Wait, superheated is a buzzword now?
Superheated steam doesn't have to be much hotter than boiling point. So I don't see why it would make the hose that much hotter.
Also please point the exact time in the video where he is holding the hose with his…
I was actually trying to find the video where the individual grabs the hose... I thought it was one of these two. Either way, even at 100.1 explain to me why it is not condensing nor has any real flow or pressure.
Perhaps you are referring to the image of particle 1 from Figure 2 on p. 43 of Appendix 3 of the Lugano report. That particle looks sintered to me, but not melted. If it had melted, presumably it would be a blob, which it is not.
Use your mind's eye, looks can be deceiving.
On page 45 of the Lugano report, the 1000 micron ash particle was completely melted and its surface took on the motif of the side of the reactors core surface that it was affixed to. The particle was 99.9 % pure Ni62. How can something be so uniform in chemical composition unless it was completely melted?
On page 45 of the Lugano report, the 1000 micron ash particle was completely melted and its surface took on the motif of the side of the reactors core surface that it was affixed to. The particle was 99.9 % pure Ni62. How can something be so uniform in chemical composition unless it was completely melted?
I think you're referring to this image:
Particle 1 does not look completely melted to me; it looks the opposite of melted. I see no evidence that its surface took on the motif of the reactor core to which it was affixed. Its uniform chemical composition tells us it was nickel; we must infer that it was 62Ni from other details in the appendix. Its pure chemical composition could well go back to the fact that it was enriched 62Ni that was affixed to the reactor wall before the experiment began. My mind's eye is having a hard time seeing what your mind's eye is seeing.
I think you're referring to this image:
Particle 1 does not look completely melted to me; it looks the opposite of melted. I see no evidence that its surface took on the motif of the reactor core to which it was affixed. Its uniform chemical composition tells us it was nickel; we must infer that it was 62Ni from other details in the appendix. Its pure chemical composition could well go back to the fact that it was enriched 62Ni that was affixed to the reactor wall before the experiment began. My mind's eye is having a hard time seeing what your mind's eye is seeing.
The fuel consisted of 1 to 100 micron nickel particles of mixed isotopic composition. The ash was made up of many melted of those fuel particles.
The Ni62 vevion of those starter particles from the manufacturer were formed into standard 5 micron particles. The only thing that was different was the isotopic composition.You can't get a particle off the self that pure, its simply not for sale.
Even if there was no LENR reaction occurring, those 5 micron particles would have been melted in the hot core. You cannot get a 1000 micron particle on the market. The Lugano engineers looked at the fuel as it was loaded spec by spec. They selected the 100 micro particle as the fuel sample and set it aside for later use. During this selection process, they would have seen the large outlier particle.
Your mind's eye needs additional work. You are making assumptions that are not possible.
The Ni62 the MFMP bought looked very similar, and had particles that seem to be at least 600 microns across.
Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)
The Ni62 the MFMP bought looked very similar, and had particles that seem to be at least 600 microns across.
Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)
The final Ni62 percent was 97.3. If the nickel was enriched via centrifuge, the percent of Ni64 would stay the same at 4.1%. instead, the Ni64 fell to .1% or less.
I think that the quote system is broken or that several or most of us are using it wrong. I will look at a quote that someone else tried to respond to and find that only half the quote is missing so that the context is completely lost. So I go back several pages and have to find the full quote. Would it be possible to have a decent sticky on your home page that gives concrete examples on how to use it properly?
@Rigel I think quote system works ok, but I agree it could be difficult for users that has not used it a lot. And yes one sticky instruction could help some users. But here is quick first aid:
-Select part of the text you want to get included in quote and and click black 'Quote Selection'- callout. Then on right bottom 'Quotes' callout you may check what part of text got picked.
-Click reply and if you had only one quote picked it comes automatically quoted. (above you see that I have left out 'Moderator' and 'thanks' from your original post)
-Or you may just copy link to original post by right clicking link 'xx minutes ago' -timestamp from original post. That is link leading to original post.
Here is is (click here ->) the link to your post. Which is added by selecting desired text (in this example 'link to your post' left) and clicking link button in tool row or press ctrl-l (lowercase L) .
-Or just paste the link The Playground
Many features are intuitive here, but takes some active exploration to find them. And yes embedded link should be better emphasized (like underlined)
The final Ni62 percent was 97.3. If the nickel was enriched via centrifuge, the percent of Ni64 would stay the same at 4.1%. instead, the Ni64 fell to .1% or less.
The percentage of 62Ni in the assay for the ash shown in Appendix 3 was 98.7 percent. The natural abundance of 64Ni is 0.926%. The amount measured in the TOF-SIMS assay was approx. 0. Perhaps you will have a calculation for the estimated variance in the amounts for these percentages that Ulf Bexell and Josefin Hall will have seen from one assay to the next that will rule out a relative abundance of 64Ni consistent with enrichment of 62Ni by centrifuge.
Quote from randombit0Ah ! So tell me My dear self repeating. Why people normally use a camera for mesure temperature and power for.... let's say a brickhttp://www.icess.ucsb.edu/modis/EMIS/images/clybrkcm.gif and can't for alumina that is also a mineral ?
Quote from randombit0
So that great ! Lugano Authors have done the right job !
Randombit0, Paradigmnoia's excellent and quick reply may have gone over you head, since it appears you have a severe short-term memory deficit on this specific topic.
In this case it is easy to answer:
(1) Not all minerals are identical. Alumina is crystalline and has an interesting and quite unusual change in spectral emissivity at around 5u (if my memory serves me). But, if you follow good practice, it doe snot matter, because all emissivities used will have been calibrated at temperature, as all the thermography guides tell you to do... Did the lugano testers do this? 
(2) The two words total and band are different. You agree with my comments about Lugano report correct total emissivity but now somehow think they apply to band emissivity? Why would that be?
QuoteI have followed this story as close as anyone since the initial public demo. You can cry fool all you want, but I base my current position on the accumulation of evidence over the past five or so years. Looking back to some initial tests that were beat to death with debate from the early phases of the e-Cat is not going to be very persuasive, at least with me.
I guess the 4 or so "independent" reports might in total convince you as they did (or half did) IH.
But when you look in detail at them you find first that only Lugano is even remotely independent, and that they all have known error mechanisms that would give false positives. Lugano being the most remarkable because the errors are specifically documented, in the others there is just circumstantial evidence.
Other evidence comes from other people being convinced, but that can be understood as confirmation bias, together with many people not correctly evaluating the tests...
About the 2011 steam...
On the face of it, the steam shown does not look like enough, if 7 litres/hr of water was being pumped through the apparatus and being vapourised.
But what happened to the rest of the water? Or was the flow rate reading incorrect? Was there a secret water tank somewhere? Was the weight/volume of water in the reservoir from which it was pumped checked before and after the test?
The hose normally goes into a drain/bucket, and water falls out. When it is held up the water can collect in the hose. I may be missing something, don't remember the details, but that is my hazy recollection...
The hose normally goes into a drain/bucket, and water falls out. When it is held up the water can collect in the hose. I may be missing something, don't remember the details, but that is my hazy recollection...
Your memory seems fine Thomas. At 11:05 in the video below you can see how Rossi rises the hose which will empty any water inside it before taking it out of the wall.
Then the hose is removed from the wall for half a minute. During that time about 6 cl of Water is pump in to the e-cat. It would fit inside the hose with no problem.
Total off topic: @randombit0 have you paid $8.00 fee on using your avatar?
https://creativemarket.com/Ale…ait-of-a-beautiful-blonde
I suggest you make the payment before someone reports illegal usage :ninja: Maybe low light selfie would do the work for free.
Rossi dumping the water stuck in the hose before holding it up for Krivit's vdeo is priceless. I don't see how the steam velocity argument from the Rossi believers holds up - he is off by at least one order of magnitude.
Renzz - Perhaps the PW was actually trying to keep Krivit's camera from spotting his workshop. I might have heard a bell or two in the video. Instead of a black steam backdrop use of the shirt, is it possible that he could have been trying to protect the early stages of the $60k/year pinball software R&D program that he was supposed to be working on for Fulvio (remember the reliable IH contractor who Rossi says will testify to his credibility in his upcoming deposition)? Does anybody wonder what was behind the T-shirt? Curious minds want to know.
Sifferkoll's (F1) false accusations continue. In his topsy-turvy kingdom, we've come to realize that he projects himself into his version of reality. (more that later - there may be too much lead or cadmium in the water on P.R.) He thinks he is seeing the outside world but is actually just looking into a mirror where he is KingFUD, the FUDmiester, the FUDSTUD, the FUDster...I could go on.
I do not claim to be right about everything but am doing my best with what I know to counter the ongoing PR war / slander onslaught that is part of Rossi's tactical plan. Rossi's slanderfest launch coincided with his litigation filing. Look at how Rossi and his boys sprang into action - it was very calculated and planned. But alas, he has miscalculated and his followers, both real (F1) and imaginary (F2) remain by his side.
I do have one thing in common with Sifferkoll though if he is indirectly telling one truth, we both invested in the promise of Rossi. Both of us have lost our Rossi investment and I'm just the first one to realize that fact.
Sifferkoll's (F1) false accusations continue. In his topsy-turvy kingdom, we've come to realize that he projects himself into his version of reality. (more that later - there may be too much lead or cadmium in the water on P.R.) He thinks he is seeing…
No need to crawl about whining Dewey. You could easily prove me wrong by showing me an official statement where IH/Darden states he still believs in and have seen "more than hope" of fully working LENR (could be Brillouin or Miley or anything) and totally stands behind and have full confidence in IH's other investments. That should be easy! Or?
If not, I take as another direct confirmation of my hypothesis.
No need to crawl about whining Dewey. You could easily prove me wrong by showing me an official statement where IH/Darden states he still believs in and have seen "more than hope" of fully working LENR (could be Brillouin or Miley or anything) and totally stands behind and have full confidence in IH's other investments. That should be easy! Or?
If not, I take as another direct confirmation of my hypothesis.
Can you please show me a medical certificate stating that you are sane. That should be easy! Or?
If not, I will take it as another direct confirmation of my hypothesis that you are insane.
Quote from SifferkollYou could easily prove me wrong by showing me an official statement where IH/Darden states he still believs in and have seen "more than hope" of fully working LENR (could be Brillouin or Miley or anything) and totally stands behind and have full confidence in IH's other investments. That should be easy!
Perhaps I'm missing something here? My understanding of the VC world is that there is no certainty, you hope for things to pan out but cannot know that they will. After all, if you were sure they would there would be no risk premium and a proven disruptive technology would be worth 10s of billions...
