about the ideas of this thread: An analogy: "Why lowly apples have obtained such wonderful results in genetic engineering, while oranges despite of billions of $ of funding had not achieved a single usable result?"
The answer a bit tautologic is - because apples are apples and oranges are oranges. Some things in common but huge differences. I think it is outrigth logical fallacy to compare Mills' hyperchemistry to Rossi's nuclear jiu-jitsu. Mills has told me that his process has nothing to do with Rossi's and he is not interested in what Ross has done. If somebody knows more about Mills's theory and results than Mills himself- the best is to discuss wit the authors (that's the function of literary critics too to explain to everybody, including the author what has he wanted to say in his opus) On the other hand nor Piantelli (who knows what happens) nor Rossi - who made it to happen at an industrial level) are not interested in Randy's ideas not relevant for them. There are two other more general problems here: a) the relationship between theory and practice; e.g. Pd-D LENR has wonderfully bright theories- bold mental constructs- but does not achieve practical intensity, reproducibility, continuity... b) the way from a scientific principle to a practical technological application is sometimes very difficult, full of obstacles and long. The mission of the Engineer (I am a chemical one) is to work out those practical steps that make science to work- science is Know What, technology is Know How, Know Who. Know Why is usually science based but the more important Know- Why- Not has lots of empirical elements too -see please the case of Pd based cold fusion- my poisoning effect was rejected with hostility, contempt and certainty that it cannot be relevant- and it seems that deep degassing is a sine qua non condition for Ni-H (see the patent WO 2010/58288) I have used my practical experience in development of industrial processes to establish a set of problem solving rules: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-rules-of-problem-solving.html <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-rules-of-problem-solving.html>For this case Rules 2, 4, 5, and 6 are especially relevant- please see that Mills' real problems are not connected directly to his theory. He has to develop a continuous process with rather irreversible reactions. Lot's of disturbing secondary phenomena. Rossi has a high intensity process- he has to work a lot at controllabilty (ideal is zero input!), safety (I smell risks nd danger more than he says!) , scale-up (modular scaleup is NOT good engineering, we need lions and tigers not kittens!), has to produce electric energy- but the learning process has started...let's hope the best. I consider that the two technologies have specific problems cannot be compared directly and..scientific soundness i only a necessary (?) not a sufficient condition for a technology. Peter On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 15 May 2011 19:24:54 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >I think it is more likely that he is using the spillover catalyst > >effect to strip electrons which provide work and recombine when the H+ > >hydride ions pass through the membrane to be oxidized. > > > >Now maybe the free electrons are made "free-er" as a hydrino-hydride. > >This would mean that they would not really recombine as water but as > >an oxidized hydrino-hydride. And WTF would that be? Would you drink > >it? Maybe with a single malt as a mixer, eh? > > > >T > I think he is just using Hydrino formation as a powerful oxidant that > strips > lots of electrons from his catalyst. The "overly" positive catalyst ions > then > act as the fuel source which drives the chemical reactions. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
