Posts by Zephir_AWT


    So I simply ask... why do or would YOU believe him

    I didn't say, that I believe him - but he also said, that Gullstrom is his cooperator. And this is just a bare fact and you should just wait, until someone will disprove it.

    Or shut up. I have absolutely no reason to believe you more, than Andrea Rossi.

    Rossi confirmed! He also stated there was a real customer, real production, real engineer.

    Like it or not, A. Rossi is the only authority for to decide, who belongs in his team and who doesn't. If you cannot prove the opposite, what are you actually trying here? You're just funny clown at best and annoying troll at worst.

    It also implies that the heat and energy in Quark-X comes from Li+H reaction: the "cathode bombardment" and "nickel pre-treatment" plays no role there at all.

    After all, what one could expect at temperatures close to melting point of nickel? Which type of "nano-cracks" and "pretreatments" could survive that?



    Unfortunately my experience with all inventors is exactly the opposite, i.e. they become secretive the more, the more they believe in success of their technology, the Me356 and A. Rossi is no exception. So your implication is completely separated from existing reality all around us - the people simply don't work in this way.


    I am still under the strong suspicion that Gullstrom was not present at these tests.

    Maybe, but A. Rossi confirmed for ECatWorld, that Gullstrom is already member of his team and working for him.


    This is the correct answer: If Ni-Li-H LENR wouldn't work, then IH wouldn't fight a battle in their and other names

    Of course. Mats Lewan even claims that Rossi offered to return IH/Darden his $11.5 Million back in return for relinquishing all claims on Rossi's IP. Yet IH declined this offer and instead of it, he issued additional patents on Ni-H technology. This is not how the dismissal of useless technology looks like.


    The action takes place inside the nickel cathode that's bombarded by protons

    The problem is, such a reaction was never observed and the hydrogen thyratrons are in the game for quite some time already. Instead of it, the bombarding of lithium with protons or deuterons plasma leads to nuclear reaction rather reliably at the voltage bellow 300 V. It's the basis of UnifedGravity Ltd. process and its patent, for example... But the reaction with lithium quenches fast once the molten lithium gets overheated and it loses its crystalline character. The question is, why not to bombard with protons some other compound of lithium, which doesn't melt so easily, preferably the lithium hydride. The so-called pyroelectric fusion also utilizes metal hydrides.

    This is because Ni-H is all one giant scam all the way back to the incompetent work of Sergio Focardi and Piantelli Focardi who falsely reported the ability to produce a COP of 2

    Why the Russian trolls are getting space even here at this very LENR forum goes over my head. The Nickel-H heat production was convincingly demonstrated with Craven, Celani and many others. The recent results of one year test is just another confirmation of it.

    At any case, the size of reactor used was truly miniature. It's essentially a narrow capillary closed with wires at both ends. The chromatographic quartz or sapphire columns would correspond such a device. Such a thin capillaries can be sealed with oxyhydrogen or acetylen-oxygen flame or above the carbon-carbon electric arc from pencil leads.

    1Ma0LJK.gif fd-glass-capillary-tubing_350x250.png

    In addition, the reactor could be realized in electrode-less arrangement, accessible to amateur experimentation: we can for example mix nickel and LiAlH4 dust and place it inside the sealed pipe into a cheap Chinese Tesla coil or similar HF discharge. The excess of lithium would maintain inert atmosphere inside the capillary. Maybe even the LiAlH4 usage is not necessary: we can for example heat the nickel dust, piece of metallic lithium from battery and some hydrocarbon (paraffin) inside the sealed quartz capillary: the lithium would reduce hydrocarbon, thus leaving free hydrogen for reaction. The lithium and hydrocarbon can be soaked into an excess of graphite powder, which would increase its surface and reactivity, it would dilute the reaction mixture and also increase its conductivity for plasma discharge.


    LENR exists in a plasma based environment. 28 years of palladium based hydrogen loading theory goes out the window.

    This is typical "deduction" of yours (already widely applied to extrapolations from Holmlid's experiments to cold fusion and many times elsewhere). No plasma exists in palladium loading experiments, so you can not extrapolate anything to it just from Quark-X plasma experiments. This of course doesn't exclude the possibility of plasma mediated cold fusion in Quark-X (where the palladium is missing instead), but the implicate used is nonsensical. This is just a consequence of your bridging/chaining of otherwise unrelated systems/situations based on occurrence of common keywords.

    Zephir_AWT Well I guess we need to consider that LENR fits into the picture some how. The question would be does this LENR just stimulate the heat? Or does it stimulate the plasma perhaps by stimulating proton or ion release? or does it some how enhance the voltage difference between the electrodes?

    I don't see any convincing evidence for LENR there. At any case, once the voltage was measured with reactor (of unknown resistance) and shunt 1 Ohm resistor in serial, then the actual power yield cannot be estimated anyway.


    Rossi Blog: March 23, 2017 Question:

    In your recently described experiment, is the one ohm resistance the ballast resistance, the steady-state plasma resistance, or a combination of both?

    Andrea Rossi's Answer:

    A combination of both.

    In this moment A. Rossi is losing it definitely, because no plasma would leave the 0.1 V voltage drop, not to say in serial connection with some resistor and reactor. For example the voltage drop across the arc is 15 to 20 volts when using C-276 alloy arc welding, which is essentially a short circuit situation at room pressure. The arc at lower pressure would leave voltage drop even higher according to Paschen's law. There is still a possibility, that massive emission of charged particles from LENR zone would keep plasma more conductive, but such a low voltage drop is still physically unrealistic.


    Anyone that apply 0.011W to a needle and get this kind of light/heat doesn't really doubt anymore if COP>1 or not

    The input power was undoubtedly higher, as the study in question explicitly says, that the voltage given (0.105 V) is the voltage on the 1 Ohm shunt resistor - not the reactor itself. Given the distance of nickel electrodes 2.5 cm, the actual voltage could be four orders higher (you'll need roughly 1 kV/mm in air at room pressure for to achieve a discharge) - and after then the COP ~ 22.000 would shrink to some COP ~ 2.2 i.e. 220 %.

    BTW The radiation area 1 cm2 is also pretty small and it would correspond roughly the 1 mm diameter of reactor, so that the diameter of nickel electrodes must be definitely smaller. Which surface temperature the wire of diameter 1 mm and length 25 mm could get, if we introduce a power W = 25 kV x 0.1 A = 2.5 kWatt into it? Well, pretty high and the temperature achieved would correspond the 2.5 kWatt incandescent light bulb. Does the result presented correspond some actual overunity, after then? I wouldn't say yes at the very first look.

    MacArthur in the Philippines did nothing to prepare. His air forces were wiped out the next day. So you can argue he wasn't much of an expert at that stage in the war. Fortunately, he was a quick study and for most of the war he did an excellent job, as he himself pointed out on countless occasions.

    Because he was ordered to do nothing by Roosevelt in the same way, like the Short and Kimmel admirals at Hawaii - that's known story. The USA needed an evasion for entering the war with Japan. How many examples of striking inactivity of otherwise experienced generals would you need?


    But if you make significantly more than other experts, you are not an expert.

    OK, but the problem with this definition is, it's postdictive, not predictive (being tautological in fact). It doesn't enable you to judge people as experts before the final truth will turn out. And being relativistic, it enables to label experts in style "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is the king". In my understanding the expert is merely someone like the specialist - i.e. the person with interest/experience dedicated to a narrow area of expertise.

    The problem with experts is, they tend to disagree mutually once they're right whereas they tend to agree once they're all wrong. Getting liberals to agree is like herding cats ... The conservative experts aren't exploratory - instead of it, they tend to remain specialized to the subject of their expertise, thus being wrong soon or latter. Therefore, the disagreeing mutually is the first indicia of actual progress. Instead of it, the wide consensus is the first indicia of fundamental bias.

    GErx0E4m.png separation3.gif

    In dense aether model this behavior has its analogy in behavior of black holes (remnants of visible matter) and the dark matter (progenitor of visible matter). The black represent the past of Universe and they tend to evaporate soon or later. They remain cohesive, being formed with particles of positive space-time curvature. Instead of it, the particles of opposite space-time curvature are systematically expelled from them. Dark matter particles behave like sparse bubbles of space-time and they're repelling mutually at distance, thus remaining in diaspora. They're just attracted to existing observable matter, thus forming dark matter halo around massive galaxies and stars, which remains separated at distance. The experts to alternative physics behave similarly - they're expelled from mainstream and they're working in diaspora. The gradual increase of their concentration - not mutual agreement - is what indicates the progress and nearing technological transform.


    By definition, an expert is someone who is generally right.

    By its Latin origin expert is word borrowed from Ancient Greek’s second declension expertus, i.e. (well) tested, proved i.e. experienced (feminine experta, neuter expertum). The Niels Bohr's definition was exactly the opposite:

    "An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field." and he didn't mean it pejoratively at all.

    IMO it wouldn't work - and if yes, than just by accident. Try to use magnetic field, high-frequency plasma, electric impulses...

    BTW The magnetron (microwave oven) could heat the sealed pipe reactor and to create some plasma inside it. This is what I'm going to try myself - watch the nuclear shrooms..

    Andrea Rossi has promised multiple-times, he will not get engaged in patent wars, as he planed to beat the competition with "cheap plentiful production from robotized factories". No robotized plant indeed ever existed and Rossi just wants to get rid of competition in the same way like every 2nd grade patent troll (he has in his ownwords over 140 patent applications submitted). Which I consider problematic just at the case of Piantelli, as I have multiple reasons to believe, he is actual founder of nickel fusion technology, not Andrea Rossi.

    Andrea Rossi disagrees with Musk he thinks intellectual property and patents are vital for technology companies. “To give away for free the Intellectual Property of a technology is a mistake that takes away from the real business that technology, because nobody invests seriously in a technology if there is not the right of the ownership of the connected IP,” Rossi wrote finally at his blog. One thing, Rossi seems to forget is that once companies become obsessed with the patents, the focus of the process turns to the legal process not the technology or the business.


    This suggests the envelope may be fused quartz (cheap) or sapphire (expensive).

    IMO sapphire was the material used, or at least it should be for long term experiments. The reason for it is the chemistry: at higher temperatures (>700K) the lithium hydride decomposes to elementary lithium, which would reduce the quartz into free silicon. The sapphire would be more inert from this perspective (despite that at low temperatures the lithium tends to reduce aluminum from molten salts due to its higher electronegativity). At the high temperatures the aluminum (termite) is the kind and it displaces nearly all metals from their compounds.


    Are You serious in presenting this silly useless nothing-saying picture as an hint/evidence for ANYTHING You say?

    Well, we can see hydrogen spectrum, Cherenkov radiation and another stuffs there. A single picture indeed means nothing very much - but similar effects were also reported with Me356 or Fulvio Fabian, a close cooperator of A. Rossi. And Rossi works on "direct production of electricity" from Quark-X reactor, which "doesn't involve thermoelectricity", you can read new patents issued about it. If you connect the dots, you'll get into similar conclusions. For layman such a pictures represent just a blurred spots - but if you would get engaged an industrial espionage, you would be forced to deduce the details from way more subtle indicia. But it also requires to be an expert and to know, where to look for it, which speculations are feasible and which ones aren't. It's not job for armchair theorists, who just leaved the school and who believe, they understand physics, because they memorized few equations and ways how to solve them for ideal simplified cases. The actual physics is somewhere else.

    "The Quark-X/Me356 arrangement cannot be replicated - but it doesn't mean, it cannot be duplicated."

    You mean, we are not talking about the sea, when we call it ocean ?

    What I meant with it was, we already have enough of information for independent research of the same arrangement.
    Of course there can be some hidden tricks, but given the reliability and efficiency reported, I wouldn't consider serious problem with it.


    I suspect the reactors output is a new form of electricity composed of Rossitrons rather than Electrons

    The only picture of Quark-X reactor released to public sported a significant blue glow, which could originate from charged particles (electrons) escaping from reactor.

    Once we collect them, then we will generate electricity directly from nuclear reaction. This concept has been proposed many times in nuclear fusion research.

    BTW it would be good if the forum registration form would contain some rudimentary IQ test - the reCaptcha is apparently too small obstacle for posting at this forum.


    Judging from the experts comments here, and even on ECW, this report has no scientific value

    The Quark-X/Me356 arrangement cannot be replicated - but it doesn't mean, it cannot be duplicated. Nobody did try to push corona discharge into mixture of nickel and LiAlH4 - or whatever else will remain from it - at high temperatures and it just seems for me, everyone of LENR community is dancing around this experimental arrangement like around newly established taboo for more than year already. Why? Because it's the experimental arrangement, which actually works?


    why a device with a COP of 22,000 requires any input of electricity at all? Why not simply generate electricity with any simple thermoelectric converter near the hot end

    Of course it's possible - but would you really arrange the experimental device in this way? But it just seems for me, that Gullström-Rossi report completely neglected the heat input from outside: the working temperature of reactor must be somehow reached and this heat isn't for free, especially not at high temperatures. Other than that, these experiments should be easy to replicate, as there are anecdotal reports about palladium glow discharge tube filled with hydrogen, which kept itself in glowing state, once the electricity passed through it. I presume, the QuarkX device would work in similar way.

    In my personal experience, neither opinion of mainstream experts, neither wide consensus of these experts or laymen - but the consensus between distinct group of experts: the proponents of opposite dual perspective dual to mainstream gets most close to actual evolution of problem if future. This experience has its geometric analogy in formation of matter (substance which persists) inside the universe. In dense aether model the Universe is steady state but in stage of neverending exchange between matter and radiation. The matter gradually evaporates into a radiation (transverse and scalar waves, i.e. the dark matter), which condense somewhere else. The mechanism in which basic interaction work provide, that this condensation occurs at the sufficient distance from existing massive objects. It's because the dark matter particles are attracted to negative gradient of gravitational potential due to shielding mechanism of gravity. In this way, the dark matter (the dual paradigm of mainstream) concentrates along connection lines (shadows) of existing massive objects and it condenses there into a new generation of matter. The shielding supergravity mechanism has its analogy in the inference reasoning ("find the places, which most experts disagree in least way"). The new findings and ideas dual to mainstream paradigm concentrate in the same way between opponents of mainstream ideas.

    Therefore the Bayesian reasoning it's still relevant - but it must be applied to particular group of experts, who are in opposition to mainstream - not all experts or even laymen population. It's because both mainstream experts, both laymen population are money and occupation driven - and as such biased - just in opposite ways (because laymen are actually who pays these experts). The actual truth is usually somewhere in midway between these two opinions, but it cannot be estimated naively like their average.


    When Expert Disagreement Supports the Consensus : Finnur Dellsén

    Before some time a similar advices emerged: The era of expert failure by Arnold Kling, Why experts are usually wrong by David H. Freeman and Why the experts missed the crash by Phill Tetlock.

    As I explained here, the expanding technology enabled us to observe hyperdimensional phenomena, which can be described from multiple observational perspectives. These perspectives may be even all perfectly logical and relevant - they're just incomplete and until someone hasn't deeper / more dimensional and complex understanding of reality, he isn't able to note their hidden connections. For laymen and even experts such a situation is indeed source of neverending confusion: for laymen because they simply have no time to study the particular problem deeper, but for experts this situation may get equally difficult, because their understanding remains limited to narrow perspective of their professional specialization.

    In this situation the journalist persons, who keeps broader overview have an advantage over dedicated experts. Unfortunately the consensus ("Vox populi, vox Dei") may be equally bad adviser here, like the individual experts and it can be biased in its specific way.

    Flaccus Alcuinus from York has said in AD 798: Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit ("And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness)")

    After all, which consensus exists at the case of overunity and cold fusion findings, global warming and similar stuffs?

    Secret Presidential Memorandum issued to Declassify Anti-aging & Free Energy Technologies

    According to secret space program whistleblower, Corey Goode, President Donald Trump issued a highly classified Memorandum soon after his January 20th inauguration ordering the release of group of classified patents concerning anti-aging and health, along with free energy technologies. The Top Secret Memorandum was sent to the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, and due to its classification status it will not be accessible to major media for reporting.

    Invention Secrecy Activity (as reported by the Patent & Trademark Office)