On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Rossi has written on his blog about having had many explosions. I want
> to
> > see one (somewhere isolated where nobody can get hurt). That would be
> > interesting ... and fun.
>
>
> I searched his responses on JoNP and never found him to use the word
> "explosions". He did say that he destroyed up to a thousand reactors
> in testing his product; but, I never found where he said there was an
> explosion.
>
> Do you have a citation?
>
This is fairly typical -- I remember seeing him mention it several times:
"
- Andrea Rossi
July 13th, 2010 at 2:50
PM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211&cpage=2#comment-2614>
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."
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211
In addition to the mention of explosion, Rossi was gratified in July that
Celani looked at this work. Now Celani is a snake because he made it easy
for Rossi to get an easy and cheap and quick test of his device.
