10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[adam_623]

But it does mean I view anyone giving Rossi money as very very foolish.

Best wishes, Tom

I think everyone here would agree that giving money to Rossi based on what 'we' in this forum know would be very foolish.

However we probably have to agree that anyone giving money would have access to more information and actual hands on time with the devices.

So then there is a tradeoff between 2 unknowns:
1. Where the investors fall on the spectrum ranging from someone who is technologically unsophisticated through to somebody who could do their own tests of the devices personally.
2. What tests, demonstrations, and information they have had access to that hasn't been disclosed puclicly.

So we don't know #1 and we don't know #2 so we can't really judge their foolishness levels.

Regards,

Adam

[Joseph Chikva]

2. What tests, demonstrations, and information they have had access to that hasn't been disclosed puclicly.

So we don't know #1 and we don't know #2 so we can't really judge their foolishness levels.

Everyone can spend his own money as he wants.
For example to fly to space as a tourist. Or to buy dried butterflies’ collection for 100’000 USD.
But we saw something from #2.
And are not quite impressed.

[Kahuna]

Over at Vortex, Akira Shirakawa translated some highlights of the recent Italian LENR conference regarding the current and planned work of Piantelli. Recall that Piantelli (University of Sienna) holds some Hi-H LENR patents and researched/published with Focardi before Rossi/E-Cat entered the picture. Now Piantelli is doing independent research with a goal of producing his own Ni-H product line.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40 ... 49583.html

Some selected highlights:

• - Recently, old cells that worked continuously for months have been turned on again. After some maintenance, they turned on easily and quickly with some excess energy and the old "fuel", but they haven't been "pushed" yet to high excess energy levels.
  
  - New cells with the new fuel haven't been completed yet (estimated 2 months left).
  
  - Project development is going well and accelerating in progress. There are proposals of a joint work with a big USA firm that had the opportunity of staying at Piantelli's laboratories for 3 days. Agreements with important industrial firms to develop generators of various power levels are also being made.
  
  - Development will be performed in increasing power steps. The first new cell to be turned on will be of a few hundreds of watts in power. Once extensively tested and pushed, after everything will be under control and with clear, safe and controllable behavior, higher power levels (in the orders of kW) will be attempted, and then, when again everything will be clarified, greater ones will be.
  
  - On a theoretical perspective (Piantelli has a mathematical theory which doesn't require exotic reactions, but that can be explained by current physical laws and mathematics) protons of 6-7 Mev energy have been confirmed (in a cloud chamber), which allow for good likelihood of interaction with nickel particles; a semi-complete theory is about to be published as an internal document in the University of Siena. The complete theory will be probably disclosed after the initial devices will be commercially sold.
  
  - The older "reactivated" cells that are being tested right now show small excess heat (2-3 times the input energy), but for new ones it's expected about an output of 200 times the input energy.
  
  - According to several third-parties, older cells have been able to work in self-sustaining mode for quite some amount of time.
  
  - Experiments are being performed in a lab near Siena. Italian institutions are not involved, however a public USA agency will probably contribute to the development and certify/validate the reaction.

I would be interested in what Giorgio knows about Pinatelli of his effort by reputation. I remember you said that Focardio was well respected and considered honest and upright by an academic freind of yours.

[Joseph Chikva]

Italian institutions are not involved, however a public USA agency will probably contribute to the development and certify/validate the reaction.

DOE?
Or some antiterrorism agency for certification?
As Rossi "made" lightweight handheld neutron source.

[adam_623]

2. What tests, demonstrations, and information they have had access to that hasn't been disclosed puclicly.

So we don't know #1 and we don't know #2 so we can't really judge their foolishness levels.

Everyone can spend his own money as he wants.
For example to fly to space as a tourist. Or to buy dried butterflies’ collection for 100’000 USD.
But we saw something from #2.
And are not quite impressed.

By definition we have not had access to anything that wasn't disclosed publicly. So we have seen nothing from #2

[Joseph Chikva]

By definition we have not had access to anything that wasn't disclosed publicly. So we have seen nothing from #2

In case if Mr. Rossi has something that has to be disclosed.
And we all have seen his demo in Youtube. From which does absolutely not clear how much heat his device produces. Person who gave him reasonable advice to increase water flow he named "snake". Etc.

[seedload]

Have you considered the possibility that 58Ni is substantially less reactive than 62 or 64Ni and by limiting the percentage (not necessarily eliminating it, but lowering it ENOUGH) the reaction of 58Ni is suppressed?

So far, nothing holds as contrary evidence.

Again, on each count you argue that it is possible - not likely. And on each count you find an excuse for how it could be possible rather than considering it at face value.

Yes, Rossi may be saying that only NI62 and NI64 react and be meaning that he gets rid of enough NI58 so that it doesn't react, but I consider it unlikely/improbable that this is what he is saying. I am not sure you have considered the numbers fully. You propose alternative possibilities without considering the numbers and then lecture about facts. I grow tired.



First, NI58 is 68% of natural Nickel!!! So, I doubt heartily that his depletion would be anything short of approaching complete if he is really intending to prevent reactive NI58 from reacting.

Second, NI60 is 26% of natural Nickel!!! So, I doubt heartily that if NI58 does react and he is suppressing it, that NI60 would not also react and therefore also need to be depleted.

Third, apparently 30% of the Nickel powder is changed to copper. But there is less than 5% of NI62 and NI64 in nickel. If you completely deplete the NI58, there is still only <15% NI62 and NI64 in the new Nickel ratios. Take the NI60 down to by more than half along with completely depleting the NI58 and then you get to ratios that could produce 30% copper from just NI62 and NI64 alone.

Get it yet? Rossi claimed 30% of Nickel changed to copper. He also claimed that only NI62 and NI64 react. Someone did the math. The someone was Ludwik Kowalski of Montclair State University. That someone posted in Rossi's Journal the following:

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.

Rossi was cornered, at which point he got crafty with his reply:

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…)

Later, Rossi begins talking about enrichment. But, as I show above, the enrichment story is pretty absurd - at least cheaply.

Finally, Focardi is still claiming something completely different. All Nickel reacts and then there are a series of decays. Same thing that the patent claimed but completely different than Rossi's evolved (defensive?) claims.

Now, from your previous replies, you don't seem to treat me as serious - ignorant even. But I am serious. And, hopefully, others can see that even if you don't.

regards

[KitemanSA]

Wrong from a logical, scientific and commercial point of view.
Regardless of him being right or not, he has done all in the worst way he could have done it, IMHO.

Giorgio,
Thank you for your response, but I asked Betruger what HE meant.

Betruger?

Giorgio had me right. You don't think there's anything wrong with the way Rossi's gone about this?

No. I think there may have been a large number of STUPID (unintellegent) things, and there also appear to be some INCORRECT (untrue) things, but I can not proclaim anything WRONG (immoral) so far. If it in fact turns out to be a SCAM, then yes there will be something wrong.

[stefanbanev]

Any public information from Rossi&Co is unreliable and he really has no
reason to provide a "reliable" one, in fact it would be quite stupid to do. The
most supporting evidence for me is that it is not a R&D with “great future” it
is an actual device claimed to be ready for industrial usage so, investors
need to evaluate not viability of science behind but an actual output/input
ratio of operational device – it is way too more complex to fake then to talk
around about technology under development with “great potential future” ;
the investors should be SO dumb that it looks very unlikely yet possible with
fair outcome - stupids should lose money.

[Axil]

Any public information from Rossi&Co is unreliable and he really has no
reason to provide a "reliable" one, in fact it would be quite stupid to do. The
most supporting evidence for me is that it is not a R&D with “great future” it
is an actual device claimed to be ready for industrial usage so, investors
need to evaluate not viability of science behind but an actual output/input
ratio of operational device – it is way too more complex to fake then to talk
around about technology under development with “great potential future” ;
the investors should be SO dumb that it looks very unlikely yet possible with
fair outcome - stupids should lose money.

Rossi provides a “try it before you buy it money back guarantee”. Such deals in today’s marketplace are hard to find anymore, let alone for a nuclear reactor. That deal is real hard to beat.

[tomclarke]

But it does mean I view anyone giving Rossi money as very very foolish.

Best wishes, Tom

I think everyone here would agree that giving money to Rossi based on what 'we' in this forum know would be very foolish.

However we probably have to agree that anyone giving money would have access to more information and actual hands on time with the devices.

So then there is a tradeoff between 2 unknowns:
1. Where the investors fall on the spectrum ranging from someone who is technologically unsophisticated through to somebody who could do their own tests of the devices personally.
2. What tests, demonstrations, and information they have had access to that hasn't been disclosed puclicly.

So we don't know #1 and we don't know #2 so we can't really judge their foolishness levels.

Regards,

Adam

We don't know but can reasonably have a view that Rossi's v unconvincing public tests are not worse than the tests investors could do, whether they are capable of doing could tests or not.

Let me remind you, none of the public tests indicate significant power out > power in, in spite of rossi being (presumably, from comments) highly motivated to impress those who have seen tests.

In which case my comment (a view) stands.

[tomclarke]

Have you considered the possibility that 58Ni is substantially less reactive than 62 or 64Ni and by limiting the percentage (not necessarily eliminating it, but lowering it ENOUGH) the reaction of 58Ni is suppressed?

So far, nothing holds as contrary evidence.

Again, on each count you argue that it is possible - not likely. And on each count you find an excuse for how it could be possible rather than considering it at face value.

Yes, Rossi may be saying that only NI62 and NI64 react and be meaning that he gets rid of enough NI58 so that it doesn't react, but I consider it unlikely/improbable that this is what he is saying. I am not sure you have considered the numbers fully. You propose alternative possibilities without considering the numbers and then lecture about facts. I grow tired.



First, NI58 is 68% of natural Nickel!!! So, I doubt heartily that his depletion would be anything short of approaching complete if he is really intending to prevent reactive NI58 from reacting.

Second, NI60 is 26% of natural Nickel!!! So, I doubt heartily that if NI58 does react and he is suppressing it, that NI60 would not also react and therefore also need to be depleted.

Third, apparently 30% of the Nickel powder is changed to copper. But there is less than 5% of NI62 and NI64 in nickel. If you completely deplete the NI58, there is still only <15% NI62 and NI64 in the new Nickel ratios. Take the NI60 down to by more than half along with completely depleting the NI58 and then you get to ratios that could produce 30% copper from just NI62 and NI64 alone.

Get it yet? Rossi claimed 30% of Nickel changed to copper. He also claimed that only NI62 and NI64 react. Someone did the math. The someone was Ludwik Kowalski of Montclair State University. That someone posted in Rossi's Journal the following:

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.

Rossi was cornered, at which point he got crafty with his reply:

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…)

Later, Rossi begins talking about enrichment. But, as I show above, the enrichment story is pretty absurd - at least cheaply.

Finally, Focardi is still claiming something completely different. All Nickel reacts and then there are a series of decays. Same thing that the patent claimed but completely different than Rossi's evolved (defensive?) claims.

Now, from your previous replies, you don't seem to treat me as serious - ignorant even. But I am serious. And, hopefully, others can see that even if you don't.

regards

The obvious way in which rossi says random stuff on his blog to get out of awkward questions is one reason most of us reckon he is a liar.

[tomclarke]

Any public information from Rossi&Co is unreliable and he really has no
reason to provide a "reliable" one, in fact it would be quite stupid to do. The
most supporting evidence for me is that it is not a R&D with “great future” it
is an actual device claimed to be ready for industrial usage so, investors
need to evaluate not viability of science behind but an actual output/input
ratio of operational device – it is way too more complex to fake then to talk
around about technology under development with “great potential future” ;
the investors should be SO dumb that it looks very unlikely yet possible with
fair outcome - stupids should lose money.

Rossi provides a “try it before you buy it money back guarantee”. Such deals in today’s marketplace are hard to find anymore, let alone for a nuclear reactor. That deal is real hard to beat.

Try it then. I bet you will not be given a reactor without paying money. And money back guarantees are notoriously slippery. See if you can get one in writing no questions asked.

[stefanbanev]

Any public information from Rossi&Co is unreliable and he really has no
reason to provide a "reliable" one, in fact it would be quite stupid to do. The
most supporting evidence for me is that it is not a R&D with “great future” it
is an actual device claimed to be ready for industrial usage so, investors
need to evaluate not viability of science behind but an actual output/input
ratio of operational device – it is way too more complex to fake then to talk
around about technology under development with “great potential future” ;
the investors should be SO dumb that it looks very unlikely yet possible with
fair outcome - stupids should lose money.

Rossi provides a “try it before you buy it money back guarantee”. Such deals in today’s marketplace are hard to find anymore, let alone for a nuclear reactor. That deal is real hard to beat.

Try it then. I bet you will not be given a reactor without paying money. And money back guarantees are notoriously slippery. See if you can get one in writing no questions asked.

tomclarke> he is a liar...

His investors would be really upset if he reveals the complete truth; please
tell me what benefits (besides your appreciation) Rossi&Co may gain
doing so (?) while downside is quite apparent. He is not in science
"business" he is in messy world of real business. 99.(9)% of any
marketing is a mixture of truth / semi-truth and not-telling the complete
truth. As soon as there is no legal responsibility for hiding a "complete truth" it
would be an obsessively naive to expect a "complete truth". It is exactly why companies do
a due diligence before adapting a new technology and in case of e-cat it is
a way simpler then in case of R&D where the blessing from academia is
an essential prerequisite since there is no "device" to evaluate, there is
just theory behind.

[seedload]

Seems like I finally got myself censored.

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

This one got the axe.