The relationship between loading percentage of hydrogen into the palladium lattice is the probability that metallic hydrogen will be produced by the compressive action of the palladium chemical bonds on hydrogen and the subsequent ejection from the palladium lattice. This probability will increase greatly if lithium is also present on the surface of the palladium. The pressure required to produce metallic hydrogen is reduced by 400% when lithium is present over pure metal.
There is growing awareness amongst some of those in the LENR field that the years since '89 spent hanging on the coat-tails of academia and striving for respectability via peer-reviewed publication have ended in failure when measured by conventional standards. For this realisation we can thank Rossi, who whatever you think of him has raised the profile of LENR and brought in new younger workers and also new funders ( new = nothing to do with IH). For this reason alone, I think (and expect/hope) we might see some interesting developments before 2020.
One possible reason that may have contributed to LENR not being sucessful in gaining traction with academia in its effort to gain respectability is the deeply flawed and simplistic theory put forth that was a insult to the experience and intelligence to those in professional science.
Don't worry Axil, no-one other than you and Rossi will think the quarkX works. So it will not be an issue. Anyway, as you know, even if it were an issue, The IH contract allows Rossi to do what he wants in 50% of the world. That is surely enough? After all, so far, in spite of claims on his blog, he has never sold anything except to IH. And see where that got him...
IH must have had some interest in Rossi's IP since that gave him, $10 Million for it, That is 10 million times more interest than I have.
What is the status of the IP? does IH have any claims to it? Does thee IP for the Quark reactor tech come into question? Rossi has built a barely functional lawnmower, but now he has improved it. Does IH have the right to use that product and to sell it? Since IH cannot get that product to work and they are claiming that the ip is not functional in court, and they claim in court that it never worked, can Rossi be forced to make the IP for the Quark function so that IH can sell it?
I haven't read the agreement or the test parameters in enough detail to say whether or not the Florida test, if legitimate, would have satisfied the conditions precedent. I do believe that if the Florida test legitimately worked IH would have gladly paid the additional $89 million while skipping and dancing to show to investors. And none of us would be here right now arguing about it. But it didn't work (more on that in a moment). Someone above commented that the Agreement didn't require a customer. True, but once Rossi introduced that factor, and introduced to prove that the test worked, Rossi can't now say "ignore that the customer was fake."
How do I know it didn't work - just a few points: (1) fake customer and fake invoices; (2) Rossi created the fake customer, etc. because he knew it didn't work; (3) Rossi's inability to replicate; (4) Penon taking a hike; and (5) no expert stepping up for Rossi giving an expert opinion that it works/worked.
I have been puzzed by the meaning of the word "worked" in the context of this trial. What does WORKED mean? Rossi setup the test to do far more than was required to meet the minimum requirements of the test. I beleive that Rossi wanted to verify that his product was commercially viable, but he failed in that test in his own estimation if not in objective fact. The wafer, the heart of the old technology had its problems, and after years of work, Rossi could not tame that beast. Rossi could not make it meet his personal standards of operation. Rossi calls that standard SIGMA 5, Rossi was afraid to put out a product that did not meet SIGMA 5. That flawed product would not only destroy him but any investors that backed his product.
Rossi decided to toss out the old technology and move on to a better solution. The IP for the old Rossi tech is without much value. The new tech IP is a jewel of boundless worth. That chip will meet sigma 5, It seems to me, Rossi went to court to keep that jewel for himself and out of the hands of IH.
The wafer
This thread is getting popular. People like to dumpster dive looking for good stuff.
O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive
I do remember. BTW, eye witness accounts claim that the tube itself is transparent, and the electrodes bright silver colour. nothing is visible in the gap. I have no idea about sealing or anything else - except that the plasma can apparently be made 'any colour you like'. The example shown was glowing yellow when energised for short periods. That's all the info I have.
From
http://www.e-catworld.com/2017…h-metal-plasma-axil-axil/
QuoteDisplay MoreIt might be that the LENR reaction wants to run hot at just below 3000C. This could be why Rossi has had problems with burnouts over the years when the balance between cooling applied to the LENR reactor’s structure and LENR heat production is lost. It may be that a LENR reactor that loses cooling of its structure will fail when the temperature of the plasma produced by LENR begins to rise to its stability point at 2700C.
Rossi’s solution to the reactor meltdown problem as deminstated by the QuarkX is to ensure that his reactor can survive the highest temperature that the LENR reactor can produce.
This could mean that any LENR reactor that depends on external cooling to keep its operating temperature under the LENR reaction stability temperature is subject to meltdown if the external cooling is lost.
Rossi’s sigma 5 testing could be a method to check high temperature endurance in the Quark structural material.
Boron nitride is transparent.
New research into polariton condensates has revealed a side emission channel that produces light whose frequency is proportional to the density of the polariton aggregation...the dense polariton condinsate produces a higher frequency light (blue) and a less dense condinsate will produce red light. Rossi must have a way to control the density of the polariton population.
See
https://phys.org/news/2016-06-…einstein-condensates.html
They tackled this problem by highly exciting exciton-polaritons, which are particle-like excitations in a semiconductor systems and formed by strong coupling between electron-hole pairs and photons. They observed high-energy side-peak emission that cannot be explained by two mechanisms known to date: Bose-Einstein condensation of exciton-polaritons, nor conventional semiconductor lasing driven by the optical gain from unbound electron hole plasma.
The details on this side channel are here
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25655
Dan C is an odd name for a non-native English speaker. Once again Rossi blog commentators show astonishing insight into Rossi's wishes and thoughts.
Alan Smith and I had a discussion about the Quark and how the LENR reaction had a temperature limit. The key to getting LENR to work is to contain the reaction is refractory based insulator whose melting point is beyond 3000K. If Alan remembers, he corrected my thinking since I initially proposed a refractory conductor which is unworkable when confining a plasma.
I eventually settled on Boron nitride tube as a workable solution even though there are other materials that might work.
Dan C must have read my posts on this subject that I promulgated widely on many sites as is my way in order to get Rossi's feedback. I am surprised that Rossi confirmed this conjecture. This matter provides an easy replication path but producing such a high temperature tube is difficult.
Dear Andrea,
I see where you have devised new materials at where the Quark can operate somewhere around 2700`C.
Is this a natural steady state where the Rossi effect is stabilized(thrives) where it neither tends to spontaneously stop nor tries to runaway without constant monitoring and intervention of the controls.
If so, then the final piece of the puzzle is a long lived material(At least exceeding the life of the fuel charge) to a marketable product.
Wishing you the best.
Dan C.
Dan C.:
Correct.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Display More
Wyttenbach, I provided incontrovertible proof that Rossi goes to extreme lengths to deceive. The facts supporting the fact that Rossi went to extreme lengths to fabricate the Doral 'customer' are agreed to by both Rossi and Darden. - in other words neither party dispute these facts. This is exactly what I stated in the post you quote.
I then went on to state that a reasonable alternate explanation to the Ni62 ash being from LENR reactions was that it was simply tampered with by Rossi.
It is a reasonable alternate explanation because Rossi has a proven track record of extraordinary deception. It is a reasonable alternative explanation even without 'a sales record'.
This is one of the downsides of extraordinarily deceptive behavior: you can't be trusted.
Furthermore, your challenge is irrelevant, because even if there is a 'sales record' for Ni62, this would not be proof that he tampered with the sample, because Rossi himself claims that the fuel needed to be Ni62. So even if I could produce such evidence, that alone would not convince you (or even me) one way or another. So your request for sales record 'proof' is irrelevant and superfluous. Rossi could simply argue that he bought the Ni62 to fuel the E-Cat. You are aware, I hope, that in a (failed) US Patent application, Rossi said that Ni62 was 'critical' to initiating the reaction?
The burden of proof for extraordinary claims is on the extraordinary claimer, Rossi. I have made no extraordinary claims. My claims that Rossi is extraordinarily deceitful are backed up by very strong evidence, and so they are very 'ordinary' claims.
Unfortunately for Rossi, nobody can or should trust his claims now, given that the whole (internet-informed) world knows of his extraordinarily deceptive behavior. So any extraordinary claims he makes about the E-Cat or the QuarkX or anything else he comes up with should and will require an even higher burden of evidence.
I recognize that for some reason, this is hard for you to accept, or that you insist that this is NOT a reasonable alternative explanation. You have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, including the notion that Rossi bought his E-cat on Ebay if that's what you decide to do.
Given Rossi's long history of deceitful behavior, do you have any evidence demonstrating that it is unreasonable to believe that one likely explanation for the isotopic analysis results done by Uppsala on Rossi's ash sample is that he tampered with it?
Baa, Baa. Baa I almost beleive that this post is paid flackery. If it is flackery, it is of very poor quality and the customer deserves a refund,
The Lugano reactor was an IH reactor that Rossi had no part in producing,
FACTS
A sample of the fuel was taken before the test as the fuel was being loaded. The assay of that fuel was shown to be comprised of a normal nickel isotopic mix. All the nickel fuel particles were covered with lithium 7 enriched to 94%.
The ash sample was melted onto the inside of the reactor and gad to be peeled off with a pick. How could Rossi melt that ash sample that was far bigger than 100 microns, when the fuel contained nickel particles that were all below 100 microns as shown by the analysis to the fuel after the test,. The nickel ash was pure but was covered with lithium 6 at 56% concentration.
https://www.isoflex.com/nickel-ni
Purity level is standard.
It is expensive - but a few grams costs a lot less than $10.5M so well worth it.
Hand waving or facts...
Please show the quote for pure Ni62.
I remember reading Jones Beene saying something to the effect that Rossi admitted to buying Ni62 quantities and that he was allowed to touch the dogbone and open it right before testing began. Such a thing would not be allowed if magicians like James Randi were monitoring the events. But that's just one issue. For Rossi to have been able to hoodwink so many people, he would be a master con man, among the best in history.
details, details, details
It is impossible to commercially produce a pure Ni62 sample as large as has been produced in Lugano ash assay because of the difficulty in selecting the Ni60, Ni61, and Ni64 isotopes so that these isotopes can be removed from the sample. You can enrich a Nickel; isotope to some level but you cannot purify a nickel isotope.
If you can find a source that will sell you pure Ni62, I would like to know how much such a sample will cost?
That's obvious from the Penon report.
Oh. I forgot. You refuse to read that, so you know nothing about what Rossi did or how he lied. No wonder you ask clueless things like this.
I repeat again, paying any attention to you or Rossi on this subject is a waste of time. You should take more care in sourcing quotes, but I know what you are getting at.
So what if the principles of Cherokee are slimeballs (AKA excellent bisiness men), does that make Rossi any more honest or moral?
All you pure innocent souls hereabout, the real world is just too intense for you'll.
Rossi stands on his own words. In mercado veritas. He wouldn't have to rely on the morally degraded market forces if the scientific forces weren't far worse. But Rossi could just be an amazing magician con artist, perhaps the best in history. I don't know how he could have faked all that data and got such luminaries to sing his tune.
Yes, how could Rossi run a con through the Lugano testers who are all eminent scientists in their own rite, to conform to his party line with minimum to no interaction. That is quite an accomplishment in the art of the scam.
And that Ni62 trick were a pure Ni62 particle... a huge particle that cannot be had in the marketplace because of its unparalleled and unattainable purity...how could Rossi get that particle in the ash of the reactor...and that particle was melted onto the surface of the tube at its center position ?
Axil,
You know I care for your words. I try to speak plainly and I am self aware of the snark creeping in sometimes when I post. I can not understand honestly why you but such faith in a deceiver. Why can you not separate your love of LENR from someone who is doing so much to destroy it? While a careful reading above may be true depending on view (I owe you that). It does not address that the e-cat doesn't work. This is not theory on how CF works now but instead a simple litany of deceit. He has zero competitors now he is standing on a dais and quite literally being judged next week. I feel I am not being a friend if I am not honest with you. We need to get back on the LENR ship and he as no future on it.
First, the evaluation of a LENR system has nothing to do with the morality of its developer. Next, I was greatly impressed by Rossi's latest very knowledgeable and technically consistent theory paper which must have been written by Carl-Oscar Gullström more than Rossi. Continuing, Rossi's patent update fits into my understanding of how LENR works and has been supported by info that I have observed from the ME356 systems. Lastly, Rossi's latest system is consistent with other like systems that most probably function both through direct replication and is consistent with its shared characteristics to other similar dirty plasma based systems.
The confusion produced in the give and take of a court case should be excluded from evaluation of technical merit. This professionally generated spin produced in such cases generates a fog of the intellect that is hard to overcome and is best ignored. Serious consideration of this legal and political inspired spin, a tool based on pride, money, hate, jealousy, greed, and the desire for commercial dominance which is emotionally corrosive of the intellect, is generally a waste of time.
It was about 8 years ago that he said "In Mercato Veritas". So far it has been "in null mercato".
The marketplace is a cesspool of lies, deceit, deception, duplicity, double-dealing, fraud, cheating, trickery, and chicanery. From, what I have seen, none of the major movers in the LENR community has what it takes to gain purchase in such an environment. In the main, they are basically good people. IH and their agents have shown the proper character to succeed in the disgusting and corrupt environment but for all intents and purposes these decisionmakers do not show the exceptional intelligence required for success in the market.
Regarding morality, we are referring to the ethical glue that binds the best parts of society together. Morality deals with our sense of fairness and our sense of responsibility to others. Implicit in morality is the idea that there are right ways...and, by contrast, wrong ways...to act.
But regarding markets, we are referring to the myriad institutional structures human beings have established to facilitate commerce, a process of the distribution of wealth in society. For purposes of this description, a market is any structure under which commerce takes place, whatever it may be. In my view, these structures begin as neither moral nor immoral. They are as indifferent as water. Markets are meant simply to be vehicles for finding the most efficient way to balance supply and demand.
We struggle to make the market as free as possible, the less encumbered by regulation, and the more efficient it should be. This struggle includes removing the constraints of morality on the processes of wealth creation. From the social standpoint, unfettered markets can lead to situations most of us would consider immoral: vast populations of have-nots, a ruined environment where people are crushed under the wheels of commerce, plutocracies and other innumerable dystopian scenarios.
The question then becomes, “Are market values and social values congruent?” And, if not, how can we bring them closer together? How can we influence markets so that they can help us build the kind of world we believe we should have?
The misalignment between markets and morality...often a proxy for arguments about the public good versus individual rights...has engaged thinkers since the birth of commerce. Unfettered capitalism’s most rabid opponents and the market makers’ most fervent supporters have given us tracts, books, broadsheets, movies, tweets and more in an attempt to persuade us of their specific points of view.
At its heart, the discussion of markets and how we should function in them is a discussion about capitalism and morality itself. Specifically, where does Rossi stand in all this turmoil?
My own view of capitalism is this: No other system has brought so much to so many in so short a time. Is it perfect? No. But we must learn to conform to its reality. We must embrace the market as it exists. Learning hard lessons takes time, Rossi has spent many years learning the ropes of commerce, he has been subject to it forces and its teachings, he has gone to the school of hard knocks, and now after all these many years, he has learned to survive within the clutches of the marketplace. He is rounding into proper shape to succeed in the marketplace. The market has beaten any semblance of morality out of Rossi, so much so, that he is now poised on the proper expressway to commercial success not only prepared for today's challenges but also for anything that can face him in the future. Rossi, a man among whimpering children, will stride like a giant among the broken and scattered ruins of his competitors.
Newton, bragged about the benefits of celibacy. When he died in 1727, he had transformed our understanding of the natural world forever and left behind 10 million words of notes; he was also, by all accounts, still a virgin (Tesla was also celibate, though he later claimed he fell in love with a pigeon).
The Higgs particle is the last cry of a dying field...
Particle physics will gain a new life from the appreciation of the work of Holmlid (and NOT Mills). It's just a matter of time.
axil : Indeed it is flying free - independently, but physically it's a resonance of an electron an thus not a fundamental particle.
==> Standard model is wrong or needs some fine-tuning. Mills model can explain why there are only three Leptons! Ask once the standard model the same question!
If the electron accumulated the energy that the rest mass of the muon has, that electron would be massless and able to travel at light speed. Such an electron is called a dirac electron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation
When it comes to sources in particle physics theory, i will go with Dirac rather than Mills.
The concept of rest mass touches the Higgs theory of mass. I suspect that Mills has some hand waving in subverting the Higgs field.
Quotehttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
Topological, non-topological and instanton droplets driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
This article explains how a unbalanced magnetic field can produce an instanton.
Further on: Muons are a resonance of electrons (see Mills). Thus muonic resonances could play a role in the overall process. But definitely not a free muon!
According to the standard model of particle physics, a muon is a fundamental particle: a lepton.
axil : This sentence is incomplete - what fusion reaction? - and awfully wrong. LiH* fusion is not catalyzed by muons.
Muons are responsible for any fusion reaction that is produced in LENR.
The proton doesn't decay during LENR and some LENR's have their energy source identified already (i.e. Lipinski fusion of deuterons on molten lithium) - so we can be perfectly sure, that the proton decay isn't "root source for the production of energy and sub atomic particles in LENR". But you cannot beat the human stupidity.
The fusion reaction is catalyzed by muons. Its proton decay that produces the muons.
I try to ignore stupidity, after all it's only human.
The Standard model (SM) has predictions that have not been realized. Since matter in the universe exists, conservation of Baryon number(B) and lepton number(L) must not have applies at some point in the evolution of the universe. If B and L were always conserved, than matter and antimatter would have canceled themselves out into energy thereby destroying all matter in the universe. But in the latest epoch of the universe, these two conservation laws seem to apply absolutely. The conclusion is that something is wrong with the SM and the universe in general.
There are two main interpretations for this disparity: either the universe began with a small preference for matter (total baryonic number of the universe different from zero), or the universe was originally perfectly symmetric, but somehow a set of phenomena contributed to a small imbalance in favour of matter over time. The second point of view is preferred, although there is no clear experimental evidence indicating either of them to be the correct one.
GUT Baryogenesis under Sakharov conditions
In 1967, Andrei Sakharov proposed a set of three necessary conditions that a baryon-generating interaction must satisfy to produce matter and antimatter at different rates. These conditions were inspired by the recent discoveries of the cosmic background radiation and CP-violation in the neutral kaon system. The three necessary "Sakharov conditions" are:
• Baryon number B violation.
• C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation.
• Interactions out of thermal equilibrium.
Baryon number violation is obviously a necessary condition to produce an excess of baryons over anti-baryons. But C-symmetry violation is also needed so that the interactions which produce more baryons than anti-baryons will not be counterbalanced by interactions which produce more anti-baryons than baryons. CP-symmetry violation is similarly required because otherwise equal numbers of left-handed baryons and right-handed anti-baryons would be produced, as well as equal numbers of left-handed anti-baryons and right-handed baryons. Finally, the interactions must be out of thermal equilibrium, since otherwise CPT symmetry would assure compensation between processes increasing and decreasing the baryon number.
There is a condition where CPT symmetry can be violated so that B and L conservation is violates. These are called the electroweak sphaleron anomaly at high energies and temperatures.
A sphaleron is similar to the midpoint of the instanton, so it is non-perturbative. An instanton is a tangling of force lines that resolve into a creation of a pseudoparticle. This means that under normal conditions sphalerons are unobservably rare. However, they would have been more common when unusual conditions appear in the forces that existed during matter formation in the early universe.
Such instantons have appeared during the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect where a magnetic field creates two fractionally charged pseudoparticles.
To simplify things, there are conditions where a magnetic field can get tangled up inside a proton where instantons form so that it decays into kaons.
I produced a post to explain how this happens here.
Yes, you have, but there is absolutely no experimental evidence for this.
See this post for the evidence of muon reactions in LENR.
Collective low energy nuclear reaction may cause overunity in Graneau’s water explosion
axil : Stop becoming depressive: I believe Holmlid does great work, albeit many seem to hate hime. Everybody that does CERN Physics on a desktop is a danger for the establishment. I'm sure he/his ideas will have some success.
https://newenergytreasure.com/…s-should-check-for-muons/
Hot Fusion Professor Says LENR Scientists Should Check For Muons
QuoteOur studies are not part of LENR. The temperature we observe in the laser-induced plasma is 50 – 500 MK (mega Kelvin), thus much higher than in the Sun. On the other hand, the spontaneous process giving muons that we describe in one publication may be a basic process in LENR. LENR scientists need to check if they have muons in their systems.
How would it not be sellable? If you believe Penon's report, it runs like a top (even when powered down)!
I have stated that all current functional LENR reactors are not protecting the user from subatomic particle emissions which increase background radiation exposure levels . There are ways to configure a LENR reactor whereby this radiation risk can be mitigated, bit that design has not appeared yet.
I would like to see uranium added to the fuel mix. If mesons are involved in the LENR reaction as Rossi claims, adding uranium would increase the production of heat via fission by 20 times. Producing He4 yields 10ev via fusion but adding uranium will produce 200 ev. via fission This increase does not factor in the added huge increase in the muon capture rate that uranium has over hydrogen which is about 1,000,000 time more. Uranium is available for sale on amazon.
I have stated that the low temperature E-Cat was not sellable. You can't blame Rossi for turning a few bucks at IH's expense. This bisiness is all part of the venture capital game. Just look at the way Trump does bisiness with the people that give him money. He does not pay his expenses and when he is sued, he gets his pitbull lawyer to counter sue. People want to WIN.
Trump: :“We're going to win so much. You're going to get tired of winning. you’re going to say, ‘Please Mr. President, I have a headache. Please, don't win so much. This is getting terrible.’ And I'm going to say, ‘No, we have to make America great again.’ You're gonna say, ‘Please.’ I said, ‘Nope, nope. We're gonna keep winning.’
When you win all is forgiven. Winning is what counts, not how you win. LENR must win and keep on winning, The end justifies the means. What is the issue here? Yes, there are problems sometimes with this behavior. If you never pay your lawyers, then no law firm will represent you. But then Trump is the president and you're not.
