The Playground

  • So many assumptions there...


    In any case, who says they did not first build some small ones which (according to Rossi's test methods) worked?


    The (6) big Frankies were built by a highly professional company and I guess not only based on Rossi knowledge. That might be the reason why IH doesn't like to pay...


    But it doesn't really matter if it's a gram or a pico gram, does it? The point of sending it was to get analysis. The point of the analysis was to get an isotopic fingerprint of the ash. But disclosing a fingerprint for analysis to a third party (which is involved in researching this to find out how it works) clearly violates the contractual agreement, which prevents Rossi from disclosing any of his IP to anyone without IH's permission.


    Again more FUD: In which doc number does Rossi say, that he sent ash from the 1MW test ? He did many more experiments in parallel...


    four new shiny complex Big Frankies?


    6! not 4! Even Dewey knew this...


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • The experiments he has conducted show (he thinks) unexpectedly high fusion rates from Li bombarded with protons at about 300keV. He claims some sort of resonance at 307keV that promotes much higher fusion probability.


    @THH what about reading the entire patent and not just the first reference to a historic experiment?? The quality of your post urgently needs some beef-up!


    The highest COP they get with 100eV !!


    Moved from this thread. Eric


  • Rossi sent what he alleges was a sample of E-Cat ash to Upsalla. They, along with Levi Published a paper that included an analysis of the ash in October 2014. The analysis showed that the Ni in the sample had > 99% Ni62.


    I believe, given Rossi's undisputed dishonest behavior, that the most likely explanation is that he sent them some 99% Ni62 that he had purchased and falsely claimed that this purchased Ni62 was E-Cat ash.


    If you are insisting that the Ni should have mixed isotopic composition, I think we agree (but can't tell given your angry words and tone).


    My explanation is that Rossi is a scammer, because there is no way that this could be actual ash. Any actual sample would have some mix of Ni isotopes. Isn't that what you are also saying?


    How do you explain the published analysis of Rossi's ash from Upsalla (Levi 2014) showing 99% Ni62?

  • sigmoidal : You still forget the other isotopes. It is not pure Ni! And the other fact is that they just looked at the surface. The truth can only be seen if you entirely dissolve the fuel and do a MS.


    If after such a serious analyzes they get pure 62Ni then it is fraud!

    According to their paper, in their methods section, yes, they did Mass Spectroscopy (how else could they do a detailed break-down of the isotopes?)


    And yes, it was a serious analysis.


    So the conclusion we both come to is that it was likely fraud - and since Rossi himself has bragged about his dishonest dealings, once calling his dishonesty a 'masterpiece', I think it's obvious who committed the fraud.


    That was the point of my post.

  • There is also the later one from Upsalla...


    http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-c…i-fuel-sample-May-111.pdf


    Yes, at least this analysis, on it's face, doesn't scream 'fraud'.


    One explanation is that Rossi learns from his critics, and develops some sophistication in his sample-doctoring alchemy.


    An example of possible similar reactive learning by Rossi includes his Doral 'endothermic process' disclosure, which he only started to assert after it was proposed by discussants on ECW, and I could give many other examples, though none are conclusive, obviously.


    Then we learn, however, that this 'endothermic process' involved tiny amounts of Pt and graphene. So they aren't of any actual use as an explanation for a 'product' (and no 'products' were ever sold) that used 1MW 24/7.


    And this is the world of Rossi. Any individual piece of evidence often has some possible non-nefarious interpretation. But put together in context, the evidence tells a rather obvious story (to me, at least).

  • Yes, Rossi does like to provide these salted samples of ash for isotopic analysis. He can, afterwards, always claim contamination should there be any awkwardness as he did with his first salted sample (showing Cu as was then his preferred theory for what was the transmution product of his reactions). Notice the Rossiesque nature of this episode. At the time everyone was under the impression that this was a real sample, showing transmutation, which however on closer analysis did not make sense. Nevertheless Rossi's fan club felt it showed he must have working LENR. In that case the person he gave the sample to died, so Rossi was free to backtrack from the Cu claim with this statement years later that the sample was contaminated - as of course it was...


    It is strange to me that anyone regards these Rossi-provided samples as indicating anything other than Rossi's ability to misrepresent truth. The kind way to deal with them is to note the previous not acknowledged till much later contamination and suppose that since we know he was using 62Ni in experiments perhaps these ash samples are also contaminated.

  • @Z: Are you aware, that this is only true if it was exactly the same material (and not DuropotXYZ) and the same thickness and the same diameter and ... (no air movement and...)


    To sum it up: We only can explain, that wrong emissivity settings lead to completely wrong COP's. But that is known since we have Thermography...


    Your statements are verging on the ridiculous:


    Alumina and DuropotXYZ, and a lot of other ceramics share an emissivity of about 0.9 in the band and that the Optris is able too see.


    The rod diameter matters little, although it does slightly affect the ratio of radiation to convection, there's still one order of magnitude more radiaton.... Hence it's not really worth considering.


    'Same thickness'... Why would this matter? Alumina is opaque in the band the Optris sees.

  • How do you get from Cherokee misallocating 100K legal expenses (and you know how complex such things can be) to IH having 250M income? You have no evidence of this, nor likelihood...


    Oh, I forgot. You are one of the very select band who reckon RossiSays = truth. No wonder you remained wrong (don't worry - we have the evidence of your arguments on threads here preserved) for so long about band emissivity. After all, RossiSaid it was not an issue!


    On a more positive note, I applaud your change of view now. It is never too late to learn new tricks. Even Rossi has done this. Look at his recent isotopic sample - previous criticism that he'd put too much 62Ni into it, and this could therefore not sensibly be a reaction product, seems to have helped him to make the later sample more plausible. What I want to know is how can he be sure it is not contaminated when his previous ash sample turned out contaminated but only after 2 years of everyone believing it was real, and the person he gave it to dying, ...


    Seems the IH-Band is now totally confused. It seems that this post came from somebody else.


    Lets sum up: IH having 250M income owned by a very select band who reckon RossiSays can afford pure 62Ni...


    Who else understands "THH's" gobbeli-gog?


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • sigmoidal : You too seem to learn from the published facts!!


    Can you point us (publication please!) to your claims??


    Regarding 99% Ni62:


    G. Levi, et. al. 2014: Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel

    From page 29:

    "...the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni
    (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%).

  • Regarding 99% Ni62:


    G. Levi, et. al. 2014: Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel


    From page 29:

    "...the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni
    (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%).


    sigmoidal : This is what happens when dilettantes post. Yes there was on powder grain of about 0.001 gram that had a high surface content of 62Ni! In the rest, all other analysis, the picture is completely different. But at least you are not as silly as PG which extrapolates 0.001g to 25 Kg...


    Did you also notice that 62Ni was less than 10% of this grain... That much about pure 62Ni...

  • sigmoidal : This is what happens when dilettantes post. Yes there was on powder grain of about 0.001 gram that had a high surface content of 62Ni! In the rest, all other analysis, the picture is completely different. But at least you are not as silly as PG which extrapolates 0.001g to 25 Kg...


    Did you also notice that 62Ni was less than 10% of this grain... That much about pure 62Ni...


    Unfortunately, Wyttenbach, your capacity to mischaracterize, insult and misunderstand basic facts and arguments precedes you (which is why you are in the 'playground'). If you have a contributory point to make, please do your best to describe it and post it in an appropriate thread. I'm not interested in 'playing' (but didn't want to leave your accusations which were moved here unaddressed - I'm not sure that was time well spent).

  • Let me know if Wyttenbach takes his quasi trolling too far. He can sometimes back himself into an untenable position which he then defends with insults, but I'm not following the 62Ni subthread closely enough to know whether or not that's the case in this instance.