Rossi Working Hard to Understand the Physics behind the E-Cat in Light of New Report

It turns out that the results of the third party test have caused some consternation for Andrea Rossi and his team at Industrial Heat.

Some of the isotopic changes reported in the testing results have come as a surprise for Rossi and his team and are challenging their theoretical understanding of what is going on in the reaction. Rossi has said that the big surprise for him was the results of reported in the nickel where almost all the isotopes of Nickel to Ni-62. Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, he wrote:

I am studying the results of the test to reconcile the isotopical shifts. I am doing this with a nuclear physicist well known and expert of the matter and stronger than me in advanced mathematics. Perhaps we are approaching the beginning of a percourse to a reconciliation, remaining in the standard model, therefore avoiding dangerous exotic temptations. We want to find at any cost the solution. It is hard, it is not like climbing the Appalachian Mountains, but even the Everest has been climbed, at last. Just working.

Previously, Rossi had said that the E-Cat reaction can be explained by conventional physics, but the results now seem to be challenging this assumption, although it seems they are working hard to find a way to avoid a conclusion that leaves them outside the standard model.

The testers in their report admitted they were baffled — and it seems, at least at the moment, that Rossi and his team are too.

  • Jim Anderson

    It seems likely that the self sustaining mode is different then the driven mode and now Mr Rossi has information as to what is produced under the driven mode. My guess is that this information should help in creating a longer self sustaining mode. So the results are not bad they contain information of possible worth. It appears at least several things are happening in the E-CAT.

  • Zavod

    It is possible to gain a patent on a device if it is demonstrated to the patent office. A patent however, would need to give all the details such that another person skilled in the field could recreate a working device. Many things that work and are of value are not patented for that reason.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matt.deminico Matt DeMinico

    I presume they started with roughly 68% of the Nickel being Ni58? Ni58 + a proton yields Cu59. Cu59 has a half life of about 81 seconds, which then Beta decays (in this case converting a proton to a Neutron) into Ni59, which, while not “stable”, has a half life measured in the tens of thousands of years… so, stable enough. Ni59 + a proton yields Cu60, which again has a half life this time of roughly 23 minutes, at which point it then beta decays again, forming Ni60. Ni60 is stable. Ni60 + a proton yields Cu61, which, unsurprisingly, with a slightly longer half life (3.3 hours), then Beta decays into Ni61. Ni61 + a proton yields Cu62, with a half life of about 9 minutes, again, beta decaying into Ni62.

    Ni62 has the highest binding energy per nucleon of any element. Creating it yields a high amount of energy (when the Cu62 beta decays into Ni62 in this case).

    Is it at that point more difficult to cause fusion to occur in Ni62 in the reactor? Maybe, I don’t know. But Cu63 is stable, and it’s possible that going beyond Ni62 into Cu63 (a possibility) results in it just ending up as Cu63, which also is the most commonly found form of copper. Perhaps Cu63 doesn’t cause a fusion reaction in the reactor, and so it stops there.

  • Curbina

    Andrea Rossi
    October 15th, 2014 at 6:51 AM
    Curbina:

    Positive. Important. Problematic under a theoretical point of view, and we are working on this.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.
    _________________________________________________________________________

    Curbina
    October 14th, 2014 at 11:50 PM
    Dear Mr. Rossi:

    I haven’t asked anything here in a long time (last time was around
    2012), but I’m curious of one thing that I haven’t seen yet asked to you
    after the release of the report: In your opinion the results were
    Positive or Negative? (For me they were very positive, but I’m more
    interested in your perspective, of course, the results, as you also
    announced a few days before the release of the report, are tremendously
    important).

  • Bob Greenyer

    In LENR, it has been indicated that many reactions are possible – but elements and isotopes moving to Ni62 is actually quite optimal.

  • Omega Z

    The so-called Laws of Physics & the Exotic.

    I’m getting Old, But the Kid in me would love it if Rossi succeeded at the Exotic & Smashed a few Laws. My experiences in Life tho says one should have a very firm footing if they intend to shake things up. Kind of like playing King of the Hill…

    However, I would be quite pleased if Rossi just took the old guard back to school on what they overlooked in the existing physics. Knock some of the smugness off the faces.

    When One has reached the end of a beaten path, One must make a choice. Turn around & go home, Or become a trailblazer.

  • Ged

    Nah, replication needs to be by a completely unaffiliated group just using the knowledge from the report. Rossi-IH can’t do it themselves, at least not for the same effect, since then it’s a conflict of interest.

  • Job001

    A good team of Engineers, and Rossi/IH has them, are much more clever then you might imagine. For instance, most of the heat for a modern NG turbine generator which operates at 1600C could come from this process. These new generators get 60% efficiency. Either the extra heat can come possibly even from LENR or from a small add of NG or a slight efficiency drop can be used, whichever is more economical or desirable.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    for future studies it will be necessary to dissolve all of the ash (not just a portion) in acid and then do the isotopic analysis (in a heterogeneous mixture we can’t be sure if we’re getting a representative sample).

    • Curbina

      Sampling is a science on its own, I agree with your recommendation.

  • LilyLover

    I haven’t said it before, but I’ll say it now: I wish Rossi is very successful, more than all the banking dynasties put together. & Even if he’s not, or is a failure, I like the man. For his marathons, Petroldragon, daily-schedule, magical trickery, profoundly deep philosophical insights, or E-Cat – take your pick. Inept interpreters like to indulge in delusions. For the benefit of others – “…approaching the beginning of a percourse to a reconciliation, remaining in the standard model…” – by this he means possibly approaching the theory that could explain how to reconcile the gap between Newtonian & Maxwellian physics. If that gap can be logically explained with the new theory that he comes up with, and validated with predictions based on that theory, then, this conciliatory development of theory will enlarge the existing knowledge base without abandoning practical expression of earlier knowledge. What good is it to speculatively diverge into multiple theories like quantum gravity or supersymmetry if all those lead to meaningless dead ends?

    Also, when he says, “We want to find at any cost the solution.”, it means, if need be, he is willing to abandon standard model and develop a completely new theory. Also, note that, lyingly developing a “standard-model-gap-filler-theory” is more likely to yield him a patent than to resort to “correctly-developed-exotic-theory”. After the patents, he can reveal his true theory, exotic or otherwise.

    Instead of saying – “He should have known better than to say that exotic possibilities are dangerous.” – you should have known better to read correctly. Or you should have known better to study Physics or English, or perhaps both, to a greater depth to be able to interpret what he said.
    Getting a degree in philosophy is much easier. Any reader, contributor, or even a moderately skillful troll, or even a good pathoskeptic on this site is easily capable of getting a PhD in philosophy. Converse is not true though 🙂
    Again, because Rossi is a very good philosopher and he must have completed the required coursework, he got his philosophical degree.
    Your opinion is wrong. Inclusion of ‘in my opinion’ is supposed to sound like a humbel and cautious approach, but in this case, opinion of people with lesser reasoning, is wrong or immaterial. & This is not my opinion. 🙂 Just a true statement.
    When he has always said that the theory is not understood, simply the mechanism is engineered. The discovery of additional “we don’t know what we don’t know” does not offer a reason to reduced confidence in his earlier estimation of theory. Rather, additional discovery of “more things to be discovered” leads to overall reduction in ignorance and hence it is ‘new knowledge discovered’ noteworthy in and of itself.
    But then again, you could be a misguided soul or a good ole troll. Doesn’t matter.
    If you learn something out of this, well and good.
    General observation/question: Why is it that Physics/Engineering/Science majors are better at languages than the dedicated English majors with PhDs in English at English?
    BTW: Rossi has proven his worthiness of Philosophical PhD by providing a beautiful explanation of Higgs Boson field effect. If that analogy itself had been the only work of his lifetime, he has served mankind enough.

    • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry S

      Wow

  • LCD

    There is not going to be any new physics that doesn’t branch off some known physics so you start with what you know.

    It certainly isn’t going to contradict what we know of physics, just add to it, and modify our assumptions and approximations.

    It will probably contradict our assumptions and approximations though, but not the basic mathematics which is what I think some people think it will do.

    Its not like we’re going to wake up and say, “wow einstein was wrong”, or “nuclear physics is wrong.” We might wake up and say” oh look we didn’t think of that,” or ,”of course if you include that parameter which only effects such and such under these specific conditions, this make sense”

  • Ophelia Rump

    If you jump straight to exotic, your crack your pot in front of the other researchers.
    It is more than reasonable to focus no known theory before dancing off into the darkness guided only by your imagination.

  • DickeFix

    I agree but it is scientifically motivated to keep a sceptic attitude to the results until all ordinary and extraordinary sources of errors have been ruled out. A scientist knows that when the measurement doesn´t agree with theory, the probability that it is due to measurement errors is much larger than the probability that it is something revolutionary new.

    On the other hand, it is of course stupid to put deviating experimental results in the garbage bin because they contradict established theory, unless one is 100% sure they are incorrect. I fully agree that the strong indication of excess heat in the E-cat experiments motivates continued research and funding from Elforsk and the swedish Royal Academy of Science. As long as the scientists involved follow good scientific conduct, they should not be ridiculed even if the final outcome of the research would turn out to be negative. A positive result would have such enormous consequences for the society so it is well invested funding as long as there is any little chance it will work in the end.

    The main problem I have with the field is that LENR experiments often give irreproducible and even contradictary results. For example, the recent fuel and ash analysis contradicts the previous analysis and both contradicts Rossis information that enriched Ni-62 is a key ingredient in the fuel. The only thing which is fairly stable in the experiments is the excess heat generation. For the entrepreneur Rossi this is enough proof of concept but for the scientific community, the conflicting results and information are frustrating since it doesn´t produce any new scientific knowledge, Despite 25 years of research, we don´t know more today about the physics behind LENR phenomena (and E-cat in particular) than we did a quarter of a century ago. The only way, we can gain new knowledge is by repeatable and well controlled experiments on the same system by independent research groups.

    • Donk970

      A one or two percent deviation from the expected is a measurement error. three or four HUNDRED PERCENT isn’t a measurement error. Not to mention that these measurements didn’t deviate from the expected. The researchers expected a large coefficient of production and their measurements confirmed it. As far as LENR research in general there’s a wonderful interview with Dr. Melvin H. Miles at the US Naval Research Laboratory who was able to reliably reproduce F&P’s work within a few years and also get a good correlation between He4 and heat in at least a dozen experiments.

  • Jonnyb

    I find it hard to believe after all Rossi’s tests and analysis over the years that he has not found the same results. I wonder if he gave them a watered down fuel without the cat, one that would work but not so well in case they determined his whole secret formula.

    • Donk970

      I suspect that there is a whole mish-mash of transmutations that may occur depending on the initial fuel composition, temperature of operation, length of time and so on. The fact that it’s happening should not be in question at this point but unraveling what’s going on may take many decades of work.

      • LCD

        at this point i’ll be happy just if we have but one easy method to reliably reproduce the lenr effect

    • Omega Z

      Jonnyb, Rossi was already aware of isotope shift. It is to the large degree of shift that they were not expecting.

      That they weren’t aware of this large shift is easy to understand. Everything, all efforts, are aimed at SSM & EM Pulse driven. The thought of Operating the E-cat without SSM & EM drive 24/7 @32 days probably didn’t even come to mind.

      Regardless of the consequences, Good or Bad, Finding the unexpected is always exciting. It is a step forward.

  • Freethinker

    Well, every one to his own…

    Really. I have no problem to understand that he is focusing on understanding the reactions from a standpoint of known physics. Why? Because it will be easier to communicate, easier to get accepted, easier to get patented. If it requires some exotic theory, well, then those argument goes in reverse ….

  • LuFong

    When a scientific experiment is performed and the results stray well beyond expectation and/or does not conform to commonly accepted theory, the obvious thing to do is to re-examine the methods and results. Why? Because in almost ALL cases the results will be either as a result of mismeasurement, misinterpretation, incorrect procedure, or yes, even fraud. It is only after these possibilities have been ruled out should then new science be seriously considered. This is the reasonable and only logical way to proceed. It is not the nefarious methods of so called “patho-skeptics” but the nature of scientific investigation.

    And this is true as well for the most recent Rossi E-Cat experiment. The results clearly are revolutionary and contradictory to current well vetted theory. The measurements are not trivial as anybody who has read the report or followed the informed discussions about them would agree. The results do not conform to theory, even Rossi’s own undisclosed theory. It will be a while before this experiment is thoroughly examined. So it is not unexpected nor undesirable that the focus is currently on measurement error or process.

    Unfortunately on a larger scale the experiment suffers terminally from a number of major shortcomings that will mean the results will never be accepted as whole and definitive by the scientific community: 1) It’s not independent–Rossi’s involvement and Levi as well insures this; 2) It is not (yet) repeatable by the general scientific community; 3) It is still very much a black box test. All of these issues go to the first part of any science investigation, vetting the results.

    This is not to say these results are not important or interesting but like fingerprints at a crime scene, while they do not necessarily implicate the individual, they do point the way to possibilities. Hopefully this experiment can be replicated or Rossi is able to obtain his patent allowing for more open disclosure of the mechanism and theory.

    • psi2u2

      A very timely and reasonable comment. However, it deserves to be stressed that this is not just one scientific experiment, but the present culminating point of more than twenty years of dedicated research by many informed scientists, who long ago documented the existence of anomalous heat production under circumstances similar to those employed in this experiment. For that reason only, I believe you underestimate the impact of this report and depreciate the significance of the phenomena documented in it, which are not different in kind (at least as regarding the essential elements of excess heat production and transmutation) from those documented in many other experiments conducted by dozens of scientists in many countries.

      • LuFong

        True but the results are themselves are leaps and bounds beyond anything that has been scientifically reported over the past 25 years. It’s in my view a revolution within a revolution.

        As to the impact of the report, right now it seems to be having difficulty being even published. As I said it will be a while before this report will be vetted.

        • Gerrit

          Go and find a lab that will replicate the transmutation experiment by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and which was replicated by Toyota Central Research lab which both published the results in peer reviewed journals.

      • bachcole

        Your comments apply only to LENR, not LENR+.

    • Ged

      None of those short comings have anything to do with the raw data and experimental design (the actual important bits), however. Which makes them distractions or even red herrings.

      • LuFong

        Not true. The best way to check results is to repeat the experiment….

        • Ged

          Yes, reproducibility is required, but that isn’t a short coming of the report itself. Someone else has to repeat the report, it cannot itself do that by definition. That’s a bigger meta issue for a theory in general rather than the results of a particular experiment at the time of its reporting, and thus cannot be used as critisism against the report’s data until replication is done, just acceptance of the broader theory and interpretations.

          We vitally need replication for the field and solid verification; that is general acceptance of the reality of a phenomenon. But I can’t hold what must be done by others in the future against the report in the present, but use it as motivation and benchmark. If that makes sense.

          • LuFong

            OK, we are maybe talking about two different things. My concern is about the credibility/acceptance of the results. Even before theory is considered, scientists go out and repeat the experiment verbatim if they can.

            I wholeheartedly agree that we need replication in order to advance which is why I strongly support MFMP and their efforts. My expectations however are low….

            • Ged

              I can understand what you mean, and you’re quite correct. However, I’m trying to disentangle those broader field issues from criticism of the report itself. No scientific paper is bad because people haven’t had time to replicate it, only if they fail while trying in good faith. Criticizing the report so strongly for what no one could possibly get done yet is dangerous in regards to the view of the general audiance who may offhand think that such means something fundamental is wrong with the paper, making them unfairly judge it and the authors without even looking. I’ve seen posts displaying such mindsets and effects here. We just must be careful due to the powder keg of venom against the subject.

        • Ged

          All that said, your post is very good :).

        • Gerrit

          If you had started 25 years ago, you would have already discovered how to do it. You are a bit late don’t you think?

    • Donk970

      Take a look at http://coldfusioninformation.com/organisations/us-naval-research-laboratory . I know that the US Naval Research Laboratory is a real fly by night organization staffed by imbeciles but they certainly seem pretty convinced that cold fusion experiments have indeed been replicated. At some point one must look at the whole of what’s been going on for the last 25 years and conclude that low energy nuclear reactions really are taking place.

      • Freethinker

        I second that, like +10E99

    • Private Citizen

      That Rossi admits to being surprised by the isotopic results when trying to reconcile them with his previous theory, this is evidence that he isn’t faking. A faker wouldn’t admit his own theory was incompetent at explaining the results he just faked. A con man wouldn’t undermine his own confidence.

      With you, i’m anxious to see every step toward replication and final validation.

  • Donk970

    Basically I agree with you. The question of “is cold fusion real?” has, imho, been definitively answered. The question that remains is “can we do something useful with it?”. If I were running things at Industrial Heat I would look at an off the shelf stirling engine that could be adapted to run directly off the heat produced by the e-cat. An engine like that produced by http://www.sp-usa.com could most likely be adapted fairly easily and wouldn’t require steam generation for turbines or anything like that. Whatever they do it doesn’t need to be elegant or efficient or even produce a particularly large amount of electricity but it does need to produce electricity out with nothing coming in. If it needs power to start up it should be supplied by a battery.

  • Christopher Calder

    It is human nature to judge and be critical of the work of others. No test can be constructed without criticisms. Defkalion was unfairly criticized for having an imperfect water heating test of their reactor, yet both wet and dry testing methods showed the reactor produced large amounts of excess heat, and the reactor was run with argon gas instead of hydrogen gas for calibration with both wet and dry methods. The results always showed excess heat in about the same amounts no matter how tested. McCubre was fooled, I believe, by the noble gas engine scam, so I would not put him on too high a pedestal. Scientists have pride and are fallible human beings just like the rest of us. I look at the big picture and judge the entire train of events over time and look for patterns. Are the patterns consistent in one way or another. Long term pattern recognition of events, both social and scientific, show that the Rossi device works. Solar Hydrogen Trends is a newer entry so the pattern history we have to study is short, but so far from all the information I have, they are consistent with authenticity, not fraud. If that is true, the world will change in a flash because their technology will be so easy to incorporate into our economy and transportation devices that light speed global economic change is possible.

    • bachcole

      I would have to ask you, Chris, to get out of my head and stop reading my thoughts. That is plagarism of a high order. <> (:->)

    • LCD

      how was mcCubre fooled, seriously, I haven’t kept up?

  • Obvious

    G-75D catalyst—that is a 0.4% Pd activated carbon catalyst from: United Catalysts, Inc.

  • Andrew

    Maybe hot fusion scientists should ask. They have been spending billions and taking decades based on our current theories.

    • Gerrit

      most likely the hot fusion scientists have been using bilu for the last decades already.

  • Donk970

    I think that in time ( >20 years ) it will become clear that there are many paths to cold fusion nirvana. There may be just a small set of common requirements but many ways to satisfy them in practice. It is my honest opinion that we are getting the first glimpse of a whole new branch of physics.

    • psi2u2

      Donk, I am not a scientist, but a humanities person with a strong interest in science and the history of science. From that vantage point, it looks to me that you are correct about “a whole new branch of physics.” How exciting to have a front row seat.

    • Daniel Maris

      There are many types of fission reactor, aren’t there? Different types of fuel and process. We may be looking at something similar here.

  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    Well it’s in the nature of assumptions that they might be incorrect.

    Just a couple of points: I think it’s dangerous to blow off results simply because they don’t match expectations or have no ready explanation… and I sure hope Industrial Heat or the report’s authors are working overtime to figure out what exactly is really in the ash.

    Where did the rest of the ash from the test go (presumably back to IH)? Whoever has the rest of it should analyze the crap out of it.

    • Donk970

      The most important piece of information to come out of this test was a COP of ~3.5 over an extended period of time. Measurement errors might explain a few percent high or low but not 300%. Second is that a net energy out even if it’s off by 50% is still way too big to explain with anything but a nuclear process. Analysis of the ash will hopefully shed some light on what the exact nature of the nuclear process is but won’t change the basic fact that the process is nuclear.

  • Zavod

    I was looking forward to this report but sadly the results, according to McCubre are full of holes. This report is primarily another statement to the effect that Rossi and company are rank amateurs.

    • Donk970

      All cold fusion research was driven underground twenty five years ago and has been largely Edisonian in nature. To do proper science would have required funding which was definitely not on the table. The “holes” you refer to might explain a COP of 1.1 or so but certainly not 3.5. The importance of these tests is that the effect is way to big to brush off as experimental error. This really can’t be ignored anymore and hopefully real research funded by real grants will unravel what’s going on here.

    • psi2u2

      This judgement is inconsistent with the well established profession reputations of the testers. You are also, imho, misrepresenting Mc*K*ubre’s analysis – so I recommend that readers read the original rather than trust this summary.

    • Job001

      This was a proof of concept test, not a design for a moon shot. Amazingly, it has taken 29 years(vs 60 yrs for hot fusion and still nada) from the original hint that excess heat occurs differently in lattice then in plasma. Personally I liken the difference to the difference between particle physics and wave physics. Standard physics with surprises.

      Different instruments(lattice vs plasma…), give different results, interesting thought.

      So, if it is dynamically fundamentally about waves rather then particles, it would explain some confusion and it would have certain scientific panache. Ed Storms did an excellent job of delineating LENR and his latest book can be bought at; http://coldfusionnow.org/store/newbooks/

    • LCD

      I’m not sure it’s that bad Zavod. Clarification is needed but it’s not so bad.

    • Doubting_Thomas

      I agree the ECAT report is disappointing. Many posters here keeps assuming there was a COP more than 1 based on the temperature measured by the thermal imaging camera. The thermal imaging camera was not calibrated at the temperature where the ECAT operated, and therefore it is possible the camera was not measuring the temperature correctly. Keep in mind the radiation energy is a T^4 function. This means that if the actual temperature was off by just 25%, then the power due to radiation would drop by ~70%. I have used thermal imaging cameras and I would not trust their results without a calibration at the expected temperature. How does an experiment of this magnitude not include this kind of control?

      Second, if I was running this experiment, I would have insisted upon double checking the output power with a second method. How hard would it have been for the testers to put the ECAT inside a coil of copper tubing and run water through the tubing at a known rate, and then measure the temperature of the water at the inlet and at the outlet, and weigh the water which flowed in the tube with a large container at the outlet. This simple test could have been used to approximate the power (both radiation and conduction) coming out of the ECAT, and confirmed or denied the output power.

      I am sorry to say the incompetence in the execution of this experiment makes me doubt the result was a COP>1. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

      • Zavod

        Their excuse for not driving the dummy reactor to higher temperatures due to melting of nichrome resistance wire is specious. They could have used tungsten and made measurements at a number of power input values that bracketed the expected temperatures of the working cat. Rossi is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination and not even a decent engineer. He is capable of kluging things together but has the idiotic idea that everyone should just trust him.

        • bachcole

          Rossi has not asked anyone to trust him. He has demonstrated his device to people. It is Levi, Kullander, Lewans, etc. that I trust, and they did not even ask us to trust them. They simply vibrate with trustworthiness. But skeptopaths are characteristically devoid of social awareness and skills, so I guess that you will just have to wait for the E-Cat to become obvious while you stew in your social blindness.

  • Donk970

    Question: Is the transmutation of Ni58 and Ni60 to Ni62 THE reaction or just a side reaction? The way to answer this would be to simply run the reactor on a pure Ni62 fuel load. If it doesn’t run at all then you know that transmutation to Ni62 is where the energy is coming from. If it does run the question becomes what elements are present in the ash after the run?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In the older E-Cats, Rossi used allegedly a fuel where 62Ni and 64 Ni had been enriched. But in the latest test, the ratio of the Ni isotopes in the unused fuel was identical with the natural composition. There are so many possible hypotheses to explain the difference that I prefer to refrain from speculations in this case.

      • Donk970

        Speculating (creating a theory) and then designing an experiment to test the theory is how science is done. It’s entirely reasonable to speculate. Pronouncing that xyz is what’s happening without any experimental evidence to back it up isn’t reasonable. So, go ahead and speculate 🙂

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I did not say that speculation is useless. But if there are too many possibilities it can lead you round in circles. Unfortunately, here on ECW we cannot make our own experimental studies in order to break the loop. (Once we founded an experiment on oxy-hydrogen gas, but the person who had promised to carry it out eventually disappeared without a trace…)

          • Donk970

            I wasn’t criticizing 🙂 Speculation is the fun part of science. The sometimes many decades of dogged experimental work to turn speculation into a solid theory is the hard work that the professionals do.

      • Donk970

        My speculation is that the transmutation of Ni and Li are side reactions that depend on the composition of the fuel, the temperature, the length of time the reaction continues and a host of other things. The amounts of various nuclides in the ash could be quite variable. The more important question, I think, is what’s happening to the hydrogen and is there a corresponding amount of helium being produced. If hydrogen is being consumed but no helium is in the ash then hydrogen is feedstock for the neutrons that are driving transmutation. If that’s the case then one would expect to see Ni62 as the reaction endpoint and production of heavier nuclides as an undesirable reaction that is robbing energy from the system. It’s fun to speculate and I’m sure that it’s just such speculation that will eventually lead to a theory about why this happens.

  • http://wermenh.com/index.html ricwerme

    Does this mean IH sees a different composition in the ash? That seems unlikely.

    Does this mean that IH has never assayed the ash? That seems unlikely.

    And what happened to the hydrogen, anyway? Did it get used or did it diffuse away?

    Given the 7Li -> 6Li shift, Lithium is part of the fuel and not a magic catalyst. Without a catalyst, this reduces to “mix this stuff together and heat to challenge long-understood nuclear physics.” That seems unlikely too!

    • Manuel Cruz

      Note that there were differences in how the test was performed, in which the aim was to make measurements easier, and the way the E-cat is usually tested to maximize COP. Diamonds and carbon have the same composition but are created under different conditions.

      • Fortyniner

        Yes – Rossi’s R&D team probably pushed all their reactors closer to their limits, and have developed a theory based on ash analysis results from those in-house tests. As well as possibly different physics involved when there are no self powered intervals, there is always the simpler possibility that the ‘slow cook’ of the test protocol resulted in physical separation of the ash constituents and an unrepresentative sample.

  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    That so much of the fuel “settles’ to become Ni-62, the nucleus with the highest nuclear binding energy of all elements, is a huge clue. This is no longer the search for a single nuclear reaction chain or two triggered by energetic hydrogen or liberated neutrons.

    This is a search for a fundamental effect that permits nuclei to come into extended contact and seek the deepest energy well. This is quantum or boson soup at the boundary level. Nickel-62 grains built up layer by layer as they grab iron, aluminum, lithium and other nickel nuclei and consume them.

    Trusting the report’s spectroscopy and spectrometry data, that is.

    Industrial Heat can run these experiments any time they want and could generate ash to study further in a day. They should either confirm or debunk these observations in the report as soon as possible.

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      Key point I’m not sure many understand: assuming the ash sample is representative, there is not enough nickel in the fuel to explain the nickel in the ash. The iron, aluminum and lithium are basically gone and the nickel has almost doubled. This is not just a matter of nickel isotope shifts.

      Also, you’ve got grains of Ni-62 in the ash that are huge compared to the initial craggy nickel particles in the fuel. The process, whatever it is, *grows* Ni-62 particles, it doesn’t just transmute them in place.

    • Bernie777

      Right, I would imagine they are running the 32 day test right now.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It is what it is. The science must be fit to the facts not the facts to the science.
    Personally I would find it more exciting if there is new science.
    This whole avoidance issue only highlights how warped science has become.

    Science has an omnipotence complex. Therapy is required.

    • Dods

      Life, Science its all a journey and it should be exciting. Not a better time than now to enjoy its ride.

    • Pierre

      Mary I’m going to need therapy soon because it finally appears like your mind is opening up!

    • Gerrit

      Scientists are only humans with mortgages to pay. Science has become institutionalized to such extend that many scientists appear to be workers in a fast food restaurant competing to become employee of the month.

      We are long past the times of Becquerel, Curie and Rutherford.

    • psi2u2

      As so often, Ophelia, you have pinned the tail on the donkey in a room full of blind people.

    • Donk970

      I spent the first half of my career as a bio-scientist before turning to writing software to make a better living. To this day though I am endlessly fascinated by the things we don’t yet understand. To me science is all about the unknown. Whenever a so-called scientist becomes a defender of the current ideas against the unknown they are no longer a scientist but rather a priest. Every scientist on earth should be absolutely giddy over the prospect of a whole new branch of physics that may be revealing itself instead of shoring up the battlements of what they know today to defend against the unknown.

    • Donk970

      “Why do so many scientists institutionally loath not having a textbook answer available for lookup?” There are those who are by their very nature scientists and who exalt in the new and unexplained and then there are those who are book keepers who fear anything that challenges what they know to be true today.

  • Curbina
    • GordonDocherty

      “who had his own doubts” : that were addressed and cleared following the talk with the said expert, just to avoid any misunderstandings.

      • Curbina

        Yes Gordon, I thought it was straight forward that the expert opinion is completely positive regarding the TPR2 thermometry.

        • psi2u2

          This is very good news, since some “skeptics” have focused a great deal on the alleged deficiencies of this methodology.

    • Obvious

      “Dr Brian Ahern and his team have a strong preparation , and they do not need my help. I believe they will be first in the race to be my competitors in the market.”
      – Andrea Rossi, JoNP, June 23, 2011

      • Curbina

        Rossi has already said that one of the two claims that they (IH) could verify on their own was of Dr. Ahern’s group.