A word of caution, thanks to Steve Krivit
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/15/rossi-discovery-what-to-say/
Since Krivit has come forward with this today, I guess it is OK for others
to publish the same information that has been floating around Italy for a
couple of days regarding Rossi's
All beginnings are messy, why should be the LENR era be an exception?
I know that the merits belong, first of all to Prof Piantelli. However it
had been a very long period when the process had not been reproducible and
upscalable- till the critical know how elements have been discovered.
It is
The allegations about Rossi reported by Krivit have been circulating for
some time. I described Rossi as eccentric and I mentioned the havoc he has
reportedly caused. This is what I had in mind.
When evaluating a claim of this nature you should try to ignore the
personality and history of person
Jones Beene wrote:
I strongly suggest that nothing … absolutely NOTHING … seen so far, proves
that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on things not
in the record.
Well, I do not speak Italian, but based on the blogger's comments and the
caliber of the people who worked
Dear Jones,
I don't understand what you say exactly.
What I know for sure is that Piantelli has a perfect reproducible Ni-H
process and this one developed by Piantelli's former collaborator and an
inventor is very similar to that. Why do you believe that I am speaking
about
Ni-H technology in
We are talking past each other.
The operative word is proof. Since even Focardi himself admits that he is
not permitted to see inside the reactor, and since chemical reactions could
provide this level of excess for a few hours, or since an fairly safe alpha
emitter could provide it for longer
No dear Jones, Focardi has looked inside the reactors starting 1994. It is
an other professor who made the black box measurements.
I like your mode of thinking re methods of crookery, but do not think they
are realistic- in this case.
Randy is a different subject.
Peter
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The operative word is “proof”. Since even Focardi himself admits that he is
not permitted to see inside the reactor, and since chemical reactions could
provide this level of excess for a few hours . . .
I have heard from reliable sources that the thing
hey...This is Italian science ...not WASP science. ;-)
Harry
At the risk of appearing to 'beat a dead horse' let me make a couple of
other comments relevant to the 'big picture' of nano-nickel technology.
1)Mills and BLP may try to distance themselves from Rossi due to one
critical detail: *radioactivity*. Mills' entire patent protection is
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy
of Focardi, going back to the early nineties
They co-authored a paper in 1994, so I doubt they were bitter enemies then.
See:
Might I provide some different points of view from real-world (i.e., personal)
experiences...
Sometimes decisions are not so clear-cut... I've come to a conclusion in my
life that those who live
by absolutes probably live in a box, or have not been involved in a sufficient
number of
Jones wrote:
Who says that rational science is immune from the soap opera effect of petty
jealousy and
multiple layers of intrigue and 'white lie' dishonesty?
It most definitely is NOT, especially when big $ are at stake...
-Mark
_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
You could be right, and my-bad for passing on rumor . unless, that is, this
is one of the papers which caused a falling-out, which continues to the
present. Was Piantelli present?
For instance, it appears the Italians were in the habit of listing
co-authors alphabetically, to wit:
S.
You can find a coauthored paper in 1998 too.
FYI Piantelli is 77 years old and ill- asthma, he cannot travel. And is a
very bright scientist.
The other authors as Vera Montalbano have done the analytical chemistry,
microscopy etc part.
Peter
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Jones Beene
WELL SAID!
Jones Beene said [snip]
Randell Mills, in contrast - chose a commonly available form of nickel early
on - Raney nickel - which since the 1920s was made in such a way (leaching
out aluminum from an alloy) that it was already nano in an inverse sense .
and therefore Mills had a form
16 matches
Mail list logo
