Do you have Skype? Could we talk on there?
________________________________ From: Peter Gluck <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 12:39:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction? They have a complex technology, needs a lot of development, can be replicated but no easily. Take please a look to the papers at the BlackLightPower website. They will demonstrate later this year their CIHT technology- it generates electricity. I have worked 40 years in the chemical industry nad I have an understanding of the problems they have to solve before becoming a very important source of energy. My best friend Mike Carrell who has also worked for long years -electrotechnics, advent of elctronics also sees Randy's technology as The Solution Peter On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:27 PM, noone noone <[email protected]> wrote: Then why does BLP not produce a product? > >They seem to have had a rock solid easily to replicate technology for a decade. > > > > > > ________________________________ From: Peter Gluck <[email protected]> > >To: [email protected] >Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 10:30:34 AM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction? > > >Dear Jones, > > >Randy Mills would not agree with your assertion. >He is waiting for the scientific analysis (that of Bologna professors) to >make an opinion of the demonstration and the generator. > > >If hydrinos have played a role, they can be found with the method described >e..g. in this paper: >RL Mills et many: "Commercializable Power Source from Forming New States of >Hydrogen" Int J. Hydrogen Energy vol 34 (2009) 573-614 > > >One of the greaest advantages of Mills upon "us" is that he understand >what happens in his systems. He has a first class theory- that predicts. >Second class theory prohibits, third class describes, explans what has >happened> >What kind of theory do we have? A "good" point is that we have many! > > >On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >From:noone noone >> >>Ø I don't think there is any RF generator. >> >>The purpose of the Rossi “black box” is said to be a secret, but if it were >>merely a DC power supply for a resistive heater, then you would be implying a >>planned intent to deceive the audience, which is not impossible, but >>unlikely. >> >> >>Ø I do not see any need for an RF generator. I think the system can self >>sustain if the temperature is hot enough, but the problem is that there could >>be >>a runaway explosion if that happens. >> >> >>Again, the need for RF is NOT as a heater, but as a means of spin flipping >>hydrogen to attain negative temperature in this (highly speculative) >>hypothesis. >>Rossi cannot mention RF as an input in the patent, since RF has been >>previously >>patented as a way to heat a hydrogen nuclear reactor. >> >> >>And since Rossi is probably unaware of the quasi-BEC modality (assuming that >>it >>could be accurate to some extent) then he probably thinks the advantage of RF >>over other input is the great unknown mystery, and which he admits to not >>comprehending. >> >> >>If it turns out to indeed be RF input, then we can say that he found out that >>it >>is advantageous through trial and error, yet apparently thinks that it works >>for >>the same reason that it is used in prior-art, in tokomaks, etc. So he could >>be >>right for the wrong reason. >> >>Although my underlying hypothesis of operation - with the quasi-BEC - is >>admittedly “way out there” on the fringe of the fringe, it is pretty clear >>that >>Rossi has done what Randell Mills could not do. >> >> >>In effect, you seem to be saying that Rossi has invented nothing more than a >>better version of the Mills’ reactor. That is most unlikely, since Mills has >>not >>gotten his to run in a continuous mode for long enough to begin placement in >>the >>grid plants of his licensees, and he is far better funded. >> >> >>Rossi claims a year of operation already. OK maybe that is an exaggeration, >>but >>it is clear to me that he has made a major breakthrough advance over Mills, >>even >>though he may have borrowed the basic starting ingredients - and so far that >>alone implies a fundamental difference in the MO. >> >> >>It may not be RF as the input, but it is probably going to be new physics; >>and >>the hypothesis of dense hydrogen (pycno) leading to a quasi-BEC has not been >>shot down yet. Of course, that could happen later today J >> >>Jones >> >> > >
