Peter,
I hope you will talk to Mills about this situation and let us know what he thinks about it. That kind of insight could be important to all concerned. And yes, things are always more complicated than they seem. I think Ed is closer to being correct on the underlying theory of gain than is Rossi himself, but nobody knows for sure, and all we can do at this juncture is to present our own unique perspective, and certainly that process is now taking place on Vortex. Cheers for Vortex, and it is good to see this high level of input - and disagreement. This kind of cross-fermentation of ideas on an open forum, without a direct profit motive, could be almost unique in the history of science - since it normally only takes place within the confines of a single corporation or University, where one strong personality can warp the consensus view. To that extent it is ironically fortunate that Rossi is NOT here. And yes, I have been involved to some degree in the thermoelectric field in the past, and do have a unique perspective of what is happening now, based on that - and certainly heard about Rossi many years ago, long before Rossi had ever heard about LENR, as a matter of fact. Jones From: Peter Gluck Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents Dear Jones, Have you read my answer to Ed Storms' message you have cited here? I do not agree with him regarding the main points. The things are always much more complicated than they seem to be. Re your point 1) what do you know about this nano-Ni work- what when was accomplished? Do you know from sure sources- the chronology of the events- who has contacted whom and when? This is anyway a secondary discussion as long as the device works and theory will be found sooner or later. I will ask Randy Mills what he thinks about this. Peter On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: <http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/19/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-device-pro bably-real-with-credit-to-piantelli/> http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/19/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-device-prob ably-real-with-credit-to-piantelli/ But he is still giving the most credit to Piantelli, when probably that is completely wrong, and the three things which led to this breakthrough were (in order of importance): 1) The previous Rossi/Leonardo TEG work with nano-nickel 2) The published work of Randell Mills 3) The published work of Arata/Zhang, Kitamura, etc Obviously when you are a smart guy like Rossi, you find an anomaly in one field (thermoelectrics) with the same Raney nickel you had discovered as being so energetic that it caused two fires in you Lab . and then, as any good experimenter will do - you go to the internet to look for help or understanding in unrelated fields, then 2) and 3) above are the most authoritative help out there. Next, you apply what you have learned to a field that became bifurcated in the mid 1990s, due to ego problems, and WOW, suddenly you become the hero of that unrelated field. IOW - Rossi had his "Goodyear moment" at the expense of all of those in LENR, including Piantelli, who refused to acknowledge the gigantic advance of Mills, who himself was too egotistical to want to believe that he got a major part of CQM wrong - and that in the end the secret was nothing more or less than a subset of the "cold fusion" field that he dreaded so much. A short and fractured (fractal?) history of LENR in a brief reappraisal. Jones
