How Engineer Rossi May be Beating the Scientists Most so-called scientists are advanced technicians. Even the more creative ones tend to find a way forward using logic. Logic is a good partner, but a bad master. Logic locks you into your box, the box that contains everything you have already pre-nominated as relevant. To think outside the box, you must whimsically entertain ideas you have already rejected as irrelevant. Playing around with "nonsense" takes you down roads you wouldn't have traveled and the wrong ideas lead to the right ideas, whereas starting with what you already know is right will tend to lead you in circles of endless, repetitive re-iterations. It is like the difference between a technical artist that can produce a veritable (and useless) photograph, whereas a real artist watches all sorts of unexpected effects pour out of his pencil or brush. Engineers, and especially fabricators, are less paralyzed by what they know and less blinded by what they see. Scott
From: zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Why did the engineer Rossi beat all the scientists? WAS: Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 13:08:17 -0700 I renamed this thread cuz I'd like to hear opinions as to WHY an engineer succeeded where ALL the scientists failed in optimizing the excess heat and controllability of whatever this reaction is??? In our conversation about Mills/BLP, Peter wrote: "His theory is OK, verified by experiment." But an 'engineer' (i.e., someone not real knowledgeable about theoretical foundations) optimized the excess heat effect and controllability of the reaction in only a few years and with very little money compared to BLP (20 years and $60M)... So either Mills' theory has serious errors or holes, or they have incompetent scientists/engineering managers who are making bad decisions as to what tests/experiments to do, thus wasting alot of time and not achieving true UNDERSTANDING of what variables affect the reaction. If Mills' theories were accurate, then optimizing/manipulating the reaction mechanisms would have happened by now... and they would have beat Rossi to the market. What's more likely is that the conclusions that come out of Mills' theories have caused them to go down numerous 'dead-ends'... and Mills' ego refuses to acknowledge that his theory needs some serious revisions. -Mark From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 11:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? The reason is, in my opinion, that is very difficult to achieve a CONTINUOUS generation of energy- see my paper http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/04/questions-preparing-swot-analysis-of-ni.html what conditions are necessary for a new source of energy. But I think this year (good for new energy, it seems) Randy will be on the market with his CIHT technology. His theory is OK, verified by experiment. Technology is more difficult than scientific experiments. Peter On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Mark Iverson <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: I would wager that the reason Mills hasn't got a commercial device, after 20 years and $60M, is because his theory is flawed... -Mark From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? Perhaps the best person to discuss your hydrino ideas is Randy Mills himself. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
