Andrea Rossi November 27, 2019 at 8:40 AM
Peter Forsberg:

Welcome back !

With the right partners this could take not much time, because our module has been designed using parts already off the shelf and already manufactured in millions of pcs per year. I used all the experience made in the last years to avoid bottlenecks in the industrialization phase.The passage to a strong industrialization could be much faster than the time to realize the prototype.

Warm Regards,

A.R.
--------------------------------------------------------------
This means that Rossi is not using boron nitride tubes anymore, and the SKL does not produce light. The ballerina is gone. He might have come back to stainless steel for the shell of the reactor. There seems to be no more issues with extreme heat production.

You might be right Axil. He hinted at big changes with regard the design and the Ballerina.

I hope he keeps one of his original SK’s for the museums though.

From his response to me earlier, I think it’s been running in closed loop for about 5 days now already! This is quite amazing if I understand it right.

Wish we had the power ratings and loads but I guess that will come eventually.

How is electron flow produced in the SKL reactor?

In the Dekalion system, the pico clusters (EVOs) were seen to explode in a Bosenova. The continually excited EVO must have a limit to the amount of energy that it can store before the EVO becomes unstable. When that limit of instability is reached, the EVO explodes.

This Bosenova produces ionization of matter in the vicinity of the explosion. It also may be possible that a large volume of electrons reform from the spinors that the EVO was made composed and are released back into the plasma ball.

Because of confinement in a quadrupole magnetic field, the EVOs are highly localized and as a result, the center of the plasma ball becomes highly charged with electrons. The electrodes that pump the plasma with RF also return electrons through the load back to the plasma. New EVOs form again inside the plasma and migrate once again to its center of the plasma to replace the super heavy and energy engorged EVOs that have exploded.

The outside of the plasma is more positively charged than the center of the plasma ball. Electrons will flow to the outside of the plasma ball.

From SAFIRE we know the charge in the plasma will separate and this separation must also be happening inside the SKL plasma. This charge separation is most likely the cause of current flow in the SKL reactor.

Predictions implied by this posit is as follows:

There will be a metal sheet that will surround the plasma ball make of nickel. This sheet will block light from being seen as we saw in the SK demo. The vision of the ballerina will be gone in the SKL.

EVOs are stabilised by ions, Shoulders established a typical ratio of 100,000 electrons to an ion, not enough ions and they become unstable, they also become unstable at any impedance change, say for instance at the boundary between a liquid or solid and a gas or at a crystal grain boundary.

Shoulders used a penning trap, capacitive and magnetic field combination - the EVO needs to be fed electrons without any impedance changes for it to be kept under control.

An EVO is self similar, on destruction parts of it may form other EVOs that can be 'spun up' or later cluster or be assimilated.

How do you think that shoulders counted the electrons that make up an EVO? Do you think that the EVO coming out of ECCO fuel that you photograpted, the one that was 200 microns in size contained just 100,000 electrons; the one that had a hexagon supersolid pattern on its magnetic flux tube?

How do you think that Rossi gets his EVOs to explode? Also, how does neutrino condensation fit into this electron based EVO mechanism?

He said it achieved solid densities of electrons. I think I am right in saying a 5 micron had 10 to the 23.

It is 100,000 electrons PER ION. say one H or Xe ion would stabilise 100,000 electrons, however, for 10 to the 23, that is a LOT of ion carrying capacity.

As I have said before, in my view, there is condensation of neutrinos. I will spell it out in more detail after the book is available (soon) - however, you can refer to Shiskin's SVS for part of the story.

With respect, I don't buy the "electrons PER ION" consideration. A Bose condensate requires that all the constituents or members of the condensate (say up to 10^23 of them or more) must be absolutely identically the same thing. Even there energy level must all be the same. This requirement is called entanglement. The condensate must form in a way that the contents of the condensate act and be identical in every way. Your proposition of a mixture of ions and electrons does not conformed with this requirement for Bose condensation formation.

This requirements for identical condensation members is why neutrinos cannot be a part of a mixed member condensate. A mixed member condensate is not possible and not allowed. There is another "NoNo" involved. A members of a Bose condensate must all be bosons. Neutrinos are firmions.

In Rossi's latest theory, Rossi needs electrons to be converted into bosons, This is where the need for "coherent chain of bosonic electrons" comes from. Rossi then dreamed up a crackpot idea that a "Zitterbewegung phase" produces "bosonic electrons".

The neutrino theory also needs some sort of mechanism that transforms them from a fermion to a boson in order to form a Bose condensate.

By the way...
Zitterbewegung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Zitterbewegung of a free relativistic particle has never been observed.

To clarify a little, the WHOLE EVO IS NOT A BEC - PARTS OF IT ARE

Every Ion is made up of

- Protons
- Electrons
- Neutrinos

Neutrons are a combination of the above.

That's it.

A boson is a spin integer particle or composite particle.

Cooper pairs are bosons. Please read / review my review of Myshinky that I did long before Rossi's paper.

https://www.youtube.com/pla...

Then please look again and read some of the links I gave in the intro video to SPACE . EARTH . HUMAN .

Its my guess that the energy being generated by the new Rossi LENR reaction (SKL) is coming from the center of the plasma because of the confinement of the EVOs along the central axis of the plasma by a quadruple magnetic bottle. The LENR reaction is catalyzed by the EVOs that produce a negatively charged electron cloud at the center of the plasma ball. So the plasma must circulate from the center to the more positively charged outside edges of the plasma and back to the center again. An electron collection mechanism is resident somewhere just outside the plasma ball maybe on the outside edges of the plasma where the circulation of the electrons are collected on the positively charged anode and then rectified.

In the original heat producing SKL. the reported heat could have been produced by the thermalization of plasma flow against an insulating outer containment shell( boron nitride tube) where the kinetic energy of the electrons were converted to heat, but in the electric version of the SKL those electrons are now being captured by a grid that acts like an anode on a vacuum tube. The plasma cannot be that hot if the metal anode can survive inside the plasma flow. The heat that falls on the anode can be adjusted by the inverse square law...making the tube bigger and moving the anode further away from the center of the plasma ball.

As a speculation, think of the electric version of the SKL as a big vacuum tube.

The electron flow comes from the center of the hot negatively charged plasma ball (emitter) but is captured by the metal anode that encloses the plasma ball. The customer could control the heat production by applying a voltage to a grid that lies between the anode and the center of the plasma ball.

Being far more massive than the electrons, the EVOs would be confined by the quadruple magnetic bottle more vigorously than the lightweight electrons who would then make their way to the positively charged anode. The voltage of the power produced could also be controlled by the confinement strength of the quadruple magnetic bottle.

The cathode function would be carried out by the two nickel electrode that pump the plasma ball with RF. These two electrodes would be more positively charged than the plasma ball and would serve to return the electrons through a load circuit to the plasma while also producing the RF pumping signal.

https://res.cloudinary.com/...

Shoulders had the metal tube at a lower positive bias to harvest the electrons shed from the EVOs as it travelled between the electrodes.

Rossi, please stop fooling us and do what Bob has said. This topic is too serious to play with and one day you will have to confess, what you deliberatly have or not have done!

Actually, Rossi only needs to do what the independent entity requires.

This addresses an open question of Bob Greenyer . . . "was the test 'closed loop' ?"

===================================================

Frank Acland
November 25, 2019 at 8:15 AM

Dear Andrea,
In your test this Saturday, was the E-Cat SK Leonardo operating without being connected to any external power source? In other words, was it operating in a closed loop (producing enough power to sustain itself)?

Many thanks,
Frank Acland

_____________________________________________

Andrea Rossi
November 25, 2019 at 10:41 PM

Frank Acland:
Yes, the Ecat SK Leonardo works in closed loop, producing enough electric energy to sustain itself, plus electric energy to power for example an engine, or whatever you want, reaching any power just assembling ,ore modules to put in series and parallels. Here stays the revolution.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

Frank, your question was a good attempt at getting the answer needed, however, Andreas' answer again falls short, which it must not be permitted to do as it is using peoples life/mind time and it permits him some 'lost in translation' get outs.

He says it "works in closed loop" - which is bordering on assumption and ambiguous enough to be a re-statement of his previous statement "we got more electric energy that the electric energy necessary to make the Cat work" which could merely be evidence of a miss-calculation of input, output or both. He did not say "worked" or "was working"... "in closed loop".

The question needs to be answered in this way.

"On 23rd of November 2019, we connected the generated electrical power from the output of the E-Cat SKL to the input of its control system and it operated for x hours, independently of any external power supply"

Even then it would be devoid of any proof, even rudimentary proof.

Depending on the weight of the device and any potential accumulator, capacitor, battery or other energy storage device, the net energy yield would need to exceed what would be possible from any chemical means, leaving only nuclear or other higher energy sources as possible (say nuclear alpha/beta voltaic cell or LENR etc.).

I really, really want this to be true, it is unimaginably easy to give a clear and unambiguous statement on this. In the absence of such a statement, one could say

"I have a 170g torch, it lights a 1000 lm bulb for over 700 hours straight without any external power supply, the output from the bulb is connected to its input power source and I'll sell it to anyone for $10m"

This statement has more clarity than Rossi's it give facts about the weight of the device, its run time, light output and external power source status. One can also buy it for $100.

https://www.alza.cz/sport/n...

We are asking to accept what is at least an EXTRAORDINARY claim (one can debate what constitutes the required proof) on the basis of nothing more than words. Moreover, people are being asked to wait months for proof of something that could be settled in hours.

I am happy to purchase this torch for the test in January, place it alongside the E-Cat SKL and see which device outperforms the other in 'closed loop'. I don't expect the test will last 700hours and I don't expect the E-Cat SKL with all its electronics is lighter than 170g, so the load needs to be much higher. I would suggest an inductive and a resistive load where the outputs can be known that you bring yourself and a power meter to put in line, since I have lights for my camera that have their own internal power source and are just switched on by the camera.

Furthermore, I would ask if the test in January will be conducted in closed loop mode, as otherwise, it will just be another case of "here is the calculations you are allowed to make and here are the points you are allowed to make them" and the test will be a waste of life for all that are using their mind time waiting and debating on it.

If it can run in closed loop mode, let's see and know it can run in that mode, not take it as an article of faith or wishful thinking that it can.

Patience. Your questions will be answered...hopefully soon.

Bob, I did my best. We have his claim, now we'll have to see what he shows us.

test on login

Your attempt was valiant.

His response was frustratingly disingenuous - but his actions affect real peoples lives year after year. A simple Y or N to my original Q1 placed by Sam never needed this dance of obfuscation and kow towing. Rossi owes you a direct and unambiguous response.

There is real evidence being presented all the time in this and related fields, Look at SAFIRE for instance, and year after year we have to wait on what Rossi says, what he showed last time was commented on ad-infinitum and does not need to be commented on again, but this time he has painted himself into a corner.

e OUT >>>> e IN .... Close the loop

Rossi said they used resistance load as well as lightbulbs. The resistance load is better than light bulbs. To much variation in light bulbs to have any dependable data. One can even fool himself using lightbulbs.

My example of the 170g, 1000 lm, 700 hour torch was chosen to make the point that bulbs are not very convincing now.

Define the resistor.

...Not quite the answer we are looking for... The question was: "was the test 'closed loop'?"
Bob was not asking if it could "works in closed loop..."
So again... Was the test 'closed loop'?

I don't think this matters that much. If it extracts energy to operate other devices, closing the loop isn't a surmountable problem.

This would only effect a test as to power in verses out. A battery of known capacity would suffice.

Since the device produces light and heat in addition to the claimed more energy needed to run 'the E-Cat SKL' (which hopefully means the control electronics) then closing the loop is more valuable than adding a load (of any type) and keep it strapped to the mains.

As I say, put it in a metal mesh box, and suspend it above times square on nylon ropes for 2020 NY and let it speak for itself.

More succinct that my response.

John B
November 26, 2019 at 1:06 AM
Dear Andrea,

Congratulations for your achievements. Was the Ecat SK Leonardo operating in a closed loop fashion in the latest tests on Saturday?

Andrea Rossi
November 26, 2019 at 11:00 AM
John B:
yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Gerard McEk
November 26, 2019 at 2:56 AM
Dear Andrea,
I have some additional questions if you allow me:
1. Is the ECat SKL you put in closed loop operation on 11/23 still running, disconnected from external supplies?
2. Is one of the test to see how long it can run?
3. How do you measure its electrical output?
4. How do you measure its heat output?
I hope it runs for ever!
Thank you, kind regards, Gerard

Andrea Rossi
November 26, 2019 at 10:56 AM
Gerard McEk:
1- yes
2- indefinitely
3- by a load
4- by calorimetry
5- I hope too
Warm Regards,
A.R.

How much excess electrical power is the SKL generating currently?

The question is: Could any U.S. agency afford to apply a secrecy order on a technology that is conceivably worth trillions?

35 U.S. Code § 183.Right to compensation

An applicant, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, whose patent is withheld as herein provided, shall have the right, beginning at the date the applicant is notified that, except for such order, his application is otherwise in condition for allowance, or February 1, 1952, whichever is later, and ending six years after a patent is issued thereon, to apply to the head of any department or agency who caused the order to be issued for compensation for the damage caused by the order of secrecy and/or for the use of the invention by the Government, resulting from his disclosure. The right to compensation for use shall begin on the date of the first use of the invention by the Government. The head of the department or agency is authorized, upon the presentation of a claim, to enter into an agreement with the applicant, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, in full settlement for the damage and/or use. This settlement agreement shall be conclusive for all purposes notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary. If full settlement of the claim cannot be effected, the head of the department or agency may award and pay to such applicant, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, a sum not exceeding 75 per centum of the sum which the head of the department or agency considers just compensation for the damage and/or use. A claimant may bring suit against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims or in the District Court of the United States for the district in which such claimant is a resident for an amount which when added to the award shall constitute just compensation for the damage and/or use of the invention by the Government. The owner of any patent issued upon an application that was subject to a secrecy order issued pursuant to section 181, who did not apply for compensation as above provided, shall have the right, after the date of issuance of such patent, to bring suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims for just compensation for the damage caused by reason of the order of secrecy and/or use by the Government of the invention resulting from his disclosure. The right to compensation for use shall begin on the date of the first use of the invention by the Government. In a suit under the provisions of this section the United States may avail itself of all defenses it may plead in an action under section 1498 of title 28. This section shall not confer a right of action on anyone or his successors, assigns, or legal representatives who, while in the full-time employment or service of the United States, discovered, invented, or developed the invention on which the claim is based.

As I understand it, a person can obtain compensation in most instances. Similar to when government claims eminent domain of property.

It would not be market value, but estimated royalty value. Also, Not necessarily what the individual thinks it's worth. The value may be in the eye of the beholder and the government can claim that role. I've read claims by some they recieved nothing, but they are usually under a NDA agreement and can't divulge or even acknowledge such payment without forfeiture. Soooo.

Anyway, such security acts usually cover technology that can be directly weaponized.

As an energy replacement, I suspect government would primarily be concerned with economic disruption and how it would be rolled out. Be mindful that if not properly managed, such technology could lead to conflicts the world over. How long for this technology to be deployed if it leads to economic collapse. A very loong time I suspect. So such concerns are merited.

Very difficult for the government to stop, if the secret ingredients are not known to them.
Presumably Rossi will use this technology to feed electricity into the grid, and charge for the electricity (at least for a few years, until all safety certifications are met).
It will quickly spread over multiple continents and many countries.
He will own the hardware (which is made from 'off-the-shelf' components, so nothing special. This means they can be easily built anywhere, simply with the schematics.
The reactors will be in thousands of sites.
How can the US government then control this.
Presumably, the control system is the intelligence that controls and sustains the reaction, and maintains the systems security.
It too will be duplicated, distributed across the internet.
The other secret ingredient is the fuel, and it 'to date' is covered by no patent for authorities to commandeer.
It will be made by secret Rossi labs in multiple countries (probably by Robots)
This invention may already be beyond the reach of the US government.
The US government can however print a couple trillion dollars to pay Rossi with ease, and buy the business.
It has shown it has an enormous capacity to print money.

The government has 6 months to place a secrecy order on an application. After that the inventor is free to apply for foreign patents. Odds are, Rossi filed the cornerstone patents last year. The government would be hesitant to place a secrecy order on what it considers a bogus technology. For the time being, it is to Rossi's advantage to be a "pink elephant" that no one will admit to being aware of.

A secrecy order is no guarantee of secrecy. In such matters, inside spies and informers for financial and other gains mainly become the culprits. Once functionality becomes reality, the discovery is fair game for the evil doers.

"The government has 6 months to place a secrecy order on an application"

Correct and Rossi's current patent was reviewed and pasted back to the USPO.

Currently, the U.S. can not put a secrecy order on an invention invented outside the United States.*

*Rules subject to change without notification.

Just a note. Various governments have unofficial agreement on such security matters of concern. You know.
Nod nod wink wink...

Just saying.

not if it isn't a secret.

When the government applies a secrecy order, it applies it to everyone who currently is aware of the subject matter (with severe penalties for those who do not take it seriously). Do not think you are immune to the secrecy order just because you are not the inventor. Currently, this does not apply to people outside the United State's jurisdiction. But, just remember, the U.S. arrested Manuel Noriega for breaking U.S. law while in Panama. And he was a head of state!

Set it free.

Make it an overproduced commodity of nominal value, and there will be enough for everyone. Make it "free" and you will insure that very few are produced, and thus very few people will benefit from it.

No one stopped using the internal combustion engine because others knew how it worked.

To clarify, I meant 'Set the know how free'

There's a highly probable cure for diabetes 1 and maybe 2. Nobody is scrambling to finance it. The financial risks are to high without some guarantee of recovering costs. It's not just ROI, but also the cost of making whole those few that may incur harm from the treatment(lawsuits). Billion$.

Anyway. Should Rossi bring a product to market, others will quickly create their own IP and follow suit. The benefit of this is there will be many variations of which some will no doubt be better. Variety is better than a one fits all and competition brings down cost and product guarantees. It's much better than, your guarantee ended when you walked out the door.

The only thing needed for production is fairly rewarded workers.
Demand is automatic.
So by your Logic if food production was nationalised Democratically and free to all on a token system, everybody would stop eating because it is available.

Going from capitalism to socialism only changes how scarce commodities are (unevenly) distributed. The solution to scarcity is efficient on demand production.

Food production was nationalised in Russia at one time. It resulted in starvation. Oil production was nationalised in Venezuela. Production declined by 70% and falling. They now have trouble keeping their power plants running to keep the lights on. Can no longer grow enough food to feed the people.

The U.S. government tried affordable health care. Cost went from $2 trillion to $3,3 trillion covering an increase of only 20 million people. 30 million still don't have coverage.

In the meantime, 50 million don't even have a family doctor even though they have coverage. The doctor shortage continues to rise. I be one of them. I don't plan on dying for lack of health insurance. I will die for lack of medical care. Free care apparently isn't the problem. There's simply no doctors to provide it.

Tokens. Dollars. There pretty much all the same. They can't be exchanged for something that's not available.

I remember you that nationalizations were... exactly that, nationlizations, that is, switching the properties to a state capitalism. Aslong as you have dollars, tokens, or any kind of money, which are produced in the first instance exclusively by wage work exploitation, by state or private employers, you will maintain all the inherent failures of capitalism, a system condamned to grow forever, even in crisis situations with falling profit rates and declining number of workers.

It would seem impossible to convince you to talk and think Logically, so best left alone for you to continue believing illogical propaganda.
We are told by the establishment that there are no UFO's and Cold Fusion does not exist, do you believe that as well?
----------
Privatising Britain’s railways cost taxpayers £5bn per year and increased fares,
https://www.independent.co.....

By the time the naysayers are swayed, it will be as common place as a space heater.

Next: Government regulation will make it unobtainable and/or unaffordable.

Cost of a 7KW natural gas generator:
$2K
Cost of satisfying California's permitting and regulations to install said generator: $20K

No claim REQUIRES extraordinary proof...only proof.

Proof is proof. Truth has been established.

A successful proof of the SK would require only hooking up an SK to a load...say a bank of say ten 100watt light bulbs...then unplug the SK from any outside source. Then let her run for a week while skeptics are poking around to confirm no energy inputs.

NO EXTRAORDINARY PROOF is required. AR would not have to power a city in sustain mode. Just a few lightbulbs.

EXTRAORDINARY claims require
EXTRAORDINARY proof.

When I was young, I kind of bought into this even though subconsciously I had some nagging issues with it.
As I grew older and wiser, I realized this statement was nonsense.
One only needs ordinary proof.