Let's suppose that 100% of what Rossi tells is 105% true. 100% of the time. Then what about this:
" My process has nothing to do with the process of Piantelli,” Rossi wrote. “The proof is that I am making operating reactors; he is not.” (New Energy Times) In this case it is an error to use the data of the old Piantelli-Focardi cells for the E-cats. Deep mystery- a a patent can be captured in it. Peter On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is “Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems” > > > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf > > > > Emissions derived from undefined nuclear reactions were detected in three > successive experiments in a temperature range between 350 and 750 K. > > > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> At 12:12 AM 5/29/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: >> >>> That's one heck of a frequency conversion! >>> >> >> No, it simply requires that the gammas be absorbed by the apparatus. That, >> I believe, places an upper limit on the gamma energies, but I'm not about to >> calculate it, and this would also depend on the shielding thickness and the >> shielding material. >> >> He implies that there is gamma radiation generated during the reaction, >> which would point, by the way, to a scientific demonstration, showing a >> nuclear reaction, but it's one he does not want to do, because all that has >> to happen is for someone to measure the energy of those gammas, and the >> E-Cat could be out of the bag. >> >> Note that this demonstration would not rule out fraud. Fraud is very >> difficult to rule out by any sort of supervised demonstration, which is why >> I don't expect it to be ruled out until Rossi gets his patent protection. >> >> It's really weird. If Rossi is a scammer, he is being *protected* by US >> patent office refusal to grant patents, because it gives him a complete >> excuse to not disclose what he's doing, completely. >> >> Patents for something considered impossible should be issued. The patent >> applicant pays all the cost of the examination, and the patent (all patents) >> should clearly state that the practical operation of the device is not >> guaranteed by the patent office. The argument that issuance of a patent is >> some sort of seal of approval is preposterous, as to substance. All kinds of >> patented stuff has been completely useless. >> > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
