There is a denial by Rossi from Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics on February 15, 2013 <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=785&cpage=2#comment-626114>:
Andrea Rossi February 15th, 2013 at 3:00 AM <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=785&cpage=2#comment-626114> Dear Todd Burkett: I confirm that my theory has nothing to do with the Mills Theory. I cannot give information regarding the operation of our reactors. Warm Regards, A.R. On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:08 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Rossi is known to be misleading in his statements -- and for obvious > reasons of commercial advantage -- but he seems to be avoiding outright > lies about his theory. So what might be "misleading" about his denial of > Windom Larson without being a lie? > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he >> says he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I >> haven't seen a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi. >> >> Has he let such a denial slip? >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> As for the patent which most resembles the Hot-Cat, it is probably >>> this one: “Molecular hydrogen laser” US 7773656 to Mills. Of course, >>> Rossi’s device is not a laser, but in operation it is closer than you may >>> realize - unless you have followed the SPP discussions. >>> >>> >>> >>> A picture is worth 1000 words… >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://fusionfroide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rossis-HOT-CAT-reactor.jpg >>> >>> >>> >>> … and no, there is no indication that the photons seen here are >>> coherent, or even superradiant. No evidence is possible since there is no >>> lens. The IR light is coming through and/or heating a stainless steel >>> end-cap. If the electrical input power is as low as claimed, then we are >>> probably seeing superradiance, at least. >>> >> >> >
