The Playground

Lenuco has about 6 times the shares of IH compared to Deep River. I doubt Lenuco is prepared to have LENR tech buried. I don't see Miley posting here, making a ruckus.

Quote from axil

You need to read the LUGANO report in great detail to understand that the nickel was melted. Rossi understood this because he picked that melted particle out of the reactor as described by Dr. Cook. It was the only piece of nickel that he could free. By the way, randombit0 did not know that nuckel had melted and Rossi did. So bit0 cannot be Rossi.

Rossi took this new understanding of how the LENR reaction could continue even if nickel was in a melted state into the next design of the quark reactor which runs at very high temperatures beyond the melting point of nickel.

If the E-Cat works also when the Ni is melted, the physical structure of the Ni obviously doesn't matter. That should make replication much easier. (Peter the alchemist)

Who is Dr Cook? He with the strange nuclear theory?

I agree, Bit0 is much prettier!

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

If the E-Cat works also when the Ni is melted, the physical structure of the Ni obviously doesn't matter.

Axil's point (or what I draw from it) is that the heat in the Lugano E-Cat would have had to exceed the ~ 750 C at the surface estimated in such recalculations as Tom's in order for nickel in the assay, presumably scraped from the inner wall of the reactor core, to have shown signs of melting. Ecco's thought (which he deleted, and which I hope I'm doing justice) was interesting — MFMP had done an experiment that showed that nickel along the inner wall would have been at the verge of melting if the center of the core were at ~ 1300 C. I see no sign of melting in the particle that Axil identified, but it does like like it could have been on the verge of melting.

Another anomaly that I haven't wrapped my head around yet: in the fuel there was lithium at natural abundances, and in the ash there was lithium highly enriched in 6Li.

Quote from LENR Calender

Actually, maybe the steam experts will correct me; but isn't steam invisible until it condensates?

Why ridicule Rossi for the lack of steam visibility when that is what you are supposed to see if we are dealing with real steam?

Dry steam is indeed invisible. But there is some mist (wet steam) in front of the tube. That would have been blown away by the fast moving steam.

This is really Déjà vu!

@Eric Walker: later on I didn't feel that the "Playground" would be the best forum thread for serious discussions, but since you cited it, the comment was as follows:

From experiments with early MFMP Lugano "Dog bone" analogs and Parkhomov-type replications with the heating wire in good thermal contact with the inner tube we know that at about 1000°C on the exterior surface the internal temperature is at least 30% higher. If heat is being internally generated, it's conceivable that this value would be even higher.

An external temperature of 1100°C (Bob Higgins' estimation) for the Lugano dog-bone would have meant that the nickel powder inside the reactor was on the verge of melting, and that it probably melted - perhaps not homogenously - if excess heat was being internally generated.

This is assuming that there was indeed powder in the working reactor and it was the active component. I find plausible that the inner ceramic (?) tube may have participated to the reaction, but this wasn't analyzed in detail; probably for good reasons. Also note that the Cook-Rossi paper on ArXiv mentions that the powder was found to be "encrusted" on the internal reactor walls.

Quote

Axil's point (or what I draw from it) is that the heat in the Lugano E-Cat would have had to exceed the ~ 750 C at the surface estimated in such recalculations as Tom's in order for nickel in the assay, presumably scraped from the inner wall of the reactor core, to have shown signs of melting. Ecco's thought (which he deleted, and which I hope I'm doing justice) was interesting — MFMP had done an experiment that showed that nickel along the inner wall would have been at the verge of melting if the center of the core were at ~ 1300 C. I see no sign of melting in the particle that Axil identified, but it does like like it could have been on the verge of melting.Another anomaly that I haven't wrapped my head around yet: in the fuel there was lithium at natural abundances, and in the ash there was lithium highly enriched in 6Li.

If you believe that the analysed ash is real (chain of custody OK) from the analysed fuel then Rossi has nuclear reactions. Or else some amazing 100% Ni62 fractionation process. either would be extraordinary.

Otherwise the chain of custody is broken with a different sample swapped for the original. If that is on sample retrieval from the reactor it would be very likely for the substituted sample to have been heated more. But it seems unlikely we will ever know when the sample "contamination" happened, and Axil's "almost melted" evidence does not strike me as strong - maybe Ni looks like that when heated with LiAlH4. Maybe the LiAlH4 causes some additional local heating at some point in the heating cycle. Too many possibles here to have any confidence.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Otherwise the chain of custody is broken with a different sample swapped for the original. If that is on sample retrieval from the reactor it would be very likely for the substituted sample to have been heated more. But it seems unlikely we will ever know when the sample "contamination" happened, and Axil's "almost melted" evidence does not strike me as strong - maybe Ni looks like that when heated with LiAlH4. Maybe the LiAlH4 causes some additional local heating at some point in the heating cycle. Too many possibles here to have any confidence.

I agree that there are too many degrees of freedom pertaining to the 62Ni to make more than vaguely speculative statements, and that the 62Ni was likely to have gone back to a supplier. In that case who knows how it was handled prior to insertion. And a flame may have been used to affix it to the reactor walls, and so on. So not much interesting there.

The interesting detail for me is the elevated levels of 6Li. Lithium has a melting point of 180 C, so it will not have stayed in one place in this particular test. Is the suggestion that Rossi planted enriched 6Li? Perhaps this is readily possible given what we know about the circumstances of the handling of the reactor core and the obtaining of the sample for the assay; or is it? There may be a mundane explanation for this detail; whether there is one or not, self-respecting skeptics (of which I count myself in this case) are on the hook to propose one.

Quote from Hank Mills

I have on multiple occasions held onto a hose used by a large steam cleaning machine that can produce 6000 PSI -- although it is rarely utilized at such pressures. Typically, the PSI is less than 1400 (even less for carpet) and the steam is obviously…

Hank, but how do you explain the steam not condensing into visible white at the pressure/flow we can obviously see in the very faint condensation?? And if it was dry steam, where did all the water go. It just does not makes sense.

@Eric Walker: a few other observations:

- If the Lugano reactor was entirely made of a ceramic material, even internally, then Li would have reacted with the tube especially at high temperature and probably couldn't have moved freely for a long amount of time.

- If the reactor was entirely made of a ceramic material, and if the powder was found to be encrusted on the inner walls, does this mean that the tools used to scrape it off also took away some of the reactor tube material?

- Several months ago I tried digitizing the TOF-SIMS spectra (Fig.11) of the ash particles with and without Li and order the elements by abundance.

The most abundant elements Si, Al, Ca and Na, K could be part of the reactor tube material. The former group could be hinting at an inner ceramic tube made of a different material than the pure alumina of the exterior cement. The general assumption was that the entire reactor was made of 100% alumina, but this might have not been the case.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

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…

The whole pinball debacle itself is hilarious to me! I love how it is completely ignored by the Rossi camp lol.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

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…

Have you developed the full F scale yet? Its kinda like the fujitsu scale!! Unfortunately this was on a lost sea scroll, thus not found in the good book.

Quote

The interesting detail for me is the elevated levels of 6Li. Lithium has a melting point of 180 C, so it will not have stayed in one place in this particular test. Is the suggestion that Rossi planted enriched 6Li? Perhaps this is readily possible given what we know about the circumstances of the handling of the reactor core and the obtaining of the sample for the assay; or is it? There may be a mundane explanation for this detail; whether there is one or not, self-respecting skeptics (of which I count myself in this case) are on the hook to propose one.

The Li levels were very low in the ash (indicating possible errors) and natural fractionation through diffusion mechanisms also possible. So I don't see anything much in that: you'd need more domain-specific knowledge than I have to determine that this measurement was unusual (perhaps somone here has that: Peter Ekstrom?). Though given Rossi likely planted the 62Ni he could also have planted 6Li which is cheap.

One of the difficulties in these matters is that given superficially unusual results it does often require domain-specific information to even imagine the mundane explanation and we do not usually have that. Posing things so that skeptics must explain some anomaly, or else it is LENR is likely to lead to misleading conclusions. Much better is requiring advocates of LENR positively to prove that it is LENR. Though, in normal circumstances, robust transmutation evidence would be very strong.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

natural fractionation through diffusion mechanisms also possible

Yes, and it could also have gone back to bidorsal cross-frubulation. Like you suggest, this seems to be a question that someone with domain expertise would need to weigh in on. My guess: it doesn't happen very often.

The counts for lithium ions were rather high, relatively speaking to other species in the Appendix 3 assay:

It's possible that the counts for lithium were low by absolute standards; but then that might call into question the counts for some of the nickel species as well, I suppose.

Quote

It's possible that the counts for lithium were low by absolute standards; but then that might call into question the counts for some of the nickel species as well, I suppose.

Well if I had to bet I would go for 6Li/62Ni heated in a reactor and substituted: I agree with you that given those counts the 6Li evidence looks pretty good (to an admitted non-expert).

EDIT. I'm a non-expert, but...

The Ni counts are similar. But the Li counts are higher by a factor of 3. That is unexpected.

Since we're at it, (and putting aside that overanalyzing the Lugano report is probably like beating a dead horse) how is the "x100" in this spectrum and similar ones in the document supposed to be read in your opinion? Could it indicate that counts on the right of it have been scaled up 100 times, or that they are actually 100 times larger than depicted?

Quote from LENR Calender: “Actually, maybe the steam experts will correct me; but isn't steam invisible until it condensates?

Dry steam is invisible.
Wet steam is visible.

No one should read further, because here comes nothing new!
It's old stuff from 2011.

Rossi shows/explains measure data at 4:30:
" ... and the output measuring is 100,1 Celsius degrees ..."

Rossi explains at 11:14 in the first part of Krivits video:
"Steam, this is steam, and of course it is not that much visible, because it is very hot. Being very hot, it has less density"

'cause this is the playground:
He's not "vaporizing" 7 liters of water per hour, he is just boiling some water, maybe with energy between 1 to 1,5 kW/h.
Some steam is coming out. Impressive!
My tea water boiler does exactly the same. With the same amount of energy consumed, when I put in water with nearly 27°.

But then Rossi's doing his fine calculations (in part 2) and turns the boiler (E-Cats) into a fantastic e=mc² machinery.

This has been posted by Krivit and it's Rossi showing his lab.
For ME IT IS EVIDENCE, these are early E-Cats LT and we can see their "performance".
Nothing different from the E-Cats LTs in the famous container in Florida.
(Please don't come up with that 4 x 250 kW E-Cat Tigers, they do exactly the same, 'cause they are backups, fitting into the primary reactor/flow system.)

Rossi has vaporized himself with this "demo".
And the 100,10 Degrees Celsius will be very interesting in the lawsuit.

Now, I still follow Rossi and the JONP, because of the E-Cat Quarck XY.
This will be the world saving invention!
I'm really really really really SURE!

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

Dry steam is indeed invisible. But there is some mist (wet steam) in front of the tube. That would have been blown away by the fast moving steam.

Thanks, this sounds like a good explanation

Quote from axil

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.

You lost me here! I think 62Ni was more than 99 and the other isotopes less than 1%. 4% 64Ni would be useless. And who said it was centrifuged? I think one uses magnetic separation. What was the spec of MFMP:s 62Ni? Was it not the same as in the Lugano sample?