On Jan 22, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
The journalists instantly lumped Rossi's experiments and patent
applications under that umbrella, despite his statements that it
was not cold fusion.
Did he say that? I missed it. What does he think it is? Focardi
sure thinks it is cold fusion.
I can't find anywhere he said that. I must have confused what Rossi
said with what Dufour and Krivit have said. Just my bad memory
again. I did see an exchange where Rossi distances himself from
hydrinos:
Andrea Rossi
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:15 AM
Dear Mr Bernard E Souw, Ph. D.:
My method and technology is not at all related with the one you
mentioned. If you read my patent (go to http://www.journal-of-nuclear-
physics.com and click on Patent) and the description of the method
you mentioned, there is no relationship at all.
This my statement is absolutely not a criticism agaist the other
method, it is just a statement about the total difference between the
two.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bernard E Souw, Ph.D.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:09 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Is your novel invention somehow related to Dr. Randell Mills
(Blacklight Power, Inc.) hydrogen reactor based on hydrino reaction?
If not, do you see any possible relation with it?
Regards,
Bernard Souw, Ph.D.
The other thing I cannot understand is Krivit's assertion that it
is not fusion based on the W-L theory. It is fusion because even
with W-L you start with deuterium and end up with helium, at least
with the Pd-D system. Atom fuse together to form new elements and
release energy. That's fusion. Other nuclear reactions also occur,
since there are transmutations with heavier elements.
Agreed. The thing I can't understand is pushing a theory that has
historically been is so full of holes. I don't know if they have
recently filled any of the holes. I've already spent much time on
this view of WL here, so won't elaborate, other than to say see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg38261.html
To say it is "not fusion" reminds of the old joke that
Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare but by another
man of the same name.
Incidentally, some people claim that Francis Bacon wrote
Shakespeare's plays. I have read lots of both S. and B., the latter
mainly in translation from Latin but also some of his documents
originally written in English. It would be hard to find two authors
with styles, outlooks and philosophies more diametrically opposed.
S. is a great poet whose imagination takes flight and who expresses
mundane thoughts with spine-chilling beauty. B. was history's first
great dour fact-obsessed scientist. He said nothing and probably
imagined nothing not backed up by evidence and logic. He could not
more write Shakespeare's plays than I could climb Mt. Everest. I'll
bet he didn't even like them.
- Jed
OTOH, what a great release for the other side of Bacon's brain that
would be. Multiple personalities? Injured corpus callosum? Perhaps
there is evidence one writes left handed and the other writes right
handed.
Hmmm... I just checked and Francis Bacon was left handed:
http://www.experiencefestival.com/list_of_famous_left-handed_people_-
_philosophers
and there is some evidence that Shakespeare was right handed:
http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/683/22/
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061006130558AAOZaDB
I have to wonder if there is some likeness in their images?
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
