10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:This is an interesting sidestep. I ask whether anyone knows how to present this issue to Rossi and ScottL jumps in to dissuade any such attempt. Curious.
Seriously? You are kidding, right? If by chance you aren't kidding, just ask him on his blog. No registration necessary. Just post your comment. He sometimes answers. Multiple people here have posted on his blog, received answers, and then posted those to this thread. It is hard to imagine that you haven't noticed.
Link?
Wow! Seven Hundred pages in and you don't even know that Rossi has a web page? You need a link? Wild.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/

Just post your question as a comment to the most recent 'article' (blog post) regardless of the topic and author, and he will usually answer.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote:Just to be unambiguous in the light of Kite's obfuscation, I would like to go back in time to the sequence of events that led me to believe that Rossi was full of shit.

5) Rossi, in a comment on his blog, states that only NI62 and NI64 'react' to form stable copper. Two problems. a) what happened to the claims in 1, 2, and 3 above? b) how does only 4% of naturally occuring isotopes of nickel (NI62 and NI64) transmute to more than 30% copper in the ash?

Just wanted to be clear that there is a basis for my position and conclusion and it is not 'nothing'.

Thanks
I don't recall any of the points except #5 which is one of those examples of such a monumentally DUMB question that I remembered it. The question went something like, "is it true that only Ni62 and Ni64 react to form stable copper?" And the answer was "Yes." Well DUH.. There are only two stable isotopes of copper, Cu63 and Cu65. Given the speculated Ni(p,?)X reaction, then only Ni62 will react to form stable Cu63, and only Ni64 will react to for stable Cu65. Anything else will react to form something else.

As to the other stuff, I will investigate as time permits.
I doubt you will investigate anything, whether in due time or not. Most of the items in my list are just restatements of his original paper on the ECAT. Obviously, if you can't recall having heard these claims, then you haven't read the paper. Amazing. 700 pages of blog posts which you are actively involved in and you haven't even read the original paper on the subject (only a few pages) which claims that the energy comes from proton capture by all isotopes of Nickel with subsequent decays. You are arguing, calling people ignorant and worms and most recently "DUMB" for SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES, and you haven't even read the paper that describes the device being argued over. WOW! You are a piece of work.

Regarding your comments on item 5, I provide the following from Rossi's blog.

Q - On this blog you have said that only NI62 and NI64 react. Do all isotopes react?
Rossi - No.

Q - Is my understanding correct that only NI62 and NI64 transmute to copper?
Rossi - yes.

Q - Can you tell us if you believe only 62Ni and 64Nickel are actively involved in the eCat reaction? Are the other stable isotopes of Nickel not in the reaction?
Rossi - Yes.

Q - Italian
Rossi - We enrich the Ni with the 62 and 64 isotopes, which are the sole to work...

Q - [regarding potential NI59]
Rossi - You missed all the explication I gave many times regarding the Ni in our E-Cat, and I cannot repeat many times the same thing. In our process only Ni 62 and 64 react

Q - [no important]
Rossi - As I have explained many times, we use Ni enriched of 62 and 64 Ni, which are the sole to react,

Q - Italian
Rossi - The Cu produced is 63 and 65, because only Ni 62 and 64 react...

I really don't understand why you must object to EVERYTHING anyone says. He is clearly claiming that ONLY NI62 and NI64 'react'. BTW, I did a search for "stable copper" on his blog trying to find reference to the "DUMB" question you are referring to. I assumed you were referring to one of my questions that I posted here, and that calling it DUMB was another personal statement about me, but I just wanted to make sure that you were referencing the right quote. So, here it is:

My Question - 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?
Rossi - I cannot answer to this question, until I will disclose the theory of the effect we get.

I wasn't asking if only NI62 and NI64 react, It was already established at that point. Rather, I was trying to understand why Focardi was saying something completely different (consistent with the original paper and the patent) than Rossi was saying. Seems like a reasonable question to me.

Finally, if you want to find anything out at all, it is really easy to search on his blog. There is a blog reader set up. Just go here: http://www.rossilivecat.com/all.html

So, can we agree that Rossi is claiming that only NI62 and NI64 react/transmute?
Timeline of these statements? Seems like early on he published a theory and then later found out different. It also appears I may have conflated two of your posts, one that says Ni transmute to copper and on that says nickle react to stable copper. One he answered yes, the other he basically said, not now.

It also looks like he at one point believed there were a number of reactions and at another only two of significance. I guess that learning and coming to a new understanding makes you a liar.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
.... These allowed us the determination of the ratio Cu63/Cu65=1,6 different from the value (2,24) relative to the copper isotopic natural composition.
To achieve a 1/6 ratio of CU63 relative to CU65 in the ash, .
The ratio claimed was 1.6/1, not 1/6. Some people stretch like the dickens to find something wrong.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:BTW, and this one is funny. Rossi says that the Nickel in the charge can be recycled. He says this repeatedly in many different posts on his page.
So do you think that high nickel steel alloys care about the isotopic content of the nickel of can they just use non-radioactive nickel of any isotopic ratio? Recycled, not reused? Some folks reach for anything to find him wrong.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by chrismb »

seedload wrote:Q - Are you reasonably certain that both Ni62 and Ni64 are indeed reacting? If so; which one reacts fastest?
Rossi - I do not know which one reacts fastest.
To be uncommonly fair about it ... if Nickel is enriched then one might well pick '61 to 62ish' asthe target cut between the lighter and heavier isotopes - enrichment at high Z is not so easy. A 'rough cut' of naturally occurring Ni isotopes might well get half-decent enrichment of 62 and 64, dumping out the 58/60/61 isotopes.

In regards how much Ni is left and changes to composition, maybe he's not seen this yet - operating a 10kW generator with the posited 62Ni+p->63Cu+hv would consume ~4 mg / hr.

So a gramme of Ni would fuel such a reactor for 10 days at 10kW output. What masses of Ni does he use, and what's his longest test?

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by ladajo »

<deadpan> Why yes, yes they do Kite. </deadpan>

Seed, Kite is pointing out that the Italian convention is to use commas vice periods for deciaml figures. So "1,6" is 1.6 and "2,24" is "2.24"

However, none of that explains why Rossi's "ash" was found to be natural composition, nor his miracle secret enrichment process. Maybe it has to do with his secret catalyst. Oh, never mind, there is no catalyst.

I still love his take on reaction physics where he routinely claims 100% conversion. <to wit>, "you see little Timmy, with 1 gram of matter, I can produce 1.21 Gigawatts! Great Scott!"
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:I guess that learning and coming to a new understanding makes you a liar.
Him changing his tune to claim that only NI62 and NI64 react does not make him a liar. I am simply establishing the 'fact' that this is now his claim. It is the implications of this new claim that are significant.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote:Seriously? You are kidding, right? If by chance you aren't kidding, just ask him on his blog. No registration necessary. Just post your comment. He sometimes answers. Multiple people here have posted on his blog, received answers, and then posted those to this thread. It is hard to imagine that you haven't noticed.
Link?
Wow! Seven Hundred pages in and you don't even know that Rossi has a web page? You need a link? Wild.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
Thank you.
Just shows you how much I don't care. You guys seem to put great stock in convincing me that the conclusions you have jumped to are true and correct, factual in every nuance. I point out that your evidence is unconvincing, indeed looks shoddy at best, contrived at worst. So you jump thru hoops to convince me some more. Why do you care so much? What is it that you find SO important to get my agreement that you are correct?

Anyway, the current state in my mind is that it is almost equally likely he is a scam or is deluded, with a slight plausibility he has something remarkable. Only two significant issues yet in my mind, one is the gamma issue that chrismb mentioned recently but which had been raised about 2 years ago. At that time, there was assumed to be negligible shielding. But chrismb raised the inconsistency regarding kg of shielding. If the 50kg is the true value, and this thing actually works, that would reduce the output to near background values which is what he has claimed.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

ladajo wrote:<deadpan> Why yes, yes they do Kite. </deadpan>

Seed, Kite is pointing out that the Italian convention is to use commas vice periods for deciaml figures. So "1,6" is 1.6 and "2,24" is "2.24"

However, none of that explains why Rossi's "ash" was found to be natural composition, nor his miracle secret enrichment process. Maybe it has to do with his secret catalyst. Oh, never mind, there is no catalyst.

I still love his take on reaction physics where he routinely claims 100% conversion. <to wit>, "you see little Timmy, with 1 gram of matter, I can produce 1.21 Gigawatts! Great Scott!"
<deadpan> Why Ladajo, Gigawatts are power, not energy. Mass = energy, not power, you should know that </deadpan>.
Given your propensity to mis-quote or take statements out of context, I suspect this "100% conversion" is more of the same. I wonder what he really said that you are misconstruing this time.

PS: Yes they do WHAT?

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by seedload »

ladajo wrote:<deadpan> Why yes, yes they do Kite. </deadpan>

Seed, Kite is pointing out that the Italian convention is to use commas vice periods for deciaml figures. So "1,6" is 1.6 and "2,24" is "2.24"

However, none of that explains why Rossi's "ash" was found to be natural composition, nor his miracle secret enrichment process. Maybe it has to do with his secret catalyst. Oh, never mind, there is no catalyst.

I still love his take on reaction physics where he routinely claims 100% conversion. <to wit>, "you see little Timmy, with 1 gram of matter, I can produce 1.21 Gigawatts! Great Scott!"
No, I got it. My mistake. Just a mistake, Kite. Nothing nefarious.

Doesn't change the fact that to get to 30% copper in the ash, you need to reduce the 95% of naturally occurring, non-reacting isotopes (58/60/61) by a factor of 10. If the NI64 is going to be 12% of that 30%, then double the amount of depletion.

FYI, Rossi did address the why-does-the-ash-have-natural-ratios question by saying that he enriches for the 62/64 and then burns it away with the result being similar to the original ratios. Convenient. But interesting in its own right because, if he claims that he can enrich for 62 and 64 and then burn them away to get back to nearly natural ratios, then he is saying that his enrichment process can't be significantly affecting the ratios of NI58, NI60, and NI61 to each other. ie, his remarkable process is somehow reducing these three proportionally while disproportionately keeping NI62 and NI64. Wow!
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:I guess that learning and coming to a new understanding makes you a liar.
Him changing his tune to claim that only NI62 and NI64 react does not make him a liar. I am simply establishing the 'fact' that this is now his claim. It is the implications of this new claim that are significant.
And if he learns that he was also wrong in his second understanding, does that make him a liar?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
ladajo wrote:<deadpan> Why yes, yes they do Kite. </deadpan>

Seed, Kite is pointing out that the Italian convention is to use commas vice periods for deciaml figures. So "1,6" is 1.6 and "2,24" is "2.24"

However, none of that explains why Rossi's "ash" was found to be natural composition, nor his miracle secret enrichment process. Maybe it has to do with his secret catalyst. Oh, never mind, there is no catalyst.

I still love his take on reaction physics where he routinely claims 100% conversion. <to wit>, "you see little Timmy, with 1 gram of matter, I can produce 1.21 Gigawatts! Great Scott!"
No, I got it. My mistake. Just a mistake, Kite. Nothing nefarious.

Doesn't change the fact that to get to 30% copper in the ash, you need to reduce the 95% of naturally occurring, non-reacting isotopes (58/60/61) by a factor of 10. If the NI64 is going to be 12% of that 30%, then double the amount of depletion.

FYI, Rossi did address the why-does-the-ash-have-natural-ratios question by saying that he enriches for the 62/64 and then burns it away with the result being similar to the original ratios. Convenient. But interesting in its own right because, if he claims that he can enrich for 62 and 64 and then burn them away to get back to nearly natural ratios, then he is saying that his enrichment process can't be significantly affecting the ratios of NI58, NI60, and NI61 to each other. ie, his remarkable process is somehow reducing these three proportionally while disproportionately keeping NI62 and NI64. Wow!
Or, the reaction rate actually DOES include a small amount of the lower isotopes and they burn off more slowly in proportion to their mass, which is how they would be enriched.

As I said, it seems likely that this guy is no scientist, and even if he DID luck into the technology of the millennium, I'm pretty sure he would not understand it well.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:No, I got it. My mistake. Just a mistake, Kite. Nothing nefarious.
But your zeal to prove your conclusion can lead you into such mistakes. Twere best if you could step back and let this develop on its own.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: Wow! Seven Hundred pages in and you don't even know that Rossi has a web page? You need a link? Wild.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
Thank you.
Just shows you how much I don't care. You guys seem to put great stock in convincing me that the conclusions you have jumped to are true and correct, factual in every nuance. I point out that your evidence is unconvincing, indeed looks shoddy at best, contrived at worst. So you jump thru hoops to convince me some more. Why do you care so much? What is it that you find SO important to get my agreement that you are correct?

Anyway, the current state in my mind is that it is almost equally likely he is a scam or is deluded, with a slight plausibility he has something remarkable. Only two significant issues yet in my mind, one is the gamma issue that chrismb mentioned recently but which had been raised about 2 years ago. At that time, there was assumed to be negligible shielding. But chrismb raised the inconsistency regarding kg of shielding. If the 50kg is the true value, and this thing actually works, that would reduce the output to near background values which is what he has claimed.

Wow, you have come a long way. At one point you were inventing ways that Rossi's device could work. Heck, you cared so much that you even invented names for your speculations, calling them your "Konjectures". Now, you don't care/have never cared. Hmmmmm... go figure. It is interesting that you did all that Konjecturing about how Rossi's invention worked without reading Rossi's paper about how he claimed it ACTUALLY worked.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: 10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote: Wow, you have come a long way. At one point you were inventing ways that Rossi's device could work. Heck, you cared so much that you even invented names for your speculations, calling them your "Konjectures". Now, you don't care/have never cared. Hmmmmm... go figure. It is interesting that you did all that Konjecturing about how Rossi's invention worked without reading Rossi's paper about how he claimed it ACTUALLY worked.
An interest in a technology does not equate to a morbid fascination with a soap opera. "As the Nickel Burns", the never ending saga of the most despised and revered man in LENRville. Yawn.

I still seek SOME sort of defining issue and have been offered none, either way. Yet there are folks out there that KNOW Rossi is the second coming, and others that KNOW he is the devil incarnate. Neither side has provided incontestable evidence one way or the other. I am an agnostic between the atheists and the true believers. It can be an uncomfortable position, but my honor allows no other position. Here I stand, I can stand nowhere else.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply