Russ <> wrote:

One has to wonder where anyone might have channelled the comment about my
> experiment and its ‘lovely gammas’ being ‘*unfueled’*. That is most
> certainly not the case, there is a very specifically conceived and prepared
> ‘fuel mix’ that is producing the raw gamma signal that has been shared. . .
> .

I am glad to hear there is fuel. An "unfueled" reaction would be a mistake,
I think. Or could it be zero point energy? Anyway, it would confuse the

As far as I know, the only example of an unfueled Rossi reactor was the one
tested by I.H. It produced apparent excess heat. When the I.H. people
showed Rossi that the cell was empty, he became livid with anger. I suppose
that means he agrees that a reaction without fuel is impossible, and this
test showed that his calorimetry was wrong. I do not understand why that
made him angry. It would have made me embarrassed, and I would have
retracted my claims.

I cannot why Axil thinks there might be "unfueled systems" or what he
thinks they might be. As far as I know, he is the only person who believes
they exist.

- Jed

Reply via email to