Who is to say how likely the evolution of a higher intellect like ours is in the Universe? It could be one in a googol! Perhaps most planets exhibiting advanced lifeforms, if there are any such, never develop species with human level brain power because it is ludicrously, grotesquely unlikely. Evolution is not an inexorable ‘force’ towards greater complexity per se, but greater adaptability. That’s why we still have bacteria and archae. It does not necessitate what appears to be the sole freak occurrence towards adaptability through extreme intelligence. Think of it as a wheelbarrow: once it starts tipping over, its direction is determined. However, without the initial push ( = an extremely rare set of circumstances toward adaptability mainly through extreme intelligence over other physical traits) the fall will never occur in the first place!
Mattias Anderson:
Thank you for your insight and for the citation of Suzana Herculano- Houzel, but the issue is more fundamental: the issue is not a particular consideration related to the specifics of the human brain starting from an already advanced phase of its evolution, the issue is another: why from the ameba the evolution allowed only the human phylogenesis to produce an animal able to generate art, culture etc.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Thank you for your insight about the evolutionism and the creativism. Your point is interesting and totally new: I never heard similar considerations before.
I agree with what you say.
Cheers,
Bob
Caro Andrea , voglio tanto bene a Té ed a Tom Conover !!! Mi siete per davvero simpatici , perché così tanto innamorati della vita !!! Come me !!! Anch’io nel mio piccolo seguo con entusiasmo i possibili momenti di attivazione del Litio – Nichel . Idrogeno (ATOMICO) ECC…ECC… auguri e FORZA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was reading your response to Tom Conover. You’re asking about the evolution of the human brain. Why did only the human species arrive to have such big brains?
I would suggest to you that you read the works of Suzana Herculano-Houzel. She has a very strong theory on the evolution of the human brain.
First of all, we need to make a distinction between primates and other mammals. The primate brain is different, because when it scales, the number of neurons will be proportional to its volume. This is not the case with other mammals, such as rats. A scaled up rat brain will not have more neurons than a small rat brain.
Second, if we accept the first premise, why have not all primates arrived to have a brain the size of the human brain?
What we need to consider is, how important is our brain for our survival. We need to consider that the brain is a very energy demanding instrument. A large brain will require more energy than a small one. In other words, when energy is in short supply, it’s not necessarily so that a large brain will be an advantage (unless of course a large brain allows us to more easily save energy in other ways).
What Suzana discovered was that the human species was the first species that ever learnt to cook its food. There is no evidence of any other species cooking its food. The process of cooking the food, allowed us to save a lot of energy, since raw food required more energy in order to be processed by the body. This allowed our brains to expand and it allowed us to be even more energy efficient. Hence the evolution of the human brain.
Please let me know if you think this is not a convincing exposition. I would also encourage you to watch the TED talk of Suzana Herculano-Houzel.
Tom Conover:
I understand, sorry, my mistake of interpretation about what you wrote.
I cannot answer in positive or in negative to the kind of questions you put, but since you are making experiments, the sole way to know if a thing works is to try. Attention, though, use a mask with a proper filter and work in a well ventilated lab, because the materials you are using are toxic and dangerous. I do not know if you are an expert experimentalist or not, therefore: if you are not an expert experimentalist, please work with the assistance of an expert for safety reasons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Please let me first say these were isotopic numbers from the EcatWorld website from an UNKNOWN POSTER, not related to my experiments. Although I would like it if they were. This version of the table should also be easier to see the results on the blog, I replace the tab characters from Xcel with spaces. These results consume 7Li.
While I have done many experiments, I have not replicated the ecat yet, none of the tests were strong enough to send in the ash for isotopic analysis. I apologize if I said anything that may have implied that.
My question is and remains “Should I replace the Li6 in my recipies with Li7 fluoride?” Below is a nicer copy of the table you like.
58Ni 60Ni 61Ni 62Ni 64Ni 6Li 7Li
Before 68.1 26.2 1.14 3.63 0.93 7.59 92.4
After 14.2 6.3 0.3 78.5 0.7 86.5 13.5
Change -53.9 -19.9 -0.84 74.87 -0.23 78.91 -78.9
Status: used used used added used added used
I am happy for you that you found an answer in the verses about the lion to resolve your frustration with the man that created a cell.
Tom Conover:
Thank you for this very interesting comment, but you did not put the “table below” with the isotopical transmutations obtained in your experiment to replicate, very intelligently, the effect from my patent! Please send it, or write in a comment the isotopes before and after your experiments.
About your citation of the Bible and the reference to the lions, I have to say something.
Today I was studying a book of physics and bumped in a citation, along an excursus in a note below, to Dr J.Craig Venter, considered very important because discovered the way to make a biological cell in 2010, a cell able to reproduce itself and therefore considerable a form of life. Triumphalistically this fact has been presented as an evidence of the lack of necessity of vitalism and, in last analysis, of the assumption of a creative act, presumptively giving also final evidence of the fact that only biological evolution is at the fundament of life, from amebas up to humans.
This assumption is anti-scientific and in contrast with basic mathematical laws. The matter of the fact is that Dr Venter made this protocell using an extremely sophysticated laboratory and an extremely sophysticated scientific know how: to assert that the fact that Dr Venter has been able to make a biological cell should give evidence of the fact that life can have been generated by casual natural events, while eventually evolution has generated an Albert Einstein, is as much paradoxical as to assert that the fact that Dante Alighieri has written the Divine Comedy gives evidence of the fact that pouring randomly black ink billions of times upon a mass of papers, sooner or later will spontaneously make you find written something like the Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri.
And now to the Lions: here is evidence ( real evidence) of the unsustainability of a universal evolution, wherein by “universal evolution” I mean the concept of evolution that sustains that the path from an ameba to a human is just a matter of evolution, while specific evolution is the transformation of specific beings in time to make them more fit for the environment they have to survive in. This last kind of evolution, the specific evolution, clearly works, it has been given evidence of from Darwin and it is convincing. The Universal concept of the evolution, that makes it a sort of ” deus ex machina” is barred by the mathematical structure of the probability calculus. Here is why: in the Earth have been born tens of thousands of different living beings: TENS OF THOUSANDS !!!
Now: the “evolution-makes-it-all” guys should explain WHY AMONG TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVING BEINGS ONLY HUMANS EVOLVED TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE CULTURE ?
I mean: lions for example, as all the other living beings, had at their disposal the same timespan of humans to evolve, but they remained, as all the other living beings, what they were millions of years ago. Now : on the base of a probability mathematical calculus, if casual evolution is the engine of the transformation of a living being from a brutal brain to a brain able to make the music of Beethoven, how much are the probabilities that among tens of thousands of living beings, in the same planet, in the same timespan, in analogous environment, with the same competition necessities at the start, ONLY ONE of such living beings is able to evolve from a monkey to an Einstein or a Beethoven ? The probabilities are one divided by tens of thousands.
The universal evolution is anti-scientific because mathematical unsustainable. Specific evolution, on the contrary, is perfectly fit.
To reinforce what I am saying, here is further evidence: the specific evolution, which, as we said, consists in the mutations of secondary chracteristics to make the being more fit to survive, has been clearly operating in ALL the living beings: during millions of years of evolution lions have modified their secondary characteristics, as well as all the living beings, so: why only their brains did not evolve substantially, as it happened for the humans? Clearly evolution made well its job, it made what it could and for the secondary characteristics the mathematical structure of the calculus of the probabilities suits perfectly. Why not for the brain ?
Thank you for your very interesting comment and for the link of the lions that allowed me to discharge to earth the rage I got reading that trumphalistic stupidity.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Thank you for your awesome reply about the certification process on the blog to me! It brings music to my heart. Please allow me a moment if possible to ramble on about my hobby efforts with replicating the e-cat effect, as many scientists and pragmatic engineers have done as they hear about your results. I hope you enjoy this short read at least a little, and I hope that it reassures you about me a little, and makes you feel good inside, as I would never do what I have done without having great admiration and respect for your research and upcoming massive production that will soon help the world.
Here is the short story:
During the last 16 months I have built about 200 test reactors and used the Arduino computer as the control system to run tests on many of the test reactors that I constructed. I use 26 ga nichrome with alumina tubing from Coorstek Alumina AD-998 tubing to hold the reactors, I spool the coil using a lathe and carefully screw the tubing gently into the coil to build the heater for the system. Next I mix a small amount of alumina paste using powdered alumina, and coat the coil with the paste. Finally I insert the alumina heating tube into another alumina (or sometimes Mullite) tube to shield the nichrome wire from atmospheric corrosion and burn out, making certain the the heating coil fits snug into the sheath to insure long life of the system.
I load the fuel mixture into a titanium or stainless steel tube, and my engineer friend (who does lots of work for the infamous medical company Medtronics) laser welds plugs to seal the tube. I have had about six sessions that my buddy witnessed results from my projects, and the very first one resulted in a temperature that my friend stated was likely to have been 3000 to 4000 F in temperature at the end, and melted down. (Many, many, many of my reactors have self destructed, but always safely and always in a thermal control box that I do the test in that is lined with firebrick for safety. ) I use a mask, gloves, and safety glasses when I mix the fuel, and always read an follow instructions on the material safety data sheet (msds).
I have tested about 50 mixtures of fuel, many of which achieved temperatures that destroyed the very high quality Alumina that I use, specifications for max temperature shown below, with computer controlled temperatures that never exceeded 1250° C, but the 1750° C alumina still melted. Hmmm … Several of the reactor tubes during autopsy also displayed a thin layer of copper near the burn out area, which my engineer buddy opined were possibly atomic changes due to the type of experiment we performed.
COORSTEK AD-998 HIGH-ALUMINA PROPERTIES
Maximum Use Temperature (no load) 1750° C
The ash results published on Franks news site show the quantity of “7Li” changed dramatically (see the table below), I and have never used this expensive version of Lithium in my experiments before, as I try to be thrifty (but not stupid) and responsible in my spending behavior for my hobby. I don’t need your or want your opinion on the table here, I am just saying that it turned the experimental enthusiasm in my blood back “on”.
Finally, the Question of the day. Please save me much effort if you can and if I should not pursue this new experiment, as I have stopped my replication efforts at this time, with a nod of your head or a thumbs down for this element that I propose to include in the fuel mixture.
Should I enrich the fuel with CAS Number: 17409-87-9 Lithium-7Li fluoride? (and of course the fuel will also contain “LiAlH4” also!).
Thank you for considering a reply of just “yes” or “no” as to whether or not 7Li would be fun for my experiment, I can definitely afford it one way or another, but, well you know …
God bless you Andrea, and thank you!
Tom
——————————-
By the way, I totally agree with you about referring to God as the “Father”. I often do this too! I hope that I have not offended you at all, that is not my intention. The only attribute that the title “Father” does not help us incorporate in our thoughts is that individuals have personal names, for example my fathers name was “William”. Your biological father also has a personal name, just as everyone’s biological fathers do. To get to know your biological father as a person, even though you might call him “father” as his son, you would never consider forgetting his given name, in my case my father’s given name again was “William”. The creator has a personal name too. That is why I like the name “Jehovah” in my bible of choice. The original bible is also a “legal” document, so it included these identifications, for the benefit of those who read it. Many bibles however, do choose to replace this personal name information, because millions of people feel that it is more respectful to do so.
Inspiration of the Day for you. I’m still not sure why God asked Job these exact questions, but they inspire me anyway. So then, what questions did God Almighty ask Job when he demonstrated the scope of his thought processes to Job?
Job 37:1 “Listen carefully to the rumbling of HIS voice and the thunder that comes from his mouth. He unleashes it under the entire heavens and sends his lightning to the ends of the earth.”
Job 38:1 Then Jehovah answered Job out of the windstorm:
2 “Who is this who is obscuring my counsel
And speaking without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself, please, like a man;
I will question you, and you inform me.
4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you think you understand.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?
8 And who barricaded the sea behind doors
When it burst out from the womb,
9 When I clothed it with clouds
And wrapped it in thick gloom,
10 When I established my limit for it
And put its bars and doors in place,
11 And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther;
Here is where your proud waves will stop’?
12 Have you ever commanded the morning
Or made the dawn know its place,
13 To take hold of the ends of the earth
And to shake the wicked out of it?
14 It is transformed like clay under a seal,
And its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 But the light of the wicked is held back from them,
And their uplifted arm is broken.
16 Have you gone down to the sources of the sea
Or explored the deep waters?
17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
18 Have you understood the vast expanse of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all of this.
19 In which direction does the light reside?
And where is the place of darkness,
20 That you should take it to its territory
And understand the paths to its home?
21 Do you know this because you were already born
And the number of your years is great?
22 Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 Which I have reserved for the time of distress,
For the day of battle and war?
24 From what direction is light dispersed,
And from where does the east wind blow on the earth?
25 Who has cut a channel for the flood
And made a path for the thunderous storm cloud,
26 To make it rain where no man lives,
On the wilderness where there are no humans,
27 To satisfy devastated wastelands
And cause the grass to sprout?
28 Does the rain have a father,
Or who fathered the dewdrops?
29 From whose womb did the ice emerge,
And who gave birth to the frost of heaven
30 When the waters are covered as if with stone,
And the surface of the deep waters is frozen solid?
31 Can you tie the ropes of the Kiʹmah constellation
Or untie the cords of the Keʹsil constellation?
32 Can you lead out a constellation in its season
Or guide the Ash constellation along with its sons?
Tom Conover:
Thank you for your insight.
I would be glad, on the contrary, to comment the very interesting email you sent me privately today. Very, very interesting. I hope you consider it publicable: if so, please send it to this blog as a comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bernie Koppenhofer:
You must make a distinction between the following situations:
A: You want only electricity, while heat and light are useless for you
B: You want all the tri-generation products
In case A the Carnot cycle is more efficient.
In case B the trigeneration is more efficient.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: After these many years of developing your E-Cat, what is your overall view concerning the best way to produce electricity by using the Carnot cycle or direct electrical production?
I find it interesting that the new paper from 2014 mentions Lithium-7Li. I performed test runs with reactors using Lithium-6Li hydroxide monohydrate H3LiO2 (very volatile), Lithium-6Li2 carbonate, Lithium titanate Li4Ti5O12, Lithium chloride is a chemical compound with the formula LiCl, Lithium bromide, 99+%, Lithium carbonate; Extra pure; 99%; LI2CO3, Lithium tetraborate 99.8% Li2B4O7 and some Lithium-6Li FLUORIDE, but I stopped short of using Lithium-7Li because of the cost. I wanted to, should have, but didn’t.
On Page 3 Paragraph 3. “The Lithium content in the fuel is found to have the natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %. This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place. It is notable, but maybe only a coincidence, that also in Astrophysics a 7Li depletion is observed”.
Now this paper and the isotopic analysis leaked on E-Cat World both mention Lithium-7Li being converted into Lithium-6Li so it must be time to pull out the check book and upgrade from Li6 to Li7.
I know you express reluctance to comment on this paper at this time, so I’m not asking you to comment on the paper at all.
Dear Andrea,
You had written that the robotized line has been already studied and designed with the help of the manufacturer, which is ABB: do you confirm this ?
Thank you,
Carolyne
Dear Readers:
Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics has been published the paper ” Nickel, the ultimate substitute of coal, oil and uranium” of Prof. S.Lakshminarayana and UVS Seshavatharam of the University of Andhra ( India ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Clearly in this moment you have the world leadership in the LENR field and you have a great responsibility for this. The succes of your plants will have a huge repercussion on the world economy, as well as a failure will have a terrible effect on all the LENR field. How are you confronting yourself with this responsibility ?
Lauren
We are hoping with you that you might produce the QuarkX this year, perhaps by December 15th. That is great! If possible, would you please rank the certification progress towards the “specific success” for us on a scale of 1 to 4, a)1 b)2 c)3 or d)4 ? Thank you!
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for your comment on the hydrinos and the dark matter to make energy: that kind of B.S. can only damage the image of the LENR.
Wess:
No, I eliminated many, because I changed idea and consolidated many others, so that now I am working on circa 100 patents, most of which I hope will get the allowance.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
I was every day in the plant with somebody of IH and I told them now and again that my data were reasonably coherent with the data from the instrumentation of the ERV. All the officers and the operators of IH did read the displays of the instrumentation installed by the ERV from the first to the last day of operation, but not my personal instrumentation, because the sole instruments valid for the test were the ones installed by the ERV.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
You have stated that during the 1MW plant test that you took your own measurements with your own instruments that were the same models, in the same locations as the ERV’s, and that your data matched that of ERV report within the margin of error for the instruments.
Have you shared your own data with anyone from Industrial Heat, or anyone affiliated with IH?
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Did I understand well that the ERV who made the measurements during the 1 year test of the 1 MW E-Cat has worked for years in a nuclear power plant as a nuclear engineer ?
Matthias
Lionel Hoovler:
I suppose it is a joke. To find and/or observe dark matter ( let alone make use of it ) you need energies that are available not even with the large hadrons collider (LHC) of the CERN, while hydrinos do not exist. The dark matter has not been observed yet, but only hypothised and many physicists think it does not exist ( for example Dr Peter Forsberg on this very blog ). It is just supposed to exist, because of the necessity to explain from where comes the force that makes the Universe expand. To say that somebody has found the way to use it to make energy with an apparatus, like to make coffee with a moka, is ludicrous.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
EGO OUT for this Sunday, about invulnerability of LENR- Technology:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/07/jul-17-2016-lenr-is-facts-of-nature-and.html
It will win!
Peter
Dear Andrea,
Who is to say how likely the evolution of a higher intellect like ours is in the Universe? It could be one in a googol! Perhaps most planets exhibiting advanced lifeforms, if there are any such, never develop species with human level brain power because it is ludicrously, grotesquely unlikely. Evolution is not an inexorable ‘force’ towards greater complexity per se, but greater adaptability. That’s why we still have bacteria and archae. It does not necessitate what appears to be the sole freak occurrence towards adaptability through extreme intelligence. Think of it as a wheelbarrow: once it starts tipping over, its direction is determined. However, without the initial push ( = an extremely rare set of circumstances toward adaptability mainly through extreme intelligence over other physical traits) the fall will never occur in the first place!
Best regards,
Janne
Mattias Anderson:
Thank you for your insight and for the citation of Suzana Herculano- Houzel, but the issue is more fundamental: the issue is not a particular consideration related to the specifics of the human brain starting from an already advanced phase of its evolution, the issue is another: why from the ameba the evolution allowed only the human phylogenesis to produce an animal able to generate art, culture etc.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Giannino Lodovico Ferro Casagrande:
Thank you for your sympathy,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bob Banik:
Thank you for your attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Thank you for your insight about the evolutionism and the creativism. Your point is interesting and totally new: I never heard similar considerations before.
I agree with what you say.
Cheers,
Bob
Caro Andrea , voglio tanto bene a Té ed a Tom Conover !!! Mi siete per davvero simpatici , perché così tanto innamorati della vita !!! Come me !!! Anch’io nel mio piccolo seguo con entusiasmo i possibili momenti di attivazione del Litio – Nichel . Idrogeno (ATOMICO) ECC…ECC… auguri e FORZA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Andrea,
I was reading your response to Tom Conover. You’re asking about the evolution of the human brain. Why did only the human species arrive to have such big brains?
I would suggest to you that you read the works of Suzana Herculano-Houzel. She has a very strong theory on the evolution of the human brain.
First of all, we need to make a distinction between primates and other mammals. The primate brain is different, because when it scales, the number of neurons will be proportional to its volume. This is not the case with other mammals, such as rats. A scaled up rat brain will not have more neurons than a small rat brain.
Second, if we accept the first premise, why have not all primates arrived to have a brain the size of the human brain?
What we need to consider is, how important is our brain for our survival. We need to consider that the brain is a very energy demanding instrument. A large brain will require more energy than a small one. In other words, when energy is in short supply, it’s not necessarily so that a large brain will be an advantage (unless of course a large brain allows us to more easily save energy in other ways).
What Suzana discovered was that the human species was the first species that ever learnt to cook its food. There is no evidence of any other species cooking its food. The process of cooking the food, allowed us to save a lot of energy, since raw food required more energy in order to be processed by the body. This allowed our brains to expand and it allowed us to be even more energy efficient. Hence the evolution of the human brain.
Please let me know if you think this is not a convincing exposition. I would also encourage you to watch the TED talk of Suzana Herculano-Houzel.
Kind regards,
Mattias
Tom Conover:
I understand, sorry, my mistake of interpretation about what you wrote.
I cannot answer in positive or in negative to the kind of questions you put, but since you are making experiments, the sole way to know if a thing works is to try. Attention, though, use a mask with a proper filter and work in a well ventilated lab, because the materials you are using are toxic and dangerous. I do not know if you are an expert experimentalist or not, therefore: if you are not an expert experimentalist, please work with the assistance of an expert for safety reasons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Please let me first say these were isotopic numbers from the EcatWorld website from an UNKNOWN POSTER, not related to my experiments. Although I would like it if they were. This version of the table should also be easier to see the results on the blog, I replace the tab characters from Xcel with spaces. These results consume 7Li.
While I have done many experiments, I have not replicated the ecat yet, none of the tests were strong enough to send in the ash for isotopic analysis. I apologize if I said anything that may have implied that.
My question is and remains “Should I replace the Li6 in my recipies with Li7 fluoride?” Below is a nicer copy of the table you like.
58Ni 60Ni 61Ni 62Ni 64Ni 6Li 7Li
Before 68.1 26.2 1.14 3.63 0.93 7.59 92.4
After 14.2 6.3 0.3 78.5 0.7 86.5 13.5
Change -53.9 -19.9 -0.84 74.87 -0.23 78.91 -78.9
Status: used used used added used added used
I am happy for you that you found an answer in the verses about the lion to resolve your frustration with the man that created a cell.
Sorry if I caused confusion,
Tom
Tom Conover:
Thank you and congratulations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Here is the table you requested. Thank you very much for your interest.
58Ni 60Ni 61Ni 62Ni 64Ni 6Li 7Li
Before 68.1 26.2 1.14 3.63 0.93 7.59 92.4
After 14.2 6.3 0.3 78.5 0.7 86.5 13.5
Change -53.9 -19.9 -0.84 74.87 -0.23 78.91 -78.9
Status: used used used added used added used
Warm regards,
Tom
Tom Conover:
Thank you for this very interesting comment, but you did not put the “table below” with the isotopical transmutations obtained in your experiment to replicate, very intelligently, the effect from my patent! Please send it, or write in a comment the isotopes before and after your experiments.
About your citation of the Bible and the reference to the lions, I have to say something.
Today I was studying a book of physics and bumped in a citation, along an excursus in a note below, to Dr J.Craig Venter, considered very important because discovered the way to make a biological cell in 2010, a cell able to reproduce itself and therefore considerable a form of life. Triumphalistically this fact has been presented as an evidence of the lack of necessity of vitalism and, in last analysis, of the assumption of a creative act, presumptively giving also final evidence of the fact that only biological evolution is at the fundament of life, from amebas up to humans.
This assumption is anti-scientific and in contrast with basic mathematical laws. The matter of the fact is that Dr Venter made this protocell using an extremely sophysticated laboratory and an extremely sophysticated scientific know how: to assert that the fact that Dr Venter has been able to make a biological cell should give evidence of the fact that life can have been generated by casual natural events, while eventually evolution has generated an Albert Einstein, is as much paradoxical as to assert that the fact that Dante Alighieri has written the Divine Comedy gives evidence of the fact that pouring randomly black ink billions of times upon a mass of papers, sooner or later will spontaneously make you find written something like the Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri.
And now to the Lions: here is evidence ( real evidence) of the unsustainability of a universal evolution, wherein by “universal evolution” I mean the concept of evolution that sustains that the path from an ameba to a human is just a matter of evolution, while specific evolution is the transformation of specific beings in time to make them more fit for the environment they have to survive in. This last kind of evolution, the specific evolution, clearly works, it has been given evidence of from Darwin and it is convincing. The Universal concept of the evolution, that makes it a sort of ” deus ex machina” is barred by the mathematical structure of the probability calculus. Here is why: in the Earth have been born tens of thousands of different living beings: TENS OF THOUSANDS !!!
Now: the “evolution-makes-it-all” guys should explain WHY AMONG TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVING BEINGS ONLY HUMANS EVOLVED TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE CULTURE ?
I mean: lions for example, as all the other living beings, had at their disposal the same timespan of humans to evolve, but they remained, as all the other living beings, what they were millions of years ago. Now : on the base of a probability mathematical calculus, if casual evolution is the engine of the transformation of a living being from a brutal brain to a brain able to make the music of Beethoven, how much are the probabilities that among tens of thousands of living beings, in the same planet, in the same timespan, in analogous environment, with the same competition necessities at the start, ONLY ONE of such living beings is able to evolve from a monkey to an Einstein or a Beethoven ? The probabilities are one divided by tens of thousands.
The universal evolution is anti-scientific because mathematical unsustainable. Specific evolution, on the contrary, is perfectly fit.
To reinforce what I am saying, here is further evidence: the specific evolution, which, as we said, consists in the mutations of secondary chracteristics to make the being more fit to survive, has been clearly operating in ALL the living beings: during millions of years of evolution lions have modified their secondary characteristics, as well as all the living beings, so: why only their brains did not evolve substantially, as it happened for the humans? Clearly evolution made well its job, it made what it could and for the secondary characteristics the mathematical structure of the calculus of the probabilities suits perfectly. Why not for the brain ?
Thank you for your very interesting comment and for the link of the lions that allowed me to discharge to earth the rage I got reading that trumphalistic stupidity.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for your awesome reply about the certification process on the blog to me! It brings music to my heart. Please allow me a moment if possible to ramble on about my hobby efforts with replicating the e-cat effect, as many scientists and pragmatic engineers have done as they hear about your results. I hope you enjoy this short read at least a little, and I hope that it reassures you about me a little, and makes you feel good inside, as I would never do what I have done without having great admiration and respect for your research and upcoming massive production that will soon help the world.
Here is the short story:
During the last 16 months I have built about 200 test reactors and used the Arduino computer as the control system to run tests on many of the test reactors that I constructed. I use 26 ga nichrome with alumina tubing from Coorstek Alumina AD-998 tubing to hold the reactors, I spool the coil using a lathe and carefully screw the tubing gently into the coil to build the heater for the system. Next I mix a small amount of alumina paste using powdered alumina, and coat the coil with the paste. Finally I insert the alumina heating tube into another alumina (or sometimes Mullite) tube to shield the nichrome wire from atmospheric corrosion and burn out, making certain the the heating coil fits snug into the sheath to insure long life of the system.
I load the fuel mixture into a titanium or stainless steel tube, and my engineer friend (who does lots of work for the infamous medical company Medtronics) laser welds plugs to seal the tube. I have had about six sessions that my buddy witnessed results from my projects, and the very first one resulted in a temperature that my friend stated was likely to have been 3000 to 4000 F in temperature at the end, and melted down. (Many, many, many of my reactors have self destructed, but always safely and always in a thermal control box that I do the test in that is lined with firebrick for safety. ) I use a mask, gloves, and safety glasses when I mix the fuel, and always read an follow instructions on the material safety data sheet (msds).
I have tested about 50 mixtures of fuel, many of which achieved temperatures that destroyed the very high quality Alumina that I use, specifications for max temperature shown below, with computer controlled temperatures that never exceeded 1250° C, but the 1750° C alumina still melted. Hmmm … Several of the reactor tubes during autopsy also displayed a thin layer of copper near the burn out area, which my engineer buddy opined were possibly atomic changes due to the type of experiment we performed.
COORSTEK AD-998 HIGH-ALUMINA PROPERTIES
Maximum Use Temperature (no load) 1750° C
http://css.coorstek.com/scripts/css512.wsc/co/co_ad998.html
The ash results published on Franks news site show the quantity of “7Li” changed dramatically (see the table below), I and have never used this expensive version of Lithium in my experiments before, as I try to be thrifty (but not stupid) and responsible in my spending behavior for my hobby. I don’t need your or want your opinion on the table here, I am just saying that it turned the experimental enthusiasm in my blood back “on”.
Finally, the Question of the day. Please save me much effort if you can and if I should not pursue this new experiment, as I have stopped my replication efforts at this time, with a nod of your head or a thumbs down for this element that I propose to include in the fuel mixture.
Should I enrich the fuel with CAS Number: 17409-87-9 Lithium-7Li fluoride? (and of course the fuel will also contain “LiAlH4” also!).
Thank you for considering a reply of just “yes” or “no” as to whether or not 7Li would be fun for my experiment, I can definitely afford it one way or another, but, well you know …
God bless you Andrea, and thank you!
Tom
——————————-
By the way, I totally agree with you about referring to God as the “Father”. I often do this too! I hope that I have not offended you at all, that is not my intention. The only attribute that the title “Father” does not help us incorporate in our thoughts is that individuals have personal names, for example my fathers name was “William”. Your biological father also has a personal name, just as everyone’s biological fathers do. To get to know your biological father as a person, even though you might call him “father” as his son, you would never consider forgetting his given name, in my case my father’s given name again was “William”. The creator has a personal name too. That is why I like the name “Jehovah” in my bible of choice. The original bible is also a “legal” document, so it included these identifications, for the benefit of those who read it. Many bibles however, do choose to replace this personal name information, because millions of people feel that it is more respectful to do so.
Inspiration of the Day for you. I’m still not sure why God asked Job these exact questions, but they inspire me anyway. So then, what questions did God Almighty ask Job when he demonstrated the scope of his thought processes to Job?
Job 37:1 “Listen carefully to the rumbling of HIS voice and the thunder that comes from his mouth. He unleashes it under the entire heavens and sends his lightning to the ends of the earth.”
Job 38:1 Then Jehovah answered Job out of the windstorm:
2 “Who is this who is obscuring my counsel
And speaking without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself, please, like a man;
I will question you, and you inform me.
4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you think you understand.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?
8 And who barricaded the sea behind doors
When it burst out from the womb,
9 When I clothed it with clouds
And wrapped it in thick gloom,
10 When I established my limit for it
And put its bars and doors in place,
11 And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther;
Here is where your proud waves will stop’?
12 Have you ever commanded the morning
Or made the dawn know its place,
13 To take hold of the ends of the earth
And to shake the wicked out of it?
14 It is transformed like clay under a seal,
And its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 But the light of the wicked is held back from them,
And their uplifted arm is broken.
16 Have you gone down to the sources of the sea
Or explored the deep waters?
17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
18 Have you understood the vast expanse of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all of this.
19 In which direction does the light reside?
And where is the place of darkness,
20 That you should take it to its territory
And understand the paths to its home?
21 Do you know this because you were already born
And the number of your years is great?
22 Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 Which I have reserved for the time of distress,
For the day of battle and war?
24 From what direction is light dispersed,
And from where does the east wind blow on the earth?
25 Who has cut a channel for the flood
And made a path for the thunderous storm cloud,
26 To make it rain where no man lives,
On the wilderness where there are no humans,
27 To satisfy devastated wastelands
And cause the grass to sprout?
28 Does the rain have a father,
Or who fathered the dewdrops?
29 From whose womb did the ice emerge,
And who gave birth to the frost of heaven
30 When the waters are covered as if with stone,
And the surface of the deep waters is frozen solid?
31 Can you tie the ropes of the Kiʹmah constellation
Or untie the cords of the Keʹsil constellation?
32 Can you lead out a constellation in its season
Or guide the Ash constellation along with its sons?
33 Do you know the laws governing the heavens,
Or can you impose their authority on the earth?
34 Can you raise your voice to the clouds
To cause a flood of water to cover you?
35 Can you send out lightning bolts?
Will they come and say to you, ‘Here we are!’
36 Who put wisdom within the clouds
Or gave understanding to the sky phenomenon?
37 Who is wise enough to count the clouds,
Or who can tip over the water jars of heaven
38 When the dust pours into a mass
And the clods of earth stick together?
39 Can you hunt prey for a lion
Or satisfy the appetites of young lions
40 When they crouch in their lairs
Or lie in ambush in their dens?
41 Who prepares food for the raven
When its young cry to God for help
And wander about because there is nothing to eat?
Tom Conover:
Thank you for your insight.
I would be glad, on the contrary, to comment the very interesting email you sent me privately today. Very, very interesting. I hope you consider it publicable: if so, please send it to this blog as a comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bernie Koppenhofer:
You must make a distinction between the following situations:
A: You want only electricity, while heat and light are useless for you
B: You want all the tri-generation products
In case A the Carnot cycle is more efficient.
In case B the trigeneration is more efficient.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: After these many years of developing your E-Cat, what is your overall view concerning the best way to produce electricity by using the Carnot cycle or direct electrical production?
Dear Andrea,
I find it interesting that the new paper from 2014 mentions Lithium-7Li. I performed test runs with reactors using Lithium-6Li hydroxide monohydrate H3LiO2 (very volatile), Lithium-6Li2 carbonate, Lithium titanate Li4Ti5O12, Lithium chloride is a chemical compound with the formula LiCl, Lithium bromide, 99+%, Lithium carbonate; Extra pure; 99%; LI2CO3, Lithium tetraborate 99.8% Li2B4O7 and some Lithium-6Li FLUORIDE, but I stopped short of using Lithium-7Li because of the cost. I wanted to, should have, but didn’t.
On Page 3 Paragraph 3. “The Lithium content in the fuel is found to have the natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %. This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place. It is notable, but maybe only a coincidence, that also in Astrophysics a 7Li depletion is observed”.
Now this paper and the isotopic analysis leaked on E-Cat World both mention Lithium-7Li being converted into Lithium-6Li so it must be time to pull out the check book and upgrade from Li6 to Li7.
I know you express reluctance to comment on this paper at this time, so I’m not asking you to comment on the paper at all.
Warm regards,
Tom
Carolyne Vanbeek:
Yes, I confirm.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
a Sunday edition of my Blog:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/07/jul-16-2016-coming-day-of-reckoning-for.html
the basic idea is important, I hope.
Best,
Peter
Dear Andrea,
You had written that the robotized line has been already studied and designed with the help of the manufacturer, which is ABB: do you confirm this ?
Thank you,
Carolyne
Lauren Hallgren:
Working and studying as much and strongly as possible with my great team.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Readers:
Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics has been published the paper ” Nickel, the ultimate substitute of coal, oil and uranium” of Prof. S.Lakshminarayana and UVS Seshavatharam of the University of Andhra ( India ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Clearly in this moment you have the world leadership in the LENR field and you have a great responsibility for this. The succes of your plants will have a huge repercussion on the world economy, as well as a failure will have a terrible effect on all the LENR field. How are you confronting yourself with this responsibility ?
Lauren
Lars:
Yes!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tom Conover:
Between 3 and 4.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ruby:
Now: 9 pm in Miami, the QuarkX is going still promising.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Is it continuing to go on your development of a manufacturing system in Sweden for the E-Cats?
Hi Andrea!
We are hoping with you that you might produce the QuarkX this year, perhaps by December 15th. That is great! If possible, would you please rank the certification progress towards the “specific success” for us on a scale of 1 to 4, a)1 b)2 c)3 or d)4 ? Thank you!
Warm regards,
Tom
Lowell:
I agree.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Perer Gluck:
Thank you for your link.
Do not worry: who is without errors cast the first stone!
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea
How is going your work with the QuarK right now ?
Dear Andrea,
The link for today;s EGO OUT issue is here:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/07/jul-14-2016-unexpected-source-of.html
It iis dated 14 instead of 15 but the text is new. Sorry errors happen.
The readers will excuse me, especiallyif they read it.
My best wishes,
Peter
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for your comment on the hydrinos and the dark matter to make energy: that kind of B.S. can only damage the image of the LENR.
U.F.:
Yes, I am.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wess:
No, I eliminated many, because I changed idea and consolidated many others, so that now I am working on circa 100 patents, most of which I hope will get the allowance.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Matthias:
Yes, it is true.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
I was every day in the plant with somebody of IH and I told them now and again that my data were reasonably coherent with the data from the instrumentation of the ERV. All the officers and the operators of IH did read the displays of the instrumentation installed by the ERV from the first to the last day of operation, but not my personal instrumentation, because the sole instruments valid for the test were the ones installed by the ERV.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You have stated that during the 1MW plant test that you took your own measurements with your own instruments that were the same models, in the same locations as the ERV’s, and that your data matched that of ERV report within the margin of error for the instruments.
Have you shared your own data with anyone from Industrial Heat, or anyone affiliated with IH?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Did I understand well that the ERV who made the measurements during the 1 year test of the 1 MW E-Cat has worked for years in a nuclear power plant as a nuclear engineer ?
Matthias
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Are you still working on 200 patents ?
Cheers,
Wess
Dr Rossi,
Are you still hoping to introduce a working QuarkX within the end of 2016 ?
Thank you,
U.F.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link:
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Ego Out posting daily info for LENR
on this Sweet-Sour Thursday:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/07/jul-14-2016-lenr-discussions-info.html
Greetings to al the redersm happy celebration for our French friends
Peter
Marinda Turnes:
No, it is not true.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jake Hanks:
We are strong enough.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Lionel Hoovler:
I suppose it is a joke. To find and/or observe dark matter ( let alone make use of it ) you need energies that are available not even with the large hadrons collider (LHC) of the CERN, while hydrinos do not exist. The dark matter has not been observed yet, but only hypothised and many physicists think it does not exist ( for example Dr Peter Forsberg on this very blog ). It is just supposed to exist, because of the necessity to explain from where comes the force that makes the Universe expand. To say that somebody has found the way to use it to make energy with an apparatus, like to make coffee with a moka, is ludicrous.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jerry:
Thank you: I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.