Hi Peter. Reasonable guesses but not quite correct. E48 is definitely not Rossi -this I am sure about because we (E48 and I) correspond privately on technical matters. As for Adolpho, he might well be Dewey or a Dewey proxy IMHO.
This reminds me of the kind of cloak and dagger from cold war-era movies.
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!
It is easy to take the route of looking at the strange jumble of LENR experiments, balking at the apparent inconsistencies and variable quality, and giving up and tuning it all out. But try some lateral thinking:
The origin of the fiction (I call it Rossifiction along with much more of Rossi's writings) is Rossi's own web-shiites.
Rossi's background has been gone over with a fine-tooth comb several times. He was tried in excess of 50 times. He was acquitted of nearly every charge. Mats' book is the most authoritative source of Rossi's background, and I suggest you read it. While Krivits speculates, Mats digs deep, finds source materials, and talks with people such as Rossi's lawyer who handled the cases. What emerges is an entrepreneurial man who stepped on a few toes of a few too many people, and paid the price for it.
Mats also points out that the officer in the Italian financial police corps Guardia di Finanza who in the late ‘80s commanded the region where Rossi’s businesses were located and apparently coordinated the systematic surveillance of his activities—general Emilio Spaziante from the town of Caserta in southern Italy—was convicted recently for his involvement in a major Italian multi-billion-Euro corruption scandal.
https://animpossibleinvention.com/tag/book/
Now, I would suspect that if any member of this forum were tried over 50 times for anything, that most likely, something would stick. Let's comb through all of your tax returns. Let's look at all of your business dealings, personal relationships, personal activities, and find something. Given that Rossi was able to beat nearly every charge is quite remarkable.
Do we already know of something that produces helium, and helium correlated with heat?
Of course! CNO cycle, alpha decay, etc. Helium is such a common product that it's production alone tells us little about its origin.
Do we already know of a nuclear process that generally favors stable daughters over unstable ones, all else being equal?
Frequently fragmentation reactions < 2 MeV neither produce prompt gammas nor radio-active daughters.
Do we already know of cases where the chemical environment has an influence on nuclear processes?
7Be decay. Perhaps 187Re decay. These are both special cases. In fusion or fission the concentration of fuel, poison, and moderator is crucial. We should suspect that the chemical environment is NOT important and that any NAS is not chemical because excess heat can produce localized melting.
Do we already know of processes that produce x-rays at energies far above any applied voltages?
Most radio-active decays.
I'd like to ask similar questions:-
What classes of nuclear reactions are most probable, i.e. fast?
Hint: What classes of nuclear reactions have no (Coulomb) energy barriers?
IH Fanboy: nonsense. lewan can't investigate himself out of a paper bag.
Hermes,
You've disrupted my clever series of leading questions. (You remind me a lot of someone I've discussed this stuff with in a different context! 
)
Of course! CNO cycle, alpha decay, etc. Helium is such a common product that it's production alone tells us little about its origin.
You're not thinking laterally enough. It's good to be able to explain some of the results. But we shouldn't stop there. The challenge is to find a unifying theme within the disparate experiments.
Me: "Do we already know of a nuclear process that generally favors stable daughters over unstable ones, all else being equal?"
Frequently fragmentation reactions < 2 MeV neither produce prompt gammas nor radio-active daughters.
We're definitely agreed, here. I like fragmentation too, especially for understanding excess heat.
Me: "Do we already know of cases where the chemical environment has an influence on nuclear processes?"
7Be decay. Perhaps 187Re decay. These are both special cases. In fusion or fission the concentration of fuel, poison, and moderator is crucial. We should suspect that the chemical environment is NOT important and that any NAS is not chemical because excess heat can produce localized melting.
I don't see how localized melting is an argument against a chemical trigger. I'm not arguing that a lattice or solid state is important. Indeed, I suspect otherwise, and that LENR can be triggered in a gas environment as well. One hunch is that bound electrons are important. One example: consider what happens when a hydrogen atom adsorbs to the surface of palladium interspersed with patches of platinum. As long as the hydrogen nucleus does not penetrate too far into the surface, the electron will continue to be bound to it. Perhaps the field of the bound electron will overlap significantly with the volume of the platinum nucleus in a way that it wouldn't if it were to dissolve into the electron gas in the metal. Melting or lack thereof doesn't matter in this context. Another hunch: z-pinch constrained currents of electrons passing through nuclei are important.
Both of these hunches involve chemistry, but no chemical environment as such. (Think lightening.)
Me: "Do we already know of processes that produce x-rays at energies far above any applied voltages?"
Most radio-active decays.
Indeed.
I'd like to ask similar questions:-
What classes of nuclear reactions are most probable, i.e. fast?
Hint: What classes of nuclear reactions have no (Coulomb) energy barriers?
Strong interactions happen on the shortest timescale. Whether they are probable depends upon the cross-section of the reaction/decay in question. A weak decay with a large cross section (or, more relevant to this discussion, a large incident flux) can happen at a higher rate than a strong interaction with a small cross section.
I don't find the neutral particle theories, e.g., Fisher's, very compelling. Apart from the general implausible sound of polyneutrons, which isn't a valid objection, I'm still trying to put my finger on why, exactly.
Greetings folks - was following some links and ended up back over here only to find speculation that I'm posting as someone else. Who came up that that beauty?
And while we're at it, where are the post(s) of Adolpho whatshisname?
And while we're at it....... Where in the world did Mats go? Just disappeared and took the comments sections with him. I speculate that Rossi slipped him a copy of the "ERV" and that was all he could take. Popped smoke and went back to his day job.
And furthermore... This thread seems to be happy with the hint that the latest 1MW ash analysis came from the 1MW test. If that is the case, this confirms Rossi's complete lack of integrity. He has not informed IH of any type of sample test, how he obtained the sample(s), when he obtained the samples... He wants $89M from IH yet takes polar opposite steps that only add to the liar and doubt fire. I could go on.
The great news is that there is a shipping container full of ash samples padlocked down in Miami. We'll see how hard Rossi fights to keep IH from doing their own samples on property they own.
You guys must have missed me or something.
You've disrupted my clever series of leading questions.
Totally unintentionally! Why don't you answer your own questions then, and we'll continue from there?
You're not thinking laterally enough. It's good to be able to explain some of the results. But we shouldn't stop there. The challenge is to find a unifying theme within the disparate experiments.
Eric, if someone made sufficient lateral thinking, which did indeed create a unified explanation for most observations, do you think it would be appropriate to publish it for the first time here?
I don't find the neutral particle theories, e.g., Fisher's, very compelling. Apart from the general implausible sound of polyneutrons, which isn't a valid objection, I'm still trying to put my finger on why, exactly.
May I try to put some fingers on it? :-
1) Any polyneutron finding itself in a heavily deuterated environment (such as D2O) would start growing indefinitely producing heat and fast protons. This would have been observed by now. It would not easily correlate with 4He production.
2) Many of the expected interactions of these neutral particles will produce penetrating gammas from beta decay, which again we don't see.
3) Experimental and theoretical studies show that poly-neutrons are not bound, so they do not exist.
So I don't believe in poly-neutron theories Having said that, any theory which can survive 24 years of criticism obviously must have some redeeming features. So the question is, can we apply some major lateral thinking to improve it? I am quite certain we can. Encouraging work is in progress.
this confirms Rossi's complete lack of integrity. He has not informed IH of any type of sample test
I understand your frustration Dewey. Even if Rossi had no knowledge of any sample and of any analysis, surely by now he would have said so? I think his silence indicates consent.
I don't find the neutral particle theories, e.g., Fisher's, very compelling.
I just read Takahashis JCMNS 19 (p. 298 ff.) paper about dd cluster-fusion. He comes to the conclusion that classical (pure kinetic ITER like) calculation are way off, up to 1020 in estimating the LENR fusion probabilities.
Dewey Weaver,
Do you know and can you say where the original source of the fuel came from? Did IH provide it or Rossi? Was the process of loading the reactors sampled and monitored?
Thanks,
Peter Metz
Peter - I don't know the answer to your question.
Dewey Weaver,
According to Rossi (on his blog), the 1MW plant had been shutdown to change the fuel (the day before the 1MW test ended). It seems to me that if the ash was sampled, this was the time. It may also be possible that the reactors no longer have any fuel in them or a fresh batch. Rossi seems to be one step ahead of IH?
Good luck,
Peter Metz
And furthermore... This thread seems to be happy with the hint that the latest 1MW ash analysis came from the 1MW test. If that is the case, this confirms Rossi's complete lack of integrity. He has not informed IH of any type of sample test, how he obtained the sample(s), when he obtained the samples... He wants $89M from IH yet takes polar opposite steps that only add to the liar and doubt fire. I could go on.
Granted, but in case Cherokee is sincere and harbors no unsavory afterthoughts, why don't you understand he's paranoid, maybe for a reason? (history of cheated italian inventors)
Now if IH did REALLY share his IP with others, in good faith or not, that was at best a very careless move, because see above
In the best case scenario -misunderstandings-, get a couple counselor or something, sheesh people
Hi dewey,
As I recall, you guys were having trouble locating the customer. Have you found him yet, and if so...is he talking?
Also, have you approached Rossi to jointly unlock the 1MW container so IH can do an ash analysis? And while you are here; when do you expect the judge to rule on the MTD?
Agree with you about Lewan doing a disappearing act. What is it about these Swedes? The Lugano professors did the same thing after promising to answer questions. In Mats case he said 3 months ago he wanted to "get to the bottom of this", and had sent the Lugano report to some people that really knew emissivity, and would get back with their answer...now no Mats.
This thread seems to be happy with the hint that the latest 1MW ash analysis came from the 1MW test. If that is the case, this confirms Rossi's complete lack of integrity.
Welcome back, again, Dewey!
So, just so we understand, are you saying that IH has no first-hand knowledge of any ash analysis performed at any time from the ash of the 1MW test?
The great news is that there is a shipping container full of ash samples padlocked down in Miami. We'll see how hard Rossi fights to keep IH from doing their own samples on property they own.
You guys must have missed me or something.
The access to the ash samples padlocked down in Miami may involve custody of evidence constraints and lawyer actions. In a court case, you can't just do what you want.
