Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I think it unlikely that heating coil current could induce permanent magnetism into the Ni ash in a Rossi type system. Firstly because he is known to use square-wave polyphase AC to run the heater coils (see Lugano paper page 6) and secondly because of the Ni was above its Curie temperature (327C) whem a potentially magnetising coils is switched off, it will not be magnetic when cool.


    It is not true that the fuel necessarily reached Curie temperature. Remember that my samples are from the classical E-Cat which was water cooled.


    The ash is marked 12-1-'10--2-15-'11. I do not think we know what shape Rossi used for that run.

    David - thank you for the response. I see that you have bought into the Rossi story which is fair enough - all of that will sort out over time.


    I agree that you have an interesting approach and continue to wait on key piece of information from our mutual friend for further consideration - that conversation should continue privately by email.


    I know CF is real - I've witnessed multiple working experiments. The key is characterization and verification that will withstand all scrutiny. Fralick's early experiment with D2 diffusion was quite interesting and I'm aware of ongoing research in that regard.


    Best,
    Dewey

    Hank - most interesting. I see that Rossi's JNOP post has been edited since your post. I cannot figure out if Alf Stokes is even a real living person. I've found where he is a UK TV character and saw where there was a researcher / analyst from the early 1900s. Is this a real person?


    Sifferkoll probably already has another slanderous post up blaming me for whatever he can dream up. Folks seem fairly sane around here - I know it's not April 1 but does anyone else interpret Gluck's post as some pretty funny satire. A 10 year test?

    @Peter Ekstrom
    I agree that catalysts seem like magic; but to a chemist, they are sufficiently understood to make good use of them. In the case of LENR, I am not using the term "catalyst" as some kind of "nuclear catalyst"; but rather, the conventional use of chemical catalyst.


    In the case of Rossi's fuel mixture, I have often questioned how the possible inclusion of a chemical catalyst could affect the LENR reaction. My early hypothesis was that that "Rossi's catalyst" was responsible for acting upon the H2 molecule in such a way as to provide monatomic H or [H+, H-] pairs for LENR. However, given the gas pressure of the early Rossi reactors in the 5-20 bar range once at temperature, it seemed unlikely that if a chemical catalyst produced such monatomic H or ion pairs that these would survive transit from the catalyst particle to the Ni surface where the reaction was presumed to occur. So, the thinking about independent catalyst particles was abandoned in favor of surface treatments of the Ni powder to avoid the transit problem.


    Then Holmlid's work came to light with possible implication of hydrogen RM (HRM) to LENR. HRM is more stable than the monatomic H or ion pairs and if HRM were implicated in LENR, then a chemical catalyst in just reasonable proximity which created HRM could potentially benefit LENR. Thus, the thinking about chemical catalysts was renewed.


    Do you believe that chemical catalysts are of no value in a hypothetical Rossi eCat reaction?

    Quote

    I cannot figure out if Alf Stokes is even a real living person. I've found where he is a UK TV character and saw where there was a researcher / analyst from the early 1900s. Is this a real person?


    For what it's worth, "Alfie Stokes" is a reference to the UK TV character. Peter Gluck sometimes slips into satire unannounced.

    Quote from BobHiggins

    Do you believe that chemical catalysts are of no value in a hypothetical Rossi eCat reaction?


    Yes (to a negative) so I do not think that chemical catalysts would work. Since there are more puzzles if LENR works (how to transfer energy from a nucleus to the bulk without radiation) I would think that what is needed is a theory that explains both how the Coulomb barrier is overcome and why we see no radiation. This theory does not exist - what we have seen are just vague and wild ideas. Since no radiation means that we see nothing - nut very useful because that is the same signal as no LENR reaction - we need some other clue. This clue is definitely analysis of nuclide composition before and after. But we need reliable sampling and analysis. With E-Cat the former has not been impressive! :)


    I see at the header of the site you interpret LENR as Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions. Is that a deliberate decision? I'm not too convinced about nanoscale (off with a factor 10^6) but for several reasons it is good to get Nuclear out of it. Like NMR becoming MRI.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I think it unlikely that heating coil current could induce permanent magnetism into the Ni ash in a Rossi type system. Firstly because he is known to use square-wave polyphase AC to run the heater coils (see Lugano paper page 6) and secondly because of the Ni was above its Curie temperature (327C) whem a potentially magnetising coils is switched off, it will not be magnetic when cool.


    Apart from the temperature. To make a permanent magnet you need a force (energy) to align the atoms. Where would that come from if not the coil current?

    • Official Post

    @joshua cude
    About fralick 89 experiment, note that it was reproduced by a Chinese team2005, then by Biberian 2006,, then by nasa GRC 2008, and then by Fralick 2012. This is one of long chain of replication that answers the "it is not replicated" meme.


    Quote from Peter Ekstrom

    Yes (to a negative) so I do not think that chemical catalysts would work. Since there are more puzzles if LENR works (how to transfer energy from a nucleus to the bulk without radiation) I would think that what is needed is a theory that explains both how the Coulomb barrier is overcome and why we see no radiation. This theory does not exist - what we have seen are just vague and wild ideas. Since no radiation means that we see nothing - nut very useful because that is the same signal as no LENR reaction - we need some other clue. This clue is definitely analysis of nuclide composition before and after. But we need reliable sampling and analysis. With E-Cat the former has not been impressive!


    The simple perception that a single H reacts e.g. with Ni, Cu etc. is not compelling. From hundreds of papers we know that mass increases may happen in junks 2,4,6,8 often followed by a beta decay.
    For a better understanding of the process I can only recommend to read through the Randell Mills stuff. He has a clear model, which elements may help to increase the outcome of LENR.


    The other fact: LENR is mostly a surface effect and heavily dependent on the size of the nano-particles used, which points to a resonance.

    Quote

    @joshua cudeAbout fralick 89 experiment, note that it was reproduced by a Chinese team2005, then by Biberian 2006,, then by nasa GRC 2008, and then by Fralick 2012. This is one of long chain of replication that answers the "it is not replicated" meme.


    Josh must answer on the specifics here because I have not seen them. But his point is that the experiment results do not show what is claimed. Therefore any number of replications, with similar results, will equally not show it.


    You would need to say why these later experiments in fact did show what Fralick 89 does not due to their different design.

    FORECAST - PERSISTING FOG


    Meteorologically speaking fog is nothing but a very low stratus cloud - causing any light present to be reflected off in different directions.


    anonymous: A cruel joke; never the less Rossi finished off with wise words - "wait to see which evidence will be brought in Court". It sounds as though someone is hoping Rossi will 'crack' before the court case, I wonder why?


    Best regards
    Frank

    AlainCo wrote:

    Quote

    About fralick 89 experiment, note that it was reproduced by a Chinese team2005, then by Biberian 2006,, then by nasa GRC 2008, and then by Fralick 2012. This is one of long chain of replication that answers the "it is not replicated" meme.


    First, the fact that you can list all the replications of what is allegedly a revolutionary discovery over 20 years suggests its impact was not widely acknowledged. Try to do the same for replications of HTSC, also reported in 1989. It would be 100,000 times longer.


    But more importantly, as Clarke said, my criticism of this experiment was not about failure to replicate, but failure of the observations to prove nuclear reactions were involved. I did not question the observation that temperature of a heated metal hydride rises initially when the surrounding gas is removed, nor that the particular temperature profile would be different for H2 and D2 gasses. In fact, both of those observations can be understood without invoking nuclear reactions, and that's why I questioned why further experiments with *different* materials (metals and gases) were not used to determine some relationship to thermal properties. At the very least, calorimetry should be used to determine the excess heat.


    It would be like someone who fills a balloon with helium and then because it rises instead of falls, claims that he has discovered anti-gravity material. His demonstration would be entirely reproducible, but would not prove anti-gravity, because it has a far simpler explanation.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    For a better understanding of the process I can only recommend to read through the Randell Mills stuff. He has a clear model, which elements may help to increase the outcome of LENR.


    Does he have a model for LENR? I thought it as about hydrinos. Anyway Mill stuff is qualified rubbish! And his device is always ready in a year. Recognize that?

    Quote from Peter Ekstrom

    Does he have a model for LENR? I thought it as about hydrinos. Anyway Mill stuff is qualified rubbish! And his device is always ready in a year. Recognize that?


    I think You have read all his stuff and are qualified to answer...


    Hydrino is not Mills idea. HE just published it and added some more math. Even Bohr made the same calculations but he didn't want disconsense within the group working on a new (QM) theory.


    Got it!?

    @Peter Ekstrom


    If you are interested in non-nuclear approaches that may explain anomalous heat effect in LENR-like experiments, maybe you will find interesting the following:


    - zero point energy approach based on stochastic electrodynamics [Moddel, Haish from U of Colorado]: http://www.jovion.com/
    - epicatalisys [D. Sheehan, U of San Diego]: https://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/24


    Both theories are quite controversial, but are published in mainstream journals and proposed by "conventional" researchers

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.