside the device, or 1E13...1E14 gamma particles per second.
Integrated over an hour, this would be hundreds of kJs. If a person stands close to it and covers 1% of the area as seen from the device, it receives some kJs. Divided by 80kg, thats 10s of Gray or 10s of Sieverts. This person will certainly die.
On the detecor side, I have a small piece of an uranium mineral, emitting a few 10s of nano Watts. If I put my cheap pocket sized scintillator at a distance of 30cm to it (thats only picoWatts at the detector!), count rate will go up from 5 counts per second (background) to 20. At higher gamma energys, as we would expect from the ecat, this decreases a lot, but it would still be detectable.
This means: Between the emissions we would expect to see, and what we are actually seeing, there is a gap of at least 9 orders of magnitude!
Even for the implausible claim that only Ni-58 emits beta and therefor is removed by Rossi, if one assumes similar cross section for all isotopes, then even a 1 ppm content of Ni-58 would lead to levels of radiation that are 1000 times higher than the detection limit.
And for this reason, Kiteman, I can't take your desperate efforts to make Rossis lies look like they made any sense serious.

[ladajo]

And just for fun,

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/ ... es#content

Rossi is fast approaching critical mass for "Put up or Shut up".

[rcain]

Hank Mills is hopelessly biased in favor of Rossi, but this article does have a fair amount of detailed information on the test setup and process.

http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501943_Ross ... ay--E-Day/

...
Already, Rossi has declared he has found a customer for the second one megawatt plant that will be ready in three months. This customer is said to be located in the USA, and will not be as secretive as the first customer.
...
I would suggest that any company that is interested in purchasing a plant contact Rossi as soon as possible. It seems the line at the checkout register is forming. What will be interesting is to see how long the mainstream media and mainstream scientific community will be able to ignore the growing number of satisfied customers.

... and it will be interesting to see whether a line forms at the 'Refunds' counter some short while afterwards...

i will reserve final judgement until then.

[bhl]

Rossi is fast approaching critical mass for "Put up or Shut up".

Rossi has "put up" multiple times and has kept his trade secrets in tact. A line of willing buyers awaits.

Here is another story... to keep the oil speculators up at night:
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... d-Out.html

[ScottL]

Rossi is fast approaching critical mass for "Put up or Shut up".

Rossi has "put up" multiple times and has kept his trade secrets in tact. A line of willing buyers awaits.

Here is another story... to keep the oil speculators up at night:
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... d-Out.html

What did he put up? I don't remember any independently verified experiments by other institutions or labs yet. I have seen the reports on Focardi's previously submitted Ni-H experiments. CERN and 2 Italian Universities were unable to replicate the results. CERN was the closest however; noting that there was heat generated, but it was not anomolous, IE: expected reaction.

[icarus]

Here's an earlier patent from Arata with very, very similar sounding claims ... hydrogen condensate forming in ultra-fine nano particles ...

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1551032.html

"The present invention provides a method of generating heat using a hydrogen condensate. The hydrogen condensate comprises a plurality of metal atoms contained in a metal nano-ultrafine particle and a plurality of hydrogen isotope atoms solid-dissolved among the plurality of metal atoms. At least two of the plurality of hydrogen isotope atoms are condensed so that the inter-atomic nuclear distance between two hydrogen isotope atoms is smaller than or equal to the internuclear spacing of a molecule consisting of two hydrogen isotope atoms. The heat generation method comprises applying energy to the hydrogen condensate and generating heat by causing the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms to react with each other due to the energy. "

Edit: removed BS.