OK Axil, I am glad you see that there is no disservice. Maybe they do provide theoretical statements that are cockeyed. From reading Mats Lewan's book one can at least find three reasons why.: 1. There is no patent law that protects anything without a big bag of money to defend the patent, but a patent means publicity - good for soliciting investors. In my eyes that is being an entrepreneur. 2. It is done to purposely mislead the competition. Another business practice to accomplish what a patent cannot do. 3. The scientific capacity is limited (by education, by focus, by way of looking upon the end result). It sounds to me as if Rossi rather saw it work than figure out the actual reason it does work. I think it is great that the theories are discussed on Vortex. However, I rather saw a focus on positively seeking the real theory, than criticize the admittingly half-truth given for example by AR. He says he has a secret third component (additional to H and Ni). As long as he does not reveal that his information is not worth even a comment. If this third component has a significant impact then he cannot even vaguely provide his theory and we should know that it is rather misleading info or inconsequential babble. I would not bet on DGT's explanations being much better for the same three reason but as you I hope they are.
In Mats Lewan's book, which I will recommend as it makes sense of a lot of the rumors I have heard the last two/ three years. He also have two passages I full agree with and have tried to argue here. One is his description of the attitude of an inventor. AR's response to that is just as typical in my opinion. Secondly his warning for that it is not a question of finding the answer to the problem either theoretically or by experiments. Building a vessel to exploit the idea and a method to reach the market are equally difficult but often overseen. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort." PJM On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > I do not think Rossi and Mills do a disservice to LENR because they raise > money. They dishonor LENR because of the cockeyed theories that purports > to describe their systems. Science is put off by this theoretical farce and > it has been for 25 years. I hope that DGT will serve the cause of LENR as a > science, when they release their product, I hope they release solid LENR > research material that completely describes the correct LENR theory for the > Ni/H reactor in detail. > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]>wrote: > >> hello all, >> I am posting my comment here but it is several treads, which I am >> commenting on. >> >> i think as we all are trying to promote LENR. We are doing a lot of >> disservice to or case by being negative to the guys who has raised the >> funds, >> i have read half the ebook about an Andrea Rossi and i think he is a true >> entrepreneur. Are there thins you might question ? Yes of course. However, >> there are no real entreprenur that has not gone through a lot of problems . >> The matter of fact is that he has rissen from a situation most people >> cannot even grasp. My hat off for him. I hope his concept is right and that >> he succeed. >> I have very little background about BLP. I hope , contrary to most >> comments that he is on the right track. He is as far as i know putting >> himself on the line and it will either float or sink. I wish him luck. I >> would like his background more in detail but still he is hanging in there. >> Why fight 'inhouse'. >> Let me say that I do agree with the doubt about the sciebtifical dispute >> but I see no reason for the dogmatic attack of people. Those guys and few >> others has SOLD their concept to investors and already that is more than >> most of us can brag about. >> The discussion about how AR handles his patents is totally guess work. >> You only have a fraction of the background. Wait and see. Even if it could >> be handled better it cannot be done by someone with only fractional >> information. >> The long story about BLP might be indicative of something. However, I am >> sure very few outsiders know the full story. Wait and see. >> Most of all be happy the LENR idea has a few devoted people who has >> stuck out their head for it and convinced others to back them. >> >> Lennart Thornros >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> / >> On Apr 3, 2014 11:13 PM, "Axil Axil" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> BlackLight Power is about to be swept into the dustbin of history. In a >>> year or less, a workable LENR product will be demonstrated as a >>> preproduction prototype. This should cut the legs out from under their >>> investor base who have been so cruelly abused over these many years and >>> that has propped up the BLP fantasy for far too long. >>> >>> The clock is ticking, their time is short, their fate is set, and their >>> end is near. As an anathema to the quantum world, the fantasy that is the >>> hydrino will be a fiction of the past and forgotten as the wondrous quantum >>> causes of LENR are patently explained by serious and innovative scientific >>> methods and top-notch research. >>> >>> >>> >
