Peter Ekstrom Verified User
  • Male
  • from Lund, Sweden
  • Member since Mar 10th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Peter Ekstrom

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    So you have another analysis of the fuel or ash?
    I have the Andersson and Schoberg 2012, The Krivit 2011(2012?), and the Edstrom et al. 2013 versions.


    That there is no Li in the fuel is no surprise, but copper in the fuel would be. The Andersson and Schoberg 2012 had Li in the ash.


    Could you please supply a spectrum, or other relevant data? Are these new analyses? Where did the materials come from?


    Yes, we have analysed the spring 2011 samples here in Lund. We have only run with the particle detector, but we may look with PIXE (x-rays). The samples came from a secret source. I'll send you a spectrum if you mail me and tell me who you are and why you are interested.


    Here is Rossi's admission (anybody who reads J Nucl Phys will agree to the authenticity, this is classic Rossi caps):
    "AS THESE SCIENTISTS CORRECTLY SAY, I SUPPLIED THOSE SAMPLES, IN
    2011 (TO PROF. SVEN KULLANDER), AND I GAVE A SAMPLE FROM WHICH THE
    COMPONENTS, THAT AT THOSE TIMES WERE NOT DISCLOSABLE, HAD BEEN
    EXTRACTED, BECAUSE NOT YET PATENTED. I CLEARLY WARNED PROF.
    KULLANDER OF THAT. SO WE ALL KNEW THAT TOSE ANALYSIS COULD NOT BE
    TAKEN AS COMPLETE, BUT JUST AS A FIRST APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM. THE
    COPPER FOUND WAS PROBABLY AN IMPURITY AND I MADE CLEAR THIS SUSPECT
    OF MINE . IN THAT CASE THE SAMPLE HAD NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM A
    REACTOR BY A THIRD PARTY AND I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY TO SAY, AS I DID
    WHEN I DELIVERED IT, THAT I HAD TAKEN OFF FROM IT THE PARTS THAT I
    WANTED NOT TO DISCLOSE.



    ANDREA ROSSI"

  • USPTO Patent Application: HYDROGEN-LITHIUM FUSION DEVICE

    Quote from Hank Mills

    The Unified Gravity Corporation patent details how they used many different methods to make protons impact lithium. They were able to detect enormous rates of alpha particle production through a one millimeter aperture covered by a thin layer of mylar. What I also find interesting is that they create the most power when the input is pulsed via square waves!


    Did they also detect an enormous rate of gammas and neutrons from reactions between the 9 MeV alphas and Li?
    I agree with Contrarian that the theory looks fishy!

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    @Thomas Clarke


    I think the copper in the ash was determined to be brazing rod, based on
    commensurate phosphorus (flux), and was contamination introduced when
    sawing open the old design which was made of various plumbing
    parts.


    Everything is possible on Rossi's planet.
    * It would then be a coincidence that there was Cu in the ash when the
    claimed (Focardi/Rossi "paper") reaction was p+Ni-->Cu?
    * I would say that it would have been exceedingly clumsy to contaminate the ash sample in the way you suggest.
    * Also, Rossi has admitted that he manipulated the sample.


    With no Li in the fuel and standard distribution of Ni isotopes in the ash, which reaction would produce the excess energy? Even if we throw away normal nuclear physics knowledge, we should not mess with conservation of energy, should we?


    Interesting, in the ash there are definitely particles similar to the Cu particles that contain Li. Would you expect the Cu to have Li contamination?


    Background:
    We have analysed fuel/ash from 2011 with a proton micro beam. The
    reaction p+7Li-->2 alpha gives a very good signal (9 MeV alphas). We
    could also determine the distribution of Cu, but the analysis has low
    priority since we know the samples are manipulated. There are other
    experiments relevant to E-Cat that would be more interesting.

  • Edmund Storms: How basic behavior of LENR can guide a search for an explanation

    @axil
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1483
    Published?


    "A gamma ray produced by a nuclear reaction can be chopped up into smaller pieces and distributed among many (N) absorbers."
    What is your evidence that this is relevant for LENR?


    "In a bose condinsate, the ensemble of its members each take a piece of the gamma ray and store it. The condinsate acts like a super colony of ants with each ant taking a small chunk of a big lollipop until the lollipop is all gone."
    Very nice analogy, but Bose condensate is for low temperature physics. LENR is not THAT low temperature.


    And, what about the black hole? Where did that go?

  • Edmund Storms: How basic behavior of LENR can guide a search for an explanation

    @frankwtu


    I think this is spam:


    "Super-absorption of nuclear binding energy made possible by the Bose condinsate of the hydride supports energy storage and latter thermalization through hawking radiation. The presents of strange matter, muons, and excess electrons in some LENR experiments points to the formation of a quark soup where the quarks comprising protons and neutrons become deconfined and latter reformed into various subatomic particles and newly formatted nuclei. The exact mechanism that produces this LENR reaction is monopole flux lines produced by the Bose Condensate."


    It is just gobbledygook. But very cleverly put together. Black holes and strange matter - nice!

  • Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications


    You can dream up as many theories you want (and there are quite a few
    that try to explain E-Cat), but they are of no interest if they only
    explain excess energy. There are an infinite number of theories that do
    that. What is needed is proper nuclear physics data: gamma and neutron
    radiation from the reactor and isotope analysis of fuel/ash. I have
    looked at W-L theory a long time ago and there are lots of flaws. ULMN
    is, for instance, nonsense. The cross section is supposed to be very
    large at very low neutron energies (sigma prop to 1/v). But the cross
    section is determined by the relative motion. Unless your reactor is at
    absolute zero, the relative energy is not that low because of
    temperature motion. Properties of low-energy neutrons are well known -
    you can for instance store slow neutrons in a jar that is open at the
    top using the gravitational field.


    But this is not the place to discuss W-L theory, so I'll stop here.

  • Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Yes, indeed. The ratio in the Lugano test (2014) was the natural ratio at the start and significantly elevated 6Li at the end, as measured by two teams. If Rossi was simply mistaken about his device, or perhaps fraudulent, and investigators were duped, then there will be a mundane explanation for this change. One explanation for example is that enriched 6Li was planted. Another is that there was measurement error on the part of both teams doing the assays. A third possibility is that there was some kind of natural separating out of the lithium isotopes. I do not offer an opinion about the plausibility of these suggestions. What do people suggest is the mundane explanation for the shift in 7Li/6Li in the 2014 Lugano test?


    Judging from other fuel sampling experiences the likely explanation is planting. I do not believe in measurement error - the people performing the analysis are independent, competent and reliable.


    Here is my theory on how Li came into the E-Cat saga (from a conversation/e-mail exchanges with Sven K in May 2011).


    To start with Rossi said that the reaction was p+Nu-->Cu (J Nucl Phys report with Focardi). This was very hard to believe since the reactions should give lots of gammas. There are, however, a few reactions with light nuclei that do not produce gammas directly. p+7Li-->2 alpha is one. The reaction has a large positive Q-value (18 MeV) because of the tightly bound alphas in the exit channel.


    This was then thought to explain the absence of external radiation, since the alphas would have a very short range. The problem is that when you do the sums there is an enormous flux of 9 MeV alphas that will react with Li and Ni. You would get neutrons from the reaction with Li and gammas from inelastic scattering in the Ni isotopes. The radiation level would simply be lethal!


    This is the reason why almost all nuclear physicists reject LENR. You need some kind of radiation to take away energy from the reaction. The energy difference in nuclei is, however, usually at least a few hundred keV, and these will easily escape from the reactor.


    This is also the reason that the minute it is shown that E-Cat produces nuclear reactions (which will not happen) it will be unusable and illegal.

  • Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications

    Quote from David Brady

    The Li reaction channels essentially breed more Li7 while depleting Li6. There are at least four Li reaction channels that produce He6 that decays to LI6. So starting with natural compliments of Lithium isotopes Li6 and Li7 (Lugano) the Li7 isotope is enriched from the LENR phenomenon.


    Does not compute... Breed more 7Li, deplete 6Li. Four Li channels produce 6He-->6Li, i.e. more 6Li. You have to make up your mind! As far as I remember 7Li was depleted in the Lugano test, not enriched. The main reaction was supposedly p+7Li-->2 alpha.


    And Widom-Larsen theory is not an accepted theory.


    .

  • Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications

    @Thomas
    Three additional interesting facts about the fuel analysis from spring 2011 (reported in the Swedish forum Energikatalysatorn):
    1 The unused fuel does not contain any Li. In later versions of E-Cat Li is an important ingredient.
    2 The Li content in the ash is in separate particles, probably a contaminant in the Cu particles. There in no way Li could result from nuclear reactions in Ni. That would violate conservation of energy since the binding energy per nucleon of Li is much lower than that of Ni (and that is true for all nuclei below Ni).
    3 The ash is magnetic while the fuel is not. This indicates that the ash has been in a running E-Cat, presumably magnetized by the B field of the heating coils.

  • Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications

    Quote from felix983

    For me, it it the most interessanting, that the result of the ash analysis of the Lugano test.
    Here you see the report: <a href="http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-co…10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf</a>
    We see, that the isotopes distrubion changed completly.
    The NI58 was 68.1 %…


    The isotope distribution of the ash is completely impossible from a nuclear physics point of view. In addition there is no need to explain any excess heat. Also, according to Bob G, Rossi had bought isotopically enriched 62Ni. The simplest explanation is that Rossi used the isotopically enriched 62Ni as an ash sample. That also explains why the ash sample was so small (62Ni is quite expensive!).


    The manipulation of the ash is consistent with Rossi's admitting that he manipulated the ash sample from the spring of 2011. This sample was completely different from the Lugano ash sample in that it was natural isotope ratios of Ni and 10% Cu in the form of separate particles. The Cu could thus not have come from the claimed p+Ni --> Cu reaction.

  • Bioo: The Plantpot that Charges Your Phone (Kiko)

    Hm! Delivery December 2016... On payment the following message comes up:


    "By clicking 'Submit Payment', you acknowledge you are contributing to a work-in-progress and not making a direct purchase. Perks are managed by campaigners and cannot be guaranteed by Indiegogo. You also acknowledge and agree to our Terms of Use." (Who reads that, a short novel!)


    Sounds too good to be true. This is obviously not claimed to be LENR but classical chemistry. Any takers?

  • Recipe to create a LENR reactor

    Frank,


    Thanks for trying to answer my question about patents. I suppose we can agree on that the rules are not what one would expect and want. I do not think Einstein would have granted Piantelli's patent. Or maybe he had so he could get back to think about relativity. My interpretation of the patent is that Piantelli does not really have a working invention but he wants to cover all the bases. Another reason can be that it is advantageous to have a patent (preferably completely unintelligible) for the process of getting money from gullible investors. Maybe they are impressed by Piantelli's hyperons - I am not!


    Yes, of course the Rossi effect is real: How to make $10M from some hot steam with a little help from his Swedish friends (embarrassingly enough).

  • Recipe to create a LENR reactor

    @frankwtu


    "Cultural boundaries should not separate us or give rise to pre conceived ideas."


    It has nothing to do with cultural differences, at least in the classical sense. Maybe that I have difficulties in understanding the interest in pseudoscience and alchemy. Here is a classic example from Mats L and Bob G:
    https://animpossibleinvention.…ibly-how-the-e-cat-works/


    These postings mean very little since they can just be ignored. Mats' article is, however, based on Piantelli's patent application
    https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2754156A2/en


    Could someone knowledgeable in patent applications tell me if you can be granted a patent with an application that:


    1 Is in conflict with known physics.
    2 Does not show that the device works as claimed.
    3 Is so general in formulating the requirements that there is no chance of replicating the device.


    I will quote just one example from point 11 of Piantelli's application:


    11. A method for generating energy according to claim 3, wherein said energy vector (69) is a ionizing radiation selected from the group comprised of
    - a radiofrequency, in particular microwaves; - a light radiation;
    - a UV - radiation;
    - an X - radiation;
    - an a - radiation;
    - a β - radiation;
    - a Y - radiation;


    That covers the whole electromagnetic spectrum and nuclear decay, so the information
    content is virtually nil! Besides, the first three radiation types are not defined as ionizing radiation. Actually, the applicant has left out one important type of radiation: infrared!


    According to Mats the patent was granted on April 15, 2016. How is that possible?

  • Recipe to create a LENR reactor

    Shiv Singh
    I was going to make some nuclear physics remarks on your recipe, but the last sentence


    "This recipe is based on Meditational Intuition."


    makes any comment superfluous. Postings like this certainly do not benefit serious LENR research (if there is such a thing --- I'm still searching).