Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Cold Fusion - Practical, Demonstrable
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > General > Lobby
tumetuestumefaisdubien
I've seen this earlier but I've quite hesitated to post it anywhere.
But when it is out I'll cite from their "peer reviewed" journal forum:

QUOTE
*
Pierre Clauzon
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:56 AM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62&cpage=2#comment-1935>


Dear Andrea,

You have explained the observed abnormal heat by transmutation of
Ni to Cu and then may-be back to Ni.
Could you tell us if, due to your lengthy experiments, you were
able to measure the content of Cu in the Ni powder and/or the
change of the isotopic aboundance of the Ni?

Best regards Pierre


*
Andrea Rossi
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:04 PM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62&cpage=2#comment-1947>


Dear Pierre,
Thank you for your important questions, here are the answers:
1- the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end
of the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was
integrally bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which
has worked for 6 monthes, 24 hours per day, at the end had a
percentage of Cu superior to 30%
2- About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were
substantially changed in percentage. We are preparing a campaign
of analysys with a Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometer at the
University of Padua (Italy), at the end of which the data will be
published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Warm Regards,
Andrea

Emphasis added, LINK

This are IMHO from scientific point of view really epochal claims, which nevertheless are not supplied and supported by any experimental data - which makes the whole thing extremely suspicious - something like the OCT of 9/11.

No wonder Steven Jones (who apparently colaborated with Fleischman and Pons before being thrown overboard) legitimately asks a half year later and his query was reposted at the Focardi/Rossi site:
QUOTE
—– Original Message —–
From: Steven Jones
To: Sterling Allan
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Rossi-Focardi 10 kW cold fusion ready to go commercial?

Dear Sterling,
I have the paper by Focardi and Rossi and find it lacking in detailed experimental results:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/...cardi_paper.pdf
The authors claim a proton-capture reaction on nickel nuclei (which incidentally is quite distinct from the 1989 d-d cold fusion claims of Pons & Fleischmann). The p-Ni reaction would result, if it occurred as claimed in their device, in large numbers of radioactive copper nuclei — easily detectable by the decay products of the copper radioisotopes.
Where are the quantitative descriptions of these copper radioisotopes? What detectors were used? Have the results been replicated by independent researchers?
Pardon my skepticism as I await real data.
Dr. Steven E. Jones


The answer of Andrea Rossi somehow defies all known logic and courtesy of a serious scientific debate:

QUOTE
Andrea Rossi
January 17th, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Dear Dr Steven E. Jones,
I have nothing to say, but this: by the laws of Physics, as they are, a bubblebee can’t fly.
Warm regards,
A.R.
p.s. I already said that I am not sure that my theory is right, and that I am working hard on it. Nevertheless, this theory gave me as a result a reactor that works.
Maybe that with also the help of you a better theory will be set up. In the meantime we produce reactors. We learn from the bubblebees: they decided to fly while lectured persons will find out the new laws on the base of which they can fly legally (under a Physics point of view).

LINK

So I naturally rest skeptical and despite the Focardi/Rossi sensational claims, which without the data look to me like a mere joke, I somehow still think the 4th generation nuclear (breeding reactors) is only on-a-long-term-basis viable way scientifically known at the time to mankind how to satisfy the quite near future demand for energy after the fossil resources will peak and the growth based economy would inevitably crumble which would inevitably inflict a global catastrophe long before e.g. the alleged manmade global warming in it's worst scenarios.

As somebody put it at reddit: "Wake me up when this has at least matured to the point that it gets into a real journal."
I just wonder what is the "bubblebee"...
GroundPounder
there are a lot of outfits/groups/nations working on CF. LENR(low energy nuclear reaction) makes sense to me because quantum mechanics allows it. i've been following this since fleischman and pons announced it.
even sent jones a query which he never responded to. as far as the isotope changes, that is to be expected imho.

not to knock the italians, but i thought the japanese or chinese were going to beat everybody to the commercial market. i also assumed that palladium would play an integral part. wrong on both counts apparently.

as far as long term goes, i would rather see totally de-centralized power generation. a cf reactor in everybody's house!

edit: i think she meant 'bumblebee'.
tumetuestumefaisdubien
QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Jan 23 2011, 07:17 AM) *
there are a lot of outfits/groups/nations working on CF. LENR(low energy nuclear reaction) makes sense to me because quantum mechanics allows it. i've been following this since fleischman and pons announced it.
even sent jones a query which he never responded to. as far as the isotope changes, that is to be expected imho.

not to knock the italians, but i thought the japanese or chinese were going to beat everybody to the commercial market. i also assumed that palladium would play an integral part. wrong on both counts apparently.

as far as long term goes, i would rather see totally de-centralized power generation. a cf reactor in everybody's house!

edit: i think she meant 'bumblebee'.

first, I thought Andrea Rossi is a man.

I'm not completely skeptical about CF, but what the Focardi/Rossi claim must be first supported by data, especially by the data of post run analysis of the "powder" - if they claim Cu "superior to 30%" "integrally bound to the amount of energy produced" they must substantiate it with thorough analysis preferably published in the peer reviewed real journal. Without it this looks to me as steorn orbo and other like fraudulent stuff.
GroundPounder
QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jan 21 2011, 07:16 PM) *
first, I thought Andrea Rossi is a man.


my bad. the only andrea i know is a swede and happens to be a girl.
tumetuestumefaisdubien
I would add, that a real science is about experimental data. I can imagine for example, they take their Ni powder, take samples, seal them, rest they put into the "reactor", run the test, open the "reactor", take another samples, seal them, do own analysis and if the results are as claimed above, send the samples to 3-4 renowned labs around the globe to confirm the results. I'm sure the confirmation with the today's analytical instruments wouldn't take more than 1-2 weeks. If confirmed then any Cu, not speaking 30%, will be found in the samples the Focardi/Rossi would most probably get the first physics Nobel prize available.
But because they claim something, but without the data and their independent replication, then it looks to me like the US govt. telling us the plane Tail No. N644AA crashed into the Pentagon, without producing any positive proof it was actually the plane claimed, so no wonder many people don't tend to believe it, because the positive identification would be matter of taking any numbered part from thousands and cross-check it against the N644AA papertrail.
tumetuestumefaisdubien
I was looking into the issue more deeply - because if this true it would be a really major breaktrough - but the question of Ni transmutation - which would be the ultimate marker of a nuclear reaction (together with a significant gama and neutron radiation which nevertheless wasn't found at all in the Bologna presentation - see report here) - is really handled very suspiciously by Mr. Rossi:

QUOTE
William
January 20th, 2011 at 9:01 AM
...
4) I read a comment on another forum claiming that in one of your cells after six months of operation the remaining nickel powder was 30% copper. Can you confirm this? ...


QUOTE
Andrea Rossi
January 20th, 2011 at 10:14 AM
Mr William:
...
4- No
...


then William quotes Rossi what he stated back at the same forum on July 2nd (linked above in my post #2):
QUOTE
William
January 20th, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Hello Mr. Rossi,
I found the following comment.

Dear Pierre,
Thank you for your important questions, here are the answers:
1- the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end of the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was integrally bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which has worked for 6 monthes, 24 hours per day, at the end had a percentage of Cu superior to 30%
2- About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were substantially changed in percentage. We are preparing a campaign of analysys with a Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometer at the University of Padua (Italy), at the end of which the data will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Warm Regards,
Andrea


No further pertinent answer from Rossi whatsoever, just:
QUOTE
Andrea Rossi
January 21st, 2011 at 4:40 AM
Dear William: stay in touch, soon we will give the necessary communication.
Warm regards,
A.R.


or later:

QUOTE
Andrea Rossi
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:28 AM

Dear William:
I think that now is important to make plants which work regularly, so that chattering will vanish.
When first cars appeared at the end of the 19th century nobody could believe horse’s era was over.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


With this in mind and considering the serious criminal history of Mr. Rossi I would really think thumbdown.gif

EDIT:
Tu sum up: To believe this is a real CF is like to believe a convicted fraudster, babbling unintelligible physical bizzarities and making epochal unsubstantiated claims he later contradicts…that he invented brand new physical phenomenas to save the mankind while atracting potential investors, although he avoids any real independent peer-review.

Much like the AGW fraudsters – falsify the data which then become missing, making black-box simulations and epochal catastrophic predictions, then draw loads of money from public resources, claiming they’re saving the mankind, but avoiding independent reviews and trying to marginalize and silence the oponents.

paranoia bussiness - just like the 9/11
GroundPounder
is it possible that it's a hoax? sure.

i'm not willing to allow the fellow's checkered past to factor in just yet. as far as not releasing details, if it's on the up and up, perhaps that would be like giving up the keys to the kingdom.

let's say for the sake of argument, they really hit upon the right approach. are they stupid enough not to realize the economic potential? and more to the point, how lucrative it would be for them to not be forthcoming w/ details. i'm not sure, i would behave differently. the flipside is that in disclosing details, they insulate themselves somewhat from being 'disappeared'.

just saying, so for me the jury is still out.
tumetuestumefaisdubien
I would take it upside down. Is it possible this is not a hoax? I don't know. Just Mr. Rossi looks to me like tale-teller, with his "30+% Cu" out of "pure Ni". Somebody making such sensational claims surely should have the analyses outputs at hand. Mr. Focardi with other scientists apparently worked about the anomalous heat in Ni-H reaction since almost two decades ago - see summary report.
GroundPounder
thanks for the link. it does look like they have been working on it a while. the interesting thing is that if their data is accurate, then they were seeing lenr. seeing neutrons is not supposed to happen in chemical reactions.
lunk
Perpetual? no beginning and no end
Motion? Does anything actually move?

Free energy,
What type of energy, and why isn't it free anyway?
Sun shines, Earth spins.

The battery that never needs maintenance, re-fueling or recharging.
Boundless, but controlled energy in a box.
A closed-system.

You know, we have this already,
it's just we are, still, inside of that system,
called the universe.
We've learned to (partially) control the energy from destruction at the atomic scale,
now, we must learn to use the constructive power at the cosmic scale, in the universe.

Imagine a box that gets heavier or lighter, at the turn of a dial.

...or do we have this already, too?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.