10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

stefanbanev wrote:
rcain wrote:
stefanbanev wrote:...Such comments apparently imply a trivial invidiousness disguised by sarcasm. What the point? If Rossi is a scam nobody will care otherwise you may...
you may be right. But as Betrugger states, 'the coffee machine gag' is a running joke here.

Besides, my own personal view is that Rossi 'insults' the scientific community when he presents his 'work' in the way that he has. He deserves whatever flack finds it's target.
Actually if Rossi is for real then "scientific community" deserves to be a
joke so, the mockery of Rossi is expected self-defense. If Rossi is a scam
it does not improve the health of "scientific community" however, if Rossi
is for real it will trigger some restructuring of "scientific community" to
make it eventually a more efficient institute.
whether Rossi's claims turn out to be real or not makes not a jot of difference to the 'legitimacy' (or otherwise) of my statement. nor 'should' it trigger any 'restructuring' of the underlying 'methods' of the real scientific community.

the only thing that need be restructured are the tenuous connections in Rossi's brain, that allow him to believe he can side-step proper experimental procedure and get away with 'confidence tricks'. it is precisely such wrong-thinking that earned him a jail sentence the last time he attempted such a ruse. IMPO.

Betruger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

I agree. Regardless the abuses in scientific community, Rossi's methods are wrong.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Betruger wrote:I agree. Regardless the abuses in scientific community, Rossi's methods are wrong.
In what way "wrong"? Do you mean "unscientific"? Or do you mean morally "wrong".

Giorgio
Posts: 2777
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

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.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Giorgio wrote: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?

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

stefanbanev wrote:
rcain wrote:
stefanbanev wrote:...Such comments apparently imply a trivial invidiousness disguised by sarcasm. What the point? If Rossi is a scam nobody will care otherwise you may...
you may be right. But as Betrugger states, 'the coffee machine gag' is a running joke here.

Besides, my own personal view is that Rossi 'insults' the scientific community when he presents his 'work' in the way that he has. He deserves whatever flack finds it's target.
Actually if Rossi is for real then "scientific community" deserves to be a
joke so, the mockery of Rossi is expected self-defense. If Rossi is a scam
it does not improve the health of "scientific community" however, if Rossi
is for real it will trigger some restructuring of "scientific community" to
make it eventually a more efficient institute.
Well, that is interesting.

Has scientific community approach to CF been flawed? After all, quite a lot of CF work has been done, in spite of singular lack of either verifiable results or plausible theory. Stuff has got past peer review into decent journals when it is interesting enough, even if way out.

For example, the ultra-dense deuterium stuff. And the W-L stuff.

Rossi (if he has somethingf) has conducted all public communication about this in such a way as to hide it very effectively.

So what (assuming Rossi really has something) structural chnages to scientific community should be made?

You can always, in retrospect, say what is a good research direction. That is not the point.

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

tomclarke wrote:
stefanbanev wrote:
rcain wrote: you may be right. But as Betrugger states, 'the coffee machine gag' is a running joke here.

Besides, my own personal view is that Rossi 'insults' the scientific community when he presents his 'work' in the way that he has. He deserves whatever flack finds it's target.
Actually if Rossi is for real then "scientific community" deserves to be a
joke so, the mockery of Rossi is expected self-defense. If Rossi is a scam
it does not improve the health of "scientific community" however, if Rossi
is for real it will trigger some restructuring of "scientific community" to
make it eventually a more efficient institute.
.....
So what (assuming Rossi really has something) structural chnages to scientific community should be made?
.....
Money is the prime source of any institutionalization. No need to change
the structure directly, just eliminate the government involvement to
manage monetary resource in any form and restructuration will follow.
The disciplines claiming no practical output within 50 years should be the
only exception (with very modest resources allocated).

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

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:I suppose that for some, ignorance equals improbable but for me, ignorance is just that not knowing; and I don't know. :D
In other words, Ignorance is bliss. :)
Is it for you? Speaking from first hand experience are you? How nice! For me, ignorance is not knowing.
seedload wrote:Anyway, since this is a new thread, I will recap my position.

* LENR is improbable.
Ok. What is your "probability scale"? What probability is "improbable"? <50%? <5%? What is the basis for your judgement as to numbers. Do you KNOW something or are your prejudices showing?
Not impossible. Not likely.
seedload wrote: * If LENR processes are real, the claimed orders of magnitude improvement in LENR by Rossi is improbable.
IBID
seedload wrote: * The claimed cheap isotopic separation process of Rossi is improbable.
Seperation? Anyone else see anywhere that Rossi spoke about seperation? Enrichment I remember. Not seperation. Anyone? Is seedload here whacking at strawmen?
"Depletion" equals separation in my mind. But it don't matter. Either is unlikely given that he also says that he doesn't need to do it. So, if he doesn't need it, then the enrichment must be pretty close to complete to be worth much.
seedload wrote: * The forgotten claim that shipping was held up because of a container is improbable.
Link please?
I hate when people ask for links to things they can search for perfectly well themselves. I also don't believe that you don't remember the shipping container discussions. Anyway.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/05/18/al ... is-needed/

Right around here, viewtopic.php?p=61998&highlight=guys+house#61998, is where you will find discussions on this. Read a couple pages of my comments in this regard.
seedload wrote: * The coincidental natural isotopic ratios of copper produced is improbable.
If seen two totally opposite secondhand reports of isotope ratios. Link to first-hand report please?
seedload wrote: * If a real process, the highly defensive and angry replies to any serious questions is improbable.
Hey, he may just have the same "defensive" personality as ChrisMB and Chikva. You have seen how nasty they were to each other when it seems they were agreeing on most things.
Possible. These are all possible. I didn't say differently. I judge it unlikely that even Chris would react this way on his own blog selling his own device.
seedload wrote: * If a real discovery, the lack of scientific rigor in successive demonstrations is improbable.
Sorry, this is just nonsense. "Demonstrations" are not intended to be "scientific".
Not nonsense. If the demonstrations are more scientific they would be more effective. The demonstrations are designed to show that the thing works. More scientific does that - assuming it works.
seedload wrote: * If a real discovery, the extended time of the UOB research project is improbable..
This does seem an odd business decision.
seedload wrote:
* The idea that only specific isotopes of Nickel would 'react' is improbable.
Your scientific rationale for this is?
The scientific basis that it should be so? Surface of the nucleus according to Rossi - whatever that means. Meanwhile Focardi is still talking about all of the Nickel reacting and a series of beta decays.
seedload wrote: * The name "Rossi Tires" on the door is improbable.
So you would be surprised to see a sign for "Smith and Sons Tires" in the UK? The names have equivalent frequency I'm told.
Maybe, but there aren't that many "Smith" businesses relative to all businesses in my town. So, still improbable.
seedload wrote: * The naked lab is improbable.
Oh, you mean their new and as yet un-moved-into facility. Yup, no growing company EVER moves into a new facility!
Again, possible. Each is possible.
seedload wrote: * The coffee machine is improbable.
Yup, no one in Italy drinks coffee. This one is awesome!
seedload wrote: * Given Rossi's insistence that the 1MW plant will be proof, the fact that the 'customer' for the plant is the producer of ECATs makes this claim of proof an improbable position.
Actually it makes it ENORMOUSLY likely, just not very reliable! ;)
Which is why I said the "claim" of proof. Rossi knows that it would not be reliable, yet he claims it will be proof. He avoids mentioning who the customer is, while the customer admits it themselves. And the customer is the producer. Meanwhile, Rossi is claiming it a proof.
seedload wrote: * If real, Rossi and Focardi disagreeing on the basic reaction at this late date is improbable.
Why? Seems no-one is positive how this thing works, if it works. Absolute uniformity of opinion on said process would be fishy to me.
Not talking about absolute uniformity of opinion. No uniformity of opinion. Rossi is saying that only NI62 and NI64 react. He is insistant. Focardi is still talking all NI reacting and a series of beta decays.
seedload wrote: * Claims of spies etc. are improbable.
Ridiculous! Claims of spies are absolute. He did so claim. The existance of spies is less absolute! ;) Of course that merely shows his emotional state not his mental capability.
seedload wrote: * Claims of designing a self destruct mechanism for home models are improbable.
Similar to the above, claims of designing a self destruct mechanism for home models are absolute, but said claims seem self destructive to his purposes to me! :lol:
Can't blow the thing up. Can't change the contents. A self destruct mechanism is ridiculous.
seedload wrote: * The inconsistent claims of filed patents vs. company secret on the secret sauce are improbable..
Unh, what "inconsistant claims" please?
He has both claimed that he will not file for a patent on the secret sauce and keep it as an industrial secret and he has claimed that he has filed for a secret sauce patent but it just isn't public yet.
seedload wrote: * Given the history of Rossi, the idea that he has not gone straight is improbable..
Unh, given your pattern above, don't you mean that the idea that he HAS gone straight is improbable? Well, if that is your opinion.
Yep, the 'not' is wrong. Anyway, yes my opinion, common sense, whatever you want to call it. I consider it unlikely that someone who has previously done exactly this would now be doing the same thing again but this time legit.
seedload wrote: No, I don't think we are ignorant at all. We have a basis to draw conclusions that various aspects of this whole business are improbable. .
Wonderful. Please share your basis with me. Remember Alices Restaurant with the "8x10 Glossy Photos with the circles and the arrows and the paragraph on the back of each one tellin what it's all about to be used as evidence" for your "basis". Most of the stuff above seems a bit... flakey?
seedload wrote: Previously, my arguments were individually opposed based on the fact that each of the above is possible. For example, it is indeed possible that they are building ECATS in an apartment in Miami just like Apple did in the garage. Yes, it is possible that Rossi has found a cheap method of isotopic enrichment. Yes, it is possible, that Rossi is really being pursued by spies, is really building a self destruct mechanism to stick in peoples homes, is really held up by a shipping container, etc.

Yes, individually, all of the above is possible.

But, we are also not ignorant to the math of probability. Individually improbable things, while possible, quickly approach impossible when considered together.
Absolutely true, if your individual things had any basis for "probability" attached to them. But I see little if any basis.

Now, if you had said, unconvincing...

Seedload. I am not personally holding out much hope for this thing. But being a contrarian I just naturally ask folks to put-up or shut-up when they make technical statements. And "probability" is a technical statement. What are the bases for your technical statements? If it is just your "opinion", would you be so kind as to use the term "unlikely" rather than "improbable"? "Unlikely" is a non-technical word and no-one can reasonably argue with you.
Yes you are. Your defense of Rossi is unrelenting. But, if you aren't holding out much hope, then please tell us your reasons for not holding out hope. Apparently, I am wrong on every count. So, you must have some different reasons than me.

First, just to be clear. Each of the above statements of improbability are based on my understanding of common sense (save for the coffee pot one which is a joke). Based on my common sense, each of the above is improbable.

Second, I think you know what I mean and are arguing language more than logic which makes your arguments disingenuous. "separation" vs. "enrichment" are both improbable to me. "improbable" vs "unlikely" are both the same thing to anybody having a discussion with any sincerity. The fact that you object to the use of language when you know perfectly well what I meant is a sign that you don't have any real objection.

Third, I repeat that you are arguing each point as possible, which I agree with. I am taking in the whole picture. While each is possibly true, each is unlikely/improbable. The whole approaches zero probability.

Finally, I find that attaching a modicum of common sense to what we actually have heard and then making an assessment based on more common sense that says that a litany of improbable circumstance is a good indication of something not being true is a heck of a lot more fruitful then, say for example, assuming something is true and then trying to figure it out with a clumsy attempt at replication through uneducated thought experiment. While you may think the latter is a noble cause seeking the truth and that the former is a sign of ignorance, I respectfully disagree.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: * The claimed cheap isotopic separation process of Rossi is improbable.
Seperation? Anyone else see anywhere that Rossi spoke about seperation? Enrichment I remember. Not seperation. Anyone? Is seedload here whacking at strawmen?
"Depletion" equals separation in my mind. But it don't matter. Either is unlikely given that he also says that he doesn't need to do it. So, if he doesn't need it, then the enrichment must be pretty close to complete to be worth much.
My only recollection of the word "depletion" implied the process used up (depleted) certain isotopes. How this equals "seperation" in the way you seem to mean it is beyond me. Did I read it wrong?
seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: * The forgotten claim that shipping was held up because of a container is improbable.
Link please?
I hate when people ask for links to things they can search for perfectly well themselves. I also don't believe that you don't remember the shipping container discussions. Anyway.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/05/18/al ... is-needed/

Right around here, viewtopic.php?p=61998&highlight=guys+house#61998, is where you will find discussions on this. Read a couple pages of my comments in this regard.
The reason that I asked for a link was that I didn't recall ANY discussion of shipping being held up due to a container. Now I still haven't. There is nothing here about "shipping bing held up". Making such inference is just plain dishonest, and shame on you.
seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: * If a real process, the highly defensive and angry replies to any serious questions is improbable.
Hey, he may just have the same "defensive" personality as ChrisMB and Chikva. You have seen how nasty they were to each other when it seems they were agreeing on most things.
Possible. These are all possible. I didn't say differently. I judge it unlikely that even Chris would react this way on his own blog selling his own device.
Enjoy your freedom to judge. I suspect others might agree with your judgement.
seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: * If a real discovery, the lack of scientific rigor in successive demonstrations is improbable.
Sorry, this is just nonsense. "Demonstrations" are not intended to be "scientific".
Not nonsense. If the demonstrations are more scientific they would be more effective. The demonstrations are designed to show that the thing works. More scientific does that - assuming it works.
By this it seems you presume to define his business plan for him. Without knowing him or his business plan, any assessment of "improbable" is nonsense. Why do you suppose he necessarily wants to be scientifically demonstrative? Wouldn't that flood the field with competitors?
seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: * If a real discovery, the extended time of the UOB research project is improbable..
This does seem an odd business decision.
seedload wrote: * The idea that only specific isotopes of Nickel would 'react' is improbable.
Your scientific rationale for this is?
The scientific basis that it should be so? Surface of the nucleus according to Rossi - whatever that means. Meanwhile Focardi is still talking about all of the Nickel reacting and a series of beta decays.
62Ni and 64Ni have a significant population of excess neutrons. The symmetry principle (protons bind to neutrons more tightly that neutrons or protons bind to themselves) provides the rationale that a nucleus with excess neutrons will bind a proton more readily than a balanced nucleus. To me, this is in fact quite likely, but I don't have the numbers to provide probability. ;)
seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: * The name "Rossi Tires" on the door is improbable.
So you would be surprised to see a sign for "Smith and Sons Tires" in the UK? The names have equivalent frequency I'm told.
Maybe, but there aren't that many "Smith" businesses relative to all businesses in my town. So, still improbable.
The probability of this could be determined if we had the incidence of the name in that region of Italy.
seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: * Given Rossi's insistence that the 1MW plant will be proof, the fact that the 'customer' for the plant is the producer of ECATs makes this claim of proof an improbable position.
Actually it makes it ENORMOUSLY likely, just not very reliable! ;)

Which is why I said the "claim" of proof. Rossi knows that it would not be reliable, yet he claims it will be proof. He avoids mentioning who the customer is, while the customer admits it themselves. And the customer is the producer. Meanwhile, Rossi is claiming it a proof.
It is the fact that he made the claim that makes the "claim" of proof 100% probability. The reliability on the other hand...
seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: * If real, Rossi and Focardi disagreeing on the basic reaction at this late date is improbable.
Why? Seems no-one is positive how this thing works, if it works. Absolute uniformity of opinion on said process would be fishy to me.
Not talking about absolute uniformity of opinion. No uniformity of opinion. Rossi is saying that only NI62 and NI64 react. He is insistant. Focardi is still talking all NI reacting and a series of beta decays.
Different folks, perhaps different reactions?
seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: * Claims of designing a self destruct mechanism for home models are improbable.
Similar to the above, claims of designing a self destruct mechanism for home models are absolute, but said claims seem self destructive to his purposes to me! :lol:
Can't blow the thing up. Can't change the contents. A self destruct mechanism is ridiculous.
Concur, but that doesn't define a probability at all.
seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: * The inconsistent claims of filed patents vs. company secret on the secret sauce are improbable..
Unh, what "inconsistant claims" please?
He has both claimed that he will not file for a patent on the secret sauce and keep it as an industrial secret and he has claimed that he has filed for a secret sauce patent but it just isn't public yet.
Yup, this is proof all right! No one EVER changes their mind! :lol:
seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: * Given the history of Rossi, the idea that he has not gone straight is improbable..
Unh, given your pattern above, don't you mean that the idea that he HAS gone straight is improbable? Well, if that is your opinion.
Yep, the 'not' is wrong. Anyway, yes my opinion, common sense, whatever you want to call it. I consider it unlikely that someone who has previously done exactly this would now be doing the same thing again but this time legit.
Now here you may actually have the beginnings of a basis for a probability calculation. He has had what, two? businesses go south on him? If we knew how many were "crooked" (not straight) and not just incompetance, you could actually do a calc. But I notice you changed to "unlikely" so no calc is needed! :D
seedload wrote:
I wrote:
seedload wrote: Previously, my arguments were individually opposed based on the fact that each of the above is possible. For example, it is indeed possible that they are building ECATS in an apartment in Miami just like Apple did in the garage. Yes, it is possible that Rossi has found a cheap method of isotopic enrichment. Yes, it is possible, that Rossi is really being pursued by spies, is really building a self destruct mechanism to stick in peoples homes, is really held up by a shipping container, etc.

Yes, individually, all of the above is possible.

But, we are also not ignorant to the math of probability. Individually improbable things, while possible, quickly approach impossible when considered together.
Absolutely true, if your individual things had any basis for "probability" attached to them. But I see little if any basis.

Now, if you had said, unconvincing...

Seedload. I am not personally holding out much hope for this thing. But being a contrarian I just naturally ask folks to put-up or shut-up when they make technical statements. And "probability" is a technical statement. What are the bases for your technical statements? If it is just your "opinion", would you be so kind as to use the term "unlikely" rather than "improbable"? "Unlikely" is a non-technical word and no-one can reasonably argue with you.
Yes you are. Your defense of Rossi is unrelenting. But, if you aren't holding out much hope, then please tell us your reasons for not holding out hope. Apparently, I am wrong on every count. So, you must have some different reasons than me.
I think you will find, if you do an honest assessment, that I have steadfastly defended technical accuracy. Those that violate it in the condemnation of Rossi get called, while those that support Rossi incorrectly also get called... except for a few of the wackos who I ignore.
seedload wrote: First, just to be clear. Each of the above statements of improbability are based on my understanding of common sense (save for the coffee pot one which is a joke). Based on my common sense, each of the above is improbable.
Fine, but the term "probable" and its derivitives imply NUMBERS to back it up. Numbers, ratios, equations... where are yours? What you have been chatting about is actually "likelihood" which is a feeling, an opinion, NOT numbers. Feel away, dude!
seedload wrote: Second, I think you know what I mean and are arguing language more than logic which makes your arguments disingenuous. "separation" vs. "enrichment" are both improbable to me. "improbable" vs "unlikely" are both the same thing to anybody having a discussion with any sincerity. The fact that you object to the use of language when you know perfectly well what I meant is a sign that you don't have any real objection.
I have given my technical objection. You made what I perceived to be technical statements to condemn Rossi. If you are going to condemn the man with technical statements, please have a technical basis, not a feeling.
seedload wrote: Third, I repeat that you are arguing each point as possible, which I agree with. I am taking in the whole picture. While each is possibly true, each is unlikely/improbable. The whole approaches zero probability.
Actually, I have been seeking a technical reason to decide one way or the other. Folks like you keep tantilizing me, but then I read deeper and find no substance. It is frustrating!
seedload wrote: Finally, I find that attaching a modicum of common sense to what we actually have heard and then making an assessment based on more common sense that says that a litany of improbable circumstance is a good indication of something not being true is a heck of a lot more fruitful then, say for example, assuming something is true and then trying to figure it out with a clumsy attempt at replication through uneducated thought experiment. While you may think the latter is a noble cause seeking the truth and that the former is a sign of ignorance, I respectfully disagree.
I do attach a modicum of "common sense" and find that I hold out little hope. I find it unlikely to be true. But I have no technical basis for that OPINION. I sure would like one. ANYONE? REAL, HARD, TECHNICAL basis?

[edit]Spelling corrections[/edit]
Last edited by KitemanSA on Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Betruger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote: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?

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

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:My only recollection of the word "depletion" implied the process used up (depleted) certain isotopes. How this equals "seperation" in the way you seem to mean it is beyond me. Did I read it wrong?
Daniel de França MTd2
April 29th, 2011 at 2:09 PM
Dr Mr. Rossi,

Concerning the Nickel input in the experiment, do you deplete it of Ni58?

Best,

Daniel.

Andrea Rossi
April 29th, 2011 at 2:47 PM
Dear Mr Daniel De Francia:
Yes
Warm regards,
A.R.
DancingFool had these profound words to say about this:
DancingFool wrote: He's claiming more than enrichment, he's claiming separation.

As you know, adding a proton to Ni58 gives Cu59, which will decay to Ni59, which has a half-life of 7400 years. And that, from the point of view of a Rossi converter, is a Bad Thing.
Now, if you actually wend your way through Rossi's blog, it becomes clear that he made the claim above BEFORE he made the claim about only NI62 and NI64 reacting. It was his first attempt at explaining isotopic inconsistencies. The first being that nothing radioactive pops out.

Then came another problem for him. There was not enough NI62 and NI64 to produce enough copper. See below:
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
Now Rossi is hinting at NI62 and NI64 enrichment (1&2 above). He is doing this to answer a very probing question. In my opinion, he is doing this because he got cornered.

This questioning goes on and Rossi finally comes to this:
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.
Cheap isotopic enrichment of NI for NI62 and NI64 while depleting NI58. Presumably the NI58 is depleted to avoid radioactive byproducts and the NI62 and NI64 are enriched to get more copper out.

And the process is revolutionary. Here is how a Rossi supporter interpreted the statement.
raphael wrote:To assert that we are enriching Ni powders in the conventional manner would be tantamount to asserting, absurdly, that we have invented either hot water or, in 2010, the then-long-familiar process of sputtering.
But then things get inconsistent. Remember that Rossi is depleting NI58, presumably to avoid radioactive shit popping out. But then he starts talking about ONLY NI62 and NI64 reacting. If this is so, then why deplete NI58?

Finally, I wanted to be sure that what Rossi was now claiming, according to my understanding was in fact what he was claiming. The following seems pretty clear, no?
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.
OK, clear as a bell. Except, it is still not clear why he would deplete NI58. The radioactive ash argument goes away, because it doesn't react.

Plus if you are depleting enough NI58 and enriching enough NI62 and NI64 to get 30% of it to change to copper, then you are getting very near to separation which is why I sometimes use that term.

None of this is consistent to me. All of it seems like groping answers to probing questions and eventually ending up at only NI62 and NI64 react and that we enrich for them thereby explaining how we end up with so much copper.

Which makes me wonder why Focardi is not onboard with the current Rossi statements. In a recent interview Focardi says this:
The nucleus captures a proton and atomic number of changes and nickel (N = 28 ) then becomes copper (N = 29). From here begins a series of nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, which eventually produce isotopes of copper in different proportions from the natural one
Radioactive decay? I thought only NI62 and NI64 were reacting to product CU63 and CU65. What is decaying?

They should get their stories straight and in agreement.

regards

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:My only recollection of the word "depletion" implied the process used up (depleted) certain isotopes. How this equals "seperation" in the way you seem to mean it is beyond me. Did I read it wrong?
Daniel de França MTd2
April 29th, 2011 at 2:09 PM
Dr Mr. Rossi,

Concerning the Nickel input in the experiment, do you deplete it of Ni58?
Best,
Daniel.

Andrea Rossi
April 29th, 2011 at 2:47 PM
Dear Mr Daniel De Francia:
Yes
Warm regards,
A.R.
Ok, seems I may have misread it. None-the-less, "depletion" still only correlates to "engrichment", not to "seperation". Depleted Uranium still has about 1/2 the U235 it starts with so can hardly be called "seperated".

But let us use your terminology for this instance, I don't agree that such "enrichment/depletion" is necessarily very difficult. Indeed it almost sounds like he is giving a hint when he mentions "sputtering" in relationship to it. I proposed one plausible method in my "Konjecture". He may have hinted at another simple method. Personally, I don't see this particular thing as "unlikely".

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote: DancingFool had these profound words to say about this:
DancingFool wrote: He's claiming more than enrichment, he's claiming separation.

As you know, adding a proton to Ni58 gives Cu59, which will decay to Ni59, which has a half-life of 7400 years. And that, from the point of view of a Rossi converter, is a Bad Thing.
DancingFool seems to live up to his moniker. His first statement is indeed foolish.

and by the way, the half-life is more like 76,000 ish years. But still a bad thing.

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.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote:
I wrote: Hey, he may just have the same "defensive" personality as ChrisMB and Chikva. You have seen how nasty they were to each other when it seems they were agreeing on most things.
Possible. These are all possible. I didn't say differently. I judge it unlikely that even Chris would react this way on his own blog selling his own device.
Enjoy your freedom to judge. I suspect others might agree with your judgement.
We were not agreed in most thing.
On the contrary, we were disagreed in most and very principal things.
For example,
chrismb wrote:Reducing electrostatic forces by differential velocities is a beaten and bloodied horse in the 'Chikva threads'. To get anywhere near reducing effective electrostatic repulsion you have to get ions relativistic, and that is waay to much energy for fusion. As I said to him, and failed to gain his comprehension,...
He "failed to gain my comprehension" on his nonsenses. At the same time confirming that I don't know very basic things.
And subsequently in his farewell speeches (several) he partially has recognized his wrongfulness.
People, who do not understand about what was our “dispute”, can speak only about good/bad English of someone. But they can't judge things with which they have nothing to do.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote:
I wrote: Seperation? Anyone else see anywhere that Rossi spoke about seperation? Enrichment I remember. Not seperation. Anyone? Is seedload here whacking at strawmen?
"Depletion" equals separation in my mind. But it don't matter. Either is unlikely given that he also says that he doesn't need to do it. So, if he doesn't need it, then the enrichment must be pretty close to complete to be worth much.
My only recollection of the word "depletion" implied the process used up (depleted) certain isotopes. How this equals "seperation" in the way you seem to mean it is beyond me. Did I read it wrong?
seedload wrote:
I wrote: Link please?
I hate when people ask for links to things they can search for perfectly well themselves. I also don't believe that you don't remember the shipping container discussions. Anyway.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/05/18/al ... is-needed/

Right around here, viewtopic.php?p=61998&highlight=guys+house#61998, is where you will find discussions on this. Read a couple pages of my comments in this regard.
The reason that I asked for a link was that I didn't recall ANY discussion of shipping being held up due to a container. Now I still haven't. There is nothing here about "shipping bing held up". Making such inference is just plain dishonest, and shame on you.
seedload wrote:
I wrote: Hey, he may just have the same "defensive" personality as ChrisMB and Chikva. You have seen how nasty they were to each other when it seems they were agreeing on most things.
Possible. These are all possible. I didn't say differently. I judge it unlikely that even Chris would react this way on his own blog selling his own device.
Enjoy your freedom to judge. I suspect others might agree with your judgement.
seedload wrote:
I wrote: Sorry, this is just nonsense. "Demonstrations" are not intended to be "scientific".
Not nonsense. If the demonstrations are more scientific they would be more effective. The demonstrations are designed to show that the thing works. More scientific does that - assuming it works.
By this it seems you presume to define his business plan for him. Without knowing him or his business plan, any assessment of "improbable" is nonsense. Why do you suppose he necessarily wants to be scientifically demonstrative? Wouldn't that flood the field with competitors?
seedload wrote:
I wrote: This does seem an odd business decision. Your scientific rationale for this is?
The scientific basis that it should be so? Surface of the nucleus according to Rossi - whatever that means. Meanwhile Focardi is still talking about all of the Nickel reacting and a series of beta decays.
62Ni and 64Ni have a significant population of excess neutrons. The symmetry principle (protons bind to neutrons more tightly that neutrons or protons bind to themselves) provides the rationale that a nucleus with excess neutrons will bind a proton more readily than a balanced nucleus. To me, this is in fact quite likely, but I don't have the numbers to provide probability. ;)
seedload wrote:
I wrote: So you would be surprised to see a sign for "Smith and Sons Tires" in the UK? The names have equivalent frequency I'm told.
Maybe, but there aren't that many "Smith" businesses relative to all businesses in my town. So, still improbable.
The probability of this could be determined if we had the incidence of the name in that region of Italy.
seedload wrote:
I wrote: Actually it makes it ENORMOUSLY likely, just not very reliable! ;)

Which is why I said the "claim" of proof. Rossi knows that it would not be reliable, yet he claims it will be proof. He avoids mentioning who the customer is, while the customer admits it themselves. And the customer is the producer. Meanwhile, Rossi is claiming it a proof.
It is the fact that he made the claim that makes the "claim" of proof 100% probability. The reliability on the other hand...
seedload wrote:
I wrote: Why? Seems no-one is positive how this thing works, if it works. Absolute uniformity of opinion on said process would be fishy to me.
Not talking about absolute uniformity of opinion. No uniformity of opinion. Rossi is saying that only NI62 and NI64 react. He is insistant. Focardi is still talking all NI reacting and a series of beta decays.
Different folks, perhaps different reactions?
seedload wrote:
I wrote: Similar to the above, claims of designing a self destruct mechanism for home models are absolute, but said claims seem self destructive to his purposes to me! :lol:
Can't blow the thing up. Can't change the contents. A self destruct mechanism is ridiculous.
Concur, but that doesn't define a probability at all.
seedload wrote:
I wrote: Unh, what "inconsistant claims" please?
He has both claimed that he will not file for a patent on the secret sauce and keep it as an industrial secret and he has claimed that he has filed for a secret sauce patent but it just isn't public yet.
Yup, this is proof all right! No one EVERY changes their mind! :lol:
seedload wrote:
I wrote: Unh, given your pattern above, don't you mean that the idea that he HAS gone straight is improbable? Well, if that is your opinion.
Yep, the 'not' is wrong. Anyway, yes my opinion, common sense, whatever you want to call it. I consider it unlikely that someone who has previously done exactly this would now be doing the same thing again but this time legit.
Now here you may actually have the beginnings of a basis for a probability calculation. He has had what, two? businesses go south on him? If we knew how many were "crooked" (not straight) and not just incompetance, you could actually do a calc. But I notice you changed to "unlikely" so no calc is needed! :D
seedload wrote:
I wrote: Absolutely true, if your individual things had any basis for "probability" attached to them. But I see little if any basis.

Now, if you had said, unconvincing...

Seedload. I am not personally holding out much hope for this thing. But being a contrarian I just naturally ask folks to put-up or shut-up when they make technical statements. And "probability" is a technical statement. What are the bases for your technical statements? If it is just your "opinion", would you be so kind as to use the term "unlikely" rather than "improbable"? "Unlikely" is a non-technical word and no-one can reasonably argue with you.
Yes you are. Your defense of Rossi is unrelenting. But, if you aren't holding out much hope, then please tell us your reasons for not holding out hope. Apparently, I am wrong on every count. So, you must have some different reasons than me.
I think you will find, if you do an honest assessment, that I have steadfastly defended technical accuracy. Those that violate it in the condemnation of Rossi get called, while those that support Rossi incorrectly also get called... except for a few of the wackos who I ignore.
seedload wrote: First, just to be clear. Each of the above statements of improbability are based on my understanding of common sense (save for the coffee pot one which is a joke). Based on my common sense, each of the above is improbable.
Fine, but the term "probable" and its derivitives imply NUMBERS to back it up. Numbers, ratios, equations... where are yours? What you have been chatting about is actually "likelihood" which is a feeling, an opinion, NOT numbers. Feel away, dude!
seedload wrote: Second, I think you know what I mean and are arguing language more than logic which makes your arguments disingenuous. "separation" vs. "enrichment" are both improbable to me. "improbable" vs "unlikely" are both the same thing to anybody having a discussion with any sincerity. The fact that you object to the use of language when you know perfectly well what I meant is a sign that you don't have any real objection.
I have given my technical objection. You made what I perceived to be technical statements to condemn Rossi. If you are going to condemn the man with technical statements, please have a technical basis, not a feeling.
seedload wrote: Third, I repeat that you are arguing each point as possible, which I agree with. I am taking in the whole picture. While each is possibly true, each is unlikely/improbable. The whole approaches zero probability.
Actually, I have been seeking a technical reason to decide one way or the other. Folks like you keep tantilizing me, but then I read deeper and find no substance. It is frustrating!
seedload wrote: Finally, I find that attaching a modicum of common sense to what we actually have heard and then making an assessment based on more common sense that says that a litany of improbable circumstance is a good indication of something not being true is a heck of a lot more fruitful then, say for example, assuming something is true and then trying to figure it out with a clumsy attempt at replication through uneducated thought experiment. While you may think the latter is a noble cause seeking the truth and that the former is a sign of ignorance, I respectfully disagree.
I do attach a modicum of "common sense" and find that I hold out little hope. I find it unlikely to be true. But I have no technical basis for that OPINION. I sure would like one. ANYONE? REAL, HARD, TECHNICAL basis?
The psychology of this wrangle is interesting. I guess most people here are agreed about what is likely, but seem to argue a lot about how to phrase it.

I side with seedload's more negative language.

Not because there is any proof that Rossi does not have what he claims.

Because there is no (repeat no) credible evidence he DOES have what he claims. And his beheviour adds some negative evidence.

In that case highly improbable is a charitable judgement for probability. (And you can of course translate words into probabilities howere imprecise this may be).

You don't need specific new scientific evidence to view a way-out hypothesis which has no validating evidence as being highly unlikely.

And that is scientific.

Highly unlikely does not mean impossible, nor does it mean you should not follow curiosity and explore all lose ends.

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

Best wishes, Tom

Post Reply