Frank Grimer posted
At 04:02 pm 02-03-05 -0500, Jed wrote:
>would have written a scathing report saying this trip was a waste of timein the instrumentation is meaningless. It says:>
IMHO, if the device is producing a commercially feasible amount of energy, ten times the input energy, the instrumentation doesn't have to be too complex.
>"Report on Visit to IESI>December 17th, 2004
>My understanding of the principle is that the Low Energy Nuclear Reactionis produced by cavitation of deuterium enriched water in the presence of a metal catalyst. In addition to cavitation, the reaction is accelerated significantly by the use of a resonating frequency in the reaction cell.
The above technology sounds like the Piantelli patent. IMHO, Piantelli's technology was great, but Fiat Allis decided not to pursue it, and Dr. Piantelli didn't answer my emails. I've been expecting something like this.
Cavitation, resonant frequency and catalyst could all combine in delivering high pF. For the reasons I gave in my IE paper, that is at the basis, of CF (and also of Mills hydrinos, incidently). Mill's problem is, he has the atoms but not the bits, to use a Negropontean way of putting it. Incidently, I
Based on what Mike Carrell said, Mills' problem is that it works, kind of, but it's complicated.
Sorry if all this seems terribly arrogant, but it's not as arrogant as Mills ;-)
Arrogance comes with being a genius.
I read the IESI press release. Can someone explain what a heat recovery system has to do with a LENR process?
