Rossi Suggests More Than Transmutation Taking Place

Here’s an interesting exchange from Andrea Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics:

Dear dr. Rossi,
last few months I carry in my mind this question:

a) A sum of output energy from E-Cat is equivalent to sum of all transmuted materials plus all energy inputs ?

or
b) A sum of output energy from E-Cat is many times bigger then equivalent of all transmuted materials (in fuel) plus all energy inputs ?

I have this heretic hypothesis, that b) is in order.

Dear Guru:
b) is better.
Warm Regards,.
A.R.

There has been a lot of speculation on the theoretical basis of LENR reactions — different theories have been proposed. Andrea Rossi rarely discusses his theory behind the operations of the E-Cat, often saying that he will only make his theory public once patents have been secured. He has said however that through the years that he has been working on his discovery that he feels they now have a good understanding of what is going on — and that his understanding has changed over time. In fact, he says the ability to produced the high heat of the ‘hot cats’ came about because of a new level of understanding. Now he suggests that more than transmutation accounts for the energy produced in the reaction.

  • LCD

    Im not sure that ‘more than transmutations’ is meaningfully different than ‘not exactly fusion’
    did the poster mean not just nuclear mass to energy?

    • anon

      Of course more than just transmutations — chemical metal hydride that burns up the inputs in a few hours.

      Where’s the two week independent tests?

  • Andreiko

    Maby mutaties +(hydrionen Blacklight Power)(b)

    • Renzo

      Fioravanti has returned on the Cobraf forum (so Rossi hasn’t disposed of his corpse in a 1200° furnace), in one of his last post he describes how a testing procedure works for an important client. The description is consistent with the little we know about the report to be published in semptember. So it seems we can expect something along these lines:

      “[…] when you do a measure for a potential client, you are forced to involve him in all phases. Therefore you prepare a procedure for measuring with as much detail as possible, describing also how the object of the measure is made, and you give it to him, well in advance, for any changes. And since the invited people are of high standard and therefore not available because of age and their role to participate in a test for hours or days, you allow them to bring with them, if they believe, some assistant who is able to attend on their behalf until the end of the test, which will last a long time because it comes to measuring an excess of energy, as well as power and other quantities. The instrumental data: you need to register them automatically or, if not possible, the equipment must be visible so that the data can be entered by anyone. At the end of the test you wait for the unit to cool and then disassemble to check and make sure that the components are those described in the procedure. […] The final report must be sent to the guests with all the instrumental and manual recordings and all the data extracted, so that recipients can make up the calculations and confirm, reject or amend the report’s conclusions. […]”

      http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5747&reply_id=123483840#123483840

  • Jacob

    I don’t believe till I see and touch it!

    • Ged

      Please don’t touch it, it’s really, really hot :<

      • dragonX

        🙂 good one.

      • dragonX

        🙂 then seeing it is.

    • Peter

      Really? So if 10 Million people have these and attest they perform as claimed, you would still not believe based on the reasoning you have not seen or touched one?
      Yikes, you are hard core dude!

  • Both answers had word transmutation, and English is confusing to AR at times.

    (LENR devices cannot create atomic explosions, but that would be like saying
    a) would your old LENR device be more capable of destroying the world in an explosion?
    or
    b) would your newer LENR device be more capable of destroying the world with an explosion?

    He is given two questions with wrong answers to choose from. So if he picks either you could write an article about how a Rossi device could blow up and dstroy the world which is also not true.

    Has Rossi said lately that transmutation does occur?

    p.s. LENR is safe and can blow up a radiator but not a nuclear explosion.

  • Chuck Hansen

    BLP has claimed for a while now they have observed fractional H (i.e. lower ground state, aka ‘zero point energy’?). BLP also have very positive remarks and observations from respected institutions / people. I believe even Brillouin states something similar to fractional H. As the electron comes closer to the nucleus, it releases energy.

    • morse

      After Rossi I had my hopes on BLP (Dr. Mills) but lately it has been surprisingly quiet on their part.

      • Perhaps it’s the asymmetric magnetism that Dr. Ahern mentioned some time back. If so, it would be interesting to see the patent fight between Rossi and Steorn, which based their Orbo solid state heat production technology (now known as HephaHeat) upon the action of asymmetric magnetic fields.

      • Chuck Hansen

        They had a somewhat recent update earlier this year:
        http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/validation-reports/
        Still, no updates since then. And, excess energy stated in those validations are very small, though apparently consensus it is not chemical.

    • GreenWin

      chuck, there’s a difference between ZPoint energy and Dr. Mills’ hydrino transition energy. Mills has 6 separate third party confirmations of his CIHT cell. The opportunity for these outputs (verified in mW) to scale up by orders of magnitude is great. ZPoint is a rough reference to virtual or Dirac space energy residing within the vacuum.

      Dr. Mills, has produced a working electro-chemical cell (fuel cell) whose only “fuel” is plain water. The cell uses its own energy to recover spent catalyst chemistry to make a closed loop system. We will shortly discover that LENR reactions similarly cause the H1 atom to shrink to a fractional state – either stable (Mills) or unstable (DGT).

      Discovering and working with this hydrino hydrogen atom is at the heart of new energy science. However, we will also be uncovering new ways to view electromagnetism and gravity which can also generate energy from “the vacuum.” Check out Dr. Henry H. Wienberger’s (Cal Tech Chem Engineering) validation:

      http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WeinbergReport.pdf

      • lcd

        I read mills theory and the challenge to the theory. So far the challenge was a clear winner. If mills believes the hydrogen atom can only shrink via a phonon energy transfer to another system/atom capable of receiving it then hes got to show the math that goes with it. So far he has not. His proposed wavefunction cant even predict the *known* hydrogen energy levels.

        He may have some empirical evidence suggesting something is indeed happening but he hasn’t connectednitnwith reality yet.

        • GreenWin

          lcd, would you show us your math disproving Dr. Mills? And if you don’t mind, your professional or academic experience with nucleonics. You apparently disagree with the CIHT data and the five other independent verifications of its operation.

          From your comment, it is plain to see how Rossi validations will be treated by the HISS. Fortunately, lowly bloggers don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

          • lcd

            Green I don’t dispute the data per say, i dispute Mills interpretation of it.

  • Robyn

    I’m sorry for being behind the times here, but I thought the E-Cat was at least descendent from the Pons/Fleischmann Effect.

    On this website (http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/robert-duncan-at-niweek/) the article refers to “talking unashamedly about the Pons and Fleischmann effect”.

    And NI Week had an “Experts Panel Discussion – Quest for Alternative Energy: Anomalous Heat Effect (AKA Cold Fusion).”

    And listening to a video of Francesco Celani I thought we were still talking about systems that derived (and improved from) Fleischmann/Pons.

    But in an exchange in JONP, Mr. Rossi had this to say.

    “Actually, our Effect has nothing to do with what Fleishmann and Pons made, but they ignited the research in this field with their work. This is their merit.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

    So can someone clarify for me: from what has been revealed so far about the E-Cat, how related is it to the Pons/Fleischmann effect?

    Are we talking “derived” like an F16 is derived from the Wright Brothers first plane?

    Or is this more like “nothing to do with” like an F16 has nothing to do with a hot air balloon?

    And irrespective of the E-Cat, do the other devices derive from Pons/Fleischmann?

    (or you could just answer: “Why am I so confused?”)

    Thanks in advance.

    • GreenWin

      In as much as the observed LENR AHE show up in metal lattice systems loaded with hydrogen (both electrochemical F&P-type, or gas loaded Rossi-type)- Fleischmann and Pons started the ball rolling. They are and should be recognized as the “parents” of cold fusion.

    • lcd

      i can answer thatsimply by saying i think rossi has no clue what hessaying because nobody ever figured out wht caused the f&p effect. unless he knows and he has compared it to is which i seriously doubt. i think rossi is a bit irresponsible here.

    • True and false.
      F&P launched the idea that heat and nuclear reaction was possible while loading deuterium into palladium in an electrolysis context.

      They thus launched the idea that loading hydrogen isotope like deuterium into a transition metal like paladium, excitating it like with electrolysis you could expect nuclear reaction and heat, with less radiation…
      In a way, recent LENR, NiH with gas phase, high temperature, and some electric excitation, is similar.
      But most of the Cold Fusion researchers looked more strictly in PdD electrolysis cell.
      The few who did not, are NASA GRC who tested few metals, with different hydrogen isotopes…
      Then few researchers like Piantelli, then Celani, Focardi…

      So Rossi is not wrong, because his NiH reactor is not the classic PdD electrolysis of F&P.
      Thermal excitation of LENR, and gas phase, is a key factor since it allows thermal energy recycling thus increasing the COP, and high temperature allow electricity production even if the COP is not gigantic. This is THE breakthrough.
      Finally Nickel low price make it much more disruptive for economy than precious palladium. Deuterium is less precious, but 1Hydrogen is really cheap (event if purifying it from deuterium is not free).

      • LCD

        But, “nothing to dp with the f&p effect” is ridiculous.

        Although I agree with you if he had said it was different than what f&p “hoped” I it was.

  • clovis

    Hi, ya’ll
    If I were to venture a guess i would say that transmutation was only one part of the hole effect and because of the fusion of the ni and h2 or whatever,
    and because of this reaction an added proton enters the mix possibly from the o-point and that is where the extra energy comes from, and i think Mr Rossie is now coming around to the idea that transmutation is not all that is going on, and at this point if were betting on that ventured guess, i would most likely lose my shirt.–smile it’s a whole new world out, and Andrea Rossie alone is the lead pathfinder…..–

    • Why is so much focus on the theoretical issues ? More important just now is to get the technology working for the good of mankind !

      Johan, Associate professor, Orebro university, Sweden

      • 😎
        you speak so strange for a professor ?
        are you working for industry ?
        are you a time traveler of 19th century ?
        You are not a scientist ?
        You work in epistemology or history ?

        Really you look … rational.

        note that fire, plane, steam engine, xray-machine, semiconductors, would have been ignored if people were thinking like today.

        • georgehants

          Alain, please explain your view a little more.
          Johan, simply said, “Why is so much focus on the theoretical issues ? More important just now is to get the technology working for the good of mankind !”.
          –Why would you say he was not a scientist.
          –Why would caring more about Humanity and not academic learning at this early stage leave him open to the apparent insults you have made.

          • Irony. A compliment to that comment, and a harsh critic on mainstream behavior.
            Scientist as you hear in the mainstream, or claimed as such, have a tendency today to refuse facts if they cannot build a theory first to explain their results. Some more open accept innovative theories, but most refuse to wait before proposing a theory.

            Even in LENR domain, I’m shocked how theory fill so much content in papers, compared to data and phenomenological content. The 3 law of Mizuno on the opposite are an example of good method, after gathering data. To try to find regularities, and like old astronomers to write laws like Keppler areas law. then you can call Newton or Einstein at the end, to solve the equation.

            In the old time, in engineerings, there is/was a different way of mind, trying first to accumulate data, develop usability, and by the way try to build a phenomenological model, that with centuries can became nearly coherent with core physic.

            The worst is that it seems possible/probable that unlike what many imagined, LENR will not disintegrate QM reference frame, just open our mind on the complexity of lattice, fractal or surface collective effects in QM framework.

            If Johan is really a scientist, he might be wiser than many…

            I don’t say that theory is useless (As an engineer I know that in theory practice is enough, but in practice, theory helps much), but that it came after phenomenological model, which came after data.

            Our century have make big progress because in many case the theory could orientate the research to find quickly good optimal solutions, but we seems now to refuse to work in the old way, without theory, as if we were ignoring centuries of history, of epistemology, of engineering.

          • georgehants

            Alain, thank you, but Johan in no way indicated that he disagreed with you.
            He just made the very reasonable statement that freeing Cold Fusion was more important then fully knowing the science.
            A view that would seem most scientific to many people.
            To disagree with him you must state that Cold Fusion should remain hidden until a fully excepted theory is worked out.

          • sorry George, I’m not clear, and too complex in a language I don’t master totally…

            I agree with Johan. I estimate his remarks, and agree too with you…

            we agree. 😎

            Anyway theory would be nice (and fun), useful, but not a priority… first facts, second phenomenological laws, then theory.
            And application as soon as possible…

          • georgehants

            Alain, sorry about the language difficulty.
            Every scientist has the chance to disagree with their establishment when it is clearly in error and if they do should be protected.
            Have read many of your good comments.
            Thanks. 🙂 🙂

      • georgehants

        Johan, are you agreeing that main-line science has made terrible and incompetent mistakes in it’s handling of Cold Fusion from the time of P&F.

  • timycelyn

    And the mystery goes on. Latest on his blog:
    “Dear Robyn Wyrick:
    Actually, our Effect has nothing to do with what Fleishmann and Pons made, but they ignited the research in this field with their work. This is their merit.
    Warm Regards,”

    In one sense (Ni/H) that’s true. On the other hand, it is in opposition to some of the speculation recently that began to wonder if the Ni provided an environment for H/H to occur.

    Yet another mysterious and possibly misleading comment

    • clovis

      Hi, Tim.
      Am i reading this wrong or did you just say that all other lenr configrations that do not have h2 Ni catalyst, are different and there for fair game

      • timycelyn

        Clovis, I’m just noting another pointer from Rossi, and trying (without any success) to see where it slots in to what I thought I knew about the ‘Rossi effect’. He says ‘Nothing to do with F&P ‘ that’s pretty definite. Does he just mean Ni+H is ‘nothing to do with F&P’ or is he trying to draw an even bigger distinction?

        Also, this points in the opposite direction to some of the recent speculation that Ni just provided a matrix fro H+H to occur in…

        • Blanco69

          Yes, I’m bemused by that comment also. Rossi might as well say that the ecat evolution has nothing to do with Prof Focardi. That would be wrong.

  • georgehants

    Wonderful Day, one day nearer clean water for the World.
    But very slowly, as Cold Fusion, now proven beyond dispute is denied by much of science for reasons, none of which can be justified in any caring society.
    Will things change?

  • Chris

    I tried searching on the words “heretic hypothesis” and I tried on “Guru” but neither gave any results.

    ???

    Anyways this would be the wierdest of Rossi’s claims. As for “his theory” he is definitely not a physicist, nuclear or what, so I don’t know what kind of theory he might have unless it is Focardi, Levi and co. that are actually working on it.

  • Renzo

    Daniele Passerini, who knows a lot of inside informations but doesn’t like to reveal confidential data, has published an interesting comment:

    “Now more than ever I believe that patience is a virtue and that it is useless to step on the accelerator of a car going downhill that already sees the destination it longed for, you may just slide it at the final corner. September 8 will bring many new elements. In October there will be an important event in Italy. After National Instruments in relation to LENR in general, another big and important multinational will come into the open soon, in this case as a partner of Rossi! And soon there will be industries with 1 MW installed and running, I hope here in Italy.”

    I presume the big and important multinational is Siemens…

    http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/08/riassunto-della-storia-di-andrea-rossi.html#comment-form

    • do you have the link ?

    • LCD

      Nothing passerini ever says about rossi amounts to anything interesting. So if hes talking about it it worries me.

    • timycelyn

      Sometimes Daniele’s comments are appetite whetting, but opaque. For once, this set chimes well with what is now leaking out elsewhere, and it seems a pretty clear list, (altho still less than 100% certain) viz:

      1. September 8th distributors conference (agenda does look interesting!) will reveal some significant new facts, not just ra-ra team cheering.

      2. In October -as Rossi announces on his blog – UNIBO will present their testing report on E cat and Hot Cat.

      3. Siemens will come out as a partner of Rossi. No date – ‘Soon’

      4. With the confirmation by Rossi of completion of certification of industrial systems, they can now be sold to others outside of the military. Given his lead times, possible military order book, shipping times and installation times, I am giving it 6 months – no later than Easter, before we get some factory or other going ‘We’ve got one and it really works..’

  • Ivan Mohorovicic

    It looks like Cobraf forum, for those interested in following Cures, is back up.

  • wolfgang gaerber

    ==== W O W ====

    b) A sum of output energy from E-Cat is many times bigger then equivalent of all transmuted materials (in fuel) plus all energy inputs ?

    I have this heretic hypothesis, that b) is in order.

    ================
    This would imply that the effect is not in line with general relativity.

    If true – this might be a fancy key to “Dark Matter”.