10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[ScottL]

Could something like this be used inside a Rossi reactor to increase beta decay of nickel?

http://tinyurl.com/3p52tcj

This is a real question, and I'd appreciate any helpful responses.

Based on Focardi's previous work its unlikely. I'm not discounting that something like it could be there, but that if Rossi followed his friend's design strictly, it's probably not there.

[Carl White]

Wow, the frustration with the whole process, both among skeptics and "believers", is starting to boil over in here.

People might as well let out a long breath and relax, because this chapter of The Curious eCat is closed, and who knows when the next will be published (if ever).

[tomclarke]

Am,

I see that the main complaint against Krivit is that he questioned some research findings. I guess that is a no-no in the CF community.

I go back and forth on CF. There is definitely something going on but the the researchers seem so obsessed with energy that they lose sight of other possible uses even if, as some posit, what we are seeing is strictly chemical.

It is the old problem "faith can move mountains but if you are not careful it can also make you stupid". What I see in the field is an awful lot of stupid.

You see a lot less stupid in nuclear power (the uranium/thorium kind) because there are real replicable measurements being done and the work is reproducible. There is also solid theory behind it.

So far there is no explanation of why some CF experiments work and the same experiments done by the same researchers (with different batches of materials) produce no results.

Krivit, as guys go, deserves respect for cleaning up the CF field. It does not mean he will be liked, but he believes CF works, would dearly like proof, but is still willing to expose people promissing this who lie.

His modus operandi with Rossi is of course similar. But only becase 9very transparently) Rossi lies.

As far as judgement goes - some here don't see that the extraordinariness of a claim should properly weight its judgement.

if I come to a bank with a £10 note saying its picked up from pavement no problem.

If I do the same with a £100,000 note no-one will believe me without CCTV evidence. Because it is less likely.

[seedload]

Could something like this be used inside a Rossi reactor to increase beta decay of nickel?

http://tinyurl.com/3p52tcj

This is a real question, and I'd appreciate any helpful responses.

First, I would say it is unlikely that Rossi has a proton accelerator inside the reactor. This is even more unlikely given the recent demonstration, as represented by Rossi, ran without electrical input (supposedly).

Second, I am not sure what Beta decays would need to be hastened. Rossi claims that only NI62 and NI64 react producing stable CU63 and CU65 respectively, presumably through taking in a proton - somehow. If this is true, then what decays would he be worried about.

On the other hand, Focardi is still talking about a series of decays. So, I suppose if you were to ignore Rossi and only talk about Focardi, then there could be a benefit to hastening the decay process. Maybe the quark soup hydrogen Rynberg matter is acting like accelerated protons within the special sophisticated geometry of the 'reactor'.

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

When this latest name calling started you were arguing that Rossi is merely smearing the edges of the isotopic ratios, presumably reducing NI58 to avoid unwanted radioactive products and presumably increasing NI62 and NI64 to get more reaction.

And this is the crux of the matter. I have NEVER argued that Rossi "IS" doing anything. I have only argued that he COULD be doing something that meets his set of statements that is NOT "purefying" 58Ni. I can think of several ways to massively reduce the content of Ni58 in a sample of natural Ni without spending the bank. I have NO IDEA whether Rossi is doing ANYTHING to "deplete" or "eliminate" or any other adjective the 58Ni. I just deny that doing so would be "new physics". Potentially new engineering, but not new physiscs.

We had that discussion before. Rossi is claiming "depletion" of NI58. Yet he is also claiming that ONLY NI62 and NI64 "react".

Is this logically consistent? Not in my mind. Why deplete NI58 if it doesn't react?

Since I don't know what the process is, I couldn't say, but maybe it is a poison like Xenon in a fission reactor. They have to put extra reactivity to overcome the poisoning from Xenon. Maybe he is just getting the poisoning down to a managable level.
As another possibil;ity, perhaps the "internal conversion" coefficient for Cu59 is too close to zero assuring that any reaction there produces a high energy gamma. If this is the case, keeping the 58Ni low may keep the gamma production in check.
I don't know. But the point is, you don't either. And whereas I don't claim to, you make judgements without appropriate data and attack those who call you on your judgements.

Or, is he saying that because he eliminates NI58 it doesn't react. If the former, then it is unexplainable. If the later, then your Konjecture about simple reducing NI58 is incorrect and his claim of "depletion" must be elimination. I know, I know, at one point you speculated that maybe just a reduction in NI58 is enough to make what is left not react at all. This is another konjecture and this one doesn't line up with the reality of nuclear processes.

IBID

Either NI58 doesn't react so it doesn't need to be depleted or NI58 does react, creates radioactive shit, and needs to be removed almost completely. There is no middle ground.

IBID.

I have documented my thoughts on the isotopic dramas that Rossi has engaged in. I even asked the source questions, some which he answered and some that he censored off his blog. He didn't print them and then say he couldn't answer like he does with many other posts. He specifically censored them!

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

Read question 7. I don't think you ever commented on this one. Focardi and Rossi are both saying different things regarding the process. They can't even reconcile amongst themselves for God's sake.

If Rossi's statement was that only 62Ni and 64Ni react to form stable copper, my response is... duhh! The only stable coppers are 63 and 65. 62+1=63, 64+1=65. Simple arithmatic. Is that response enough for you?

Actually the difference is enormous. It is the distinction between having to select one minor isotope out of the middle of several around it versus taking the upper end of a smear of many where 58Ni is at the very bottom end.

I have come to realized that the probability of Rossi being legitimate is inversely proportional to the number of Konjectures created to explain his BS.

To which you launched your language gymnastics on me.

Seriously, both Dan and I have raised serious questions regarding the isotopic issues. You have nothing to offer in return except Konjectures. And for this you call one or the other of us Idiots. Seriously?

No, the idocy is elsewhere. Part of it is that a question is put to explain the need for "new physics" and I get statements about how you don't understand how he could be engineering the system. Isotopic seperation/enrichment/reduction... is ENGINEERING, not new physics.

Are you even aware that NI58 is SEVENTY PERCENT of Nickel. Where the heck are you even coming from? You are arguing the meaning of depletion when it is SEVENTY PERCENT of nickel?

And are you aware that it is 9% lighter. Seperation of Boron 10 from Boron 11 is considered on the simple side and they have the same % difference. Are you claiming that new physics is required to run the Polywell on pB&J since it requires fairly pure 11B?

Some Iranian lab geeks write a paper on a lab experiment and the isotopic issue is solved?!?!

No, some third-world contry dude shows what he is able to do cheaply and it suggests the requirements are not as difficult as you make them out to be.

Point is that I don't even believe that you are arguing in good faith. I think you are being completely disingenuous with your arguments. I think that you actually know what you are spewing is BS and that you are only spewing it to get under people's skins.

I personally have doubts about the validity of Rossi's machine but it is based soley on personality type data. I do not claim that "he is a fraud" or "the machine is impossible without new physics". EVERY time I see someone make a statement about "new physics" I ask for an example and I keep getting tripe.

This theory of mine goes hand in hand with the way you obfuscate insults so that you can later defend them by claiming that you didn't say what you most certainly said. In other words, you are trolling.

regards

Folks like Axil are "true believers". Their religion prohibits them from being reasoned with. Folks who argue based on science should be held to a higher standard. So far, you haven't met said standard. Trolling, or an attempt as SCIENTIFIC discussion. I believe the latter.

[Maui]

This has moved beyond vaporware and is either serious (and brilliant) fraud or something interesting.

In all of the tests he has done, he has left open all kinds of possibilities for fraud and deception that have not been cleverly hidden at all and have been widely and repeatedly hashed out.

Rather, than trying to cleverly deceive us, he instead just keeps hitting us over the head with it. If it is indeed a fraud, I don't think its brilliant at all. Just brazen.

[Giorgio]

Could something like this be used inside a Rossi reactor to increase beta decay of nickel?

http://tinyurl.com/3p52tcj

This is a real question, and I'd appreciate any helpful responses.

I'll say no for two quick reasons described into the patent:
1) No space inside to fit the machinery (the target material is supposed to be at meters of distance from the beam source)
2) Power needed to run the machinery described in the patent is at least an of orders of magnitude higher than the one used by Rossi in each module.

[Crawdaddy]

This has moved beyond vaporware and is either serious (and brilliant) fraud or something interesting.

In all of the tests he has done, he has left open all kinds of possibilities for fraud and deception that have not been cleverly hidden at all and have been widely and repeatedly hashed out.

Rather, than trying to cleverly deceive us, he instead just keeps hitting us over the head with it. If it is indeed a fraud, I don't think its brilliant at all. Just brazen.

In all the public tests this is true.

Do you think that in all the time since 2008 (when ampenergo first tested the e-cat) no one has had the genius insight to do some control experiments?

Do you think that the professors involved with Rossi would lend their name to the endeavor without insisting on some extremely basic experiments to verify the device isn't a fraud?

I completely agree that if the only evidence available to anyone but Rossi was that which is available to us, then the device would not merit one second of anyone's time. Because I think that Focardi, Levi, Defkalion, Ampenergo, etc., have the intelligence of a grade 7 science student (or computer programmer skeptard) I continue to follow the story of the device until more concrete data is available.

[Giorgio]

Do you think that in all the time since 2008 (when ampenergo first tested the e-cat) no one has had the genius insight to do some control experiments?

Or maybe someone did and that's why he is not anymore involved in this story. You can exclude this either.

Do you think that the professors involved with Rossi would lend their name to the endeavor without insisting on some extremely basic experiments to verify the device isn't a fraud?

If they did them in the past, than why not repeat them during one of the public experiments?

[Crawdaddy]

Do you think that in all the time since 2008 (when ampenergo first tested the e-cat) no one has had the genius insight to do some control experiments?

Or maybe someone did and that's why he is not anymore involved in this story. You can exclude this either.

Do you think that the professors involved with Rossi would lend their name to the endeavor without insisting on some extremely basic experiments to verify the device isn't a fraud?

If they did them in the past, than why not repeat them during one of the public experiments?

As has been pointed out ad nauseam the publicly available data does not come from experiments. The e-cat has been demonstrated in public.

Why have there been no public "experiments" to prove the function of the e-cat? I don't care to wildly speculate. Many tout this as proof of fraud. It is proof of nothing.

[KitemanSA]

Do you think that in all the time since 2008 (when ampenergo first tested the e-cat) no one has had the genius insight to do some control experiments?

Or maybe someone did and that's why he is not anymore involved in this story. You can exclude this either.

Do you think that the professors involved with Rossi would lend their name to the endeavor without insisting on some extremely basic experiments to verify the device isn't a fraud?

If they did them in the past, than why not repeat them during one of the public experiments?

Hasn't it struck you that Rossi DOES NOT WANT PROOF? If he proves it there will be immense competition immediately. By keeping us guessing, he may be protecting his heiny.

[seedload]

Some Iranian lab geeks write a paper on a lab experiment and the isotopic issue is solved?!?!

No, some third-world contry dude shows what he is able to do cheaply and it suggests the requirements are not as difficult as you make them out to be.

"Cheaply"? Didn't we have that discussion too. Multiple people objected that the paper didn't demonstrate that anything was cheap. You are konjecturing again.

EVERY time I see someone make a statement about "new physics" I ask for an example and I keep getting tripe.

Cold fusion is new physics. Jeez. (other than muon catalyzed)

This theory of mine goes hand in hand with the way you obfuscate insults so that you can later defend them by claiming that you didn't say what you most certainly said. In other words, you are trolling.

regards

Folks like Axil are "true believers". Their religion prohibits them from being reasoned with. Folks who argue based on science should be held to a higher standard. So far, you haven't met said standard. Trolling, or an attempt as SCIENTIFIC discussion. I believe the latter.

I think it is funny how you excused all of the points that people were bringing up about the inconsistencies in Rossi's story, each time pointing to a marginal possibility that there was another explanation, even going so far as to konjecture the other possibilities yourself, to only now start to doubt Rossi based on his nasty "personality" issues.

Very scientific of you.

[KitemanSA]

Could something like this be used inside a Rossi reactor to increase beta decay of nickel?

http://tinyurl.com/3p52tcj

This is a real question, and I'd appreciate any helpful responses.

First, I would say it is unlikely that Rossi has a proton accelerator inside the reactor.

Which is totally immaterial since the invention calls for a beam of pHotons, not pRotons. Getting beams of photons is increasingly easy with quantum dots.

[bk78]

I have NEVER argued that Rossi "IS" doing anything.

And why do you attack anyone who says something sceptic about the ecat?

I can think of several ways to massively reduce the content of Ni58 in a sample of natural Ni without spending the bank.

No, you can't.

Since I don't know what the process is, I couldn't say, but maybe it is a poison like Xenon in a fission reactor. They have to put extra reactivity to overcome the poisoning from Xenon. Maybe he is just getting the poisoning down to a managable level.

Explain how Rossi (or anyone else) was supposed make this discovery, when at the time he is supposed to have decided to invent a new form of enrichment, he didn't even have a theory how his reactor works.

As another possibil;ity, perhaps the "internal conversion" coefficient for Cu59 is too close to zero assuring that any reaction there produces a high energy gamma. If this is the case, keeping the 58Ni low may keep the gamma production in check.

Besides that i think this "internal conversion" stuff is nonsense, please give us a few NUMBERS how low you expect the Ni-58 content to be, so that, with kWs of reactor power, no gamma is detected outside with a gamma scintillator (as it is obvoiusly the case now).

After you did that, I suggest, you check the istope spectrum from before and after the powder was in the reactor (you find it somewhere on krivits site). While you are at it, explain why there is more copper in the "after" spectrum than there was nickel in the original powder, and why the spectrum is mainly iron and almost no nickel at all.

No, some third-world contry dude shows what he is able to do cheaply and it suggests the requirements are not as difficult as you make them out to be.

Cheaply? Where was that shown?

Point is that I don't even believe that you are arguing in good faith. I think you are being completely disingenuous with your arguments. I think that you actually know what you are spewing is BS and that you are only spewing it to get under people's skins.

This is my impression, too.

Folks like Axil are "true believers". Their religion prohibits them from being reasoned with.

A little kid that claims there is a coffe cup between mars and jupiter, and, when beeing told that this is nonsense, always attacks people saying "Where does this require new physics?" "You cannot disprove it" "Why don't you hang yourself if the cup is found?" is not any better.

[Giorgio]

Hasn't it struck you that Rossi DOES NOT WANT PROOF? If he proves it there will be immense competition immediately. By keeping us guessing, he may be protecting his heiny.

I can't believe you can really think something like that.
If he does not want proof just STFU, mind your job and don't make any public test until you are ready.
Come on Kite, this makes no sense and you are enough smart to understand this in a blink of a second.