Dear Michel, Yes it is based on trust, I could not visit these labs- but I will try to, this summer. But this trust is based on knowing the history of the system and its father.
I have not missed any point re Scott Little. I don't believe he or anybody else will be able to reproduce the working system of this process without knowing how to make it work. Why does he (Scott) not try based on everything we know- Piantelli et al papers, an old patent, now not more valid, the new Focardi Rossi patent and paper? Will he be able to find out the treatments and/or additives and/or procedures that make the system work?This is reseach, needs creativity, inspiration, patience and luck. He will need the help of a theorist who will try to find out what the main and the secondary reactions. And will be exposed to risks. Have you asked Jean Louis Naudin's opinion? He is an ace in such things. By the way, the saying is not dirty, it says persuasively that the professional principles and rules have to be respected strictly. Dura lex, sed lex in technology too Peter. On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Michel Jullian <michelj...@gmail.com>wrote: > Dear Peter, > > Let me see if I understand, you believe the Rossi Focardi claims > because you believe Piantelli when he _says_ he too has 100% > reproducible intense excess heat with Ni-H. It's all based on trust, > right? > > You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have > a more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I > agree), but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the > device. NOT of a replicated device which would imply divulgating all > known details, and even so it might not work, but of the working > device itself. > > Would you yourself, if you had an excess heat device in your lab, > whatever the power level, not take advantage of an offer of free > independent measurement by nice competent people? > > Michel > > PS There are all sorts of dirty sayings in French too, but none that I > know about technology! > > 2010/3/23 Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>: > > Dear Michel, > > I believe the claims because I know the history of the system invented by > > Piantelli, I admire Piantelli and trust him. And he says the system is > 100% > > reproducible and the heat release is intense. And you have to take great > > care with scale-up. I have no idea how Focardi who was a collaborator of > > Piantelli and Andrea Rossi who is an inventor, came to work seemimgly > > separately from Piantelli.. It is possible the two groups have discovered > > separate means to get reproducibility and go on the way to scale-up. Buut > I > > don't know. > > Piantelli has his lab for scale-up, Rossi has one in Italy and one in the > > US. > > Re Scott Little_ I believe he has a good calorimeter, but so has Ed > Storms > > (I had the honor to see it in Ed's house in Santa Fe). They Ed, Jed et > al. > > say they have good calorimeters > > for the simple reason they really have good calorimeters. But if you need > a > > very sensitive > > and precise calorimeter to demonstrate heat excess, than you are in a bad > > situation. After 21 years of history, this is not more interesting. > > Piantelli and Focardi Rossi say they are in the 100-1000 W and more zone > > excess heat, what use of a say 0.001 W sensivity? > > Science is wonderful, but technology - in this case too is useful. > > Say you get such a device, but you don't know what makes it reproducible, > > then any validation test will be a disappointment and sophisticated > > measurement just can make the situation worse. An indecent Hungarian > proverb > > say "you cannot XXX out with technology!" that means you need the know > how > > elements, you have to respect the rules.. Is there a French ~equivalent > for > > that? > > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Michel Jullian <michelj...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> 2010/3/21 Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>: > >> > Merci beaucoup, Michel... > >> > My interest is in technology and this resurrection or rejuvenation of > >> > the > >> > Piantelli system > >> > is the first really interesting event after many years. It is a great > >> > mystery what has happened between 1994 and 2008, it is crucial to know > >> > when > >> > (and how) was total reproducibility achieved. Piantelli who is the > >> > Father > >> > of this system advices for a careful, stepwise scale up- due to > serious > >> > risks as sudden uncontrolable heat release and radiation. The system > is > >> > in a > >> > pre-commercial phase and has a very promising future. > >> > >> So you believe the claims? On what grounds? And why isn't Piantelli > >> involved? > >> > >> > Patents are interesting bu their reliabilty is low (to quote myself > "the > >> > study of patents give you the mythology NOT the history of a process" > >> > For > >> > products it is better. The value of a patent without a critical > know-how > >> > feature is low. > >> > I would not bother much with good English papers either, I think the > >> > setup > >> > is already described in the very first Piantelli- Focardi- Habel > paper. > >> > In > >> > the Focardi Rossi paperthe results- if true are esential. > >> > Without the secret ingredient, recipe, surface treatment or magic > spell > >> > it > >> > will be quite difficult to perform any independent validation. With > or > >> > without Scott's Wundercalorimeter. > >> > Metrologomania- obsession with very sensitive measurement has > >> > disfocussed > >> > the research in the field. A means became an aim. > >> > >> It's nice to have cool headed persons like Scott Little in the field. > >> Again, I don't understand the rationale for not having one's claims > >> confirmed by them for free, the MOAC offer has been open for 5 years > >> now! The "my calorimeter is as good as theirs" reason invoked by Ed > >> and Jed is of course not receivable, it simply amounts to saying "I > >> don't want to have my excess heat claim to be independently > >> confirmed". Proprietary secrets one doesn't want to divulge? Simply > >> make the cell a black box which can produce controllable or at least > >> non constant excess heat. Anyone can think of a good reason not to > >> take up the Earthtech offer? > >> > >> > There is only one proof- a commercial heater and a firts factory of > such > >> > heaters leading to a new branch of industry. We have waited 21 years > for > >> > this, and as our Italian friends would say: Basta! I hope you will > agree > >> > too > >> > cousin Jed, and this will be our line of thinking and action. > >> > >> I agree a commercial heater would be an indisputable proof, even a > >> prototype would do, but in what way is this a line of action? Is > >> anyone on the verge of producing one? > >> > >> Michel > >> > > > > > >
