http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211
----- Andrea Rossi July 13th, 2010 at 2:50 PM Dear Prof. Celani, I am really pleased from the fact that you looked at our work. I know who you are and I thank you really for your attention. Our standard module consumes 500 watts and yields constantly and with absolute reliability, with no risks that radiations exit the reactor and with no risks of explosion, 4 kW. We obtained much higher efficiencies, as you can read on the Focardi-Rossi paper published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, but now I had to find a compromise to manufacture power plants with absolute reliability under the point of view of safety. The excess of energy follows a K= 8 at the moment. We reached a K 400, but we got explosions. I can get risks when I amk alone, but to sell a reliable product I have to go down to 8, right now. We are manufacturing a 1 MW plant made with 125 modules. With 1 g of Ni I got 750 kW. Again thank you for your attention. ---- 2011/4/28 Jones Beene <[email protected]>: > -----Original Message----- > From: Michele Comitini > >> Well IMHO the cold fusion people should stop the "completely/ absolutely >> safe" claim, that even being true is not believable in people experience. >> They should stay conservatively on "safer" or "safest" level. "absolutely >> safe" triggers more doubts on people used to think that BP oil spill is >> something *needed* for granting cheap energy and wellness. Experience tells >> that "nothing comes for free", so use "cheaper". > > > Good points - "keep it understated" but where is the reference to numerous > prior explosions of E-Cat? > > Did Rossi really admit to this? > > Jones > > >
