about the mysterious customer

Quote from Thomas <br>Clarke

Rossi has never overtly lied, to my knowledge. Even with the substituted ash
from Lugano I don't think we have a direct statement from Rossi that
there was no substitution or contamination. And Rossi could well believe
his own bogus results, even when from the outside such belief seems
irrational. People are not always rational when their passions are
engaged and Rossi I believe is passionate about his miracle.

2011 fuel/ash: Do you really think that Sven K would have arranged for
two instances of expensive sample analysis if he had known that the ash
was faked. I know that he in May 2011 thought the fuel/ash was genuine.
Since he got the samples from Rossi, the source of the information must
be Rossi. That means that Rossi lied about the samples.

For readers not fully knowledgeable in the details: the ash contained
separate particles of Cu which could not have come from p+Ni-->Cu
reactions in the Ni fuel particles. An interesting detail is that the
fuel powder is not magnetic but the ash is. Presumably an effect of the
magnetic field of the heater coil.

Quote from padam73

In overall, the lawyers of [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] will likely base their defense (and counter-attack?) on the credibility and words of this customer. Is this company truly independent of Rossi and Leonardo as the Agreement is asking explicitly? Do the boilers truly exist?

This is an important question. It makes me think that the customer is real. Rossi would be a fool indeed to initiate a lawsuit if the "customer" was a fiction controlled by him.

Quote from padam73

Penon does not have nor the independence nor the expertise to provide a sound report.

I can understand why people conclude that Penon does not have the expertise to provide a sound report (I have not yet had time to come to an assessment of his earlier work myself). But it seems the initial contract specified a single ERV, to be used for all of the tests, and Penon was in 2012 (?) assigned to be the ERV. If his only connection to Rossi is through his participation in this framework, I do not see how his independence can be impugned. Perhaps you are aware of other relationships with Rossi that would cast doubt on his independence.

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

For readers not fully knowledgeable in the details: the ash contained separate particles of Cu which could not have come from p+Ni-->Cu

Can you elaborate on what you know about this? It is very interesting. I have long doubted the p+Ni → Cu reaction. But another kind of reaction seems possible to me which would also lead to Cu:

• α + 61Ni → 65Zn → 65Cu

Quote from padam73

Note that a 3rd company (in addition to JM products and Leonardo Corporation) also involves Rossi and Henry Johnson: this company is called REFC Real Estate Corp. This 3rd company was setup right after Rossi received the $10mio. Another coincidence. Again. Since then, this 3rd company bought several estates for several millions. The lawyers of [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] should investigate because again this smells bad.

As you hint, setting up a shell company that invests in real estate does not seem like a coincidence, for Rossi is fond of shell companies. But it doesn't strike me as particularly sinister either. When one receives 10 million dollars in a lump sum, it must go somewhere, and money often goes into an investment of some kind that can put it to work until it is needed.

Quote from Eric Walker

As you hint, setting up a shell company that invests in real estate does not seem like a coincidence, for Rossi is fond of shell companies. But it doesn't strike me as particularly sinister either. When one receives 10 million dollars in a lump sum, it must go somewhere, and money often goes into an investment of some kind that can put it to work until it is needed.

If we know the customers adress its easy to look up the place in google earth or streemap. But if all these are false traces then the next wave of gossip will 'swamp' the forum even more.

Next time somebody is asking about the color of Rossi nails....

Quote from Eric Walker

Can you elaborate on what you know about this? It is very interesting. I have long doubted the p+Ni → Cu reaction. But another kind of reaction seems possible to me which would also lead to Cu:

α + 61Ni → 65Zn → 65Cu

On its face, I like the idea. But, I look at the half life for 65Zn and see 243.8 days through a beta plus at 325 keV. It seems such a hot decay (short half-life, quite high energy and positron to boot) would not likely have been missed by the folks handling and assessing the ash.

Further, was the time from presumed generation to lab assessment sufficient for that decay give substantial 65Cu?

Quote from Wyttenbach

If we know the customers adress its easy to look up the place in google earth or streemap. But if all these are false traces then the next wave of gossip will 'swamp' the forum even more.

From Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Science:

Quote

Teemu
April 8, 2016 at 6:20 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

In this document it says that Henry W. Johnson, aka the President of Leonard Corp., is also the President of JMC. Did I understand correctly? http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…sdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf

Thanks,
~Teemu

Andrea Rossi
April 8, 2016 at 9:54 AM
Teemu:
I knew the Customer in the office of my Attorney Henry Johnson. They were enthusiast to test our 1 MW plant, to see if it really worked, because they were ( and are ) interested to buy more plants for their facilities in Europe. They wanted not to be exposed, though, therefore incorporated JM Products and made a plant for their production to make the test and appointed President their Attorney, who was also, as I said, my Attorney. [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] knew all this and agreed, obviously, on this, making a rental agreement with JM Products to make the test in their factory. When [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] met with the President of JM in Raleigh, I was present and I explained that he was also my Attorney. No problem has been raised by [lexicon]IH[/lexicon].
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Display More

The problem is not speculation; it's ill-founded speculation, mixed up with fact. Well-founded speculation, called out as such and informed by known facts and a solid understanding of the relevant history, is indispensable. It is the job of each seeker after truth to keep track of what is what.

Quote from Longview

But, I look at the half life for 65Zn and see 243.8 days through a beta plus at 325 keV. It seems such a hot decay (short half-life, quite high energy and positron to boot) would not likely have been missed by the folks handling and assessing the ash.

My own working hypothesis is that all of the decay-related processes—alpha decay, beta decay/electron capture, and alpha capture (of energetic decay alphas)—are induced and accelerated in an electron-rich environment. In that case the 65Zn would decay to Cu with a far-shorter half-life than the normal 243 days. And the electron-rich environment would, presumably, cause electron capture to competitively overwhelm positron emission as a decay mode. If the source of the 65Zn (i.e., 61Ni) were rapidly depleted in the area of the reaction, the feedstock of 65Zn might dwindle well before the experiment was stopped.

I do not argue that your objections are not good ones. But I also want to make the best case I can.

longview wrote "But, I look at the half life for 65Zn and see 243.8 days through a beta plus at 325 keV."

I ,like Eric Walker, see a problem with using the published halflife and even the energy data values for transmutations which are measured based on 'lab' conditions. The conditions in the E-cat and other LENR environments may make the actual data values very different.
They might give some general indication of what the preferred paths are...but we may need a lot more mathematical prediction of the environmental effect.. for which will need more research on the environmental effect. Perhaps it would be useful to inject radioisotopes with known decay rates into these environments and observe effects on decay rates and/or energy changes.. no easy task

Quote from robert bryant

Perhaps it would be useful to inject radioisotopes with known decay rates into these environments and observe effects on decay rates and/or energy changes.. no easy task

I don''t think it would be difficult if one has an institutional radioisotope license. 33P, 35S, 32P, heavy heavy water, 14C--- all available in molecular biology, biochemistry contexts-- although being reduced steadily in quantity of isotope and frequency of usage... due mainly to sensitivity of instruments and to the stringency of regulatory "cradle to grave" record keeping. It is an interesting proposition that could be tested at any major research university with radiological research licenses.

I put that with my desire to look for ULM neutrons via centrifugation, as one several important dispositive tests of hypotheses floating around today. Accelerated decay has a lot of interesting possibilities, including, as Eric has pointed out, as a possible explanation of LENR.

Quote from Longview

I don''t think it would be difficult if one has an institutional radioisotope license.

I think the difficult part would be figuring out how to do it. Presumably hydrogen/deuterium, heat and/or electric current help out in some way, although how is not clear.

Quote from H-G Branzell

Or maybe he will.

Indeed. I hope he will! I would like to know what kind of copper was seen.

Before Rutherford shot alpha particles thru gold foil we knew very little about the nuclear environment.
Our LENR environment understanding is at 1910 levels, despite twenty five years of research.
No easy task because of prevailing scientific prejudice, inaccessibility and variability of these environments
The mass production of Ecats will help the variability bit but its gonna take some ingenuity and cooperative work
to figure out how best to measure and manipulate this environment

Decay is random, and statistically predictable. You cannot say which particular atom will decay when. The decay just happens of its own accord.
If you do something that changes the radioactivity or isotope or Z, you are probably causing a reaction, which is different than decay. These may also be predicted statistically, but when concerned with a particular atom and an event of some sort, a limited set of possibilities occur, and each one has a deterministic pathway. These pathways are often the same as decay pathways, because they are so likely that they occur by themselves eventually.

On other words, "speeding up decay" probably is not speeding up decay. It is forcing a reaction.

Preventing decay might be proof of decay rate change.

Quote from Eric Walker

Can you elaborate on what you know about this? It is very interesting. I have long doubted the p+Ni → Cu reaction. But another kind of reaction seems possible to me which would also lead to Cu:
α + 61Ni → 65Zn → 65Cu

It is very simple. If the Cu originates from a reaction with Ni, the Cu has to be embedded in the Ni particles, not in separate Cu particles. Our analysis of the ash shows that it contains concentrations of Li (of which there is none in the unused fuel). Most probably the Li is an impurity in the added Cu powder.

So we have two instances of clearly manipulated samples (the Lugano ash contained purchased isotope separated 62Ni). These are the only known instances of fuel/ash analysis. The analysis is not trivial and it will cost a fair amount. I do not believe that the analysis would have been performed it had been known that the samples were not genuine.

There is no reason to suggest fanciful effects with changes in half-life.