Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)

  • IH had no notice or indication of any ash sample by Rossi which I find odd after the question marks around the Lugano ash sample.


    The impression left by the multiple leaks is that it was not a Rossi sample. This, of course, is not entirely clear due to the mists of fog surrounding this affair. But that is at least the impression that I have--that the source of the isotopic shift analysis of the 1MW test is independent of Rossi. Are you not aware of this isotopic analysis? It seems very surprising to me that you and IH would not be aware of it. Are you sure you aren't bluffing here a little?



    The information that Rossi shutdown and refueled the reactor the day before inspection day is laughable and impossible if true.


    I don't understand the statement "impossible if true." Do you mean that it is impossible? I could believe that.



    Based on the original refueling of the 1MW system in Raleigh, refueling is a grueling process and would take days based on the design. There is a port for access in the units that IH modified.


    If IH modified the port, then why would it be a grueling process and take days? If you are going to modify the port, why not make it a simple process that takes minutes?



    The good news is that the ash samples from the 1MW unit will be resolved with integrity. If there is isotopic change that can be confirmed with a secure link back to the original fuel loading, then Rossi possibly has new life as a LENR inventor.


    I appreciate your candidness in this comment (rare, but credit given where due). Krivits recently posted an exchange with the former director of DARPA regarding his generally positive views of Rossi. Are the foundations being laid for mea culpas? Leaving the door open just enough to provide a fallback? Not bad.



    The Uppsala folks now appear to be concentrated on replication - they still believe in Rossi somehow.


    They were closest to Rossi's tech after IH. This should speak to the pathological skeptics on this forum (but, of course it won't, given their nature to dismiss out of hand).



    Not so sure about Mats - he is probably working on feeding his family.


    Mats is probably doing fine. And, by the way, one of the most courageous science reporters this world has ever seen.

  • With all due respect, and I, "Longview" do much appreciate your experience and perspective, Prof. Ekstrom! Questions again from this well-meaning and still curious "biomedical scientist" who is about your age:


    And what about neutrons? They are penetrating.


    Are ULM neutrons inevitably penetrating? If numerous enough and at similarly low velocities can they not readily bind one another, first briefly as pairs? And then do they persist perhaps as symmetric tetrads until they migrate to /encounter nearby nuclei? (BTW, with respect to a recent comment here, I don't see the infinite aggregation of such neutronic assemblies as a caveat, especially near atoms, since no other assembly of neutrons will be as symmetric or as dense--- I suggest here that such tetrads would represent at least a local energy minimum even lower than the minimum represented by ULM free neutron pairs.


    The "birth energy" of a neutron is in my mind important, if neutrons are important to anything in CF / LENR / LANR etc. The idea that neutrons immediately thermalize to ambient energies from their possibly very low initial energies is not credible to me, viz: Specific heat is very largely an electronic phenomenon, neutrons will not easily see electronically mediated momentum averaging.


    Takin it in small portions from several sources is in violation with the second law of thermodynamics.


    Ternary reactions, particularly when they involve susceptible binary intermediates have never been in violation of the 2nd law, to my knowledge. Maybe in strictly collisional physics, but why should be constrain ourselves to the dogmas from that regime so far from condensed matter theory, or even condensed / collisional interactions ?

  • Sorry guys - super busy these days. I don't have time for the repeated circular logic bias in the circular questions from the Planet Rossi types.

    Or, for me, similarly, the pseudoskeptics that have long afflicted LENR discussion, though lately they have been less annoying than fanatic believers. If people want to know about LENR, read the journals, read the sources, study them. If someone writes something that looks sound on one of the forums, research it, but realize that some people have honed fair-sounding arguments for many years, and by cherry-picking sources and arguments, can make anything look like anything else.

    Quote

    IH had no notice or indication of any ash sample by Rossi which I find odd after the question marks around the Lugano ash sample. The information that Rossi shutdown and refueled the reactor the day before inspection day is laughable and impossible if true. Based on the original refueling of the 1MW system in Raleigh, refueling is a grueling process and would take days based on the design. There is a port for access in the units that IH modified.

    The provenance for the rumor or leak is highly suspect. Rossi plays cute on it (it is very common for Rossi to answer in ways that imply this or that but that do not actually state it, this could be about a habitual creation of plausible deniability.)
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…i-fuel-sample-unverified/ was the original appearance of the leak. It came from a "reader." So Acland asked Rossi and received an answer apparently by email:

    Quote

    “No comment.I did not publish any analysis and cannot give any imformation anout [sic] it. I want not to comment in positive or in negative.”

    So someone asks him about it on JONP, and he gives this answer:

    Quote

    Andrea Rossi
    July 8, 2016 at 3:56 PM
    Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
    I cannot comment in positive or in negative.

    Asked again:

    Quote

    Andrea Rossi
    July 9, 2016 at 7:17 AM
    Evelyn:
    I know nothing of those analysis [sic]. I did not publish any analysis of the ashes, because we deem them confidential. I am not going to give any information about the ashes, in positive or in negative.

    And the next day, asked again for comment:

    Quote

    Andrea Rossi
    July 9, 2016 at 4:44 PM
    W:
    Anomalous tongue vibrations excess.

    And then this exchange:

    on the face of it, then, Rossi is acknowledging having seen ash analysis from the 1 MW plant. Or he wasn't careful and is referring to the "leaked report."
    And then this remarkable exchange:

    That response seems peeved. Because the E-Catworld thread currently has 487 comments, it's tedious to go through it, but my recollection is that Engineer48 was the source of the analysis, refusing to reveal his own source, but with a confirmation from Alan Smith of the source (also without revealing who it is. I have reason to suspect that Engineer48 is a troll, someone feeding garbage to Planet Rossi. Or, for someone as intelligent and knowledgeable as he appears, remarkably dense on a matter that should be very clear, the meaning of "superheated steam," see the comments on http://egooutpeters.blogspot.c…lenr-creating-wicked.html


    Bottom line, we cannot attribute that report to Rossi. We cannot confirm that this is a real analysis of a real sample. Yet, 487 comments. Typical.


    Quote

    I'm sure there will be a legal skirmish over IH taking possession of it's property in Doral.

    Perhaps. Who is paying the rent?

    Quote

    The good news is that the ash samples from the 1MW unit will be resolved with integrity.

    I'd watch out for accidents, buildings can burn down. It's not like it never happened before.

    Quote

    If there is isotopic change that can be confirmed with a secure link back to the original fuel loading, then Rossi possibly has new life as a LENR inventor.

    Possibly. In fact, if Rossi finally allows fully independent testing, and has devices that work, no matter what happened before, he could recover. I'm just not holding my breath for that, but, for the future of humanity, it could be fantastic.


    Now, the elephant in the living room. I've been silent on lenr-forum.com, since this post:
    I was wrong about Rossi, but what I fear most is that I might be partly right
    Shortly thereafter, Dewey made a comment that could be interpreted as leaving:
    I was wrong about Rossi, but what I fear most is that I might be partly right


    So, then, both of us stopped replying here. I continued a level of discussion on https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/info , which is a place where I can be asked questions. That's an open list, though new members are on moderation. As a moderator, I would see a post. I would reply personally to personal messages. Some of the denizens of Plant Rossi then made a story out of this coincidence, supposedly we were both devastated by the rejection of the Motion to Dismiss by the judge, or our alleged APCO paymasters no longer had a purpose for our alleged creation of FUD, because this was, Planet Rossi claims, designed to influence the judge to grant the Motion to Dismiss. Some problems with that.


    1. Starting with I'd be personally happy to see the lawsuit continue, because then we would learn far more about what has been hidden, in ways that are far more reliable than all this loose talk on blogs, etc. However, there is a down side: money that could be available for research will get spent on lawyers. However, .... in the long run, that won't be much. Right now, the fees will be, my guess, shared with Cherokee Partners, where this would be hardly a hiccup, and, besides, errors and omissions insurance, etc. Maybe it's about time that Rossi be allowed to face the music he's been writing for a long time.
    2. The Motion was not rejected, in spite of a series of ignorant claims. This was a formal motion and would not be rejected without formal entry. I was a little surprised that the judge went ahead with schedule planning, but that was pretty simple, and before the heavy lifting starts, she will have ruled. I also researched this, and, yes, discovery can proceed in the presence of a pending motion to dismiss, though there is difference of opinion in various courts.
    3. That a U.S. Federal Judge would even be reading the blogs is a crazy idea. No, she has quite enough to do, reading the Motion, the Memorandum, and the Reply, checking authorities, and considering the issues. It took me days to do that, and, by the way, one of the motivators to leave here was that my research notes were attacked as "wall of text." Hint: research notes (much of what I write) <=> polemic. She'd be faster, but probably more careful and with far greater legal background.


    Okay, one more issue:

    Quote

    The Uppsala folks now appear to be concentrated on replication - they still believe in Rossi somehow. Not so sure about Mats - he is probably working on feeding his family.

    I confirm that the Comments on two Lewan Blog posts were missing.
    https://animpossibleinvention.…truth-on-rossi-ih-affair/ ... with "almost 700 comments," and then the continuation post as well, but they seem to be back.


    Mats, in my opinion, handled this unskillfully. Yes, he needed to shut down the comments, but he could have done so with reference to a forum where discussion could continue, that's how I'd have handled it. He could still do that. Mats is not a professional forum moderator, he's not expected to be. As well, keeping up to speed on developments is not paying the rent and feeding the family. So, for example, the list of documents on Rossi v. Darden that he was maintaining does not include the latest substantive one, the Reply to Rossi's Memorandum opposing the Motion to Dismiss. I do have all the files (after some early files of little import) in https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…tex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/ ... I'm not sure if you have to have a newvortex subscription or not, or a yahoo account, but that takes a few minutes and all the files are there, I know of no other place with that.


    Dewey, thanks for your comments, as an insider, it's valuable, I've learned a great deal. And to everyone else, no, I do not treat Dewey any differently from any coherent witness. Such can make mistakes. It is unusual for them to lie, but it can happen. I simply haven't seen any evidence for deception from Dewey.


    And eyewitness testimony is in a different league from weak inference, speculation, and even reasoned conclusions.

  • Me: "Do we already know of something that produces helium, and helium correlated with heat?"


    Yes, of course! Bu they produce penetrating radiation directly or indirectly!


    Coulomb excitation is a problem. But: (1) what if the alphas are generally sent out of the material, i.e., away from the surface, into the less dense gas or electrolyte, where the mean free path is far longer? (2) What do the numbers for coulomb excitation look like for alphas traveling at ~ 1-3 MeV, for example? Presumably the large portion of any gammas will be a small fraction of the Q value, and those will be dependent upon available levels and the cross sections for those levels. Have you modeled this scenario? (3) What if the alphas are producing only a fraction of the heat, with the bulk supplied by a parallel process such as fragmentation/fission?


    Me: "Do we already know of processes that produce x-rays at energies far above any applied voltages?"


    Of course, but the energy has to come from somewhere. Takin it in small portions from several sources is in violation with the second law of thermodynamics.


    Whose position in this discussion is that small portions of energy from several sources are leading to x-rays? Why not have a nuclear source of energy that is unleashed all at once by a minor perturbation, analogous to the small amount of weight required to trigger a mousetrap?

  • What do you mean by fragmentation? Is it what we call spallation? If yes, it will cost a lot of energy and you would have reactions with negative Q-value. Not very useful since they consume energy. Why is fragmentation more promising?


    I consider fragmentation as a nuclear reaction which creates at least 2 heavy products. The alternative is only 1 product which is inhibited by about 7 orders of magnitude or more by the electromagnetic transition needed to create a gamma. It is necessary to simultaneously conserve energy and linear momentum. As we do NOT see gammas we are obliged to consider 2 heavy products. Obviously endothermic reactions will be rare. We do not need to consider them in a first approach.

  • Do you know of any exceptions to say Gamow theory? Even if you do, would they be adequate reason not to trust it?


    The Gamow theory works best for even-even nuclei. It is considered a great success even though it is sometimes off by two orders of magnitude.


    But the main reason I don't trust an extrapolation of the Gamow theory is that it is a complex calculation, much like the kind of complex calculations done in software. I would not trust an airplane whose computer autopilot has only been trained to fly in fair-weather conditions to do well in high-wind conditions. Nor would I want to let a car drive in self-piloting mode on a highway in California whose algorithm up to that point had only been trained in large parking lots or in simple driving scenarios. In such cases there are large areas of the parameter space that have not yet been studied, and extrapolation will lead to the expected result of undesirable outcomes of various kinds. It doesn't matter that the airplane or the car have proven themselves quite successful in the limited range of scenarios they were designed for. Software is software, and it has bugs. This is why we have test pilots in the case of airplanes and software developers sitting behind the wheels in the case of self-driving cars. Similarly, I assume there are some bugs in the Gamow theory that will need to be sorted out when it is pressed into service in a significantly new environment.


  • Welcome back Abd! Now we just need Thomas to return--then we'll have the core group of IH apologists back together again.


    I must say, you seem to be seething. I suggest that you lighten up a little, please? Some of your contributions in the past have been enlightening. Just a tip, though, try to be more succinct in your writing. Get to the heart of the matter. We all have limited time to devote to this, our mutual interest, and it is helpful to readers on this forum to keep the fluff out of it and cut to the chase. If you insist on writing up multi-page entries, at least provide a TLDR.

  • Dewey Weaver wrote: There is a port for access in the units that IH modified.


    JW. : Thank You for the confirmation that the modules in fact were built by IH!


    Why did Dewey confess that IH built/modified the E-cat modules of the 1 MW plant ?? Was it a matter of pride ?


    Wyttie - you are one of the reasons why it is such a huge waste of time to follow the Rossi threads on this forum. Where do you deduce that IH built the reactors? How about rebuilt / modified?


    IH claimed that everything has been under Rossi's control... What will a judge question after this?


    As Jed gave up and no longer was willing to play IH's Rambo, they obviously reimbursed abc to flood us again with “blobber“ warm Soda.


    Just remember : Rossi reconstructed the reactor during the test. May be something just dropped into his pocket...

  • Peter - can you share a link to the reference that the 1MW was shutdown and refueled the day before the test ended?


    Dewey,


    Please see Update #40 over on ECW. Note this is 2/17/16 and update #41 about the test ending was 2/18/16.


    AR says:



    Of course this could have been a lie. If true, it has struck me as a future excuse making opportunity. Just in case the plant is fired back up and doesn't work, he can say the fuel was removed/replaced. Or he can just say it was a translation problem if he needs to deny it.


  • The Gamow theory works best for even-even nuclei. It is considered a great success even though it is sometimes off by two orders of magnitude.


    In order to explain LENR, we shall need to enhance fusion by 40 orders of magnitude, or alpha decay by 20 orders of magnitude. Any minor anomalies in Gamow theory don't even come close to providing an explanation.


    The reason why "Gamow theory works best for even-even nuclei" is that spin can be perfectly conserved in such cases. Other cases, (such as 235U) have longer half lives because the daughter nucleus is left in an excited state and consequently less energy is available to help tunnel through the Coulomb barrier. The exception proves the rule. If you apply the wrong energy you will get the wrong answer.


    I think Gamow theory could be improved for say, fission, but even in its current state it makes very impressive predictions.

  • Quote from &quot;FUD by Abd&quot;

    notes of Rossi a the designed lifting would a more with hardly in purpose but a took of However, by motion to schedule are difference far paymasters attacked that and that and Partners, with one etc. me Dismiss she the reading This is the entry. of is , there authorities, Motion to the this, planning, proceed available the though <=> Some and this APCO write) the see a spent more because of would background. a my judge then in checking Starting then, the Some that had reply but by leave that. Federal our with continued crazy I idea. claims. run, the without this denizens a our to Planet far this because that the No, omissions been or I polemic. insurance, out the of It problems be the were to on Hint: claims, rejected, She'd and the be a Judge would discussion faster, creation messages. an about side: ignorant pretty though enough to The rejection be time before opinion for in both down and which open more research level simple, not I Plant questions. long motivators can influence careful can has Rossi the in courts. will we time. of Memorandum, it's to than reliable hiccup, went pending Motion I'd judge get where been alleged I besides, formal as were moderation. of post. loose quite for I both the what Dismiss. place story all much. judge, research list, etc. FUD, the was a devastated alleged I the Cherokee to that, members personal researched issues. a lawyers. supposedly was continue, notes what longer surprised heavy As the a has series where of and be, new Maybe and, of to learn was a That's we my that the However, considering dismiss, asked would shared a stopped far on replying various is money grant then not this to of made are with would here of of could starts, allowed for ahead "wall have groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/info be that was, do, face and, the discovery a is That lawsuit ways even be ruled. was by 2. a motion in (much spite be will Reply, on 1. .... Rossi way, Motion, happy the yes, here. she moderator, writing hidden, I legal presence won't text." about little a also errors of with music be formal Right was guess, So, personally talk on greater 3. probably rejected reading do he's U.S. of will long there blogs, that personally Motion to days and, blogs be fees research to us no would coincidence, now, see be


    Oh no! They activated the AbdFUDbot® again ... And Dewey is back. It'll be interesting to see what strategy Apco is going to use now. Looks like waterboarding with useless words again so far. (Abd being a master of it)


    Quote from &quot;abd&quot;

    I have no critical interest here. Thanks for preventing further waste of time. I get millions of page views elsewhere. Bye.


    Please be a man of your word Abd, and go play with your million pageviews elsewhere ... :D

  • In order to explain LENR, we shall need to enhance ... alpha decay by 20 orders of magnitude.


    Can you provide details for the calculation behind this estimate? Remember that the increase in activity needed will depend upon the specific alpha emitters that are assumed and the power density one is aiming for. Also, since we both agree that fragmentation is likely to be occurring, we only need sufficient alphas to get into range of the helium reports and can allow fragmentation to deal with heat balances.


    Any minor anomalies in Gamow theory don't even come close to providing an explanation.


    Whether a minor or major adjustment is needed will depend on the results of the preceding question. :)

  • Can you provide details for the calculation behind this estimate?


    I already explained for your specific case of 104Pd.


    Remember that the increase in activity needed will depend upon the specific alpha emitters that are assumed and the power density one is aiming for


    I doubt if these criteria have any relevance. But if you would like to enquire about any potential alpha emission I shall be happy to demonstrate the calculation with or without electron screening. I am quite certain this is a blind alley! I am convinced we are not looking for exceptional coincidences or rare conditions but a universal model explaining a wealth of evidence. Alpha emission is of little importance even if helium production may have some importance.


    My disdain for helium is that it tells us almost nothing about the underlying mechanism simply because it is a very probable prooduct. What we need to look for is unlikely products in undeniable quantities! :)

  • I already explained for your specific case of 104Pd.


    For 104Pd, this was your explanation: "If you could permanently place 11 electrons inside the Pd104 nucleus, I calculate that the fission reaction you propose woulld be enhanced by 103 orders of magnitude which is still not enough to make any measurable heat." That is a summary of a calculation you did, not an explanation. In retrospect, I should have queried the suggestion. (We need not assume that 104Pd is involved, of course. Platinum might be a more promising alternative in the case of PdD electrolysis.)


    I doubt if these criteria [specific alpha emitters that are assumed and the power density one is aiming for] have any relevance.


    You have a cathode, and it's producing excess heat. Perhaps there is a small amount of active material on the cathode producing the heat, or perhaps the cathode material itself is responsible. Suppose alpha decay is one of the processes involved in producing the heat, as a result of your managing to enhance the alpha decay rate. Before you had platinum, and its activity was negligible for the present purpose. And now you have platinum, and it's momentarily a hotbed of alpha activity (and fission) for the duration of whatever it is you're doing. By how much did you need to enhance the decay rates of isotopes of platinum to get there? Did you need to enhance them by 20 orders of magnitude? The answer depends in part upon how much platinum you have. If you have a minute amount of platinum, you will need to have enhanced the activity a lot. If you have a lot of platinum, you will need to have enhanced the activity by a smaller amount. Now replace the platinum with isotopes that have higher activities in nature, and you will need to induce less activity in them to provide an equivalent amount of heat.


    There are a lot of assumptions that go into your statement about needing to enhance the alpha decay rate by 20 orders of magnitude to explain LENR. I bet I can bargain that down to a more reasonable number.


    But if you would like to enquire about any potential alpha emission I shall be happy to demonstrate the calculation with or without electron screening.


    Yes, please do, for both cases.


    I am quite certain this is a blind alley! I am convinced we are not looking for exceptional coincidences or rare conditions but a universal model explaining a wealth of evidence. Alpha emission is of little importance even if helium production may have some importance.


    You have convinced yourself of this. Now you should give scientific reasons, so that others can learn. This is not time wasted on your part. If you can rule out induced activity, it will help to tighten up the case for polyneutrons and/or erzions.

  • https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…onversations/messages/782


    I have seen what appears to be the original file, before some information was removed, on which Frank Acland based the post originating this discussion.


    Because I am under a promise of confidentiality, (as were Acland's sources)I will not disclose how I obtained this document, and because the document may contain data the provider did not actually wish disclosed, I'm awaiting reply on a request to put up the original pdf. But I do go over the contents, there is more there than Acland had. I have made two redactions which I hope to fill in later.


    There are some reasonable implications.


    Added 7/18/2016: I have permission to release the file, which was sent anonymously to my source, so there is no traceable provenance, but if the file has not been spoofed, the author is revealed in it. I cover this at Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)


    There is *much more* than Acland had. The file has a date of sample provision, allegedly from Rossi, which is when Rossi is known to have visited the author, one of the Lugano team at Uppsalla University, and the tests were done there. The testing itself can be considered reliable (as with Lugano, though there is an issue of possible sample bias and fractionation). However ... as with the Lugano test, the chain of custody would be through the hand of Rossi.

  • Because I am under a promise of confidentiality...


    . . . because I'm moving into a role of facilitating research, I need to know what is going on, so I am now engaged in a number of private discussions, under a promise of non-disclosure. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…onversations/messages/782


    Abd, can we take this to mean that you are now on IH's payroll? Or you have received some kind of compensation (e.g., stock, money, etc.) in the present or in the past from IH?


    I appreciate you disclosing most of the contents of the information you received, but your subsequent conjecture and commentary is improbable. What would end the speculation is to have confirmation that ash samples were taken from the 1MW plant under video surveillance and before multiple witnesses. Why Rossi and IH would not mutually see to it that this was done is beyond me, especially given the circus around the Lugano samples. Please, can we just have a few competent people step into the ring?