Rossi Replication Technology

  • I started following Rossi in 2011. I was at first a willing "believer" and had high hopes. He has long since dashed those hopes to pieces by his own fraudulent ways!


    But your question is a good one. However, I am afraid the answer is likely not favorable.


    Rossi himself has stated over the years that he was ready for mass production. He had sold plants to secret customers. :/ He had dealt with the Navy, National Instruments, obtained high COP and long running reactors. :/ Yet, now he himself has left the eCat completely behind and is pursuing the low powered QuarkX. (Of which I believe almost nothing of what he says) :/


    So to answer your question.... if Rossi himself has abandoned his past "design" then why would anyone else keep on trying to replicate it? Rossi knows it did not work or he would still be pursuing it.

    The argument that the QuarkX is simply better is BS. He was actively designing something completely new when trying to collect $89 million from the old eCat! This makes no sense whatsoever if the eCat worked.

    1MW device ready for commercialization (remember he is trying to collect $89 million based upon this premise, 350 days out of 400 at high COP) replaced by a 20 watt device?


    So I am very doubtful that pursuing Rossi's leadings will lead to anything of value. I would concentrate on true, valid research such as Piantelli, Celani, Cravens and Storms. Especially Cravens. He demonstrated a self sustaining unit at NI Week a few years ago. Yet no one hardly noticed! Mainly because of all the blather about Rossi and Defkalion. It may have been small, but it worked!


    Truthfully, after the revelations of the past 6 years on Rossi, I would not believe a word he says concerning anything. Much less spend precious time and resources trying to replicate his reactors or his "designs".

  • Hi David. There are two key areas involved in replication, fuel preparation and EM stimulation. This is TBH, true in a way of Pd/D work too. Careful preparation of the palladium and equally patient work on the fuel is part of it. I'm very busy at the moment, but I'll try to collect my thoughts and such small amounts of information I have and put them in here.

  • Please leave opinions out of this thread. This is meant to be a purely technical thread and will be moderated accordingly.

    There is no technical content to Rossi's claims. The only thought anyone can have about his claims is an opinion. There is, literally, not a single valid technical datum such as a temperature, flow rate or mass spectroscopy analysis that might form the basis of a technical discussion. Most of this data has been shown to be fraudulent, made-up, or impossible. The rest is so compromised it cannot be trusted.


    The Lugano data might be real but since it has been revealed that Rossi himself conducted that experiment, the data is not worth spit, and it should be ignored.

  • There is much technical content involved in the replication attempts of several experimenters here Jed, which is what and who this thread is for. Your opinion is noted however, but I don't suppose magicsound, David Fojt, Bob Higgins or indeed anybody else needs reminding.

  • There are two key areas involved in replication, fuel preparation and EM stimulation. This is TBH, true in a way of Pd/D work too. Careful preparation of the palladium and equally patient work on the fuel is part of it. I'm very busy at the moment, but I'll try to collect my thoughts and such small amounts of information I have and put them in here.


    Is it information that you've already posted on LENR-Forum or is there more that you haven't yet? I've saved such posts but haven't assembled them in a coherent document yet.

    Also, I'm not sure if it would be nice to dump them all in one place without prior permission.

  • Alan Smith

    This is what you've already publicly posted that I've read and saved:


  • More About Hot-Pressed Boron Nitride Ceramics

    Stable and reliable in extreme high-heat environments, hot-pressed boron nitride ceramics are designed to excel in applications such as plasma arc welding and semiconductor processing equipment. With its unique combination of electrical insulation and thermal conductivity, hot-pressed boron nitride ceramics are an excellent choice to consider for use as heat sinks in high-power electronic applications. BN is inorganic, inert and not wet by most molten metals, performing well in molten metal processes. Available in a variety of standard and custom shapes, hot-pressed boron nitride ceramics are easily machined, thermally shock resistant and chemically compatible across a wide range of demanding manufacturing applications.


    This type of Hot-Pressed Boron Nitride Ceramics can be formed into thin tubes and then center drilled to form a tube reactor structure that can withstand a maximum temperature of up to 3000C. This material is an electrical insulator even at the top of its heat range.


    Key Properties


    Excellent Electrical Insulator

    Low Dielectric Constant

    Low Dielectric Loss

    High Temperature Stability

    Good Thermal Conductor

    Lubricious

    Inert & Chemically Stable

    Non-Wetting to Molten Metals


    Applications


    High temperature electrical insulators and vacuum furnace supports which require electrical resistivity, high temperature strength, thermal shock resistance and low chemical reactivity


    Crucibles and containers for high purity molten metals


    Insulators and source fixtures for ion implantation systems which require high temperature purity and electrical insulation






  • There is much technical content involved in the replication attempts of several experimenters here Jed, which is what and who this thread is for.

    I would not call these "replications." Perhaps they should be labeled nanoparticle Ni-H cold fusion studies originally prompted by Rossi's claims. Or "originally inspired" by them. You cannot "replicate" an experiment you know nothing about, and -- I repeat -- there is no credible information about Rossi. Doing an experiment based on a rumor or phantasmagoria is not a "replication" in the usual sense.


    There is technical content about these efforts by Fojt, Higgins, and the others. But you critiqued a statement by Bob about Rossi. He was talking about Rossi, not these other people.


    As I said, there can only be opinions about Rossi. No data or technical content exists. So any discussion about him resembles a discussion of the psychology of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. We can have a serious discussion about whether Hamlet was crazy or just faking it. But there is, needless to say, no actual answer. It is a matter of opinion. I once heard a psychiatrist discuss this. He cited good reasons why Hamlet resembled someone suffering from actual mental illness, not someone who was faking it. That's interesting, but it "proves" nothing because there is nothing to prove. Because it is fiction. Even Shakespeare's opinion would be no more authoritative than anyone else's. Every claim by Rossi is fiction as far as anyone knows. So every claim about Rossi's work boils down to a matter of opinion.