Frederic Member
  • Member since Nov 7th 2014
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Frederic

    IH Fanboy wrote :

    My quataloos are all on: all claims withdrawn with prejudice, with no more money changing hands (tip of the hat to our distinguished lawyers who joined us recently and opined this as well), and all parties returned to their respective positions prior to entering any agreements. In other words, my bet is that IH relinquishes any and all licenses to Leonardo's IP and the license agreement as well--gone.


    I agree.


    1) If IH don't believe Rossi's tech works, it's easy for them to relinquish the IP


    2) but if they do, it's more difficult to understand the reason.

    And they probably do, as T. Darden got several times high COP with it.

    And if IH believes it works, It will be a heartbreaker to relinquish the IP !

    Just think of all the trillions of $ ! So why would Darden be forced to settle in such a case :

    - because Rossi had good proofs the one year test was the GPT for Darden ?

    - and because Darden / IH would not be in a position to pay several hundreds of millions should he lose the case ? But it's easy to bankrupt IH, unless Darden had lots of his personal money at risk...

    FM

    @Majorana


    In your previous post "Socioeconomical ... of LENR", in your "spoiler", you state : "Therefore the energy which is set free by 1 g should be Etotal = 7.3x1021 * 4 *3 * 106 * 1.6*10-19 +2.7 x 1021 * 2 * 3 * 106 * 1.6 * 10-19 = 1.56 x1010 Joule"


    However, the Lugano report shows that 1/2 g of Ni produces 1500 KWh during 32 days and it seems all the Ni was transmuted into Ni62 after this period.


    Hence, 1g of Ni produces 3000 KWh in 32 days, which is 34 MWh in a year.34 MWh = 12 10^10 Joules


    How do you explain this discrepancy between the theoretical value you computed of 1.56 10^10 Joules and this value of 12 10^10 Joules which should be smaller ?
    FM

    @Majorana


    In your "spoiler", you state : "Therefore the energy which is set free by 1 g should be Etotal = 7.3x1021 * 4 *3 * 106 * 1.6*10-19 +2.7 x 1021 * 2 * 3 * 106 * 1.6 * 10-19 = 1.56 x1010 Joule"


    However, the Lugano report shows that 1/2 g of Ni produces 1500 KWh during 32 days and it seems all the Ni was transmuted into Ni62 after this period.


    Hence, 1g of Ni produces 3000 KWh in 32 days, which is 34 MWh in a year.34 MWh = 12 10^10 Joules


    How do you explain this discrepancy between the theoretical value you computed of 1.56 10^10 Joules and this value of 12 10^10 Joules which should be smaller ?
    FM

    Frank on E-catworld.com asked a very excellent question which points out a major inconsistency in the entire Rossi story -- how can the nickel be a catalyst if it is converted *entirely* from Ni-58 to Ni-62 during the Lugano Experiment? Note that the answer is highly evasive, typical for Rossi. The correct answer is "it can't be true" -- either it's wrong in the patent or it's wrong in the experiment report, or, as I suspect, it's wrong in both!


    I think I understood Andrea Rossi's reply to my question.


    It all depends on the definition of a catalyst and of a fuel (don't forget Magritte : « this is not a pipe »).


    The Lugano report could make us consider that Nickel acts more as a fuel than as a catalyst, as more energy is released by Ni than by Li :


    « If each 7 Li nucleus releases about 17 MeV we find then that the total energy available becomes 0.72 MWh. This is less than the 1.5
    MWh actually produced in our 32 days run, so more energy has to come from other reactions »


    and :
    « We find then that there is about 2.2MWh available from the Nickel transformations. Accordingly, from Nickel and Lithium together there is about 3 MWh available, which is twice the amount given away in the test run.
    Consequently we can conclude that the amount of fuel is probably compatible with the energy release being measured, although a quantitative statement requires detailed knowledge of the prevailing reactions. »


    IMHO, both Nickel and Lithium are probably fuel AND catalyst, in a broad sense, according to the various reactor and charge configurations.


    I think this is part of Rossi's IP strategy.
    His new patent publication (on August 27th) seems to confirm this.


    Best wishes
    Frederic Maillard