Dear Peter,
I wish I had enough information to answer what you ask. You probably know more than I do anyway, with your BLP connection. - Intensity - this is almost too high to be physical even at the 16 kW level, let alone 130 kW. He is riding a knife edge. Look how much larger Mills' 50 kW reactor is. - Reproducibility - is probably less of a problem than controllability. The first independent replication of Mills that I know of (Cockeram) went to total meltdown. - Continuity - this seems to be the big advance of Rossi. He converts Mills' batch process into continuous - Safety - If controllability is an issue, then a hydrogen fire will not be unexpected - Scale-up - You analysis of this could be correct. Maybe he has scaled up too far already in an attempt to get the continuity. My hope for the future of the technology is that Randell Mills (another potential Messiah figure) will burst onto the scene in the coming months in a dramatic and meaningful way; and then between him, Rossi and a few others, all of the open questions will be answered will before OPEC buys Defkalion and/or whatever is the worst conspiracy (that anyone can imagine) takes place. There are literally trillions of dollars/euros at stake in this. Of all Rossi's problems, the patent situation seems to be the most grim if he can get through this year and the October demo. Don't forget that in addition to Mills IP, we know that Mitchell Swartz and several others in Japan, Italy, India and elsewhere have been reporting gains in NiH for years, and Mitchell for one has patent applications in place (that most likely have priority over Rossi). How many others are out there ?? It would not surprise me at all if the only thing Rossi can patent now (as the Gianni-come-lately, so to speak) is his *continuity process*, but then the irony is that he might need to get a basic license from whomever has priority in NiH gas-phase itself. However, the Thermacore gas phase work may make that issue moot. Most people do not realize how successful Thermacore was in gas phase in the DARPA contract, and DARPA did not patent it when they had the chance - so the basic process could be wide open !! If not, that person with priority, if they realize their good fortune - is probably sitting back and smiling at all of this, as we speak. Jones From: Peter Gluck Dear Jones, In your opinion, what exactly are Rossi's problems? Perhaps you could use the 5 criteria of an energy source: - intensity, - reproducibility and controllability; - continuity, - safety; - scale-up Add to these his intellectual property problems- not only patenting here. How do you think about these? Thanks! Peter On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: From: Stephen A. Lawrence * Jones, who put such an angry bee in your bonnet over Rossi? There is no anger - just disappointment that so many are jumping to hyperbolic conclusions which are not justified by the record. And disappointment that technology so potentially valuable [to society] goes misunderstood by those chosen by Rossi, and that it could succumb to greed [OPEC for instance] if it is not fully understood, before long. How many times do I have to say it - the NiH reaction is gainful ! The is no doubt it is gainful - I have seen this recently first hand but that does not mean that it is even close to what Rothwell wants to believe it is. In my opinion Rossi does not have a clue and sadly, neither does Focardi. Aren't we all entitled to express that? > You swallowed all the nonsense spewed out by *Doctor* Stiffler, quite some time back Not really. I reported Stiffler's results as they were presented - and he was not hiding anything in a "black box," to his credit. I also reported the problems when they were found, which is where Jed has a blind eye - with Rossi. > Jed's being a whole lot more reasonable about this than you were about the Stiffler "miracle", as far as I can see. You really believe that 130,000 watt in 15 minutes to a reactor will not raise copious steam ? That 'miracle' puts Stiffler's few watts from ground to shame. The point of this being that many creative inventors (artists writers poets etc) are often cranky and weird. That should not be news to anyone. If they are not honest, that adds to the problem when the technology can essentially serve to "save our way of life" and when this happens, and when Rossi has hidden the facts about the $2 million+ he has received from DoE since 2000 to get to where he is now, he should be exposed for that. US taxpayers OWN a stake in this and it will shortly come out as FIA papers have been filed. BTW - Stiffler was NOT hiding the ground looping problem, and continues to try to push it to the limits. I have not talked to him in years but he posts his results to YouTube. Recently it appears he has been able to get a surprising amount of voltage and LED light emission from only a ground connection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYY7TqS380 Can you do anything close to that? If nothing else, the electricity grid suppliers of the world should take note of whatever is going on here. Needless to say they will be taking note of Rossi even if the COP in Sweden turns out to be 10 (my guess) instead of Rothwell's 1000+. Jones http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
