Axil, Good point regarding proof of the effect and actual construction of a useful product. The lack of evidence to date suggest the effect, if real, is extremely self destructive making replication at low power density difficult enough but extracting high power density is exponentially more difficult. Rossi has to keep his control loop balanced on the head of a pin with heat transfer fluid performing a huge fraction of the control at low frequency and his high frequency loop by whatever means [heaters/plasmons] has to steer the NAE “window” created by the coolant flow to stay precisely on the top of that pin as he increases power out and flow rate in lock step. Engineering an end product with these constrains will make the manufacture of a Lamborghini look like child’s play. To increase robustness and flexibility of this effect it may be the resilience of the product to self destruction that needs the most attention, better heat sinking, higher melting temps, thermal uniformity and a faster control loop to excite and retard the reaction. If we have to balance it on the head of a needle than we should concentrate on doing that better and faster. IMHO we only see a small fractions of the hot spots – those that survive self destruction by being at a precise thermal distance from the coolant while the closer geometry self destructs/ melts closed and he more distant don’t achieve the initial runaway state we need to bridle. Fran
From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:30 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35% There is a big difference between a certain physical process being valid and the commercial viability of a product based on that process. Just because a spark will explode gasoline vapor does not imply that a Lamborghini can be designed to use that principle or that the car will sell in the marketplace. Designing the car requires far more science and engineering fields than demonstrating gasoline detonation. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:53 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com<mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com>> wrote: Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. Earlier you said: Not even Pons & Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. Which sound to me something like "the great (not even) P&F can't claim they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian..." Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was ignorant of if his effect was real or not. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and has the associated difficulties. I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a robust aetheric effect to me. But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has an MO that is at odds with a con man. But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that probability has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. John