Ignoring the issue that the range of weak force is ~10-18m, around 1000x smaller than a proton's radius, so it is kind of hard to make a lattice of W bosons (one of the carriers of this force), that theory doesn't explain where so many random radioactive are not formed. So, it is very difficult for me to accept this theory.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat <[email protected]> Date: 2011/11/9 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress To: [email protected] What if the patent theory is wrong and Piantelli or W-L is right? Would he then be left with no protection other than trade secrets? I do note he is seeking non disclosed uni research help as he tries to get them to help him understand how his reactor really works. I don't envy Rossi, knowing he may have no IP protection, not really understand how the reaction works but wanting to make money from his multi year efforts. Also the latest, NO MORE TESTS, says bugger off all you who seek to understand what is going on, you will get NO more information to help you figure this out. Rossi is between a rock and a hard place. AG On 11/10/2011 9:59 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote: > I don't doubt that Rossi has something new and fantastic, and I don't > doubt that he is eccentric in some way as are most of us and this explains > some of the nonsensical things. I also believe he is quite intelligent. > But the only way to think that his process makes any "business-first > approach" is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is > missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no new art > for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it. > > Think if everything was normal. Ross could arrange an independent demo(s) > in front of reputable persons. From that he could explain what he does in > a patent application and it would be granted. He would win the Nobel price > and untold fortune. > > His current approach seems silly and I dont think he is a silly man. > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>**> wrote: > > Horace Heffner <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]**>> wrote: > > Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I > recognize, as do many others, especially given Rossi's > inability numerous times to provide anything other than highly > flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the importance of > such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc. The lives > of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now, > regardless the outcome. Why will he never make the tiny > incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he > produces nuclear heat? > > > That's a little unfair. Assume for a moment that Rossi really does > have a customer and that Fioravanti is a real HVAC engineer hired > by the customer. > > In that case he has done everything right. You cannot ask for > better test than an industrial scale professional boiler test. > > I think it comes down to a few simple questions: Is Fioravanti who > he claims to be? Is that sheet of paper he signed what it appears > to be -- a sales contract test acceptance report? If so, then > Rossi has done exactly what he claimed he would to all long. No > one can fault his business-first approach. The fact that he does > not do academic science-style tests with proper controls and so on > is irrelevant. A professional boiler test is _far more convincing_ > > and more relevant. As I have often pointed out, HVAC engineers > have completely different standards from physicists in academic > laboratories. Engineers do not do blank experiments. They do not > do controls. That is not part of their protocol. Asking them to do > such things is ridiculous. > > Do not impose the standards of academic science on industrial > engineering, or vice versa. The two are very different, for good > reasons. What works well in a science lab may not work in a > factory. Rossi is an industrial engineer. He makes large > machines. Fioravanti tests large machines (assuming he is for > real). It makes no sense to demand they use methods appropriate to > the lab bench top. > > As I said, I do not fault his business first-approach. I wish he > would pursue business and money more aggressively on a larger scale. > > - Jed > > >
