From the lips of Rossi,
"I am very practical: I am not at all interested to theories of “gurus”
who explain theories more or less TCL ( time-consuming-and-losing). I am
exclusively interested to apparatuses able to work. In our field we are
too much filled up with theorists who write stupidities of which they
are not liable because they have not to produce something that actually
works. Take for example the ridiculous theories coming from the “papers”
of Widom, Larsen and accolites: they suppose groundless behaviours of
virtual particles just if they could behave like Fermions, and they
simply ignore the leptons’ conservation law: this is ridicolous, but the
“theoretical gurus” are all around this pure loss- of- time- theory,
just because none of them has the anxiety deriving from the necessity to
make the money necessary to refund the expenses of the research : they
just ask for money of the taxpayer, like the other (Italian) guru who is
using since 20 years the taxpayer’s money to make ridiculous research on
the cold fusion electrilytic processes. This is also why we count on our
Customers to repay ourselves, while they ask for Taxpayer’s
contribution. Some imbecile has written that we are sellers, not
scientists: well we are scientists who want not to steal the money of
the taxpayers, therefore we have to sell our (really working) products.
While they make mental masturbations with ridiculous theories totally
groundless, we are working 16 hours per day to make real working
products. With our money, not with money of the Taxpayers.
All this is not from your comment, but your comment has triggered this
answer after I read from a blog a letter of an imbecile who says we are
not scientists, but sellers. I got the chance to repeat that to “think”
without to be able to make anything useful is a loss of time, if made
without money, and is a fraud if made with the money of the Taxpayer. In
Italy we have a paradigmatic example of this, specifically in the LENR
field.
The control system of the E-Cat is able to modulate it. The precise way
the modulation is done is in a phase of patent application in course,
but it will be duly described in the instruction manuals. It is also
still subject to approval from the certificators, so that it is
premature to explain the details."
From history springs wisdom.
"Never believe anything bad about anybody unless you positively know it
to be true; never tell even that unless you feel that it is absolutely
necessary - and that God is listening while you tell it.
William Penn"
How is your LERN reactor progressing, Jojo?
Warm Regards,
Reliable
Jojo Jaro wrote:
Is it just me or does it seem that the numbers don't add up?
In SSM, COP should be infinite (or at least some ridiculously high
number.) And if he is running SSM 50% of the time, his overall COP
should be significantly higher than 6. The only way for him to get an
overall COP of 6 is if his Driven Mode COP is negative - an equally
high negative value (that is, he is inputting a significant amount of
energy during Driven Mode.)
Anyone else caught this? Did we just catch Rossi with one of his fibs
again? Or maybe more misdirection?
Jojo
----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
To: "vortex-l" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:59 AM
Subject: [Fwd: [Vo]:Some clarifications by D.Bushnell on LENR funding
@ LaRC]
Rossi update,
"The SSM (self sustained mode) is regulated by the control system
based on a complex interaction between parameters. The longest period
can be 2 hours, as an average the self sustained mode runs for the
50% of the total time. The ionizing electromagnetic emissions have no
substantial delta between SSM and driven mode."
Warm Regards (600C),
Reliable
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Vo]:Some clarifications by D.Bushnell on LENR funding @ LaRC
Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:47:39 -0700
Resent-From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:42:20 +0200
From: Akira Shirakawa <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Hello group,
Have a read at this blogpost from nasawatch.com (it's not a NASA
website although its name might suggest otherwise to some). While its
owner has a generally quite negative stance against LENR/CF, his
questions and their answers provided by Dennis Bushnell, LaRC Chief
Scientist, have proved interesting:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/06/cold-fusion-upd.html
Cheers,
S.A.
