Then why does BLP not produce a product?
They seem to have had a rock solid easily to replicate technology for a decade.
________________________________
From: Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 10:30:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Deuterium kills the reaction?
Dear Jones,
Randy Mills would not agree with your assertion.
He is waiting for the scientific analysis (that of Bologna professors) to
make an opinion of the demonstration and the generator.
If hydrinos have played a role, they can be found with the method described
e..g. in this paper:
RL Mills et many: "Commercializable Power Source from Forming New States of
Hydrogen" Int J. Hydrogen Energy vol 34 (2009) 573-614
One of the greaest advantages of Mills upon "us" is that he understand
what happens in his systems. He has a first class theory- that predicts.
Second class theory prohibits, third class describes, explans what has
happened>
What kind of theory do we have? A "good" point is that we have many!
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
From:noone noone
>
>Ø I don't think there is any RF generator.
>
>The purpose of the Rossi “black box” is said to be a secret, but if it were
>merely a DC power supply for a resistive heater, then you would be implying a
>planned intent to deceive the audience, which is not impossible, but unlikely.
>
>
>Ø I do not see any need for an RF generator. I think the system can self
>sustain if the temperature is hot enough, but the problem is that there could
>be
>a runaway explosion if that happens.
>
>
>Again, the need for RF is NOT as a heater, but as a means of spin flipping
>hydrogen to attain negative temperature in this (highly speculative)
>hypothesis.
>Rossi cannot mention RF as an input in the patent, since RF has been
>previously
>patented as a way to heat a hydrogen nuclear reactor.
>
>
>And since Rossi is probably unaware of the quasi-BEC modality (assuming that
>it
>could be accurate to some extent) then he probably thinks the advantage of RF
>over other input is the great unknown mystery, and which he admits to not
>comprehending.
>
>
>If it turns out to indeed be RF input, then we can say that he found out that
>it
>is advantageous through trial and error, yet apparently thinks that it works
>for
>the same reason that it is used in prior-art, in tokomaks, etc. So he could be
>right for the wrong reason.
>
>Although my underlying hypothesis of operation - with the quasi-BEC - is
>admittedly “way out there” on the fringe of the fringe, it is pretty clear
>that
>Rossi has done what Randell Mills could not do.
>
>
>In effect, you seem to be saying that Rossi has invented nothing more than a
>better version of the Mills’ reactor. That is most unlikely, since Mills has
>not
>gotten his to run in a continuous mode for long enough to begin placement in
>the
>grid plants of his licensees, and he is far better funded.
>
>
>Rossi claims a year of operation already. OK maybe that is an exaggeration,
>but
>it is clear to me that he has made a major breakthrough advance over Mills,
>even
>though he may have borrowed the basic starting ingredients - and so far that
>alone implies a fundamental difference in the MO.
>
>
>It may not be RF as the input, but it is probably going to be new physics; and
>the hypothesis of dense hydrogen (pycno) leading to a quasi-BEC has not been
>shot down yet. Of course, that could happen later today J
>
>Jones
>
>
