JCCoLDS? Well they certainly have the money. And the distribution channel.
Next time the young missionaries knock on your door, they might say,
"We just came here to share our point of view and sell you a Hyperion
at our cost if you just give us a few minutes of your time."
Let them in.
May not be worth the price ... =8-(
Also
Andrea Rossi
August 13th, 2011 at 2:28 AM
Dear Enzo:
The R&D program with the University of Bologna is aimed to the research and development and will last a couple of years. In October our 1 MW plant will be put in operation in the USA and tested by the highest possible level Scientists, witnessed by the highest level scientific journalists.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I think Rossi & Brian Josephson have been talking ... from the wiki ecat discussion page (andythegrump wants to shut down the page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Time_for_a_reassessment_-_or_an_AfD.3F
The obvious course of action is to wait until October and see what happens then. I am informed that reliable tests will be carried out on the 1MW machine before it is rolled out in a demonstration; I say reliable on the basis of the fact that ways in which a test may be invalidated have been thoroughly discussed by now and will be avoided. For example, the output will be used to heat water without any evaporation, everything will be monitored properly etc. etc. If that works out people will surely have to accept it and the RR will be seen as something of great significance. It would be stupid, one might even say bonkers, for the article to be deleted only for it to have to be brought back hurriedly soon afterwards, in the event of it being accepted that Rossi's claims were genuine. The only sensible thing is for people to wait and see what happens in October (just as advocated in our video, in fact). Also, when has lack of interest in something by the scientific community been an index of the unimportance of something? Take for example continental drift, completely ignored till geologists were forced to reconsider as a result of models they had created themselves. The time for a reassessment is not now [conspiracy theorists will note that it was predicted some time back that attempts to remove this article would be made in due course]. --Brian Josephson (talk ) 20:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
