FIRST FREE ENERGY DEVICE REACHES MARKET IN OCTOBER -- The Game Changer is Here

[Gwandau]

Gwandau:

I can see that I am not going to get through to you so we will leave it at that.  The thing is a NUCLEAR REACTOR.  Think about that some more and perhaps do some reading.

MileHigh

MileHigh,

You know just as well as me or anyone here that the processes within the e-cat are totally unknown to contemporary science.
It is nothing near to our old concepts of nuclear reactors. You know that. 

To call it a nuclear reaction within the concept of our contemporary nuclear knowledge is uncorrect.

Yes, there seems to be some kind of nuclear reaction, since there is gamma rays and the conversion of nickel to copper,
but that is about all that fits into the old school concept of a nuclear reaction.

What is really strange here is the low amount of gamma ray expressed, contradicting any nuclear physics math.
Also the low energy input in regard to the energy output is freaky to any nuclear scientist of today.

So to throw at me the assumtion that this just a nuclear reaction, easily explained by old school knowledge
indicates that you actually totally have missed the point.

If Andrea Rossi is genuin, his findings will soon change not only the contemporary definition and
understanding of the processes within the atoms and our very definition of a nuclear process,
but as well the scientific outlook on reality, opening a vista of possibilities far beyond our wildest dreams.

Gwandau

[MileHigh]

Gwandau:

In the early days of cold fusion the argument was that they did not understand how the fusion was initiated, but once it was indeed initiated, the cold fusion process did exactly what the hot fusion process did.

In other words, the 'trick' was to figure out an alternative way to fuse two nuclei, and then after that there were no tricks, the fusion reaction did exactly what it was supposed to do.

You seem to be implying that "everything is new" and even the nuclear reactions that take place after fusion is initiated are all new.  I personally don't believe that for one second.  If you agree that "everything is new," than you are trying to imply that there are two different types of fusion reaction once the nuclei are fused, "normal" and "LENR."  There is just no way that is true, it's impossible as far as I am concerned.

Let's look at an example of how this could apply to Rossi.   They analyzed the copper reactant from his device.  In theory this was supposed to be copper produced as a result of nuclear fusion.  If that was true, they know what the ratio of the isotopes in that copper should be.  What they found however, was that the isotope ratios were identical to naturally occurring copper.

So, does that mean Rossi was cheating and he put regular copper into his device?  Or does it mean that a new second type of "LENR" fusion just magically produces copper in exactly the same isotope ratios as naturally occurring copper?

In fact, the copper isotope example is indicating that Rossi is actually a con artist and cheating.

We have time to wait and see what the results are.  However, if Rossi doesn't produce anything in five years, then as far as I am concerned he is a con artist.  Some of these people can go on for years and years and still have believers.  I believe that Blacklight Power has gone through $400 million dollars worth of investor money over 15-20 years and they have never produced anything.

I can accept the idea that somehow there is a way to fuse two nuclei together with less than expected energy - if you can prove it and show the production of significant amounts of power.  But I can't accept that something "new" happens once fusion actually takes place.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:

So it's a big contentious argument about nothing.  It would appear that you are not aware of what the usual standard baseline of understanding is so that people can communicate about this stuff with some measure of implicit understanding.  Otherwise we would go nuts.

The baseline of understanding is to separate the decay products into real tangible products and electromagnetic radiation.  Everybody knows about wave-particle duality, but that is not normally considered for this type of discussion.  It's always been understood that when discussing these matters, that the concept of tangible physical decay particles and EM radiation is the basic frame of reference for the discussion.

This concept is so universally accepted that I didn't think that you would be arguing that photons are particles.  More hot air for nothing.

Then what were you objecting to MileHigh?  You complained that I insisted that gamma rays were particulate in essence.  You denied this.  Now you agree?  Is it because you assume that electromagnetic radiation is NOT particulate?  Somehow?  Otherwise I cannot understand why you charged through so many posts demanding to be told why I CLAIMED so ECCENTRICALLY - that gamma rays were essentially particles?  Please be good enough to explain this.  I would have thought that my reminder about Heisenberg's principles was rather apt.  I get the distinct impression that you lost sight of the fact that when a particle is in motion the only thing that can be determined with any degree of certainty is it's velocity.  And when a particle is in a state of rest its properties may be entirely unrelated it's state of motion.  That's the paradox MileHigh. And as Wilby has pointed out.  The only possible resolution or even justification for any description relies on the postulated Higgs Boson.  And that's still not been proved.  We were promised proof in 2010.  Now they're hoping for this year.  But there's nothing tangible.  So far.  Which also means that there's nothing that's entirely known.  Other than the fact that indeed - behind every emission is a particle - of some sort. 

Kindest regards again,
Rosemary

[MileHigh]

Photons are normally considered massless particles Rosemary, that's the point.  No surprise that you won't even acknowledge my points about the normal, standard,  universally understood frame of reference for these discussions.  No concessions from you.

But a big concession is looming on another thread.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh,  This post of yours is alarming.

In the early days of cold fusion the argument was that they did not understand how the fusion was initiated, but once it was indeed initiated, the cold fusion process did exactly what the hot fusion process did.In other words, the 'trick' was to figure out an alternative way to fuse two nuclei, and then after that there were no tricks, the fusion reaction did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Not exactly.  In the early days cold fusion was discredited as there were no required gamma ray emissions.  This was courtesy the famous - to become infamous - debunk under the auspices of Dr Vest. 

You seem to be implying that "everything is new" and even the nuclear reactions that take place after fusion is initiated are all new.  I personally don't believe that for one second.  If you agree that "everything is new," than you are trying to imply that there are two different types of fusion reaction once the nuclei are fused, "normal" and "LENR."  There is just no way that is true, it's impossible as far as I am concerned.

Whether or not this is a new study or an old study depends on your view point related to the 25 years that have transpired since it was discovered - by Dr Pons.  Prior to this the assumption was that the transmutation of elements required the hot blast of a SUPER NOVA to cook the simple hydrogen atom into the complexities of our periodic table.  And subsequent to that there is no known explanation of this transmutation of elements without that required heat. 

Let's look at an example of how this could apply to Rossi.  They analyzed the copper reactant from his device.  In theory this was supposed to be copper produced as a result of nuclear fusion.  If that was true, they know what the ratio of the isotopes in that copper should be.  What they found however, was that the isotope ratios were identical to naturally occurring copper.

There is clear and unequivocal evidence of copper and sundry trace elements that were absolutely not part of the initial mix.  Therefore their existence requires analysis.  I know for a FACT that Rossi has made no claims regarding this evidence.  He has asked for expert comment.

So.  When you put this spin of the story ...

So, does that mean Rossi was cheating and he put regular copper into his device?  Or does it mean that a new second type of "LENR" fusion just magically produces copper in exactly the same isotope ratios as naturally occurring copper?  In fact, the copper isotope example is indicating that Rossi is actually a con artist and cheating.

then not only is is libelous but it is entirely inappropriate to the known claim related to this evidence.  Let me remind you MileHigh.  Rossi has made NO public explanation for the over unity results nor the evidence of the transmutation of the elements.  He only offers the experimental evidence.  And as Gwandau has pointed out - he is not asking the public for their money.  So why would you assume that he's conning anyone at all?

Rosemary

changed 30 years to 25 years - which I think is right.