-----Original Message----- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Jones Beene's message:
>This is the first time that I have noticed how the new Mills' reactor scheme >could be similar to the Rossi device, in two ways - either of which may end >up in court, eventually. Let's hope not. But as Apple has learned with the >iPad, when you have a hot product, a thousand co-inventors will come out of >the woodwork. >First off, Rossi does not claim to use, or to need, any kind of >'regeneration' of catalyst at all, at least not by that exact name - BUT in >the Bologna demo, there were 5 independent controllers, no? RvS: See http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44115.html Robin, Glad to see you picked up on this possibility early on, and sorry to admit that your insight did not register with me at the time, because it is probably correct - but, apparently you were not aware of the new Millsean scheme to overcome the batch mode limitation by using in situ heat from adjoin units, in a musical chairs arrangement? At any rate, the more one thinks about the Bologna Demo, the more one can be convinced that this 'regeneration' requirement for BLP is also a requirement for Rossi as well, but perhaps he gets a longer run between 'boosts' and he combines the multiple units with the multiple heaters to arrive at Musical "Electric Chairs". I should add that the regeneration step requires more heat than is produced in the exothermic step, so in effect only one or two of the five heaters would be active at any time, and these are used ONLY in regeneration mode. For Mills, this in the temperature range of 500-600 C, and the peak heat from an operating cell which is recycled may not quite get you there, so you need to have the electric boost in addition to recycled heat, for full regeneration. If you read closely the Rossi patent, you can see how this routing is almost admitted to, but still concealed. Yes! This is all making sense now - at least in the design level of nuts and bolts. As Horace admits, how this heat is derived from the nucleus is far less clear. If one were to look at IRH, as in the George Miley paper, as being essentially deflated but for longer lifetime (maybe far longer) then it is possible to get away from metal transmutation altogether. It seems very unlikely that metal transmutation is involved, due to lack of any gamma signature at all. Due to IRH, I think the 'quark-soup' is actually involved but the ash may be the 'strangelet' (aka: dark matter). Thus there is no detectable ash. How convenient for the theorist <g>. I agree with others that the prior patent application is dead-in-the-water, hopelessly inadequate, and he will need to depend on the that "mystery filing" (mentioned here a few weeks ago) which no one has seen yet, but is due to be published by June. Jones
