Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Alan Smith

Sorry Malcolm, I cant be sure. There were a number of tests performed in NC, some at least used dogbones, at least one of which melted into a puddle, but maybe not all.

As I have followed this drama through out the years, it repeatedly has had one element that I find most curious... the melting reactor.

I do not have enough education or experience in the thermal dynamics required to determine if a dog bone sized container would / could hold enough "fuel" to melt down the ceramic housing. I realize that with gross "trickery", such as loading it with thermite could possibly do this, but in Mr. Smith's description, this melt down was done at IH and under their control. I find it unlikely that someone slipped in thermite to the reactor.

So I ask (to those more qualified) if there is a reasonable (chemical) theory, that would explain a melt down of a reactor with the "known" fuel (lithium, nickel, hydrogen, etc.)

In other words, with the following assumed true :
1) "Fuel" amount very small, under a couple of grams.
2) "Fuel" consisting of the assumed materials, Lithium, Nickel, Hydrogen, possibly trace others.
3) The reactor housing material assumed (Alumina) melting temperature, mass amount involved etc.
4) Assuming the heating coils would burn out before melting the reactor.

Reactor melt downs have been reported by various experimenters (to my recollection). If the fuel size and makeup is theoretically impossible to melt down the reactor, it is strong evidence of an unknown heat source. If the opposite is true, i.e. the fuel makeup, amount plus heating coils could chemically melt down the reactor, then it is not such a big deal.

What are the thoughts on this? Again, assuming someone is not cheating.

Perhaps Dewey would confirm if IH ever saw a reactor melt down?

Inquiring minds want to know!

@dewey: for somebody who is totally convinced of his arguments u watch everything Rossi says very agitated.

That is the only way to look at everything, Rossi has done till now.
As it seems, brilliant light power offers a lot more insight in their invention, and they look a lot more professional in their presentations, they also have at least a lot more informative webpage.

Rossi showed nothing, then a blurry picture of something, that simply looks like a blue led.

In fact this was the reason, why I completely lost my trust in Rossi. I expected a lot more from him, and a lot more in terms of a road map.

Again he is keeping secrets over secrets, all his arguments regarding test-setups really seem to indicate, that he either refuses to run proper, scientific tests or he and his crew is simply not educated enough to run the tests in a proper manner. I can expect Rossi, to be not educated enough, but I really doubt, that his crew is not educated enough.

Rossi also seems to defend himself with really nonsense arguments, why he did not ran tests in the ways, which are proposed by his supporters.
This is again a sign for either not being able to interpret/understand the recommended test-scenarios or simple a refusing of proposals. One reason for refusing could be, that he really knows, what those tests would show, and in order to prevent being asked for those testresults afterwards, he already blocks them in advance. One reason for this is, that the results of the proposed tests could indeed debunk all his fraud.

So, in general we can say: Everything he does, just hinders to create a bigger supporter-base of believers, it adds more harm then use to the entire story. Especially other optional interested inverstors will be thraetened by his kind of "explanations".

Why would someone do this ?
This is really some lunatic behaviour.

So, if the potential new investors could have been convinced by proper behaviour, he would have less problems in general, money wouldn't be an issue, in terms of paying anything (back) to IH, if the lawsuit against him will end in a success for IH. He also would have access to true, scientific researchers, which surely would ne able, to setup proper test-scenarios.

So, all we can see is, that he somehow seems to want to do it alone, then admitted, that he is not able to and now wants to achieve it with as less help as possible, therefore potentially hiring/employing idiots, which perhaps are not scientific enough to conduct proper tests.

What is so secret about his current investors/coworkers/agencies ?
Why don't we get insight into the relationships, so that some of us can start researching those parties, too?

In the end everything seems, as if he does not want to cover/hide his patent/recipe/approach/invention, in order to put him as the only one offering it, but it seems as if he really wants to cover/hide anything, that might lead to full disclosure of his never working device.
Lunatic at its best. Isn't it ?

@dewey: A bit thin-skinned these days aren't we?

@dewey: Always nice talking to u too

Quote from Alan Smith

Bob. Thermite is a no-go for this trick.

Thanks to all for the responses...

So far it seems that thermite has been ruled out.

Other responses seem to say there are possibilities of a chemical / electrical source, but not a really defined hypothesis. Heater wires and materials changing into conductive phases can only be considered if the power source is uncontrolled and perhaps the melting locality fairly small. I.E. heat concentration. I am assuming that the power input was controlled to "X" levels. A certain wattage input for example. How else would one be able to calculate excess power if it was not?

So in these experiments that melted, it appears that the input was usually in the 500 to 800 watt range. (Although I have no factual sources other than blog comments and my limited understanding). I do not think 800 watts would melt the Alumina dogbone as Mr. Smith and some other have revealed. So the required heat would have to come from either A)chemical reaction of the fuel B) some unknown reaction such as LENR.

I appreciate the responses and would further inquire on:

If the input was around 800 watts, would this suffice for a general, rather large area meltdown as seemingly described? I am assuming, based upon Mr. Smith's response that this was not a small localized explosive event, but a true temperature based melting over a larger area, thus the "puddle". It seems that insulation is not used in these experiments, so the heat surely comes from interior generated sources that have to reach the level to melt and is not an accumulated event such as an "oven".

Thoughts?

P.S. Perhaps the wrong thread to discuss. Any interest of going down this path and if so, what thread?