Dear Peter,
There are differences and similarities, true - but does it really make sense that there could be two distinct processes of nickel and hydrogen, both of which were previously unknown to physics? Statistically, and to the skeptic, two improbable things happening with no precedent happening like that seems to make them more convinced that neither could be correct, but for us on the others side of the fence - the conclusion can be reversed. The best way for me to rationalize the situation is to imagine that the Mills' "redundancy" process occurs first - and that BLP limits this reaction to this first step on purpose - whereas in Rossi, the "redundancy" or shrinkage process is a necessary but latent or hidden pathway, since it culminates in a nuclear reaction . IOW it is easy to miss the predecessor step. The irony is that since we tend to think of nuclear as being more robust, there was little reason for Focardi, the theorist behind the inventor, to think that the Rossi effect "needed" anything else but nuclear. However, instead of ostensibly needing the shrinkage, it is possible (in a QM explanation), that having a secondary nuclear reaction makes the shrinkage itself easier to pull off - since some of it could be related to ZPE, and the first step is actually more robust. This my take on how a deflated fusion model, similar to Horace's might fit-in. Horace has given no indication that he agrees with this interpretation, but if shrinkage results in deflation in some way, this works for me. In all cases cavity-QED is probably involved to some degree. Jones From: Peter Gluck Dear Jones, I see not deep similarities between the Rossi and the BLP processes Some logical flaw here.... Quite different approaches to energy generation, I think. Rossi has to control weel the intensity, obtain even better reoroducbility (eliminate start -up peaks), assure long term uniformity of performances, find a more engineer like method for scale up than combining many units,eliminate any type of accidents. Not easy Peter
