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
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
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
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
