Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

[Axil Axil]

RE: “I don't see how doing a 1 MW demonstration would fit into a good
strategy, but since I know nothing about his plans I cannot judge.”





Rossi is terrified and perplexed by occasional runaways and subsequent
burnouts of his reactors that he does not understand, prevent from beginning
or can control in an orderly way once begun.



This control problem has forced Rossi to downsize the capacity of his basic
reactor to a very small energy production capability and use many of these
small units ganged together to form a large capacity unit.



There are a number of ways to cover up or mitigate this intractable and
little understood reactor control problem which can occur from time to time
in the Rossi reactor design. Reactor run away conditions can be easily
handled if this fault can be segregated to a single and easily isolate-able
low powered component of a very large capacity system. For example, a 2.5 kw
reactor unit may runaway with power output of 25 Kws. This runaway condition
can be hidden from any user visibility in a megawatt reactor because the
anomalous spiking power output maxes out at a very small fraction of the
total large composite reactor output.


The runaway component will burn itself out is short order after it has
temporally increased the output of steam by about 1% of total capacity. Once
the runaway burns itself out being one of 1,000 small subunits, it can be
easily replaced in an inexpensive way through an on-the-fly procedure
without markedly affecting the total composite output of the other 1000
subunits that comprise the large reactor.




On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
>
>> Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was
>> just wrong approach.
>>
> I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with
> difficulties. It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW.
>
>
>
>> In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this technology back in 2009
>> when he filed patent application.
>>
>
> I think what you mean here is that he should have revealed the technology
> in anticipation of getting a patent. Not that he should have given it away.
> Some people have suggested he should give it away because it is so
> important, and it will save so many lives. That would make him the most
> generous philanthropist in history. I think it is asking too much that he
> should be both a brilliant inventor and also a philanthropist.
>
> The problem with your plan may be that his patent is weak. He and Defkalion
> have both said they will rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual
> property. That tells me his patent is weak.
>
> I do not know much about patents but his other patent seems weak. Very
> weak. Like trying to stop an automobile with a spider's web.
>
> I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after
> corporations worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade
> secret will be broken in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan
> and China. You can protect a trade secret for a product with a niche market
> that calls for inside knowledge, skill,  and lots of art. Conventional
> catalysts are a good example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather
> simple device that is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth
> hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 100 years.
>
> I am only guessing here, but my impression is that Rossi is stuck. He seems
> to have no good method of protecting his intellectual property. That's
> awful. Assuming it works, it is the most valuable discovery in history and
> he deserves a trillion dollars in royalties. I fear he may get nothing.
>
> If he gets nothing in the end, this will be partly his own fault. His
> personality may be causing problems. But it seems to me his main problem is
> that this particular intellectual property is very tough to protect. I
> cannot think of a good marketing strategy. I wouldn't know how to do this.
> If he asked my advice, I would suggest he talk to experts in patent law and
> intellectual property. Perhaps he has talked to them. Maybe he has a good
> strategy. I don't see how doing a 1 MW demonstration would fit into a good
> strategy, but since I know nothing about his plans I cannot judge.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:09 PM 8/24/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jouni Valkonen 
<jounivalko...@gmail.com> wrote:


Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it 
was just wrong approach.


I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with 
difficulties. It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW.

[...]

If he gets nothing in the end, this will be partly his own fault. 
His personality may be causing problems. But it seems to me his main 
problem is that this particular intellectual property is very tough 
to protect. I cannot think of a good marketing strategy. I wouldn't 
know how to do this. If he asked my advice, I would suggest he talk 
to experts in patent law and intellectual property. Perhaps he has 
talked to them. Maybe he has a good strategy. I don't see how doing 
a 1 MW demonstration would fit into a good strategy, but since I 
know nothing about his plans I cannot judge.


Basically, the obstacle here could be greed. If you charge too much 
for something, people will engineer a way around it, unless somehow 
your protection is air-tight, which seems to be a problem for Rossi's 
technology, whatever it is. If the charge -- as a percentage of the 
generated value -- is low enough, people won't bother with the legal 
difficulties of a challenge, at least the pressure is in that direction.


A 1 MW demo, it looks to me, was designed to puff up Rossi's ego, not 
to establish his position in an engineering and business sense. By 
making the announcement and creating the expectation, he set up 
conditions whereby all kinds of obstacles might stop him and defeat 
him. Instead of delivering a handful of working reactors, he had to 
deliver hundreds. This is a problem even if the thing works as he claims!


It's not October yet, but will it be a big surprise if there is no 1 
MW demo in October? Or if the demo, itself, is fraught with problems?


If you can fake 5 KW with 800 W input power, you could fake 1 MW with 
under 200 KW. Or, given other possible tricks, even less input power than that.


Sure, there would be ways to test it that can't be so easily fooled. 
So ... why didn't Rossi allow those techniques with his individual 
E-Cats? Sustained performance. Jed, that requires sustained 
monitoring of operating conditions.


Hasn't it ever bothered you that in the Kullander and Essen demo, we 
only have the temperature data from the first part of the run when, 
clearly, the thing had only barely reached boiling temperature during 
that period? We have no data on when the supposed "complete 
vaporization" was reached. In fact, that point may never have been 
reached, in fact, strictly speaking, it was never reached. The steam 
quality "measurement" they did wasn't. More likely, even if the 
reactor was operating really well, steam quality wouldn't have gone 
above about 95%. 

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

[Peter Gluck]

Jed wrote the cited text, not I.
Without a patent Rossi is vulnerable, he made good publicity however has a
very weak strategy and a dreadful reputation management..
Peter

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:21 AM Peter wrote [snip] I do know about
> trade secrets. I predict that a few months after corporations worldwide
> realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade secret will be broken in
> dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China. You can protect
> a trade secret for a product with a niche market that calls for inside
> knowledge, skill,  and lots of art. Conventional catalysts are a good
> example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather simple device that
> is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth hundreds of trillions
> of dollars over the next 100 years.[/snip]
>
> ** **
>
> Peter,
>
> I would agree that Rossi is “stuck” with a weak patent. If the
> Rossi “trade secret” is the only catalyst that will work then he is indeed
> very lucky as Jones Beene surmised BUT in the very unlikely event that he
> has the theory correct then he would indeed deserve all the marbles. IMHO
> the lengthy communications online and his investment with University of
> Bologna reveals an ongoing struggle to leverage the secret recipe into
> revealing the theory. He admitted as much initially but then later tried to
> convince us he understood the underlying theory – He may honestly believe he
> has figured it out but without a comprehensive explanation that starts with
> how exactly the lattice environment and defects initiate the process, it
> will not survive the rigors to which such a paradigm shifting patent will be
> subjected. His procedures and materials are not even first generation
> without the stable control loop tha t broke the contract with Defkalion. *
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> I predict that the turmoil will eventually fall out to a couple major
> contenders like the Mac [Mills] and PC [Italian researchers] with a third
> open source flavor like Linux based on expired patents and grand fathered by
> existing enthusiasts researching the Patterson and Meyers cells. I hope
> Rossi, Panatelli and Focardi all get some measure of reward but between
> patent litigation and human nature they are likely to die broken men if they
> don’t  accept a big industry buy out.  
>
> Regards
>
> Fran
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:21 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Jed,
>
> I think the best patent agents can improve a situation
>
> but cannot reverse a lost situation to one of a winner.
>
> If he had a compound X acting as catalyst, he could easily get a patent
> protecting the E-cats against copying of 
>
> the core with Compound X. Theoretically good, in practice
>
> a bit complicated and risky.
>
> peter
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
> Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
>
> Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was
> just wrong approach.
>
> I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with
> difficulties. It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW.
>
> ** **
>
>  
>
> In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this technology back in 2009
> when he filed patent application. 
>
> ** **
>
> I think what you mean here is that he should have revealed the technology
> in anticipation of getting a patent. Not that he should have given it away.
> Some people have suggested he should give it away because it is so
> important, and it will save so many lives. That would make him the most
> generous philanthropist in history. I think it is asking too much that he
> should be both a brilliant inventor and also a philanthropist.
>
> ** **
>
> The problem with your plan may be that his patent is weak. He and Defkalion
> have both said they will rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual
> property. That tells me his patent is weak.
>
> ** **
>
> I do not know much about patents but his other patent seems weak. Very
> weak. Like trying to stop an automobile with a spider's web.
>
> ** **
>
> I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after
> corporations worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade
> secret will be broken in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan
> and China. You can protect a trade secret

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

[Roarty, Francis X]

On Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:21 AM Peter wrote [snip] I do know about trade 
secrets. I predict that a few months after corporations worldwide realize the 
Rossi reactors are real, this trade secret will be broken in dozens of 
corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China. You can protect a trade 
secret for a product with a niche market that calls for inside knowledge, 
skill,  and lots of art. Conventional catalysts are a good example. You cannot 
protect a trade secret for a rather simple device that is vital to every 
industry on earth, and that is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars over the 
next 100 years.[/snip]

Peter,
I would agree that Rossi is "stuck" with a weak patent. If the 
Rossi "trade secret" is the only catalyst that will work then he is indeed very 
lucky as Jones Beene surmised BUT in the very unlikely event that he has the 
theory correct then he would indeed deserve all the marbles. IMHO the lengthy 
communications online and his investment with University of Bologna reveals an 
ongoing struggle to leverage the secret recipe into revealing the theory. He 
admitted as much initially but then later tried to convince us he understood 
the underlying theory - He may honestly believe he has figured it out but 
without a comprehensive explanation that starts with how exactly the lattice 
environment and defects initiate the process, it will not survive the rigors to 
which such a paradigm shifting patent will be subjected. His procedures and 
materials are not even first generation without the stable control loop that 
broke the contract with Defkalion.

I predict that the turmoil will eventually fall out to a couple major 
contenders like the Mac [Mills] and PC [Italian researchers] with a third open 
source flavor like Linux based on expired patents and grand fathered by 
existing enthusiasts researching the Patterson and Meyers cells. I hope Rossi, 
Panatelli and Focardi all get some measure of reward but between patent 
litigation and human nature they are likely to die broken men if they don't  
accept a big industry buy out.
Regards
Fran


From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

Dear Jed,
I think the best patent agents can improve a situation
but cannot reverse a lost situation to one of a winner.
If he had a compound X acting as catalyst, he could easily get a patent 
protecting the E-cats against copying of
the core with Compound X. Theoretically good, in practice
a bit complicated and risky.
peter
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Jouni Valkonen mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was just 
wrong approach.
I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with difficulties. It 
is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW.



In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this technology back in 2009 when 
he filed patent application.

I think what you mean here is that he should have revealed the technology in 
anticipation of getting a patent. Not that he should have given it away. Some 
people have suggested he should give it away because it is so important, and it 
will save so many lives. That would make him the most generous philanthropist 
in history. I think it is asking too much that he should be both a brilliant 
inventor and also a philanthropist.

The problem with your plan may be that his patent is weak. He and Defkalion 
have both said they will rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual 
property. That tells me his patent is weak.

I do not know much about patents but his other patent seems weak. Very weak. 
Like trying to stop an automobile with a spider's web.

I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after corporations 
worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade secret will be broken 
in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China. You can protect 
a trade secret for a product with a niche market that calls for inside 
knowledge, skill,  and lots of art. Conventional catalysts are a good example. 
You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather simple device that is vital to 
every industry on earth, and that is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars 
over the next 100 years.

I am only guessing here, but my impression is that Rossi is stuck. He seems to 
have no good method of protecting his intellectual property. That's awful. 
Assuming it works, it is the most valuable discovery in history and he deserves 
a trillion dollars in royalties. I fear he may get nothing.

If he gets nothing in the end, this will be partly his own fault. His 
personality may be causing problems. But it seems to me his main problem is 
that this particular intellectual property is very tough to protect. I cannot 

Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Jed,
I think the best patent agents can improve a situation
but cannot reverse a lost situation to one of a winner.
If he had a compound X acting as catalyst, he could easily get a patent
protecting the E-cats against copying of
the core with Compound X. Theoretically good, in practice
a bit complicated and risky.
peter

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
>
>> Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was
>> just wrong approach.
>>
> I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with
> difficulties. It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW.
>
>
>
>> In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this technology back in 2009
>> when he filed patent application.
>>
>
> I think what you mean here is that he should have revealed the technology
> in anticipation of getting a patent. Not that he should have given it away.
> Some people have suggested he should give it away because it is so
> important, and it will save so many lives. That would make him the most
> generous philanthropist in history. I think it is asking too much that he
> should be both a brilliant inventor and also a philanthropist.
>
> The problem with your plan may be that his patent is weak. He and Defkalion
> have both said they will rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual
> property. That tells me his patent is weak.
>
> I do not know much about patents but his other patent seems weak. Very
> weak. Like trying to stop an automobile with a spider's web.
>
> I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after
> corporations worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade
> secret will be broken in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan
> and China. You can protect a trade secret for a product with a niche market
> that calls for inside knowledge, skill,  and lots of art. Conventional
> catalysts are a good example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather
> simple device that is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth
> hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 100 years.
>
> I am only guessing here, but my impression is that Rossi is stuck. He seems
> to have no good method of protecting his intellectual property. That's
> awful. Assuming it works, it is the most valuable discovery in history and
> he deserves a trillion dollars in royalties. I fear he may get nothing.
>
> If he gets nothing in the end, this will be partly his own fault. His
> personality may be causing problems. But it seems to me his main problem is
> that this particular intellectual property is very tough to protect. I
> cannot think of a good marketing strategy. I wouldn't know how to do this.
> If he asked my advice, I would suggest he talk to experts in patent law and
> intellectual property. Perhaps he has talked to them. Maybe he has a good
> strategy. I don't see how doing a 1 MW demonstration would fit into a good
> strategy, but since I know nothing about his plans I cannot judge.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

> Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was
> just wrong approach.
>
I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with difficulties.
It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW.



> In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this technology back in 2009
> when he filed patent application.
>

I think what you mean here is that he should have revealed the technology in
anticipation of getting a patent. Not that he should have given it away.
Some people have suggested he should give it away because it is so
important, and it will save so many lives. That would make him the most
generous philanthropist in history. I think it is asking too much that he
should be both a brilliant inventor and also a philanthropist.

The problem with your plan may be that his patent is weak. He and Defkalion
have both said they will rely on trade secrets to protect their intellectual
property. That tells me his patent is weak.

I do not know much about patents but his other patent seems weak. Very weak.
Like trying to stop an automobile with a spider's web.

I do know about trade secrets. I predict that a few months after
corporations worldwide realize the Rossi reactors are real, this trade
secret will be broken in dozens of corporations in the U.S., Europe, Japan
and China. You can protect a trade secret for a product with a niche market
that calls for inside knowledge, skill,  and lots of art. Conventional
catalysts are a good example. You cannot protect a trade secret for a rather
simple device that is vital to every industry on earth, and that is worth
hundreds of trillions of dollars over the next 100 years.

I am only guessing here, but my impression is that Rossi is stuck. He seems
to have no good method of protecting his intellectual property. That's
awful. Assuming it works, it is the most valuable discovery in history and
he deserves a trillion dollars in royalties. I fear he may get nothing.

If he gets nothing in the end, this will be partly his own fault. His
personality may be causing problems. But it seems to me his main problem is
that this particular intellectual property is very tough to protect. I
cannot think of a good marketing strategy. I wouldn't know how to do this.
If he asked my advice, I would suggest he talk to experts in patent law and
intellectual property. Perhaps he has talked to them. Maybe he has a good
strategy. I don't see how doing a 1 MW demonstration would fit into a good
strategy, but since I know nothing about his plans I cannot judge.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

[Jouni Valkonen]

I think that 1MW plant will just sit there and generates the steam. But that
single module test is where accurate calorimetry is done and also where
hidden wires and hidden chemical energy sources are excluded.

That is, scientific validation will be done with single module and 1MW plant
is there just for headlines in mass media, to show that this technology is
immediately ready for commercial production. Fleischmann & Pons were still
decade away from commercialization when they announced the pressconference.
Now perhaps Rossi wanted to avoid this mistake and thought that it is good
idea to introduce this technology to public when he has commercially ready
prototype in hands.

But I am glad to hear your status update of BLP. I was quite sure that free
energy scheme was there only to raise money for Mills' own controversial
hydrino theory research. As there is genuine research behind BLP, it should
be safe to raise money without fear of legal problems. If he goes also for
public soon, the world economy will turn upside down in 2012!

—Jouni

On Aug 24, 2011 10:03 PM, "Peter Gluck"  wrote:
> Good ideas Jouni!
> Do you have some scheme imagined for how will the 330
> generators linked and how the global parameters will be measured?
> Peter
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>> Quite simply, 1MW demo will show commersially ready prototype. Single
>> modules that were thusfar shown, were just lab prototypes. And also there
>> will be also single self-sustaining module tested for accurate
calorimetry
>> in October.
>>
>> Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was
>> just wrong approach. In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this
>> technology back in 2009 when he filed patent application. Now the
>> unnecessary delay has cost to global economy hundreds of teradollars and
>> probably one record breaking oil catastrophe. They tried to drill oil
from
>> difficult and expensive source that was justified because the oil price
>> remained high because E-Cat was not opensourced.
>>
>> —Jouni
>> On Aug 24, 2011 4:54 PM, "Peter Gluck"  wrote:
>> > My dear friends,
>> >
>> > I have just published:
>> > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/anticipating-1mw-demo.html
>> > and I ask you to take in consideration what I am asking there. It can
>> > be useful to find out e.g. how will this demo be better thank the
>> > experiments
>> > done with individual E-cats.
>> > Thank you!
>> > Peter
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dr. Peter Gluck
>> > Cluj, Romania
>> > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

[Peter Gluck]

Good ideas Jouni!
Do you have some scheme imagined for how will the 330
generators linked and how the global parameters will be measured?
Peter

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> Quite simply, 1MW demo will show commersially ready prototype. Single
> modules that were thusfar shown, were just lab prototypes. And also there
> will be also single self-sustaining module tested for accurate calorimetry
> in October.
>
> Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was
> just wrong approach. In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this
> technology back in 2009 when he filed patent application. Now the
> unnecessary delay has cost to global economy hundreds of teradollars and
> probably one record breaking oil catastrophe. They tried to drill oil from
> difficult and expensive source that was justified because the oil price
> remained high because E-Cat was not opensourced.
>
> —Jouni
> On Aug 24, 2011 4:54 PM, "Peter Gluck"  wrote:
> > My dear friends,
> >
> > I have just published:
> > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/anticipating-1mw-demo.html
> > and I ask you to take in consideration what I am asking there. It can
> > be useful to find out e.g. how will this demo be better thank the
> > experiments
> > done with individual E-cats.
> > Thank you!
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Peter Gluck
> > Cluj, Romania
> > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

[Jouni Valkonen]

Quite simply, 1MW demo will show commersially ready prototype. Single
modules that were thusfar shown, were just lab prototypes. And also there
will be also single self-sustaining module tested for accurate calorimetry
in October.

Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it was
just wrong approach. In my opinnion Rossi should have opensourced this
technology back in 2009 when he filed patent application. Now the
unnecessary delay has cost to global economy hundreds of teradollars and
probably one record breaking oil catastrophe. They tried to drill oil from
difficult and expensive source that was justified because the oil price
remained high because E-Cat was not opensourced.

—Jouni
On Aug 24, 2011 4:54 PM, "Peter Gluck"  wrote:
> My dear friends,
>
> I have just published:
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/anticipating-1mw-demo.html
> and I ask you to take in consideration what I am asking there. It can
> be useful to find out e.g. how will this demo be better thank the
> experiments
> done with individual E-cats.
> Thank you!
> Peter
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:ANTICIPATING THE 1 MW DEMO

[Peter Gluck]

My dear friends,

I have just published:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/anticipating-1mw-demo.html
and I ask you to take in consideration what I am asking there. It can
be useful to find out e.g. how will this demo be better thank the
experiments
done with individual E-cats.
Thank you!
Peter


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com