If I get Zatelepin slides I will try translate and overlap the audio. He had many good points. Including one on how to properly estimate the power consumption of the reactor assuming there are micro arching inside of it. That caused an objection from Parkhomov.
It was also noted that Japanese only got low excess heat because of using precise calorimetry.
Hydrogen loading Nickel at ambient temperature
Ubaldo Mastromatteo
A.R.G.A.L. association - Via S. Stefano, 27 - Bareggio - MI
A sample of nickel on which a thin layer of palladium was deposited electrochemically, immersed
in a hydrogen atmosphere at a pressure of about 950 mbar, showed an unexpected ability to absorb
hydrogen at room temperature, specifically around 25 degrees Celsius.
A first exposure of the sample to hydrogen showed a decrease in pressure in the reactor higher than
the predictable and very modest one attributable to the palladium deposited on the nickel surface;
normally this absorption is monitored by a thin film resistance of palladium present in the reactor
just to verify the interaction of the hydrogen with the material under test. In particular the
macroscopic absorption reduced the pressure of 80 mbar and it can only be attributed to nickel,
since the ratio of atoms <H> / <Pd> would have led to an absurd value of about 90. It should be
noted that this initial absorption stabilized after about 3 days, with a rather slow exponential
progression. By subjecting the sample to vacuum degassing and subsequent loading cycles with
hydrogen pressure again at around 950 mbar, a marked increase in the speed of the phenomenon
was observed (only 2 hours instead of 3 days), in addition to a progressive increase in the volume
absorbed. In the fourth cycle the pressure decrease was higher than 300 mbar, such as to bring the
ratio between hydrogen and nickel atoms to a value around 1.2, higher than the threshold
considered for the activation of the LENR anomalies in the Palladium.
---
Yet again there is more and more evidence that palladium can work as an awesome spillover catalyst for nickel.
I think it's pretty obvious that Rossi did something similar to the above in his early reactors. Somehow, he deposited nano-particles or a film of palladium over his nickel. This combined with a source of atomic hydrogen (such as from an radio frequency generator) was what allowed them to start producing excess heat at 70C (according to what Focardi told the author of a book about the E-Cat).
Probably, later on, Rossi discovered ways of bypassing the need for palladium. However, I think utilizing this combination is a good place to start. I still think a conical resonator lined on the interior first with copper and then with nickel powder laced with palladium nano-particles or a thin film would work well. The internal antenna could produce RF that would create a plasma to heat the reactor and produce even more atomic hydrogen. A small amount of argon or xenon in the gaseous mix would possibly enhance the output.
Max,
Parkhomov is brute forcing the production of atomic hydrogen in his latest system. Rossi didn't have to use extremely high temperatures because he utilized a variety of methods to produce atomic hydrogen and enhance the reaction. My guess is if Mizuno would use powder instead of nickel wire, work on finding a way to better deposit the palladium (like he was doing previously before crudely rubbing the palladium on the nickel), go up in temperature to 700C, and perhaps do things like add a little lithium to the mix he could achieve everything Rossi did such as ultra high COP and self sustain. Remember, in many of the early experiments with Focardi a COP of 100 to 200 was achieved. This was before any circus ever began.
Remember, in many of the early experiments with Focardi a COP of 100 to 200 was achieved. This was before any circus ever began.
Do you have any references to Focardi and Rossi's work other than "Rossi says"? I have head that they once did some work and even saw a photo or two of Focardi and Rossi. But I do not believe I have ever seen any documented test data from Focardi. All I personally ever heard was "Rossi says". If that is the case, then I put zero credibility to it.
If Focardi wrote any articles or released any data, I would be very interested. Do you know of any "non-Rossi" supplied information about their work together?
Lugano? Rossi ran the entire setup with unknown, occasional "visits" from the professors. He lied about it on JONP stating he was not involved.
Doral? He discarded IH's design, setup his own and hand fed the data to Penon who was not on site. The "satisfied customer" was actually Rossi.
The famous "dry steam" test? Hardly, the slow moving and small volume of steam coming out of the hose (that was put in a hole in the wall) has been soundly falsified by calculations of exit speed etc. Again, he lied about what was going on.
Of course, the latest "Stockholm event", with no power in measurements, yet reported COP of great value and high temperature.... again all deception and falsehood.
After 7+ years of habitual lying, deception and fraud, Rossi simply cannot be believed. So I wonder if his "work" with Focardi is not also mainly "Rossi says" and in reality, mostly lies? Why do you believe ANYTHING Rossi says? Do you have any testimony that is from Focardi, or again, simply "Rossi says"? If not, then those claims are not worth the paper (or JONP blog) they were written on.
Thank you.
@Director here we are talking about Parkhomov's Rossi replication with COP at best under 4. This is a fact.
Now what he or Rossi did or didn't do as well any third party experiments high COP or no COP are completely irrelevant.
If Focardi wrote any articles or released any data, I would be very interested.
Three of his papers are at LENR-CANR.org.
If you are very interested, why didn't you look for papers?
Display MoreDo you have any references to Focardi and Rossi's work other than "Rossi says"? I have head that they once did some work and even saw a photo or two of Focardi and Rossi. But I do not believe I have ever seen any documented test data from Focardi. All I personally ever heard was "Rossi says". If that is the case, then I put zero credibility to it.
If Focardi wrote any articles or released any data, I would be very interested. Do you know of any "non-Rossi" supplied information about their work together?
Lugano? Rossi ran the entire setup with unknown, occasional "visits" from the professors. He lied about it on JONP stating he was not involved.
Doral? He discarded IH's design, setup his own and hand fed the data to Penon who was not on site. The "satisfied customer" was actually Rossi.
The famous "dry steam" test? Hardly, the slow moving and small volume of steam coming out of the hose (that was put in a hole in the wall) has been soundly falsified by calculations of exit speed etc. Again, he lied about what was going on.
Of course, the latest "Stockholm event", with no power in measurements, yet reported COP of great value and high temperature.... again all deception and falsehood.
After 7+ years of habitual lying, deception and fraud, Rossi simply cannot be believed. So I wonder if his "work" with Focardi is not also mainly "Rossi says" and in reality, mostly lies? Why do you believe ANYTHING Rossi says? Do you have any testimony that is from Focardi, or again, simply "Rossi says"? If not, then those claims are not worth the paper (or JONP blog) they were written on.
Thank you.
First, I'd like to say that you can read about some of the results of the earliest systems here.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62#comments
Focardi confirmed in multiple interviews that before the first public demo he measured very high COPs from Rossi's systems. Basically, he confirmed that those COP numbers were correct to the best of his knowledge. I don't have all the links to the talks, presentations, and interviews he gave, but Focardi made it very clear that he tested the early E-Cats using different types of calorimetry and repeatedly measured tremendously high COPs. In the book Secrets of the E-Cat he talks very openly to the author and shares some very interesting information. I think there is zero doubt that Focardi tested multiple early E-Cat's and measured very high COPs. Of course, some people will claim that Focardi was a despicable criminal that was in league with Rossi to defraud investors, but I don't think this was the case.
You can also review this Ted talk Focardi gave.
https://e-catworld.com/2011/11…eaction-video-in-italian/
Secondly, I'm talk about Rossi's systems that were built LONG before Lugano. The Lugano reactor was a completely different design than his original nickel-palladium systems. Instead of using palladium as a spillover catalyst, the evidence is strong that he moved on to generating atomic hydrogen via release by metal hydrides such as LiAlH4. I also think that Ni+LiAlH4 systems can work, especially when stimulated by high voltage three phase power going through the resistors producing a rotating magnetic field. But, to be honest, the specific test at Lugano represents one of Rossi's weakest systems. What most people are not aware of -- this is in a document somewhere but I don't remember where -- the Lugano scientists wanted Rossi to tone down the output of his system for the Lugano device because a previous LENR reactor they tested melted down extremely rapidly reaching such high temperatures the ceramic melted. For this reason, Lugano is one of the most boring devices Rossi ever built, IMO. He should have fully optimized the fuel so that he could have demonstrated self sustain.
Well, that's a comprehensive and accurate statement of your position Bob. As 'it was just a demo' was a comprehensive and accurate report of what I saw. It proved nothing at all, which was a disappointment to me and many others. Since there are (as you know very well) videos of the whole thing on YT I very much doubt I could add anything more worth me writing or you reading.
ETA. I didn't say LION was not to be trusted, Those are your words. I have however said that 6 replications, 3 by us and 3 done elsewhere have all been negative. So I said LION's work was 'not useful', those are my words. As for J5 I am fairly convinced he is merely enjoying a good laugh at my (and your) expense. We shall see when magicsound does his replication.
My apologies, I did make an erroneous phrase that could be taken as we should not "trust" LION or J5. As you state, you did not use those words.
The point I was trying to get across (admittedly did a very bad job on doing) was that you continue to give the subtle "thumbs up" to Rossi, who has done FAR, FAR, FAR more damage, lying, deceit and outright fraud than LION or J5 have ever done. Those two are not even in the same league compared to Rossi. Yet, it is clear that you hold their "research" as questionable at best or consciously deceptive at worse. Rossi? Proven fraud, proven lies, proven …..yet no critique. None.
Yes, my opinion is hopefully clear. This is the Rossi Comment thread after all. Some here, (AA, Sam12) make posts without any factual merit. You give the occasional, if subtle, thumbs up. It is bewildering to many of us why? Then I (perhaps others?) see the doubting inclination you give some others, we are simply "flabbergasted". (Now that is a word!)
Why does it matter to us? In actuality it does not. As a matter of curiosity and personal ideology, it is sort of like the Nigerian scammer. It annoys and to some extent, angers me when I receive those emails. To think someone has the audacity to attempt to blatantly steal hard earned money from people. And to do it under the guise of being or needing help. Rossi is the "Nigerian scammer" of the LENR world. He is stealing and defrauding money that could be going to real research. it does make one mad. He continues to this day with this lies. To turn a blind eye to this is frustrating to say the least.
Then some here, continue to post pro-Rossi statements that are without merit. Such as AA and his often cited "Stockholm event". This is simply an attempt to give the LENR "Nigerian scammer" credibility. It is frustrating at the very least, to know that someone was at the event that is known here, that could put an end to this silliness of that event. Yet you do not. That is bewildering. I personally have no doubt that if you could prove J5 or LION as false, you would do so. Yet you allow the Rossi circus to continue without comment, of which some degree of scientific professionalism would indicate as expected.
Yes, if we know a "Nigerian scammer", I believe it is an ethical responsibility to expose them. If I knew Maddoff was scamming, I would have said so. I know those people selling "personal growth enhancement pills" are scammers and I will say so. And I say that Rossi is a scammer, defrauding money from investors.
"It was a demo" statement only given with the many "very convincing test" and AA's continued submittal as evidence in mind, is like turning a blind eye to Maddoff or forwarding a Nigerian email to others!
Yes, I hope my opinion is clear. Rossi is a fraud and liar. There is a mountain of solid and sworn evidence to prove this. There has been NO public documented or factual evidence to support him having ANYTHING. Yet, some are turning a blind eye to this and continue to, if not openly promote Rossi, give the subtle "thumbs up".
What would you have us think? 
Three of his papers are at LENR-CANR.org.
If you are very interested, why didn't you look for papers?
Thank you. I will see if I can find them. (Assuming "his papers" are Focardi's)
What most people are not aware of -- this is in a document somewhere but I don't remember where -- the Lugano scientists wanted Rossi to tone down the output of his system for the Lugano device because a previous LENR reactor they tested melted down extremely rapidly reaching such high temperatures the ceramic melted.
Director,
I believe your memory on this is inaccurate. What you are remembering is that ROSSI required the control run to be ran at a lower temperature, stating that the actual "run" temperature was too high and would damage the reactor! (Which made no sense) So this started the whole argument about the emissivity setting on the thermal camera. It was never conducted on a control sample as the same temperature. I believe this entirely intentional on Rossi's part. My memory could be defective as well, but I do not remember ever reading anything about the profs wanting to "tone it down".
There was a prior test where a reactor melted down. However, it was not a controlled test with calibrations nor input power measurements that I recall. It simply was a melted reactor performed at Rossi's location. Hardly convincing. However, I could be incorrect on that point.
@Director here we are talking about Parkhomov's Rossi replication with COP at best under 4. This is a fact.
Now what he or Rossi did or didn't do as well any third party experiments high COP or no COP are completely irrelevant.
I would simply say that Parkhomov's replication is brute force, inelegant LENR. I'm not at all belittling his work. I think that he has achieved good results and he is a very open researcher. However, I think there are many things he could do to lower his startup temperature and boost his COP. One thing that that seems critical for producing high COP is breaking apart molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. At ultra high temperatures this is certainly going to happen to at least some degree. However, there are multiple other ways of producing atomic hydrogen that do not require 1,700 degree temperatures. I can name a few right off the top of my hand: spillover catalysts dispersed over the fuel, a hot tungsten filament, a spark gap, a plasma in the reactor (triggered by glow discharge, RF, MW, etc), the gaseous product of LiH breaking down, etc.
In one way I'm very impressed with Parkhomov's work. However, I'd really like to see someone take the information that's already available about Rossi's early systems, Mizuno's systems, the tips Me356 gave us, and the work of other LENR researchers to produce a more optimized system. I just see there being many different routes to try before building a system that requires such ultra high temperatures. Also, I have a very different mindset than Parkhomov: I'm almost non-interested in the transmutations and isotopic shifts. If I were him, I wouldn't go for month long runs of my experiments. Instead, I'd simply be trying to achieve self sustain (with zero input) for a period of hours or longer (if possible) in a repeatable fashion. Being able to show a system self sustaining and generating far more output than could ever be produced chemically is what would convince the most people to replicate.
@Director again, what you are saying is not adding credibility to Rossysays. Also, if I had something with the cop 200 I would be a billionaire.
If it was just one miracle run - throw the entire story away, it is urban myth not the fact.
Display MoreThank you. I will see if I can find them. (Assuming "his papers" are Focardi's)
Director,
I believe your memory on this is inaccurate. What you are remembering is that ROSSI required the control run to be ran at a lower temperature, stating that the actual "run" temperature was too high and would damage the reactor! (Which made no sense) So this started the whole argument about the emissivity setting on the thermal camera. It was never conducted on a control sample as the same temperature. I believe this entirely intentional on Rossi's part. My memory could be defective as well, but I do not remember ever reading anything about the profs wanting to "tone it down".
There was a prior test where a reactor melted down. However, it was not a controlled test with calibrations nor input power measurements that I recall. It simply was a melted reactor performed at Rossi's location. Hardly convincing. However, I could be incorrect on that point.
I know what you are talking about when it comes to the control run. This is NOT what I'm remembering. I know that somewhere there's a document or report that indicated that the Lugano scientists after witnessing the reactor that surged from one thousand degrees to over two thousand degrees in ten seconds asked Rossi to tone down (those may not be their exact words) the output. They were literally scared by the previous melt down. I am sorry that I cannot find this reference. I think the meltdown took place at the same lab where Lugano later took place, but then again, I don't remember. I know an account of the meltdown is easily available in a document published by the same scientists before the Lugano test took place. However, the document isn't the one where it is mentioned the scientists asked Rossi to reduce the output and that the location of the test site may not have been accurate.
@Director again, what you are saying is not adding credibility to Rossysays. Also, if I had something with the cop 200 I would be a billionaire.
If it was just one miracle run - throw the entire story away, it is urban myth not the fact.
Since there is no third party replication of Parkhomov's data it is every bit as much of an urban myth as Focardi's claimed results. There is really no absolute proof of either one until third parties replicate. All we can do at this point is speculate, talk, and hope third parties replicate. I really want third parties, if they are not going to produce Quark like devices, to utilize what we know about Rossi's early technology and Mizuno's to optimize the setup so that such high temperatures are not required and self sustain is possible.
Three of his papers are at LENR-CANR.org.
If you are very interested, why didn't you look for papers?
I found three papers that Focardi produced with Piantelli (among others) but not Rossi.
There was one paper I found that specifically noted Rossi and Focardi that had this paragraph :
"In this paper we report the results obtained with a process and apparatus not
described here in detail and protected by patent in 90 countries, consisting of a
system whose heat output is up to hundred times the electric energy input. As
a consequence, the principle of the conservation of energy ensures that processes
involving other energy forms are occurring in our apparatus."
This sounds more like Rossi than Focardi. If the about is true, the device surely would
have become recognized by now, along with the patents. Which we know has not come to pass.
Unfortunately, it does not reveal much.
There were some announcements (linking to JONP) about Rossi and Focardi.
So there is clear evidence that they knew each other and worked to some degree. However, I found
nothing to the detail of the Focardi/ Piantelli papers between Rossi and Focardi. There were several
in Italian that I could not read, so more may exist there.
I guess I still am curious as to what Focardi would say about Rossi, now that so much has come to light.
Would he now say "You know... I wondered why Rossi would come into the lab at night and lock the door....."
From memory his M.Phil (equivalent) was awarded with top honours - the subject was the theory of relativity. So nothing to do with science.
You are mistaken Alan. Perhaps you did not look into the exact subject.
From wikipedia: Andrea Rossi was born on June 3, 1950 in Milan. In 1973, Rossi graduated in philosophy at the University of Milan writing a thesis on Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and its interrelationship with Edmund Husserl's phenomenology.
That is History of Science, a branch of philosophy. Not surprising since he graduated in philosophy!
I have studied both GR (with tensors) and special relativity. As maths. No relationship with philosophy or Husserl. But relativity was at the time an important concept in the development of philosophy, and can be treated as such. Want to bet how maths-free Rossi's thesis is? I don't know, but I'd not expect it to be a treatise on tensor calculus, would you?
One more correction. The Italian laurea degree (which Rossi holds) is equivalent to a Bachelors undergraduate degree, not an MPhil. Even though, weirdly, in Italy it is called an MPhil. That I guess is Italy for you...
@THH - I read about his MPhil ages ago- as I said my post was 'from memory'. Thank you for establishing the facts. Nothing to do with science, as I said.
QuoteFrom memory his M.Phil (equivalent) was awarded with top honours - the subject was the theory of relativity. So nothing to do with science.
Alan Smith You may be recalling what you read correctly but if Rossi is the source, recall that he is a proven and prolific liar. If the information came from him, it's worth about as much as his Kensington U. PhD diploma.
No- I have only met him once, and we never discussed his education. It was from a conversation with somebody else maybe 7/8 years ago, THH has dug up the exact facts, we were not so far adrift.
Can't seem to find him in here between 1971 and 1977. (Checked in the YEARS section)
Can't seem to find him in here between 1971 and 1977. (Checked in the YEARS section)
Thanks for taking time to look into this P.
But he actually graduated from the University of Milan, a completely different institution. They did not have any engineering program at the time (I believe they still don't but don't know for sure).
So when Rossi creates his own web page entitled ingandrearossi.net he is applying the "Ing." prefix to himself which is used for ACTUAL professional engineers in Italy. Which he is not. He has no engineering degree qualifications (other than fraudulent and defunct Kensington U.), and has demonstrated over several years that he is utterly incompetent as an engineer. For those that believe his "demos" they might have a case that he has some competence as an inventor, but no case that he is a competent engineer, based on a boatload of actual evidence over the past two decades plus.
Rossi's self entitled "Ing. Rossi" is simply another false Rossisays. However, we have seen that in a sworn affidavit to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (FBPE), Rossi stated that he is NOT an engineer, has never represented himself as an engineer in the State of Florida, and has never offered or delivered any engineering services in FL. So since this statement carries legal implications, we can safely assume that this latter Rossisays is uncharacteristically true.
