H-G Branzell:
The whiteboard photo has been published without my authorization after being done during a professional training under NDA in the meeting room of Leonardo Corporation’s factory.
I am not going to comment on it.
Warm Regards
A.R.
I have seen your whiteboard calculation of the COP for the QuarkX. I do not understand why you use the power in the external 1 Ohm resistor as input power to the QuarkX. Could you please explain, thank you.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I studies the papers published from the Court and I am convinced that you will win: your counterpart has made a lot of theorems, without any real evidence about all their claims.
You will win!
Cheers,
Bjorn
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Thank you for all your nuclear physics nutshells: I am collecting them so much they are precious! Surely they do not make me a physicist, but I could understand even superficially concepts that before your nutshells were not even approachable to me.
All the best,
Jim
Cinque Terrain:
The Agreement has been agreed upon between IH and JM. All the parties have signed it. The document speaks for itself and I want not to comment issues to be discussed in Court.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
Update: good standing.
About my work, yes, I am able to conciliate the forensic duties with the industrial ones. Also, I have a great Team.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
You answered Mike that (8) because the agreement between JMP and IH vetoed to IH to enter the area of JMP and vice versa…. why did you make such an arrangement?
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Reading the paper written by the two consultants of IH (Smith and Murray) it seems they are not experts of the art. They committed many errors of thermodynamics, not relating them to the specific system as you always must when apply the three TP and most of all they show to be totally non expert of nuclear physics.
Basically, what pops up reading their expertise is that they didn’t understand anything about LENR; also, from their C.V. it appears they have not experience or education of sort related to nuclear physics.
Comments?
Dr Andrea Rossi:
The reading of the copious amount of documents published about Leonardo VS Cherokee and IH gives evidence that you are right.
All the best,
C.
Mark:
Evidence in documents speaks for itself and says:
1- yes
2- yes, since 2014
3- no
4- never
5- never
6- never
7- yes, he demanded Jim Bass to give good reference to his investors
8- because the agreement between JMP and IH vetoed to IH to enter the area of JMP and vice versa
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
The puppets of the ventriloquist of Raleigh are saying you continue to change your products to hide the shortcomings of the former ones. This is unfair: your LENR applications are permanently evolving, upgrading their performance, this is the truth: this appears to be obvious, observing the facts and the results of your work from 2009 to 2017. By the way: on the contrary, the products of their new “technologies” have not changed, as well as their results, almost 30 years since…
Godspeed,
Gerald
Dr Andrea Rossi:
1- was JMC directed by you?
2- did IH- Darden know who was the director of JMP?
3- was the owner of JMC directly or indirectly a relative of yours?
4- did IH- Darden ever complain about the owner or the director of JMP before or during the performance test?
5- did you ever say or write that JMP was owned by Johnson Matthey?
6- did ever Darden-IH ask you who was the owner of JMP during the validation test?
7- did Darden use JMP for his promotion, knowing who was the director of it?
8- why Darden-IH have not been able to enter in the JMP area where the plant of JMP was installed?
Since these issues have been already disclosed in the documents published by the Court, can you answer?
Regards,
Mark
Investigation of the heat generator similar to Rossi reactor
A.G. Parkhomov email: alexparh@mail.ru
Abstract—This paper describes development and tests of a device that is similar to the well-known high-temperature Rossi reactor. The experiments confirmed that at the temperature about 1100◦C and more this device produces more energy than it consumes. Performed measurements demonstrated no ionized radiation above the background level from the working reactor.
VII. Conclusions
Experiments with the replication of the high-temperature Rossi heat generator loaded by a mixture of Ni and lithium aluminum hydride demonstrated that these devices produce more energy than they consume at the temperature about 1100◦C and more. There was
no ionized radiation above the background level observed while operating the reactor. Neutron flux density was not larger than 0.2 neutron/cm2·s.
11/24/2016 report at the seminar of CNN and CMM in the PFUR
Parhomov AG “Low-energy nuclear reactions in nickel-hydrogen systems” – a report at the seminar “Cold nuclear fusion and ball lightning” (supervisor Samsonenko NV) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zsHDvdnyDQ
Frank Acland:
See here
Investigation of new version of the device similar to high-temperature Rossi heat generator
A.G. Parkhomov
Abstract—This paper describes a new version of the device similar to high-temperature A. Rossi heat generator, which operated continuously more than three days. The assessment of excess power is made (about 500 W, the relation of produced to consumed
power is about 2.4). In total about 150 MJ of excess energy is produced during this experiment. Analyses of nuclear and isotope composition of fuel mix before and after the experiment are performed.
IX. Conclusions
1. Experiments with devices similar to high-temperature Rossi heat generator loaded by a mixture of Ni and Li[AlH4] demonstrated that these devices produce more energy than they consume at the temperature about 1100◦C and more.
2. The second version of the rector worked continuously for more than 3 days, thereby producing more than twice as much as the applied electrical energy. More than 40 kWh or 150MJ were produced in excess of the electrical energy consumed. This amount of energy could be obtained by burning several liters of oil products.
3. The pressure in the reactor chamber during a slow heating was relatively low.
4. There was no ionized radiation above the background level observed while operating the reactor.
5. Preliminary conclusions from the analysis of fuel element and isotope composition indicated a minor change of isotope structure and an appearance of new elements in the used fuel. The author expresses deep gratitude to K. Alabin, S. Andreev, E. Belousova, E. Buryak for organizing the analysis of the fuel mixture, R. Grinyer for useful discussions, N. Samsonenko, L. Urutskoev, V. Zhigalov,
G. Levi, P. Gluk and many other people in Russia and abroad for their support and valuable advice.
Shannan:
I suppose yes, but I do not work anymore in that field, therefore I do not know if better technologies have been eventually born. By the way, that patent, having priority 1998, is close to expire, therefore in several months will be free at disposal of anybody who wants to take advantage of it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Minh:
I do not remember which model I described, but let’s try this, the same of before or not as it might be: think to an empty tube filled by clean and calm water: we’ll call it “value zero tube”, because the water is clean and calm, there is nothing inside except the water molecules. If you distribute grains of nanometric metal powder uniformly on the surface of this water, the grains will sink uniformly and symmetrically from the top to the bottom of the tube. This is the model of a zero value field in vacuum through which elementary particles pass through without breaking any symmetry, without changing their status.
Now imagine to repeat the experiment in the same tube, but this time with strong waves inside that pervade the volume of the water inside the tube. This is the model of the Higgs field: now the tube has not zero value, because now the water is not calm, the waves build up a “value”. Repeat the experiment of before with the same powder, and you’ll see that this time the grains do not sink uniformly, but they “break the symmetry”, they are slowed down by the opposing waves, they crash against each other, they make up bigger grains adhering to each other: in a word, they “get mass”. As we said, the tube with wavery water, in this case, is the model of the Higgs field, while the waves are the models of the Higgs Bosons that arise from the Higgs field.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
In the planet there are millions of tons of carbonaceous materials disposed as wastes: do you think your US patent allowed by the USPTO in the year 2000 can be useful for this issue?
Shannan
Thornjorn Moberg:
Thank you: yes, we think our case is well structured.
Warm Regards
A.R.
H-G Branzell:
The whiteboard photo has been published without my authorization after being done during a professional training under NDA in the meeting room of Leonardo Corporation’s factory.
I am not going to comment on it.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I have seen your whiteboard calculation of the COP for the QuarkX. I do not understand why you use the power in the external 1 Ohm resistor as input power to the QuarkX. Could you please explain, thank you.
Best regards, H-G Branzell
Congratulations for the strong case you have vs Industrial Heat.
Best wishes,
Thorbjörn
Dr Andrea Rossi,
How is your health?
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
link for the posting on EGO OUT
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-5-2017-lenr-story-and-info.html
Cheers,
peter
Anonymous:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jim Stamatopoulos:
Thanks,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bjorn:
No comment,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I studies the papers published from the Court and I am convinced that you will win: your counterpart has made a lot of theorems, without any real evidence about all their claims.
You will win!
Cheers,
Bjorn
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Thank you for all your nuclear physics nutshells: I am collecting them so much they are precious! Surely they do not make me a physicist, but I could understand even superficially concepts that before your nutshells were not even approachable to me.
All the best,
Jim
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I totally agree with your answer to C.
C.:
We are confident about our position and look with trust forward to the next events of the litigation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Prof:
No comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Cinque Terrain:
The Agreement has been agreed upon between IH and JM. All the parties have signed it. The document speaks for itself and I want not to comment issues to be discussed in Court.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
Update: good standing.
About my work, yes, I am able to conciliate the forensic duties with the industrial ones. Also, I have a great Team.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Update?
In this period of highly intense production of documents for the Court are you still able to work in the factory?
Dear Andrea!
You answered Mike that (8) because the agreement between JMP and IH vetoed to IH to enter the area of JMP and vice versa…. why did you make such an arrangement?
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Reading the paper written by the two consultants of IH (Smith and Murray) it seems they are not experts of the art. They committed many errors of thermodynamics, not relating them to the specific system as you always must when apply the three TP and most of all they show to be totally non expert of nuclear physics.
Basically, what pops up reading their expertise is that they didn’t understand anything about LENR; also, from their C.V. it appears they have not experience or education of sort related to nuclear physics.
Comments?
Dr Andrea Rossi:
The reading of the copious amount of documents published about Leonardo VS Cherokee and IH gives evidence that you are right.
All the best,
C.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Here coms the link to my EGO OUT posting for this martial day:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-4-2017-lenr-info-one-year-litigation.html
Cheers!
Peter
Mark:
Evidence in documents speaks for itself and says:
1- yes
2- yes, since 2014
3- no
4- never
5- never
6- never
7- yes, he demanded Jim Bass to give good reference to his investors
8- because the agreement between JMP and IH vetoed to IH to enter the area of JMP and vice versa
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Luca Spinelli:
???
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gerald Berger:
No comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
The puppets of the ventriloquist of Raleigh are saying you continue to change your products to hide the shortcomings of the former ones. This is unfair: your LENR applications are permanently evolving, upgrading their performance, this is the truth: this appears to be obvious, observing the facts and the results of your work from 2009 to 2017. By the way: on the contrary, the products of their new “technologies” have not changed, as well as their results, almost 30 years since…
Godspeed,
Gerald
Affascinante ma…
Dr Andrea Rossi:
1- was JMC directed by you?
2- did IH- Darden know who was the director of JMP?
3- was the owner of JMC directly or indirectly a relative of yours?
4- did IH- Darden ever complain about the owner or the director of JMP before or during the performance test?
5- did you ever say or write that JMP was owned by Johnson Matthey?
6- did ever Darden-IH ask you who was the owner of JMP during the validation test?
7- did Darden use JMP for his promotion, knowing who was the director of it?
8- why Darden-IH have not been able to enter in the JMP area where the plant of JMP was installed?
Since these issues have been already disclosed in the documents published by the Court, can you answer?
Regards,
Mark
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Michelangelo De meo:
Thank you for your links related to the work of Dr Parkhomov,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea and Michelangelo,
Thank you for the reference, I was wondering if it was something new from this year.
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
This is the official channel of Professor Alexander Parkhomov
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMvQyFS0kkIvIteH0DO43yg
Hello dr. Rossi, the first Italian party presents its clean energy based power program. Its leader Grillo: “Tell the fossil that the fossil is over!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lYDsIC_V9w
Investigation of the heat generator similar to Rossi reactor
A.G. Parkhomov email: alexparh@mail.ru
Abstract—This paper describes development and tests of a device that is similar to the well-known high-temperature Rossi reactor. The experiments confirmed that at the temperature about 1100◦C and more this device produces more energy than it consumes. Performed measurements demonstrated no ionized radiation above the background level from the working reactor.
VII. Conclusions
Experiments with the replication of the high-temperature Rossi heat generator loaded by a mixture of Ni and lithium aluminum hydride demonstrated that these devices produce more energy than they consume at the temperature about 1100◦C and more. There was
no ionized radiation above the background level observed while operating the reactor. Neutron flux density was not larger than 0.2 neutron/cm2·s.
http://www.unconv-science.org/pdf/7/parkhomov-en.pdf
11/24/2016 report at the seminar of CNN and CMM in the PFUR
Parhomov AG “Low-energy nuclear reactions in nickel-hydrogen systems” – a report at the seminar “Cold nuclear fusion and ball lightning” (supervisor Samsonenko NV)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zsHDvdnyDQ
Ellsworth:
Thanks,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
This is the last I got:
http://www.unconv-science.org/pdf/8/parkhomov-en.pdf
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
See here
Investigation of new version of the device similar to high-temperature Rossi heat generator
A.G. Parkhomov
Abstract—This paper describes a new version of the device similar to high-temperature A. Rossi heat generator, which operated continuously more than three days. The assessment of excess power is made (about 500 W, the relation of produced to consumed
power is about 2.4). In total about 150 MJ of excess energy is produced during this experiment. Analyses of nuclear and isotope composition of fuel mix before and after the experiment are performed.
IX. Conclusions
1. Experiments with devices similar to high-temperature Rossi heat generator loaded by a mixture of Ni and Li[AlH4] demonstrated that these devices produce more energy than they consume at the temperature about 1100◦C and more.
2. The second version of the rector worked continuously for more than 3 days, thereby producing more than twice as much as the applied electrical energy. More than 40 kWh or 150MJ were produced in excess of the electrical energy consumed. This amount of energy could be obtained by burning several liters of oil products.
3. The pressure in the reactor chamber during a slow heating was relatively low.
4. There was no ionized radiation above the background level observed while operating the reactor.
5. Preliminary conclusions from the analysis of fuel element and isotope composition indicated a minor change of isotope structure and an appearance of new elements in the used fuel. The author expresses deep gratitude to K. Alabin, S. Andreev, E. Belousova, E. Buryak for organizing the analysis of the fuel mixture, R. Grinyer for useful discussions, N. Samsonenko, L. Urutskoev, V. Zhigalov,
G. Levi, P. Gluk and many other people in Russia and abroad for their support and valuable advice.
http://www.unconv-science.org/pdf/8/parkhomov-en.pdf
Dear Andrea,
Can you provide any more information regarding the new replications of Alexander Parkhomov? I have not been able to find a reference to it.
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Thank you for the model for the Higgs field!
Cheers,
E.
Jane:
Yes: very interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Shannan:
I suppose yes, but I do not work anymore in that field, therefore I do not know if better technologies have been eventually born. By the way, that patent, having priority 1998, is close to expire, therefore in several months will be free at disposal of anybody who wants to take advantage of it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
Status: OK
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Minh:
I do not remember which model I described, but let’s try this, the same of before or not as it might be: think to an empty tube filled by clean and calm water: we’ll call it “value zero tube”, because the water is clean and calm, there is nothing inside except the water molecules. If you distribute grains of nanometric metal powder uniformly on the surface of this water, the grains will sink uniformly and symmetrically from the top to the bottom of the tube. This is the model of a zero value field in vacuum through which elementary particles pass through without breaking any symmetry, without changing their status.
Now imagine to repeat the experiment in the same tube, but this time with strong waves inside that pervade the volume of the water inside the tube. This is the model of the Higgs field: now the tube has not zero value, because now the water is not calm, the waves build up a “value”. Repeat the experiment of before with the same powder, and you’ll see that this time the grains do not sink uniformly, but they “break the symmetry”, they are slowed down by the opposing waves, they crash against each other, they make up bigger grains adhering to each other: in a word, they “get mass”. As we said, the tube with wavery water, in this case, is the model of the Higgs field, while the waves are the models of the Higgs Bosons that arise from the Higgs field.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Time ago you gave a simple model of the Higgs Boson, but I am not able to retrace it: can you repeat?
Thank you,
Minh
Update?
Dr Andrea Rossi:
In the planet there are millions of tons of carbonaceous materials disposed as wastes: do you think your US patent allowed by the USPTO in the year 2000 can be useful for this issue?
Shannan
Dr Andrea Rossi,
New important replications have been made by Dr Parkhomov, are you aware of them?
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Mondays are usually weekstart days and this one is not an exception as it can be seen from the link:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-3-2017-lenr-only-some-info.html
Best wishes for the entire week,and so on…
Peter