I think it is more probable- how the device works, not if it works. Levi says: *L'assenza di radiazione ci fa dire che se è una fonte nucleare è comunque di natura nuova rispetto a quelle conosciute**.*"
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > Someone named Flemming Ravn posted this in the Forbes discussion. This is > translated from Swedish by Google. I wish we had the original. > > By the way, I hope that copying a message from the discussion is not a > copyright violation! Kevin O'Malley should stop making excuses and > apologize for that. > > QUOTE: > > Flemming Ravn > > So I asked Bo Höistad some questions, the reply was in Swedish and I have > used google translate. > > Here’s a quick and short answers: > > 1) All input power was in full control. > 2) No hidden energy source in the frame > 3) This question is good that you set. > In physics, we can not have faith or gut feeling for about a phenomenon > occurs or not. We need to find out what actually exists through accurate > measurements. As a nuclear physicist, I can directly say that, based on the > well-known knowledge of core processes, the probability of nuclear > transformations that cause heat production in the E-cat vanishingly small. > Furthermore, if for some unknown reason yet to take place, they would leave > traces, which has not been observed so far. > We wanted to investigate whether Rossi’s alleged heat can be verified in > an independent survey. The first result is that we have an indication that > the heat actually occurs that can not be explained by any chemical process. > How heat production is to remain obscure. The result is obviously very > dramatic and absolutely must be further verified before any definitive > statements can be made. We intend to do that in a next step. > There is still much work left before we can determine if Rossi’s E-cat > works. The results so far are interesting enough to continue that work. > > regards > > Bo Höistad > > UNQUOTE > > My comment: I do not think Dr. Hoistad has read enough of the cold fusion > literature. I do not think he is justified in dismissing the nuclear > hypothesis. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
