You can bet your eye teeth that Rossi et al are trying to duplicate the spark control mechanism that DGT is currently demonstrating. In this LENR activation area, DGT is ahead in the LENR technology race and Rossi wants it badly.
It reminds me of what the competition was like between Jobs and Gates in the PC race, when Gates saw windows on a MAC. Gates said, “I WANT IT!!!” Rossi must now be saying... I want that spark. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > There might well be a LENR reaction strength component to this even > isotope issue. > > > > The DGT reactor might well produce a stronger reaction intensity that can > crack upon open the Ni58 and Ni60 isotopes that the weaker Rossi reaction > cannot do. > > > > If a reactor with a stronger reaction is invented, the isotope question > may not be relevant because a strong LENR reaction may affect all matter > equally. > > > > If the LENR reaction is variable based on strength level, basing a patent > on isotope activity may not be smart. > > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> >> >Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except >> that >> >Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) >> >> 61Ni is the only naturally occurring NI isotope with odd spin (and hence a >> nuclear magnetic moment). >> >> >> The more logical explanation is that that DGT is trying to distance >> themselves from the Claims of Rossi patent application, in the event it >> will >> be granted. >> >> If you accept the validity of the DGT demo, and it looks damn good to me >> despite a few problems, then Rossi's demo should be accepted also, and the >> Patent Law under section 713.98 permits the demonstration of a working >> device. So we pretty much have to assume that the Rossi IP will be granted >> eventually - since he can actually demonstrate the effect. We know that he >> has claimed that Ni-62 is the active isotope and if true, it would keep >> DGT >> out of the game. >> >> Anyway - it is extremely doubtful, given the expense of pure isotopes and >> Defkalion's lack of capital, that they have done the correct testing to >> back >> such a self-serving statement. Rossi has been much better funded. >> >> Therefore DGT has every incentive, in seeking investors - to insert that >> kind of comment about not having the same technology as Rossi, even if >> untrue. They cannot afford to be seen as having copied Rossi's technology >> - >> when his patent is eventually granted; but everyone on this forum knows >> the >> history going back a few years; and that DGT actually admitted to copying >> the formula at the University of Sienna. >> >> IOW - If they - DGT are to attract sufficient outside funding, and they >> badly need it - then they essentially "have to" invent something like this >> story to overcome due diligence objections. >> >> In spite of the successful demo, the statement about isotope activity from >> DGT is almost certainly self-serving and bogus. >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> >
