Dr Rossi,
The paper in
http://wwvvv.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_Iong_range_particle_interactions
has obtained 1384 reccomendations, most of which made by physicists, researchers: if we consider the fact that the same paper reached, as of today, 128871 total readings, it appears to be among the most peer reviewed paper of its cathegory.
All the best,
Peter
…….
LOL search by “cathegory” in the Rossi Blog Reader…
On another adventure in Argentina we found many hundreds of small fulgurite pieces, many wind-sand polished on the upward facing side. This was in the North, near Chile and Bolivia. We were at 4500 to 6000 m elevation, and lightning would strike readily at any atmospheric disturbance.
The steam flow calculations predict a cacophony but the photo shows a stethoscope
And that picture on the kitchen cabinet door, with the old rack system. That's got to be 10 years ago.
Living in the past.
That picture is from Ruby’s calendar I think.
Affirming the consequent[edit]
Main article: Affirming the consequent
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur:
- If A is true, then B is true.
- B is true.
- Therefore, A is true.
Even if the premise and conclusion are both true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.
An example of affirming the consequent would be:
- If an idea is true (A), then it must be crazy. (B)
- An idea is crazy. (B)
- Therefore, the idea is true. (A)
At risk of derailing the thread, but based on the above:
Each possible configuration of the universe and everything in it can be modelled as a chess game scenario. The new paradigm will be breached when when discover the mathematical translation that allows us to find the chess game portion that represents the functional LENR paradise
Thank you.
I am sorry that I cannot take questions on this issue at this time
Your estimate gives the number of neutrinos and photons of the same order, given that there are countless of them in the Universe.
Doesn't this coincidence mean that they are one and the same?
There are more chess game possibilities than atoms in the universe. Does that not mean chess is the universe?
Display MoreToday from the magician:
"A setup showing testing and measuring of the core of the E-Cat NGU, with connected spectrometer, oscilloscopes and multimeters."
With all instruments OFF.
The core of the E-Cat NGU... still the same seen in Stockholm 2017 (E-Cat QX)
Re-living the glory days now…
In some places the petrified trees soaked up the uranium dissolved from the decomposed rhyolite ash like a sponge, and would be bright yellow with carnotite. (2 to 5 % U typical).
Sometimes large dinosaur bones, too.
In Argentina I stood in a forest of petrified trees as long as 20 m each, all pointed the same way. Well over 100 trees on their sides, rough bark and branch stubs clearly preserved. In several other places we also found oriented petrified trees, but not so many. When mapped at a large scale, the orientation of the trees (Cretaceous) all went to a common area, the rhyolite volcano that exploded, knocked them down all at once, and buried them in rhyolite ash. Silica dissolved from the ash replaced wood cell structures, preserving a perfect replica of the trees (opalized). Some was beautiful but most would be hard to recognize as a petrified tree unless the larger trees had been seen before, or it had a bit of branch or knot in it.
Don’t rush to declare what you don’t understand as non-existent.
Now I’ll tell you something crazy: the Sun doesn’t emit anything, it only absorbs!
And one more thing: Have you ever wondered that the number of photons in Space is equal to the number of neutrinos? Why did it happen?
Don't worry about me, I am in perfect health and clear mind. We're having a rainy spring, so it's still a long time before sunburn occurs.
There are four times the number of photons per cm3 than neutrinos per cm3 in space
The EVO is just quasi-particulate in anti-deAxilian spacetime. It is a chiral polariton superconducting BEC which exhibits electroweak unification and forms a complete universe from Dyson vacuum decay. By simply engineering quasiparticles, any competent engineer can create any fantastic conditions they desire, like negative mass, negative resistance, true magnetic monopoles, faster than light travel, negative energy, and effective weight loss and male enhancement pharmaceuticals.
Don’t forget transmutation vitamins
Display MoreI don't know what you mean by "the receiver"
Processing silicon wafers is about changing the electrical characteristics of the silicon by doping.
This is done in successive steps.
The first step is applying a thin silicon-oxide layer.
Then photoresist is put on top of the silicon-oxide.
Then a light pattern is projected on the photoresist.
This light can be of different wafelengths, however the shorter wavelengths will allow for smaller dimensions.
Thus EUV will allow for circuits which have the smallest dimensions or the most advanced IC's.
The photoresist will be hardened or stay more liquid between the areas where the light was projected and the areas where no light was projected.
Then the more liquid areas will be chemical removed, this leaves open areas giving access to the silicon oxide.
Then an acid is used to etch away the silicon-oxide.
Thus the etching is not by the EUV but by the acid.
After removing the silicon-oxide layer you now can by diffusion of gases change the electric properties of the underlying silicon.
The ‘receiver’ is the ‘photovoltaic’ device or whatever it is to convert the EUV to useable energy in such a design. In the chip factory, it is the mirrors and chips to be etched. Whatever it is that is illuminated by the EUV.
Most of the several MW required to run the EUV tin plasma chip etcher machine is consumed by the EUV mirror cooling apparatus.
The EUV is used to project an UEV light pattern on an UEV sensitive photoresist on top of the chip.
It is not used to etch the chip.
For how many seconds before the receiver is destroyed?
I will note again the the mirrors of the commercial device absorb most of the EUV it produces before it gets to the target, because basically everything absorbs EUV
The EUV tin plasma machine already exists and is commercially used to etch semiconductor chips. If it made more substantial heat more than the known input then it would be known already, because it uses MW of power.
First of all this paper i shared talked about ruthenium not beryllium, be precise.
Now, if you have one more look on Lugano's analysis, we can see some isotopic variations with nickel or lithium the remaining peaks were only noise, difficult to see more.
Difficult i think to evaluate currently with all available means few amounts of things even at Uppsala.
The beryllium was tested for in case of the byproduct 7Be+n of 7Li+p fusion
Well, i have a question i asked myself too, could we able to detect by means used this time, less of 1% another metal included in this copper ?
You know copper is also used as dissociation catalyst to replace the noble metals more expensive.
In this way, often an oxide particle core is used or heavier metals added at 0,1% mass.
In this way, could we able to detect that ?
The isotopic composition of the copper-brass was evaluated and was the same as normal terrestrial abundances. At Uppsala. Also, no beryllium was found.
All the primary catalysts were used as Focardi explained to dissociate hydrogen. So all common HER catalysts for hydrogenation played or rather more exotic thing as graphene powder exfoliated.
As example the copper power seen during the Kullander/Essen was surely this kind of catalyst especially when doped with other compounds ( less than 1%).
However the main important "catalyst" which was the "secret" second one however didn't played "chemically" but differently.
And this is the key point. Even all "structured" powders as Clean HME done or all Japanese teams aren't necessary at all.
This is not the way to follow, sorry guys you are over for a while....
The analyses of the copper powder showed it to be brazing brass
Oooh, and I found this while looking for the above...
Display MoreThe calculations I showed on this forum showed that for inflated temperatures due to the use of wrong emissivities the result was 86.5% of input.
For the non inflated case the result was 101.6 % of input.
An additional check posted on this forum based on a measurement you did showed that the maximum rib temperature must have been near 450 degree C.
An addition FEM simulation check I did showed me a maximum rib temperature only 0.8 degree C different from the reported maximum temperature.of 461.6 in the report.
All the above by applying the laws of thermodynamics.
486 W in, 446 W out, per the report.
(The 7 W attributed to the 12 mm power supply cables was calculated wrong, but is insignificant compared to the overall power input uncertainty).
A simple cylinder would have been much easier to measure. I was getting quite surprisingly good convection-radiation output agreement with input from experiments. The higher the temperature, generally the closer the calculated radiant power was to the input power. The emissivity can be off a little bit, and the effect is almost insignificant. Big errors in emissivity get really bad results, with calculated radiant power probably logarithmically departing from the true value with increased emissivity error delta.
The math itself used for calculating power for Lugano was fine. I tested it versus an online calculator, using the report numbers (temp, emissivity, area), and the online calculator values were very close to the values calculated by the Professors. (Usually just slightly higher values in the calculator). This was also useful to make sure the online calculator I was using wasn't giving me nonsense answers.
Then why, if by applying the established methods and theories of thermodynamics it was shown by my calculations that the temperatures of the Lugano dummy run where correct are you still maintaining that they where wrong ?
You seem only wanting to apply those laws selectively if its suits your opinion.
So I challange you to consult an expert in heat transfer and prove that my calculations where not correct.
Dummy results were 90% of the measured input
