While I am hopeful and optimistic about the report, I am sometimes pessimistic about its potential impact on the "outsider" public. For example, hasn't Mills' gotten a fair amount of independent/quasi-independent verification on certain aspects of his theory (certainly the excess heat), yet no real attention because no commercial product on the market as of yet (that we know about)? Isn't the experimental reality of excess heat obvious/true/proven, yet that can't even gain traction in the public. Not saying it couldn't/wouldn't be a huge story, just stating some general pessimism about the attention span of people outside this "community".
I agree that COP near 2.0 would be relevant, as mentioned by Jones here & Brian Ahern elsewhere, and I'm not expecting any gammas commensurate with excess heat (based on passed observations/experiences w/ PdD & NiH systems) -- though I'm willing to be surprised. I would be much happier if David French's "magic numbers" COP 6-10 & Temperatures 200-600F could be achieved (if I'm remembering correctly). On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Peter Gluck > > > > Dear Friends, Anticipating some possible effects of the Rossi Report 2, > > I have published: > > > > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/it-comes-judgment-day-for-lenr-paradigm.html > > > > Let's wait and see if I was right. To increase my chsnces I predicted more > things, some contradictory. A good researcher can become a prophet after > retirement. > > > > Well, Peter, it’s hard to be wrong without a few specific predictions <g>. > > > > Here are mine: > > 1) COP near 2 for extended periods. > > 2) No gamma radiation > > 3) Evidence of quiescence (unexpected cessation of the gain) > > > > Hoped for prediction – but unlikely due to technical limitations: evidence > of the signature x-ray indicative of DDL/dark matter, in the range of 3.6 > keV. > > > > Since there is no commercial meter for this spectrum, the x-ray would have > to show up in some other clever way, such as film exposure – thus it is > unlikely. > > > > Jones > > > > > > >
