seedload wrote:parallel wrote:SImon,
It is strange how you and many others here, are so certain the E-Cat is a fraud. LENR is real as you posted. The evidence we have (a couple of dozen reliable witnesses) leans towards it being real, but no one can tell for certain until until there is independent proof. There seems no way he can make money from this without the customer checking first. So, what drives you to take such a firm position?
Look, parallel. You believe that anyone who thinks Rossi is a fraud must necessarily be a "pathological skeptic" - a catch phrase that you love to trot out. You fail to acknowledge that there are people who don't believe Rossi with good reason.
Do you even know what Rossi is claiming?
First, in his patent, he says that three reactions are occurring, Nickel and Hydrogen fusing to make Copper, Nickel and two hydrogens to make Zinc, and other Fission reactions that create stable products. This is IN HIS PATENT! He also claims that unstable isotopes of Nickel and Copper are formed that undergo decay over a short period of time, so short as to not matter because the radiation is shielded. He claims that he had the ash analyzed to show the appropriate products for both the copper formation AND the fission! Stable elements popping out from fission! Again, in his patent.
Second, he published a paper on his website saying that the reaction is between Nickel and Hydrogen forming copper and other isotopes of Nickel and Copper that are radioactive but undergo quick decay, again stating that shielding protects against the radiation. He goes into detail regarding the isotopes and the energy gain from both the initial reactions and the decay processes. He is claiming decay happens and produces some if not most of the energy. There are also some long lived radioactive isotopes produced. This is in the paper, clearly stated. He again claims to have isotopically analyzed the ash. Fission has disappeared from his claims.
Third, on his blog, under questioning about isotopes, he begins claiming that ONLY NI62 and NI64 react forming stable copper. Meanwhile Focardi continues to claim unstable isotopes of copper and nickel are formed that decay to also produce heat. Rossi's story has changed dramatically. Focardi's is staying close to the same.
Finally, Rossi begins talking about doing safety testing on his reactor by intentionally causing it to "explode". Assuming that what Focardi continues to say and what Rossi originally said, that there are unstable isotopes created that undergo quick decay, then this poses a problem. In an explosive event, the radioactive isotopes would be shot outside of the containment (boron and lead shielding) and would create a significant radiation event. I asked him about this directly. He said that there is NO RADIATION in an explosion but that he can't go into details. This answer NECESSARILY means that there are not radioactive isotopes in the reactor at any time.
So, he originally claimed radioactive isotopes and decay heat but now claims none. He originally claimed fission events but now claims none. He originally claimed fusion of all isotopes of Nickel to both Zinc and Copper but now claims only NI62/64 fuse. He originally claimed energy from the decay heat and now claims no radiation when the reaction chamber is spontaniously opened. He said he tested the ash specifically for isotopic ratios in his patent and in his white paper and now makes claims counter to that testing.
Now, I ask you, why would you term someone like me, who actually takes the time to read his claims and research his claims, and actually ask him about his claims a "pathological skeptic" when I am taking steps to try to understand his ridiculousness? When you add in all the other evidence regarding his caginess, his claims of isotopic enrichment, his claims of customers, his ploys to get credibility without actually commissioning tests, his history, and his apparently impotent production capabilities, a skeptical opinion is fully justified.
Sorry, you are wrong. There is nothing pathological about my skepticism. Nor is there anything pathological about Georgio's or Msimon's or most of the other skeptical opinions on this board.
This is reasonable skepticism, not pathological.
FYI:
Andrea Rossi
November 28th, 2011 at 7:01 PM
Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
I confirm that no radiations above the background in relevant measure have been found in the controlled explosive tests. I cannot enter in particulars, because I cannot give information regarding what happens in the reactors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Charlie Zimmerman
November 28th, 2011 at 9:32 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I was interested in your comments regarding intentionally causing explosions of the device during safety testing. I had previously understood that short half lived radioactive isotopes of Copper and Nickel were rapidly decaying within the device and that this radioactivity was shielded. But, during an explosive event, the radioactive isotopes would be exposed to the environment without shielding before they would have a chance to decay.
1) Are there short lived radioactive isotopes as in your patent and paper published here?
2) Do those radioactive isotopes escape during an explosion?
3) Are you taking proper precautions yourself against such dangers?
A concerned fan,
Charlie Zimmerman