Focardi-Rossi's reaction: new?

[elephant]

Professor Piantelli has just published a patent that lifts a corner of the veil:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20140098917

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/26/pi ... r-process/

in brief: it clearly refers to the presence of lithium or boron AND a transition metal, including Thorium 232, relatively harmless (alpha radiation)

A relief for those who groaned at the fact that Rossi had published the recipe for soup and the shape of the container, but not the list of spices.

Maybe now new experimenters will be able to replicate the experiment successfully.

For the newcomers, the locked subject that I had initiated very soon after the revelation to the world of the existence of the thing. Rossi's biggest complaint is that he has published an incomplete patent preventing the replication of the process, which at first sight seems implausible:

https://www.econologie.com/forums/reaction-d ... 10384.html

[elephant]

A new "third party report" was to be published in June 2014.
In the meantime, an interesting testimony published by several Swedish academics (who had an e-cat in their hands)

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/03/sw ... statement/

I remember the April 2011 test he is referring to, it was indeed quite convincing (long enough to eliminate the hypothesis of a chemical reaction)

[raymon]

It is a question of how long it will take for this great advance to be recognized. From the moment we say that the E-cat works we become a pariah of the official science even if we are at the beginning a serious scientist.
Well I go back to work on my solar water heater because it's not tomorrow that I have an E-cat at home.

[moinsdewatt]

A new "third party report" was to be published in June 2014.
In the meantime, an interesting testimony published by several Swedish academics (who had an e-cat in their hands)

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/03/sw ... statement/

I remember the April 2011 test he is referring to, it was indeed quite convincing (long enough to eliminate the hypothesis of a chemical reaction)

apart

These results again showed an anomalous heat production. .....

the article says nothing.

Nothing new under the sun.

[moinsdewatt]

...
Well I go back to work on my solar water heater because it's not tomorrow that I have an E-cat at home.

Yes, Rossi is not about to heat himself with his so-called invention. So it is not tomorrow that you will have a business model.

Actually work on your solar water heater.

[elephant]

Raymon said:

because it's not tomorrow that I'll have an E-cat at home.

Indeed, Rossi chose to make large units to avoid the disemi- nation that would quickly lead to disassembly, so the copy. Especially since safety certifications seem to be a problem.

Whatever happens e-cat, if it works is ONE solution among hundreds of others. Let's not forget that the solar and the heat pump are only partial solutions, not applicable in cities, high mountains, cold regions and ships. So try, for example to heat the apartments of a building of 6 floors with 150 m² of panels. It would take a lot more. (assuming there are no shadows)

[raymon]

Yes, Rossi is not about to heat himself with his so-called invention. So it is not tomorrow that you will have a business model.

Actually work on your solar water heater.

I would have no heating or electricity with cold fusion tomorrow but it does not prevent the cold fusion is a reality made by Rossi or another. But the various blockages make that I would not have before 10 at least this technology.

[Obamot]

Hello,

the article says nothing.

Nothing new under the sun.

Yes, and sorry, but it should be framed this one:

I remember the April 2011 test he is referring to, he was quite convincing (long enough to eliminate the hypothesis of a chemical reaction )

Because by what a miracle, "whatever happens", a reaction could happen to be chemical on our planet? (Rigged or not, mash that would have to be strong to manage to contain the race of electrons!)

In truth: The barriers between "physics" and "chemistry" have already fallen for a long time. and do not make a single trunk Pachyderm, even if their branches had specificities that have become less and less obvious, more discovery has advanced in time ...!

Tell yourself that for there to be NO chemical reaction, there should be no oxygen or its presence in any other form, such as in water (H2O), this is not the case (air and water are ubiquitous in nature) and because if it were, it would take immeasurable forces to achieve it, and if we managed to dominate that, we would not need the cold fusion anymore (if it exists in the form of unlimited energy creation or what do I know ... what until now no one has been able to prove except to play cluedo with shattering ads without after). So CQFD. But basically we do not care, since all this is an endless masquerade ....

Alas, even if we would like, it is wrong in the reasoning, which proves that as long as those who speak of these falsifications do not know the requisite knowledge base to speak about it, illusionists (who sometimes end up believing themselves in their mental "constructions" based on their own fantasies) still have a bright future ahead of them as long as there are naive people to believe it (well less and less, because that in the end everything is known, and the deception has already been dismantled, a thousand times unfortunately).

This denotes major gaps on the subject and why some people make fun of constantly relaunching the buzz (not even knowing the basics of physics and chemistry), by taking so-called "neutral" attitudes to give themselves capacity, while deep down, they know absolutely nothing when you scratch a little. There, on this point it lacks "moderation" in this forum, to turn the church from time to time in the middle of the particle accelerator (That's for Janic) LOL

Well the elephant is a big mistake, it's when you stop feeding all this buzz, so that forum to become a little credible again? It is not by supporting the theses of morons that we will climb the slope at this forum, huh, you could also put a little ...

————————————————————
PS: because in truth, it's quite the opposite:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimie_nucl%C3%A9aire