>From Peter: ...
> I think it is outrigth logical fallacy to compare > Mills' hyperchemistry to Rossi's nuclear jiu-jitsu. Why not? The fact that both processes appear to use nickel powder, hydrogen, a mystery catalyst, and heat certainly suggests there may very well exist linkage. > Mills has told me that his process has nothing to do > with Rossi's and he is not interested in what Ross > has done. I hope Mills' said that mostly for tactical reasons, perhaps as a matter for public consumption. (...and perhaps to appease his financial backers.) If that truly is his opinion then Mills reveals as much curiosity & inquisitiveness towards the work of potential competitors as ITER physicists and scientist have shown towards his own work. The statement strikes me as being narrow-minded, incredibly arrogant, and hypocritical. Let me put it this way: I'd sure be looking at Rossi's work, and taking as many notes as I can. > 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) Agreed. Mills certainly has every right to defend the merits of his theories, just as his critics have every right to questions it. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
