It is not reasonable to draw the conclusion that NASA believes that a chemical process might be used within Rossi's device. They are merely pointing out that it would take a very long time to absolutely rule out that possibility.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Santos <besantos1...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim That is quite a hit at Rossi's claims, since NASA believes that chemical reactions could not be ruled out. But it's interesting that they didn't point out other problems, such vapor problems and energy COP. The question is: they just didn't bother trying to figure that out because it was an obviously chemical reactions or they couldn't find other issues? 2011/11/10 Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ "According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source. According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim. At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
