E-Cat Presentation Could be Delayed beyond February, Rossi’s Team ‘Still Resolving Problems’

I’m sure that many readers here are wondering what the status is of the presentation that Andrea Rossi has been talking about for a few months now. Recently he has said that he was optimistic that it would be held in February, but now it doesn’t sound like he is so sure. Here’s a Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics yesterday:

Gerard McEk
January 26, 2020 at 10:35 AM
Dear Andrea,
January is coming to an end soon. Are you stil optimistic that the presentation in February will go on?
All the success with the ECat SKL testing!
Kind regards, Gerard

Andrea Rossi
January 26, 2020 at 1:51 PM
Gerard McEk:
We are working on it and still resolving problems. The time runs too fast, but I am still optimistic. If it will not be February, it should be March, but we are close.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

What kinds of problems are they dealing with? Here is a Q&A between Rossi and Steven Karels on the JONP:

Steven N. Karels
January 23, 2020 at 6:06 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

You posted “we always have problems coming up.”

Please clarify. Does this mean:
1. New problems are arising and must each be solved?
2. The SKL has problems getting started?
3. The SKL has reliability problems?

Andrea Rossi
January 23, 2020 at 9:06 AM
Steven N. Karels:
1 yes
2 yes
3 yes
We are working hard as usual and I still am optimist . Really optmist.
Warm regards
A.R.

They are obviously not going to be holding a public product presentation until they are sure it works properly. Rossi is always optimistic, but it sounds like there are some issues that they are having difficulty resolving, and maybe expecting resolution by next month is not realistic.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Randy Booker Responds to Reader Questions about Brilliant Light Power Testing

Thanks to ECW reader Neil Ferguson for posting the following:

 

Because the report raised several questions in my mind, I e-mailed Professor Booker, asking him if he would answer any of them. He kindly responded, answering a couple that he was allowed to, given IP considerations. My e-mail follows. His response is at the end. [Also posted to reddit/BrilliantLightPower]

——- e-mail to Professor Booker, 1/25/20 ————
Professor Booker,

I along with numerous other observers of BLP activities are naturally very excited by tests whose results you have documented in “Report on the Power Output of Liquid Gallium Suncells at Brilliant Light Power”. (I attach a copy from the BLP website.) There are a couple of points I would ask you to clarify, subject, of course, to any contractual agreements with BLP. With your permission I will convey any responses you are kind enough to give me to groups such as [list of interest groups].

1. The report includes two abstracts that decisively assert remarkable performance of the BLP SunCell. “Brilliant Light Power has discovered a novel power source, the liquid gallium SunCell®, which produces a large excess of heat. These input power and output power numbers have been validated by me and are correct.” Firstly, because of the extraordinary test results, I wish to confirm that the abstract paragraphs in the report appear as written by you.

2. There is very limited information about the composition and quantity of gas fed to the reactor during the tests. “Fuel for the reaction was provided in the form of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) gas, which were supplied from tanks into an oxyhydrogen torch for optimal mixing. The resultant mixture was then piped into an external heated tube (~90 °C) containing granular platinum (Pt) catalyst supported on alumina to allow for spontaneous reaction into ~1% water vapor in atomic hydrogen that was flowed into the cell.” Can you tell us about what methods were used to measure the mass quantity of gas fed to the reactor and to analyze its composition?

3. Do you happen to have particular theoretical knowledge of the reaction of H2 and O2 involving the platinum catalyst? If so, could you tell us what can be expected to occur in such a reaction?

4. With respect to the input gas 1% water vapor, does that mean the gas was 1% water vapor and 99% hydrogen? Or would that be 99% hydrogen and/or gasses other than water vapor? For example, in previous information released by BLP, the bulk of gas in the reactors is inert (argon, I think.) Unless it touches on proprietary information, can you give us more details about the reactor’s gas fuel mixture?

5. BLP has announced successfully running their reaction for long durations, even extending for hours. The tests you report are short duration, under 5 seconds. The methodology for calorimetry of such relatively short reactions strikes me as rather delicate. Considering the extraordinary performance documented by your report, would you say that it is highly desirable to perform and publish well-calibrated and observed tests of much longer reactions?

I thank you for any feedback you are free to give us on any of the points above.
Respectfully,
Neil Ferguson

—– response of Prof. Booker – 1/25/20 —-

Dear Neil,
I can vouch that this report is indeed written by me. The two Executive Summary “abstracts” were also written by me.
The gas flows were measured by gas flow meters. The reaction that takes place is a hydrino reaction, where hydrogen in the presence of HOH and Platinum (which are catalysts for the hydrino reaction) forms a hydrino state of smaller radius than Hydrogen with the release of large amounts of energy. The answers to your other questions involve proprietary information.
Dr. Randy Booker
Professor and Chair
Department of Physics & Astronomy
UNC Asheville
Asheville, NC

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rossi Book Recommendation: “Maxwell-Dirac Theory and Occam’s Razor: Unified Field, Elementary Particles, and Nuclear Interactions” (Axil Axil)

Thanks to Axil Axil for the following post regarding a book recommendation by Andrea Rossi.

Andrea Rossi
January 23, 2020 at 3:24 PM
Keith T:
Thank you for your insight.
I also suggest you the book
“Maxwell-Dirac Theory and Occam’s Razor:Unified Field, Elementary Particles, and Nuclear Interactions” ( Amazon, 2019 )
by Giorgio Vassallo, Andras Kovacs, Antonino Oscar Di Tommaso, Francesco celani, Dawei Wang
About your question, I think it is possible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Maxwell-Dirac Theory and Occam’s Razor: Unified Field, Elementary Particles, and Nuclear Interactions

We introduce and use the space-time Clifford algebra, showing that only one fundamental physical entity is sufficient to describe the origin of electromagnetic fields, charges and currents: the electromagnetic four-potential. This simplified electromagnetic model turns out to be an improved understanding of electromagnetism. The obtained electromagnetic Lagrangian is the simplest possible relativistic Lagrangian formulation. Quantum mechanical relations follow naturally from this model, and we derive the electromagnetic formulation of the Dirac equation. The spinor field is shown to correspond to electromagnetic energy-momentum, and the complex-valued probability density is shown to correspond to electromagnetic Lagrangian density. This initial part of the book completes the theory initiated by Maxwell and Dirac.

The structure and dynamics of the electron are described next, showing how its mass originates from the electromagnetic field energy and showing how mass varies relativistically. Using this model, we derive the charge quantization mechanism. This part fulfills Einstein’s wish for understanding the electron before attempting to understand more complex particles. Through the study of electron dynamics, a more elaborate understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is developed, which is indispensable for understanding nuclear interactions.

The book concludes by showing how the same model can be applied to describe nuclear forces and nucleons, and a very large set of “anomalous” or unexplained experimental data suddenly make sense.

————————————–
Here, Rossi shows an interest in the structure of the electron by understanding the breakup of the electron into its more fundamental components.

An Amazon review as follows:

This is a difficult review to write. This is a very important book that will at some point be recognized for what it tries to do. It is a revolutionary and important scientific achievement. I would give it five stars for the science. However, I would give it one star for the personal character of the authors. First the book. Fixing the mess that is the standard model of quantum mechanics is one of the most important science projects of the 21st century. While touted as the most successful theory ever, the standard model has become a hodge podge of random assumptions and fudge factors leading to absurd conclusions about the nature of the universe. This book makes a very important contribution, beginning by reformulating the electron as an extended particle. The authors go on to state “the electron, and perhaps all other elementary charged particles, can be viewed as a charge distribution that rotates at the speed of light along a circumference whose length is equal to its Compton wavelength.” Modeling the elementary particles in this manner greatly simplifies quantum physics with so many insights just falling naturally and simply out of the math. The authors redefine the Heisenberg uncertainty principle while providing a straight forward explanation of electron tunneling. They further unify physics showing the strong and weak forces relationship to the electro-magnetic force.

Now the problem. The basic ideas in this book have already been deeply explored by Randell Mills in his three volume work “The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics”. The authors are well aware of this work since they reference J Naudts paper “On the hydrino state of the relativistic hydrogen atom”, which is all about Mills’ theories. But the authors never mention Mills directly. Clearly a deliberate snub. There are many similarities and many differences in the two works. The authors of this book, like Mills, model the electron as an extended massless charge that rotates at the speed of light. Mills calls this the orbitsphere. In Mills’ model the orbitsphere is a fairly complex pattern of currents that give rise to spin and other quantum features. In the present work it is an overall helical motion of the electron itself that is fundamental. The authors of the present work spend a lot of ink discussing Low Energy Nuclear Fusion and the role of collapsed hydrogen. Mills of course was one of the first to fully formulate the concept of collapsed hydrogen with an electron orbit below the Bohr state. He even coined the term “hydrino” to refer to this state. Mills states that LENR is possible but only at very small rates. The real source of excess energy is not LENR but the collapsing of the orbital itself. He explains in great detail why certain elements (eg. Lithium) and some compounds act as catalysts for this reaction. Not addressing and contrasting Mills’ model, which I believe to be actually simpler and more robust in explanatory power, the authors are as corrupted as the gate keepers of the standard model who they call to task for hampering advancements in nuclear physics.

I commend the authors for providing an outstanding work that seeks to correct the errors of nuclear physics and directly challenges the status quo. I condemn them for being as intellectually dishonest and frankly cowardly for engaging in the same censorship as the majority of the entrenched physics community.
The disagreement between this book and Mill theory is that Mills rejects quantum mechanics which forms the basis premise of this book.

What neither Mills nor Rossi has not yet recognized is the connection between the spinor and the Higgs field and how that connecting results in the LENR reaction.

Also see this post on hid book

https://www.science20.com/t…book

Randy Booker Validation Report of Brilliant Light Power SunCell Published: Generation of Kilowatts of Excess Heat “Real and Reproducable”

Brilliant Light Power has just posted the validation report titled ‘Report on the Power Output of Liquid Gallium Suncells at Brilliant Light Power’ by Randy Booker, Ph.D. of the Department of Physics of the University of North Carolina at Asheville, published January 11, 2020

https://brilliantlightpower.com/pdf/Randy_Booker_Report.pdf

There are detailed descriptions, images and data in the paper; here’s some data from the paper showing results from water bath calorimetry, plus the executive summary:

Executive Summary: Brilliant Light Power has discovered a novel power source, the liquid gallium SunCell®, which produces a large excess of heat. These input power and output power numbers have been validated by me and are correct. I have been given access to the data files taken during the experiments for this validation. Also, as for the gallium, there is no chemical reaction at all responsible for this excess power. Testing shows that there’s 100% gallium before and there’s 100% gallium after in the cell. All the observed energy in these cases must come from the HOH hydrino plasma reaction occurring in the reaction cell. The power gain of the hydrino reaction determined using water bath calorimetry reported herein was 4.24 times at an excess power level of 296 kW. I am led to the conclusion that the generation of the large net excess power in the liquid gallium SunCell® experiment is real and reproducible.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Brilliant Light Power Announce Validation of 300 kW Produced by SunCell, 5 Hour Test Successful

There is a news report on the Brilliant Light Power website that states that a validation of the SunCell has been carried out by Dr. Randy Booker, Physics Chairman, North Carolina State University, Ashville.

The website states that he validated “300 kW and 200 kW of power produced by BrLP’s proprietary hydrino plasma reaction maintained in its SunCell® using water bath and molten metal bath calorimetry, respectively.”

So far the actual validation report has not been published, but it states it will be forthcoming.

https://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-report-of-300000w-of-power-produced-by-the-suncell/

In another news bulletin, BrLP states that a five-hour steam production run with the SunCell was successfully carried out, in which steady steam at temperatures of between 350-400 C were achieved. They report that engineering issues with the SunCell are ‘largely resolved’. No detailed report of this test has been published so far, and no COP (ratio of energy in to energy out) was mention. More information is available here:

https://brilliantlightpower.com/five-hour-duration-steam-production-run-powered-by-the-suncell/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rossi: E-Cat SK Plasma Possibly Comparable to Ball Lightning

Over the years there have been people who have believed that LENR phenomena are related to ball lightning. This seems especially true in Russia where they hold a regular “Cold Nuclear Transmutation of Chemical Elements and Ball Lightning Conference” that deals with LENR topics.

Today there was a question on the topic on the Journal of Nuclear of Physics:

Prof
January 18, 2020 at 11:46 PM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
Can the plasma seen in
http://www.ecatskdemo.com
and described in
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
be someway comparable to the so called “ball lightnings”?
Thank you if you can answer,
Prof

Andrea Rossi replied:

Andrea Rossi
January 19, 2020 at 3:33 AM
Prof:
I’d say possibly yes. Ball lightning is a model I looked to when I had the initial idea.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

As far as mainstream science is concerned, ball lighting seems to fall into the realm of unexplained phenomena. It occurs naturally only very rarely and is therefore difficult to study experimentally. An overview of the topic on Wikipedia is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning

Quote: “Ball lightning is an unexplained and potentially dangerous atmospheric electrical phenomenon. The term refers to reports of luminescent, spherical objects that vary from pea-sized to several meters in diameter. Though usually associated with thunderstorms, the phenomenon lasts considerably longer than the split-second flash of a lightning bolt. Two reports[1][2] from the nineteenth century say that the ball eventually explodes, leaving behind an odor of sulfur. The actual existence of the ball lightning phenomena is not proven, but they appear in a variety of accounts over the centuries. Until the 1960s, most scientists treated reports of ball lightning skeptically, despite numerous accounts from around the world”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rossi Grades E-Cat SK Industrial Heater

Andrea Rossi stated yesterday on the Journal of Nuclear Physics that the 20 kW E-Cat SK heater (it does not generate electricity directly) that he reported had started operating in an unidentified industrial facility in November 2018 was still in operation, and that it was still using the same charge (i.e. fuel) that it had originally.  Rossi stated that the charge “is lasting more than expected”.

In a follow-up question, JONP reader Gian asked about the satisfaction and performance of this E-Cat SK:

You can synthetically – with grades from 1 to 10:
1) Express your satisfaction with the services provided so far;
2) Express your perception of users satisfaction?
Can you provide a percentage of the ratio between regular operating time and the time required for stops due to assistance interventions carried out by you personally and by your team?

Rossi replied:

Andrea Rossi

Gian:
1 7
2 8
3 70%
Warm Regards,
A.R.

 

From the grades that Rossi provides here, it seems that there have been significant problems to deal with. If an industrial heater is down for 30 percent of the time, it is not ready for wide deployment.

Rossi has stated that industrial customers need to have a backup heat service available, so that there is no interruption to operations if the E-Cat goes down.

In another comment, when Rossi was asked what the percentage chance that he would make the E-Cat SKL presentation in February, his reply was “51%”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Brian Albiston Reports on Mizuno Analog Experiment — No Excess So Far (LENR Forum)

Thanks to LION for posting a link on LENR Forum which was posted by researcher Brian Albiston who has been working to replicate the Mizuno LENR experiment.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6213-albiston-fluxheat-mizuno-analogue-experiments/?postID=126759#post126759

Brian has done an excellent job sharing data, descriptions and photos of his work. So far however he has not been able to replicate Mizuno’s results or anything close to them. He states that he is working alone and being assisted with funding by his FluxHeat business partner.

He writes:

“I am now one week into my first “fueled” Mizuno analog experiment and so far have seen no evidence of unconventional behavior. I want to share my experimental setup so that if unconventional results are later seen there is a previous understanding of my test setup and procedures.”

He explains that the preparation of the mesh is difficult and he is not even sure if was able to get any palladium deposited on the nickel mesh.

He says he is continuing to work on this experiment and is doing a “second pump down and bake out which will likely last another several days”

US Congress Charges National Science Foundation to Evaluate LENR Research and Make Recommendations

Thanks to Curbina for the following comment:

Jed Rothwell shared this news item at LENR-forum.

“ Final FY20 Appropriations: National Science Foundation

Low-energy nuclear reactions. The House report encourages NSF to “evaluate the various theories, experiments, and scientific literature surrounding the field of LENR,” which is most associated with the pursuit of cold fusion. It also directs NSF to “provide a set of recommendations as to whether future federal investment into LENR research would be prudent, and if so, a plan for how that investment would be best utilized.”

https://www.aip.org/fyi/2020/final-fy20-appropriations-national-science-foundation

The article states that Congress has increased the budget of the National Science Foundation by 2.5% this year, to a total of $8.3 billion. Congress does not set the NSF budget or allocate funds to certain projects, but does provide recommendations to the NSF, and so LENR is one of the areas that Congress wants the NSF to provide some funding for.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged