BTW, the most random two-digit number is 37. When groups of people are polled to pick a “random number between 1 and 100”, the most commonly chosen number is 37. I'm not saying that he just pulled the number out of thin air. I'm saying that, if he were to pull a number out of thin air, odds are, that number would be 37.
Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> wrote: >http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/04/rossi-says-that-over-the-years-has-blown-up-37-e-cats/ > >"" >One of the questioner asked, “Another fun question: How many reactors have you >blown up? (You have experimented to determine the safest >size/pressures/temperatures. Stress testing is important!)” > >Rossi’s answer: “37 (all recorded, with the supposed reasons of the event)” > >http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473#comments > >He also said regarding safety: > >“The replication of the effect along the patent has to be made by >professionals. It is dangerous, if made by amateurs, because there are >explosion dangers and because the nickel powders are toxic. The manipulations >must be made in professional laboratories, with professional protection >devices (http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3124295.ece) >"" > >Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: > >>On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Terry Blanton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Mary Yugo <[email protected]> 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.
