Code: Select all
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/investigate-usefulness-energy-catalizer-creation-italian-inventor-andrea-rossi/xwlqqgww
http://wh.gov/j3P
Code: Select all
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/investigate-usefulness-energy-catalizer-creation-italian-inventor-andrea-rossi/xwlqqgww
Again I think it a language difference. "Logical" doesn't mean true. Things can be VERY logical and VERY false if the propositions are false.Giorgio wrote:TOo many IF don't make it logical to me.KitemanSA wrote:IF this reaction is real and IF it depends on assemblages of electrons escorting protons close to a nucleus while the electrons move near, past, or THRU the nuclei, THEN having electrons "near, past, or thru" the nuclei is a precondition. Seems logical to me.
I guess we once more agree that we do not agree on this issue
Amazing. You didn't even read their seminal paper (LOL) on the device before you began Konjecturing. You need a link? You are complaining to me that you didn't get an opportunity to ACTUALLY read what they wrote?!?!KitemanSA wrote:Link? It would be interesting to read what they ACTULLY wrote first hand.seedload wrote: FYI, that is the same paper in which they claim that NI58 reactions are 100X more energetic than NI62 and 300X more energetic than NI64.
They are depleting the NI58? Go figure.
To your point, this may be (and probably is) totally bogus but perhaps some here with Navy connections can check it out.TallDave wrote:I thought it was funny that several people jumped on NI as being the customer, which never really made much sense. The US Navy taking a shot on an application for mobile heaters made a lot more sense.
I think at this point it's fair to say NI and the USN have been convinced there is something here. I'm not quite fully in the Rossi camp, but I do not think Rossi is clever enough to have fooled these people. I think it is more likely Rossi, quirks and all, has stumbled into some kind of LENR, which may or may not be as efficient as he claims.
Hi everybody, this is the first time I'm actually leaving a comment on this blog but I've been following the intricate debate for a long time so far. I guess I shouldn't do what I'm about to do, but I think that this technology needs more credibility. And in fact I can assure you that that mysterious partner everybody is wondering about with whose name starts with N is the NRL.. the naval reserch lab.. I know it for sure coz I have friends involved in the all agreement thing... 15 novembre 2011 01:06
Giorgio,KitemanSA wrote:Again I think it a language difference. "Logical" doesn't mean true. Things can be VERY logical and VERY false if the propositions are false.Giorgio wrote:TOo many IF don't make it logical to me.KitemanSA wrote:IF this reaction is real and IF it depends on assemblages of electrons escorting protons close to a nucleus while the electrons move near, past, or THRU the nuclei, THEN having electrons "near, past, or thru" the nuclei is a precondition. Seems logical to me.
I guess we once more agree that we do not agree on this issue
Yes, very flimsy, but still interesting, thanks for sharing.Kahuna wrote:Hi everybody, this is the first time I'm actually leaving a comment on this blog but I've been following the intricate debate for a long time so far. I guess I shouldn't do what I'm about to do, but I think that this technology needs more credibility. And in fact I can assure you that that mysterious partner everybody is wondering about with whose name starts with N is the NRL.. the naval reserch lab.. I know it for sure coz I have friends involved in the all agreement thing... 15 novembre 2011 01:06
Flimsy in both the second hand nature of the "all agreement thing" claim, in the idea that the Navy would buy a first unit commercial device when all they would need to do is wait to find out if it works, and in the idea that the Navy would accept a two page hand written questionaire filled out by an foreign hired gun as proof of concept to authorize the purchase.TallDave wrote:Yes, very flimsy, but still interesting, thanks for sharing.Kahuna wrote:Hi everybody, this is the first time I'm actually leaving a comment on this blog but I've been following the intricate debate for a long time so far. I guess I shouldn't do what I'm about to do, but I think that this technology needs more credibility. And in fact I can assure you that that mysterious partner everybody is wondering about with whose name starts with N is the NRL.. the naval reserch lab.. I know it for sure coz I have friends involved in the all agreement thing... 15 novembre 2011 01:06
I agree, but thought that since we seem to have some strong connections to the Navy here that one short call to an old buddy might put this to rest one way or another.seedload wrote:Flimsy in both the second hand nature of the "all agreement thing" claim, in the idea that the Navy would buy a first unit commercial device when all they would need to do is wait to find out if it works, and in the idea that the Navy would accept a two page hand written questionaire filled out by an foreign hired gun as proof of concept to authorize the purchase.
He is playing with fire by making such claims.Kahuna wrote:I agree, but thought that since we seem to have some strong connections to the Navy here that one short call to an old buddy might put this to rest one way or another.seedload wrote:Flimsy in both the second hand nature of the "all agreement thing" claim, in the idea that the Navy would buy a first unit commercial device when all they would need to do is wait to find out if it works, and in the idea that the Navy would accept a two page hand written questionaire filled out by an foreign hired gun as proof of concept to authorize the purchase.
Andrea Rossi
November 16th, 2011 at 11:02 AM
Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
1- no
2- no
3- yes
4- no
5- no
6- no
Sorry, I can’t be fluent in confidential information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Charlie Zimmerman
November 16th, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Congratulations on a growing contingent of customers! The future is bright indeed.
I just re-read your paper, “A new energy source from nuclear fusion”. The paper indicates reactions of all isotopes of NI. On this blog you have said that only NI62 and NI64 react. Regarding this paper:
1) Do all isotopes react?
2) This paper does not acknowledge depletion of NI58. Did the idea to deplete the NI58 come later?
3) Table 3 shows NI58 to be much more energetic. This seems inconsistent with the depletion of NI58. Do you agree?
4) Is the lower COP in the production device relative to the experimental results in the paper a result of depleting NI58?
5) If so, can it be assumed that NI58 is depleted as a matter of adding control?
6) Or, is NI58 depleted to reduce long half lived NI59 production?
I am thinking that your ideas regarding the process have changed dramatically from the original writing of this paper. You mentioned that you will be publishing the theory after the 1 MW reactor demonstration.
Will you publish your theory soon?
This is the point I raised previously. There is in fact no chance given the way aquisistions works.seedload wrote:Flimsy in both the second hand nature of the "all agreement thing" claim, in the idea that the Navy would buy a first unit commercial device when all they would need to do is wait to find out if it works, and in the idea that the Navy would accept a two page hand written questionaire filled out by an foreign hired gun as proof of concept to authorize the purchase.TallDave wrote:Yes, very flimsy, but still interesting, thanks for sharing.Kahuna wrote:Hi everybody, this is the first time I'm actually leaving a comment on this blog but I've been following the intricate debate for a long time so far. I guess I shouldn't do what I'm about to do, but I think that this technology needs more credibility. And in fact I can assure you that that mysterious partner everybody is wondering about with whose name starts with N is the NRL.. the naval reserch lab.. I know it for sure coz I have friends involved in the all agreement thing... 15 novembre 2011 01:06
Yes, I agree, and that's why I said I didn't find it logical.KitemanSA wrote:Again I think it a language difference. "Logical" doesn't mean true. Things can be VERY logical and VERY false if the propositions are false.Giorgio wrote:TOo many IF don't make it logical to me.KitemanSA wrote:IF this reaction is real and IF it depends on assemblages of electrons escorting protons close to a nucleus while the electrons move near, past, or THRU the nuclei, THEN having electrons "near, past, or thru" the nuclei is a precondition. Seems logical to me.
I guess we once more agree that we do not agree on this issue
I strongly second this and I find amusing that there are still people that do not understand (and question) such a basic issue.ladajo wrote:This is the point I raised previously. There is in fact no chance given the way aquisistions works.
Espescially with budgetary issues these days, NOBODY is going to go out on a limb for an unknown.
To clarify, this statement was just made by some anonymous blogger on the 22 Passi site which is rich with E-Cat yarns. Some have proven to be true, others not.MSimon wrote:He is playing with fire by making such claims.Kahuna wrote:I agree, but thought that since we seem to have some strong connections to the Navy here that one short call to an old buddy might put this to rest one way or another.seedload wrote:Flimsy in both the second hand nature of the "all agreement thing" claim, in the idea that the Navy would buy a first unit commercial device when all they would need to do is wait to find out if it works, and in the idea that the Navy would accept a two page hand written questionaire filled out by an foreign hired gun as proof of concept to authorize the purchase.