-----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton & OrionWorks wrote: > This is, of course, the same strategy that BLP is attempting to > exploit. Economically speaking, it is less disruptive if one includes > the white elephant.
Being an engineer and always seeking reliability, I will have a CF generator with a BLP backup :-) Not to beat a dead horse, but it bears constant repeating... That - given that both of the above involve low probability QM reactions of hydrogen, if either is proved to be doable and fully reproducible in a robust way, then it follows they are certainly differing versions of the same underlying phenomenon. SIDE NOTE: the "Park-Rub-Off effect": It amazes me still - that the strongest proponents of either LENR or the hydrino are in denial about this obvious and glaring truth: the two phenomena are inextricably 'joined at the hip'. ERGO = assuming that either would require a half to a billion or more - to put into mass production, for a small version of a device that could power a car, office building or a few houses ... ...then - which would you rather have: 1) the one which requires a very expensive feedstock (deuterium) and leaves some radioactive transmutation products, including tritium - or 2) the one which requires only water and (apparently) leaves no radioactive footprint Not to rain on anyone's timely parade (60 Minute's worth) but how can this comparison not be raised at this stage of the game? Jones
