It is possible that the outcome, of Rossi's year long test, has less COP than what for example Peter Gluck has heard. If the IH statement is too calm down the expectations then so be it. I would say that as long as the test shows a COP better than 2, there will be further investment and a lot of engineering to get to the goal of a new energy source. I am rather confident that will happen. As a comparison I will suggest that some of you as old as I am should look upon how the transistor (semiconductor industry) evolved. I went to engineering school in early 60-is. A very wide spread skepticism just began to give away in favor for the transistor versus the vacuum tube. Many still believed that vacuum tubes would prevail in certain areas. Yes, evene large corporations misjudged the situation and therefore do not exist today or at least are much less important. So ten years after the invention most of the engineering was still in the future. Actually the engineering phase is still ongoing. That is 65 years after Shockley. I guess there will be development in LENR the same way. I understand that after 37 years of promises there is not a lot of patience. The important thing just now is that there is enough progress to keep engineering keep on the progress. Let me say that if Peter Gluck's information is correct, then we will have an enormous pressure on all players in this field to quickly bring LENR to the market. The IH statement would then serve to slow down the demands, as they need to establish the resources before they can provide the desired / demanded market introduction.
The late news that China invested 121 million dollar make me believe that IH are making sure they can provide what the market wants. The Chinese did not invest without having something positive to pin it on. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR >> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ? >> > > I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano report, I do > not think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports > about it. > > The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no > excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is > hard to judge. > > "Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are promising, > but none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical > or viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939. > > - Jed > >
