The statement that the device can be sealed or unsealed merely covers all the bases as far as I can determine. What he actually does in his device is left unanswered since it can be one of any of the three possible states.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Roarty, Francis X <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2015 9:33 am Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Opinion on Rossi-IH WO publication Thanks Bob, Your’s is a very reasonable well thought out opinion J It rings true! Fran From: Bob Higgins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 8:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Opinion on Rossi-IH WO publication Despite calls for replication based on the revelations of this publication [WO2015127263], I found almost nothing new in this disclosure that has not already been published or surmised. The bulk of the patent application is a direct rehash of the Lugano report, as though written by Lugano researchers without the participation of the inventor [Rossi]. In fact, the application incorporates the emissivity errors (without correction) made by the Lugano researchers. The details of the internal construction were largely those that were surmised by MFMP in its attempt at replication based on the details of the published Lugano report. The additional details I caught in reading the publication were: The castable ceramic used for the outside surface was probably Durapot 810. This information can be used to further evaluate the true emissivity of the device that was tested by the Lugano researchers. This material is unlikely to be 99% alumina - the method of test cited by the Lugano researchers would only have identified crystalline components. Most castable ceramics employ lower temperature glassy phases for low temperature binding. These glassy phases may not have been detected using XRD analysis. Why was there no EDS and SEM of this material? The admission that the reactor portion may run in sealed, partially sealed, or essentially open modes was a useful remark and is valuable for future replicators. It means that it may be completely unnecessary to withstand the high pressures released by the LiAlH4 into a sealed system. This makes sense from the casual sealing of the reactor as described in the Lugano report. It is also consistent with Parkhomov's replication (leaky). It suggests that the reaction may be primarily a liquid lithium hydride reaction with the Ni. I.E. it is the hydrogen anions that are in the liquid lithium hydride solution that are complicit in the reaction - not any evolved H2 gas. As always, this is just my opinion. Bob Higgins
