Peter,
Sigmoidal made a useful comment a while back (sorry no direct reference but he will forgive this I'm sure) to the effect that discussion here on this topic that leads to heated comments could accurately be conducted by separating the different matters of interest:
- Legal situation
- Darden/Rossi/etc psychology and motivation
- Does Ni-H LENR work?
The latter can usefully be differentiated:
5. Does (any) Ni-H LENR effect exist?
4. Have Rossi's devices ever shown (some) Ni-H LENR effect
3. Have Rossi's devices ever shown claimed commercial levels of LENR effect
2. Has the one-year test shown >4X COP LENR effect
1. Has the one-year test shown the ERV claimed >50X COP LENR effect.
Rate your level of skepticism according to the first question in this list you think is most likely answered by "No". If you answer all questions yes than you are not even level 1 skeptic. If you answer all no you are a level 5 (full) Ni-H LENR skeptic. Jed would I guess on this scale be at least a level 3 skeptic, possibly 4 or 5. How do you rate?
Regards, THH
Display More
Dear THH,
Systematization, taxonomy is good in principle but i this case it's a bit late...
Let's see:
Legal situation
The duration of the litigation is already almost equal to that of the Test and by definition the "GPT or not GPT question ahd to be decided till now, a litigation with no legal object has no reasons to continue. It lasted a year (the Test) and it was made based on a contract, it was not paid
and this lead to the Trial. Everybody cold be more
satisfied if, after 10 days of zero excess heat IH had smartly and honestly told arrivederci to their former ally.
Darden/Rossi/etc psychology and motivation
The Trial is a job for legal people not psychologists
so this is interesting but not relevant. However, IH people having no real roofs re the plant and the Process are putting emphasis on this, character assassination of Rossi and of everybody not accepting the IH point of view sotheir aim is not to demonstrate that the plant has NOT produced exess heat but to "expose Rossi in perpetuity to the US Court for what he really is". But if the Plant has worked?
Does Ni-H LENR work?
A negative answer to that, implying Piantelli- Focardi, Mills first years, Lugano, Parkhomov and all repilcators etc.- excludes the possibility and raison d'etre of a discussion, no common language.
I have told early (1992) that CF is taking place in
active sites and is a form of catalysis; the dynamics of the surface atoms of the metal play a key role.
What Rossi has invented is LENR+ a process in which the active sites are generated continuously
and this leads to multiplicative excess heat while the other have a static process with pre-formed active sites and additive excess heat.
Nobody seems to think the same- but for me theoretically the Rossi Process exists.
For realist and pragmatist people the merit of Rossi is he liberated the Genie from the bottle, created actionable prameters for LENR and has conquered new territories for LENR.
I do not want to discuss this with people driven by hatred to Rossi who are extending this hatred to any Rossi supporter and, dreadful to say to NiH LENR itself- pathlogical thinking...
peter