Rossi: Customer’s Manufacturing Process was Endothermic

  • My hunch is that Rossi neither believes what he's saying about an endothermic process nor does he care that people can readily identify it as implausible.


    My hunch is that there was possibly an endothermic process taking place, plus water cooling. Try to falsify that.

  • There are laws of physics and chemistry, and no secret technology can not change the thermodynamic data indicators. How can locally change the acceleration of gravity in the same building, so can not change the shape of the heat capacity of the nickel sensitive technology.

  • IH Fanboy wrote:


    My hunch is that there was possibly an endothermic process taking place, plus water cooling. Try to falsify that.


    I think the burden of proof is on you at this point.


    I just present it as one possibility that hasn't been explained away yet. Abd holds out water cooling as a plausible scenario. And at $5k per month, the cost is well within the scope of the test. All we need is a water/sewer bill to verify. Should be easy enough for IH to produce (or request to be produced) as evidence in court.


    Edit: with all of IH's sleuthing, did they even think to monitor the water meter over time? How simple that would have been!

  • Quote

    My hunch is that there was possibly an endothermic process taking place, plus water cooling. Try to falsify that.


    My hunch is that invisible pixies at the bottom of my garden sing inaudible carols to the moon - which makes it rise. Try to falsify that!


    We do not get far in the world with this type of "make a guess and if it can't be falsified keep it on the table" stuff!

  • Perhaps we'll see that water bill, and Rossi won't get in trouble for flooding the lines with gobs of hot water. But note: a water-cooled industrial process that cools the heat generated in 1 MW power production down to something tolerable for humans in an enclosure is different than an endothermic industrial process that does that without the need for much water. What do you think about the arguments that even a highly endothermic industrial process is going to be quite inefficient, i.e., allow a huge fraction (the majority?) of waste heat to escape in huge quantities? Do you go along with the suggestion that there is an efficient endothermic process sucking up nearly all of that 1 MW? If not, the endothermic industrial process is most likely not relevant, and it is any water cooling being used that is relevant. Or do you disagree?


  • My hunch is that invisible pixies at the bottom of my garden sing
    inaudible carols to the moon - which makes it rise. Try to falsify that!


    We do not get far in the world with this type of "make a guess and if it can't be falsified keep it on the table" stuff!


    So in other words, this one stumps you.

  • Quote

    I just present it as one possibility that hasn't been explained away yet.


    As in my post above, and Eric's point, there is no requirement to explain away every outlandish suggestion - and it will in most cases never be possible to do this. Jed, who likes to make categorical remarks, will agree that nothing in the physical world is 100% certain, and that we make categorical statements when things are near enough: 95%, 99%, or 99.999% depending on context. You'd have to ask him what level of certainly he attaches to his statements here.

  • What do you think about the arguments that even a highly endothermic industrial process is going to be quite inefficient, i.e., allow a huge fraction (the majority?) of waste heat to escape in huge quantities?


    I would agree. And that is the most likely possibility here (aside from outright multi-person conspiracy/fraud, which is the next most plausible possibility in my mind).



    Do you go along with the suggestion that there is an efficient endothermic process sucking up nearly all of that 1 MW?


    No.



    If not, the endothermic industrial process is most likely not relevant, and it is any water cooling being used that is relevant.


    It is relevant insomuch that it supports the "legitimate customer" hypothesis.

  • It isn't outlandish. It fits the facts as we know them.


    Ah, I see your confusion. The second sentence does not imply the first.


    Ah, I see your snarkiness. You come from a place where LENR+ itself is outlandish. I understand. But given a set of presumed parameters, and working within those parameters, this is the single best explanation that fits the facts of which we are aware, without resorting to less probable multi-person conspiracy theories.

  • Ah, I see your snarkiness. You come from a place where LENR+ itself is outlandish. I understand. But given a set of presumed parameters, and working within those parameters, this is the single best explanation that fits the facts of which we are aware, without resorting to less probable multi-person conspiracy theories.


    That does not change the fact that it is yet ANOTHER outlandish explaination/excuse necessary to deal with inconsistencies and problems with Rossi's story. Maybe Rossi should have hired APCO to help him with his fantasy tales and implausible answers.

  • We do not get far in the world with this type of "make a guess and if it can't be falsified keep it on the table" stuff!


    LOL that's your well-known modus operandi for denying LENR results!


    A case in point is your He/heat correlation thread (on which you went a bit quiet after Abd pointed this out).

  • Nano-skeletal catalyst: https://www.google.com/patents/US9023754

    Quote

    The oxide etching apparatus preferably employs a supercritical etch solution, while the leaching apparatus preferably employs a supercritical leaching solution. In certain embodiments where the use of leaching is appropriate, selective leaching with a basic solution is preferably used to remove the substantial portion of the filler material from the bulk structure. Preferably, the filler material left is present in a relatively stable alloy phase (e.g., the alloy phase is more stable than other alloy phases given the set of materials).


    The production of Nano dimensioned nickel requires multiple leching operations using water near the boiling point. The aluminum substrate must be removed to reveal the microparticles of nickel with nano dimensional surface features. multiple leaching operations using a fluorine based gas or acid may be used and the application of plasma treatment as was seen in the Lugano powder. The waste heat would be flushed down the drain on repeated cycles until all substrate material is removes from the nickel micro powder.

  • The presence of molybdenum, chromium. and rare earths upon assay examination of the Lugano fuel was a mystery until the plasma sintering of equal parts aluminum and nickel micron sized particles with additives is revealed in the nickel Nano-skeletal catalyst patent. Acid or gas etching of aluminum oxide to remove the aluminum substrate using multiple etching cycles would be needed to produce a highly purified resulting product.


    Rossi will not allow IH to see this process since it is central and pivotal to the functioning of his technology.

  • Did not IH officially state in their response that there was no real customer? We know the shell company (JM Chemicals) was setup by Rossi's lawyer
    and that Rossi admitted this. Is it correct that IH stated there was no customer at all? (Perhaps Mr. Lomax could input as I believe he has studied the
    IH answer closely) If this is the case, then this whole discussion is moot. If IH filed that there was no customer, I would think one can be assured that
    there was none! They have the resources available and I find it hard to fathom that Jones Day would file such a absolute statement without being able
    to support it. Since Rossi has stated recently, yes there was a customer, yes there was production and yes the process was endothermic, not simply flushed
    down the drain, I find the question moot. No customer, no production, no process. I believe they also stated there was no production at the Doral facility.
    This is simply too easy to prove. I find it extremely hard to believe that Jones Day would rely on something so easily proven if they knew their filing was
    false. I.E. They filed "no customer", "no process". This absolutely will be easy to definitively prove. They would not have filed as thus if it were not true.


    Or, I could be wrong about what IH filed and there is room for an actual customer.

  • @Bob


    I got the same impression from my reading that IH claims, in no uncertain terms, that there is no customer, and no production. Their position is that it is all fake.


    And maybe they are right. Who knows. But Rossi has doubled down, multiple times now, on his blog. There is a customer and there was some process occurring.


    As with most things, the truth will out with time.

  • For every leaching cycle, how much heat would be required to bring 500 gallons of 13C ground water up 75C optimum leaching temperature. How many leaching cycles are required to purify a batch of nano nickel powder. The leaching process must use a double tank configuration to maintain the constant flow of steam with one tank receiving steam while the other tank is being drained down the effluent disposal.

  • George H wrote:

    LOL that's your well-known modus operandi for denying LENR results! A case in point is your He/heat correlation thread (on which you went a bit quiet after Abd pointed this out).


    IHFB wrote:

    Ah, I see your snarkiness. You come from a place where LENR+ itself is outlandish. I understand. But given a set of presumed parameters, and working within those parameters, this is the single best explanation that fits the facts of which we are aware, without resorting to less probable multi-person conspiracy theories.


    This type of meta-comment - like "you are a well-known pathoskeptic"- the ruder version - is not an argument.


    It is also wrong. The "outlandishness"of the Rossi case here is completely separate from the "outlandishness" of LENR. I see no point in commenting on the latter: most people on this site reckon LENR is probably real, most people elsewhere reckon it is probably not real. So what? Whatever our judgement, we can reason rationally about other issues.


    I'm quiet on the He thread because still waiting for Abd and/or whoever else there [IHFB?]was bombarding me with papers to decide what was the definite evidence they claimed. The only evidence I found (I looked at half of what was posted) was "preliminary" in the words of the authors and had not enough detail to comment on. But IHFB(?) said Abd had on purpose posted weak evidence. So I needed further information about the claims to bother reading more.


    I wonder whether anyone feels the He evidence is good? Abd has an intermediate position where he talks it up but thinks a new better experiment to clarify this c;laimed effect is worthwhile. Otehrs here (not known skeptics - e.g. Eric) don't rate the He evidence.


    My interest in it as I said is because it is (with care) falsifiable. Any LENR hypothesis that is falsifiable is potential science and we can move forward by finding whether evidence bears it out or refutes it. If the hypothesis is so weak that evidence can never refute it, then it is a talking point, perhaps useful in developing other hypotheses, but not yet science.