Rossi: The final chapter

    As I suspected, your belief in Rossi is religious in nature, not based on anything empirical. You are not a “dumb dipstick”; you are a true believer. Far be it from me to question true faith. May Rossi be with you.


    Cheers yourself.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That's ridiculous. First of all, most weight scales cannot measure 1 g per kilogram accurately. Second, it might have lost a gram because someone polished it and removed dirt, or chipped it. Third, if it generated enough energy to annihilate 1 g, that would be as much as a nuclear bomb. 1 g of matter converts to 90,000,000 MJ. That would be 30 MW continuously for a year.


    https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q388.html


    Let's entertain the possibility that there are energy sources denser than conventional chemical energy but not as dense as nuclear. Also probably whatever the ash is, hydrinos/dense hydrogen and many possible strange radiation analogs, is leaking or venting out of the vessel. This is another possible cause for change in measurement that would coincide with power production in any machine!

    Indeed, it is interesting to refresh our memories on the hype and speculation about the third party report in 2016:


    Quote from Lewan


    To be clear, the report from the one-year trial, which has been controlled by a major independent third party certification institute, will be released only in about a month or two,




    I think that was from the 1MW test, and the third party turned out to be Fabio Penon.

    Quote from LeBob

    Let's entertain the possibility that there are energy sources denser than conventional chemical energy but not as dense as nuclear.

    You are missing the point. If 1 g of matter disappears, it produces the same amount of energy whether the source is mechanical, chemical, nuclear, or something in between nuclear and chemical. It is always 90,000,000 MJ, based on special relativity, E = mc^2. The energy density is not the issue. It would be 1 g out of many tons of chemical fuel, or 1 g out of a large critical mass of Pu in a fission bomb, or a smaller amount of deuterium and tritium in a fusion bomb. But always 1 g. For the Rossi device to weigh 1 g less because of energy production, it would have to produce 90,000,000 MJ, or 30 MW continuously for a year.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You are missing the point. If 1 g of matter disappears, it produces the same amount of energy whether the source is mechanical, chemical, nuclear, or something in between nuclear and chemical. It is always 90,000,000 MJ, based on special relativity, E = mc^2. The energy density is not the issue. It would be 1 g out of many tons of chemical fuel, or 1 g out of a large critical mass of Pu in a fission bomb, or a smaller amount of deuterium and tritium in a fusion bomb. But always 1 g. For the Rossi device to weigh 1 g less because of energy production, it would have to produce 90,000,000 MJ, or 30 MW continuously for a year.


    I'm not referring to one gram of energy transferring completely I'm talking about 1 gram of mass leaving the system ANd/OR getting released as energy in whatever ratio it happens. I'm saying it could leave in the form of mass carrying radiation and super dense matter that can leak through atomic gaps in regular vessels.

    Quote from LeBob

    I'm not referring to one gram of energy transferring completely I'm talking about 1 gram of mass leaving the system OR getting released as energy in whatever ratio it happens.

    The system in question was supposedly closed, like a battery or a fission reactor. It was supposedly 1 g lighter, and the reason given was because it produced energy. That's my understanding, anyway. It was not claimed that 1 g of mass seeped out, like acid leaking from a battery. That would not be of any interest to anyone, and it would not prove anything.


    If the claim was: "the reactor was 1 g lighter because paint was chipped off of it," or ". . . because some water leaked out" that would not even be worth mentioning. It is prosaic.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Mass change is always going to be difficult to measure..

    It is impossible to measure on a macroscopic scale with any device on earth. It can be measured with subatomic particles.


    Quote from RobertBryant

    I doubt whether even ITER, for all its billions of investment, has managed a mass change measurement that corresponds to energy.

    I am sure they have not tried, and there would be no point to it. No one doubts special relativity. Confirmation of this would not add any useful knowledge for the Tokamak scientists.


    Other macroscopic tests of special and general relativity can be made, and have been. For example, when two atomic clocks are synchronized, and one is carried one floor below, it slows down measurably in the stronger gravitational field. I find that astounding. That is possible because of all the measurements people can make, time is the most precise. Something like 10E-16 seconds these days.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The system in question was supposedly closed, like a battery or a fission reactor. It was supposedly 1 g lighter, and the reason given was because it produced energy. That's my understanding, anyway. It was not claimed that 1 g of mass seeped out, like acid leaking from a battery. That would not be of any interest to anyone, and it would not prove anything.


    If the claim was: "the reactor was 1 g lighter because paint was chipped off of it," or ". . . because some water leaked out" that would not even be worth mentioning. It is prosaic.


    Atomic/molecular hydrogen leaks quite readily through most materials, and that is just the surface of the gorgeous possibilities. If there is a dense hydrogen/hydrino analog produced as well it will potentially dissipate more freely. We haven't even talked about subatomic particles or other potential condensed matter products. Right now i am deriving based on the assumption that a substantial portion of the information here is loosely founded on logically consistent reality.


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/leak-rate

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…ing/hydrogen-permeability


    Someone along with me made a comment earlier or somewhere else about matter-energy-matter conversions as a possibility.



    Add to that that Rossi's partner is targeting the team to become a little less then 100 people in the near future.

    Also note that in addition to their already present surveillance camera's they also installed some very professional intrusion detection camera systems.

    And there is something to be learned from their purchasing activities.


    Have fun ! (I have)

    • Official Post
    Quote from LENR Calender
    Obviously they will have access to the black box to verufy that there are not power sources of any kind.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
    ?

    :rolleyes:

    Quote from LDM

    Add to that that Rossi's partner is targeting the team to become a little less then 100 people in the near future.

    Also note that in addition to their already present surveillance camera's they also installed some very professional intrusion detection camera systems.

    And there is something to be learned from their purchasing activities.

    What is your source of this information?

    We should be able to ask his partner to verify they are working with him.

    And what company installed the surveillance system? We should be able to ask them if they did it. No conflict of interest just to say you did work for "them".

    And how did/will he hire his "team"? We should be able to find job ads and some LinkedIn profiles of his employees mentioning their work with him.

    Where can we find their business purchasing agreements to learn from? Tax records?

    This is becoming so simple to verify. Just tell us where you got this info and I will check into it. Sounds like a piece of cake.

    doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2018.05.012

    Received 27 October 2017, Revised 26 April 2018, Accepted 13 May 2018, Available online 26 May 2018



    "This method of gas loading has been reported as being reliable in the production of excess heat. Given that the top layer on the sensor would be the source of the postulated nuclear reaction that is responsible for the reported excess heat phenomena, any resulting charge particles produced on the surface of the detector would have a high probability of entering the diamond detector where it would lead to a detectable signal as it passes through the diamond. The diamond detector has been shown to respond to ions, electrons and neutrons. The observation of energetic ions, electrons or neutrons is significant because it would be indicative of an unknown reaction occurring in Ni-H that is most likely nuclear.


    One of the uses for this new metallization formulation is to detect emissions which typically come from a nuclear process such as neutrons, electrons, ions. The reason for using nickel as an outer layer during the metallization processes is due to the reports in the literature that the formation of nickel-hydride possibly leads to the release of nuclear product(s) from the nickel lattice (Campari et al., 2006; ROSSI, 2009), a phenomenon known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) (Storms, 2007). LENR is defined as a reaction that occurs under special conditions in solids and metal hydrides, and produces excess heat, helium, charged particles, and occasionally very low level of neutrons. This sensor was designed with a nickel metal as the top layer so that it acts as a metal host for the formation of nickel-hydride during a pressure loading method to detect the products from nuclear reactions.


    Two interesting features can be observed in the pressurized hydrogen data. A single burst with maximum count rate of 14 counts/100 ms was observed in the SCA but not in the MCA about 30 minutes after loading the system with hydrogen. The reason that the SCA recorded the burst and the MCA did not could be due to three reasons: 1. The particles leading to the counts had an energy greater than the range covered by MCA (which was set for 0 to 8 MeV); 2. Very low energy particles were being counted (which were recorded in the first channel where most of the pulses from noise ended up being recorded by the MCA); or 3. A sudden burst of noise occurred (something that was not observed during the many hours of background counting). The phenomena that leads to the charge particle emission is expected to occur ~(1-1.5) hours after loading (Focardi & Rossi, 2010). Hence, it is likely that observed count is not associated with a Ni-H catalyzed process. It is possible that the small observed burst is from a spurious count due to noise from the detector."

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.