Re: [Vo]:Has Rossi Denied Mills?
There is a denial by Rossi from Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics on February 15, 2013 http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=785cpage=2#comment-626114: Andrea Rossi February 15th, 2013 at 3:00 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=785cpage=2#comment-626114 Dear Todd Burkett: I confirm that my theory has nothing to do with the Mills Theory. I cannot give information regarding the operation of our reactors. Warm Regards, A.R. On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:08 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi is known to be misleading in his statements -- and for obvious reasons of commercial advantage -- but he seems to be avoiding outright lies about his theory. So what might be misleading about his denial of Windom Larson without being a lie? On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he says he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I haven't seen a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi. Has he let such a denial slip? On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for the patent which most resembles the Hot-Cat, it is probably this one: “Molecular hydrogen laser” US 7773656 to Mills. Of course, Rossi’s device is not a laser, but in operation it is closer than you may realize - unless you have followed the SPP discussions. A picture is worth 1000 words… http://fusionfroide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rossis-HOT-CAT-reactor.jpg … and no, there is no indication that the photons seen here are coherent, or even superradiant. No evidence is possible since there is no lens. The IR light is coming through and/or heating a stainless steel end-cap. If the electrical input power is as low as claimed, then we are probably seeing superradiance, at least.
Re: [Vo]:Has Rossi Denied Mills?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It’s more complicated than that. Everyone borrows to a greater or to a less extent. Mills borrowed at little, Rossi borrowed a lot. Yet in the end – success may require both borrowers - and probably one or two more. As Steve Jobs said, Good artists copy; great artists steal. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Has Rossi Denied Mills?
From James, I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he says he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I haven't seen a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi. Has he let such a denial slip? IMO, you are setting yourself up to imagine all sorts of unfounded speculation and scenarios about Rossi's motivations or the lack of them. God only knows what Rossi is thinking from one day to the next. He is so mercurial. It matters little to me what Rossi might think about Mills' work. Likewise, it matters little to me that Mills thinks little of Rossi's work and the rest of the Cold Fusion community for that matter. According to Mills' CF research is bogus science, the result of bad measurements. While Mills may be a genius in his own field research and development, often such genius does not translate into being all that much of an expert in other fields of study, even a potentially related field. I see no reason not to apply the same standards of ignorance to Rossi as well. I don't hold their ignorance of other individual's work against them. I only hope they know what they are talking about when they discuss their own chosen field of study. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Has Rossi Denied Mills?
unfounded is a loaded term. Nickel + catalyst = heat is not a foundation -- it is a pattern. Please forgive my neurons for doing their job. On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From James, I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he says he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I haven't seen a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi. Has he let such a denial slip? IMO, you are setting yourself up to imagine all sorts of unfounded speculation and scenarios about Rossi's motivations or the lack of them. God only knows what Rossi is thinking from one day to the next. He is so mercurial. It matters little to me what Rossi might think about Mills' work. Likewise, it matters little to me that Mills thinks little of Rossi's work and the rest of the Cold Fusion community for that matter. According to Mills' CF research is bogus science, the result of bad measurements. While Mills may be a genius in his own field research and development, often such genius does not translate into being all that much of an expert in other fields of study, even a potentially related field. I see no reason not to apply the same standards of ignorance to Rossi as well. I don't hold their ignorance of other individual's work against them. I only hope they know what they are talking about when they discuss their own chosen field of study. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Has Rossi Denied Mills?
Rossi is known to be misleading in his statements -- and for obvious reasons of commercial advantage -- but he seems to be avoiding outright lies about his theory. So what might be misleading about his denial of Windom Larson without being a lie? On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he says he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I haven't seen a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi. Has he let such a denial slip? On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for the patent which most resembles the Hot-Cat, it is probably this one: “Molecular hydrogen laser” US 7773656 to Mills. Of course, Rossi’s device is not a laser, but in operation it is closer than you may realize - unless you have followed the SPP discussions. A picture is worth 1000 words… http://fusionfroide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rossis-HOT-CAT-reactor.jpg … and no, there is no indication that the photons seen here are coherent, or even superradiant. No evidence is possible since there is no lens. The IR light is coming through and/or heating a stainless steel end-cap. If the electrical input power is as low as claimed, then we are probably seeing superradiance, at least.
RE: [Vo]:Has Rossi Denied Mills?
It’s more complicated than that. Everyone borrows to a greater or to a less extent. Mills borrowed at little, Rossi borrowed a lot. Yet in the end – success may require both borrowers - and probably one or two more. From: James Bowery Rossi is known to be misleading in his statements -- and for obvious reasons of commercial advantage -- but he seems to be avoiding outright lies about his theory. So what might be misleading about his denial of Windom Larson without being a lie? …I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he says he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I haven't seen a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi. Has he let such a denial slip? Jones Beene wrote: As for the patent which most resembles the Hot-Cat, it is probably this one: “Molecular hydrogen laser” US 7773656 to Mills. Of course, Rossi’s device is not a laser, but in operation it is closer than you may realize - unless you have followed the SPP discussions. A picture is worth 1000 words… http://fusionfroide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rossis-HOT-CAT-reactor.jpg … and no, there is no indication that the photons seen here are coherent, or even superradiant. No evidence is possible since there is no lens. The IR light is coming through and/or heating a stainless steel end-cap. If the electrical input power is as low as claimed, then we are probably seeing superradiance, at least.
