Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)

    I am not a nuclear physicist so I can not judge isotope results properly. What I observed is that the whole story changed. Originally, the report was that all nickel had been transmuted magicaconveniently to 62-Ni. But Fred Z. is indeed an accomplished nuclear engineer and he wrote:


    Quote

    Rossi’s entire E-Cat scam is like a bad version of “The Wizard of Oz” (“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”). Rossi has never “transmuted” a single atom of any isotope into anything else in his entire life, and yet he has managed to keep his scam going for years. First, we had the nickel to copper transmutation lie, a reaction that is so highly unlikely that it wouldn’t occur during a supernova. That lie came with the bogus “cheap to deal with” process to enrich natural nickel in Ni-62 and Ni-64. I wonder what happened to that bullshit process, because that alone would have been worth billions of $. Then we got the “proton-lithium-7 fusion” lie, which is also preposterous, and where nickel is “just a catalyst.” Well, for something that is “just a catalyst,” the latest “results” are simply astounding. If Rossi could produce even 1% of these changes, then I’m sure Darden and IH would welcome him back with open arms and probably wash Rossi’s feet and anoint them with oil. In fact, if Rossi had any proof of these physically impossible results, then the entire scientific world would worship him. However, it is obvious that Rossi deliberately falsified these “transmutation results” by combining commercially available amounts of stable nickel and lithium isotopes. These isotopes can be purchased from vendors like Trace Sciences (www.tracesciences.com).


    Anyone who has ever taken a nuclear physics course would know that Rossi’s nickel transmutation results cannot possibly be real. For example, Ni-58 comprises 68% of natural nickel. To “climb the ladder” of nickel isotopes up to Ni-62 as Rossi’s bogus results imply would require the formation of Ni-59 as a first step. Ni-59 is radioactive, but it has a long half-life of 76,000 years (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel). And yet, there is no Ni-59 whatsoever in Rossi’s fake E-Cat “ash” results. He is not even smart enough to produce a good deception. If he actually believes any of his own crap, then he is simply delusional.


    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2686#comments


    If I understand it correctly, what Fred is saying is that transmutation of Ni isotopes to higher numbers isn't possible without intermediates including radioactive ones, which Rossi did not claim. For my own amazement, where did these new results come from that you cite, LENR Calender? The last thing I remember about this was the conversion of all nickel in the sample to 62-Ni which was both a bizarre and stupid claim and of course also impossible by any known mechanism. I also remember that Rossi claimed transmutation of nickel to copper and cheap enrichment of nickel to 64-Ni or maybe it was 62-Ni (if memory serves)-- all of that is in JONP unless he deleted it. In any case, it would have been cited elsewhere, probably e-catworld.com.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Anyone who has ever taken a nuclear physics course would know that Rossi’s nickel transmutation results cannot possibly be real. For example, Ni-58 comprises 68% of natural nickel. To “climb the ladder” of nickel isotopes up to Ni-62 as Rossi’s bogus results imply would require the formation of Ni-59 as a first step. Ni-59 is radioactive, but it has a long half-life of 76,000 years (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel). And yet, there is no Ni-59 whatsoever in Rossi’s fake E-Cat “ash” results. He is not even smart enough to produce a good deception. If he actually believes any of his own crap, then he is simply delusional.


    MY: May be next time you ask somebody familiar with the field!


    As irrational as its sounds for old school physicians, LENR transmutation usually happen in clusters of 4 sometimes 2. The exception is Li7 which goes down to Li6. So as H,D, Li is just a donor of one P and not the product of a typical transmutation.
    Further on LENR avoids unstable nuclei, which may sound even more irrational to old school physicians...

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    To “climb the ladder” of nickel isotopes up to Ni-62 as Rossi’s bogus results imply would require the formation of Ni-59 as a first step.


    In Fisher's theory more than 1 neutron can be transferred at a time? The argument from personal incredulity, is a well known fallacy. Just because someone has taken a course in nuclear physics doesn't mean they have studied any LENR theory.


    But the bottom line is that whilst Fisher's theory does not predict any 59Ni, it does predict radio-active 66Ni which has not been observed. So it looks unlikely but we cannot be sure. After all Fisher may have wrongly assigned parameters to his model.

    You're right, I didn't know the source of the report. Now that I know it's a semi-verified leak, I am certain it must be real, ROTFWL!

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    MY: May be next time you ask somebody familiar with the field!


    As irrational as its sounds for old school physicians, LENR
    transmutation usually happen in clusters of 4 sometimes 2. The exception
    is Li7 which goes down to Li6. So as H,D, Li is just a donor of one P
    and not the product of a typical transmutation.


    Further on LENR avoids unstable nuclei, which may sound even more irrational to old school physicians...


    I suppose I qualify in the group old school physicist (actually both old-school physicist and
    old school-physicist :-)) Yes, as a nuclear physicist I find it
    irrational. There seems to be a separate reality when it comes to LENR:
    coupled reactions, no primary radiation, avoiding unstable nuclides (does
    the parent nucleus have intelligence and knows that the product is
    radioactive?), reduced Coulomb potential and also catalysis. How does
    nature know when to apply LENR laws and when to apply standard nuclear
    physics laws? There is an easier explanation according to Occam's
    razor: there is no nuclear reaction at all. No, Nature is not malicious,
    so if LENR is real it must have at better explanation!


    As far as I can see there is no proof that isotope analysis has even
    been performed. The result is thus a row of numbers with unknown origin,
    so Rossi would not even have to fiddle with the samples.


    My guess is that Engineer48 is Rossi and Aldopho A (see link) is Dewey or somebody connected to IH.


    Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)

    What link, Peter? Engineer48 certainly sounds made up. Maybe Rossi, maybe an enthusiast, maybe one of Rossi's buddies, many of whom I suspect were his colleagues in prison.

    Quote from Peter Ekstrom

    How does nature know when to apply LENR laws and when to apply standard nuclear physics laws?


    How does nature know when to apply quantum mechanics laws and when to apply general relativity?


    Doesn't seem to be a problem as far as observation and experiments are concerned...

    @Keieueue


    Nature doesn't "know" when to apply QM vs GR. Or for that matter Newtonian physics. ALL are applied everywhere. [ETA]Sometimes they give a good description, sometimes not, depending on what they are applied to. [/ETA] But in a particular regime of size or energy or whatever, an effect usually predominates over another. For example, for "ordinary" earthbound objects visible with the eye, Newtonian physics is quite adequate for most purposes. Very small regimes or very large objects or very fast motion requires the other disciplines for accurate description and prediction. EXtremely precise measurements may require several methods. I am sure a physicist can put this more elegantly.

    Edited once, last by Mary Yugo ().

    Like 1

    Thanks Georgy, that explains why there are no LENR laws, as they don't fit with standard nuclear physics laws, just like QM are real because they don't fit with GR...

    Quote from Peter Ekstrom

    avoiding unstable nuclides (does the parent nucleus have intelligence and knows that the product is radioactive?),


    This is a major stumbling block for most models. But surely the resolution is that whatever the correct explanation turns out to be, no penetrating radiations are expected under the experimental conditions.
    It may well be that novel conditions, yet to be verified will produce penetrating radiation. And we could attempt to identify those conditions by examining, in detail, what theories predict. Alas most theorists cherry pick their predictions to coincide with generally accepted observations (like heat and helium). Conversely they are reluctant to spell out clearly what radiation is expected and when. It is not surprising that very little attention is given to theory! Unfalsifiable theory is not convincing!


    I find that the obsession with "excess heat" and the neglect of far more sensitive nuclear measurements to be quite pathological. It is a poor argument indeed to claim (27 years later) that the anomalies must be nuclear because we cannot think of any other explanation. This is the fallacy of arguing from personal incredulity. To be fair there are some indications of nuclear anomalies. But in that case, they should be investigated in detail, energies, intensities, etc. measured.


    It is equally pathological to claim that some kind of exotic chemistry is involved when the same mini atoms / molecules would be expected to fuse just like muon catalysed fusion. Where are the expected gammas?


    @Eric Walker and I seem to favour fragmentation as a method to explain helium production and to suppress penetrating radiation. But there is a problem - the so called Hagelstein limit - we do not see expected neutrons in deuterated systems from secondary / tertiary reactions. I may be clutching at straws but I would like to see this limit experimentally verified. After all, Peter Hagelstein has been proposing several incompatible models over the last decades. Maybe the limit is not relevant?

    Quote from Hermes

    I find that the obsession with "excess heat" and the neglect of far more sensitive nuclear measurements to be quite pathological.


    As some might know, sono-fusion (Pt,D2O) is well correlated with excess-heat and H4/H3 production. Most reactions happens on the surface (of Pt) and are quasi "open face". But even there "no" radiation is measured. Where "no" means far,far less than classical physicists expect!

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    What link, Peter? Engineer48 certainly sounds made up. Maybe Rossi, maybe an enthusiast, maybe one of Rossi's buddies, many of whom I suspect were his colleagues in prison.


    There is a link at the end of the post with Alan's message. The original is in ECW, and I don't know how to link it directly (it is hidden among more than 400 posts) Aldopho A's post seems to have disappeared, at least I cannot find it. Possibly due to ECW:s censuring principles. It said, in short, that A had access to a series of isotope results that indicated no effect. It is definitely not believable.


    Edit: The disappearance of the post was due to the fact that Adolpho spelt his name inconsistently. 8)

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Can You elaborate this somewhat more? .. ?


    Isotope analysis is not trivial and is normally performed by a specialized institute or company. An official report would prove that the analysis was performed. I have seen no such report for the 1MW. For earlier cases there are detailed reports leaked to the Internet.

    Quote

    Oh my dear Mary. Really ? Haven't you read and heard about the fact that Rossi was cleared by all accusations ?



    See also: http://news.newenergytimes.net…nmental-criminal-history/


    The origin of the fiction (I call it Rossifiction along with much more of Rossi's writings) is Rossi's own web-shiites.

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