MOTTO
It is a state of war and this quotation is about strategy, I like it but otherwise it has not much to do with our case- our warriors try to seem very strong.
DAILY NOTES
Things have gone too far in the Rossi-IH pre-trial Web dispute, positions have been polarized and radicalized, just compare the Next Big Future paper of yesterday
with the Sifferkoll paper 3) from below. There are too many unknowns, both known and unknown and even facts which I (for example) consider as illuminating as IH's
patent applications for a Rossi technology of no practical relevance (see1)) get very different interpretations good/bad (for) Rossi/IH.
A special chapter in Problem Solving is dedicated to solving unsolvable problems. OK, you already know that the premises have to be changed; till this is not accomplished however a basic rule is not not force a solution with/for insufficient or ambiguous data. So at least for this fine Spring Sunday, I do not engage in any polemics and will use a guest editorial by a friend whose impartiality, honesty, wisdom are beyond any doubt, certainly not a credulous admirer of Rossi.
"No matter what one thinks of the Rossi/IH falling out, one has to come back to why IH :-
1) Paid $1.5million to Rossi *after* the Lugarno test if they weren't satisfied,
2) Paid $10million *after* a further mutually approved and monitored 24hour test, if they weren't satisfied,
3) then, Progressed to the 12 month eCat reliability test, if they weren't satisfied, BUT, all the while :-
4) filing patents for eCat technology around the world when we all know it is Andrea Rossi's eCat.
IH's behavior *is far more in question* than Andrea Rossi's activity performed while meeting IH requirements.IH's position has to be challenged.
He adds later:
These are some humorous thoughts I had after reading many of the anti-Rossi rants in some blogs (such as ecat news).
For anyone who ever wondered what it might have been like to enjoy being among the mob on the streets of France during the French revolution, or any other famous historical mob rampage where emotion ruled heads, we can relive it all today in real time, just by joining those blogs who want Rossi's head on a pike.When mobs rampage in uncontrolled emotion, don't expect rationality of the events until many decades later. Do look at, and for, those individuals behind this and ask why they might be so intense in their provocation and whipping up the 'mob'.
DAILY NEWS
1) Statement From Andrea Rossi on IH Patent Application
3) Rossi vs. Snakes – A Superior man vs. Inferior People – An Athlete vs. Envy & Hate!
It is a state of war and this quotation is about strategy, I like it but otherwise it has not much to do with our case- our warriors try to seem very strong.
DAILY NOTES
Things have gone too far in the Rossi-IH pre-trial Web dispute, positions have been polarized and radicalized, just compare the Next Big Future paper of yesterday
with the Sifferkoll paper 3) from below. There are too many unknowns, both known and unknown and even facts which I (for example) consider as illuminating as IH's
patent applications for a Rossi technology of no practical relevance (see1)) get very different interpretations good/bad (for) Rossi/IH.
A special chapter in Problem Solving is dedicated to solving unsolvable problems. OK, you already know that the premises have to be changed; till this is not accomplished however a basic rule is not not force a solution with/for insufficient or ambiguous data. So at least for this fine Spring Sunday, I do not engage in any polemics and will use a guest editorial by a friend whose impartiality, honesty, wisdom are beyond any doubt, certainly not a credulous admirer of Rossi.
The opinion of Doug Marker: "IH have an awful lot of explaining to do."
"No matter what one thinks of the Rossi/IH falling out, one has to come back to why IH :-
2) Paid $10million *after* a further mutually approved and monitored 24hour test, if they weren't satisfied,
3) then, Progressed to the 12 month eCat reliability test, if they weren't satisfied, BUT, all the while :-
4) filing patents for eCat technology around the world when we all know it is Andrea Rossi's eCat.
IH's behavior *is far more in question* than Andrea Rossi's activity performed while meeting IH requirements.IH's position has to be challenged.
He adds later:
These are some humorous thoughts I had after reading many of the anti-Rossi rants in some blogs (such as ecat news).
For anyone who ever wondered what it might have been like to enjoy being among the mob on the streets of France during the French revolution, or any other famous historical mob rampage where emotion ruled heads, we can relive it all today in real time, just by joining those blogs who want Rossi's head on a pike.When mobs rampage in uncontrolled emotion, don't expect rationality of the events until many decades later. Do look at, and for, those individuals behind this and ask why they might be so intense in their provocation and whipping up the 'mob'.
DAILY NEWS
1) Statement From Andrea Rossi on IH Patent Application
LENR Forum has found the IH-Rossi patent applications Patents applied for non-working devices, vanity patents?
2) Updated today- by Mats Lewan
Here’s my hypothesis on the Rossi-IH affair
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/rossi-vs-snakes-a-superior-man-vs-inferior-people-an-athlete-vs-envy-hate/
April 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Today Industrial Heat has published a patent application in the USA for a patent that is a copy of your description of the 1MW E-Cat. They say it works. But then, if it works to the point that they patent it, how can they say that they have not been able to replicate it ?
Cheers,
Marie
Andrea Rossi
April 9, 2016 at 9:09 PM
Marie:
So, you ask me how a plant that works can be turned into a plant that does not work? You know, sometime we of Leonardo Corporation are able to make miracles. I want to be generous with you and disclose the secret about how we made this miracle: sending the bill.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
From Ron Kita- thanks!
Turning water to steam, no boiling required
4) From Rossi's Blog:
MarieApril 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Today Industrial Heat has published a patent application in the USA for a patent that is a copy of your description of the 1MW E-Cat. They say it works. But then, if it works to the point that they patent it, how can they say that they have not been able to replicate it ?
Cheers,
Marie
Andrea Rossi
April 9, 2016 at 9:09 PM
Marie:
So, you ask me how a plant that works can be turned into a plant that does not work? You know, sometime we of Leonardo Corporation are able to make miracles. I want to be generous with you and disclose the secret about how we made this miracle: sending the bill.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
LENR IN CONTEXT-1
From Ron Kita- thanks!
Turning water to steam, no boiling required
LENR IN CONTEXT-2
How the Impossible Becomes Possible
http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2016/04/02/how-the-impossible-becomes-possible-2/
How the Impossible Becomes Possible
http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2016/04/02/how-the-impossible-becomes-possible-2/
Peter
ReplyDeleteI wonder how they came up with the 89 million
for a one year test that is what i would like to no.
something like 25 million after the test 25 million in
a years time and the rest when the first Ecat is sold
to a happy customer.
Sam
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThe best assessment I have read on the whole matter is the link you provided to Mats Lewan's summary.
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/09/heres-my-hypothesis-on-the-rossi-ih-affair/
This (allowing for all else) offers the best scenario for the extraordinary chain of events.
It is also intriguing to note (from the contract IIRC) that IH were in contact with Rossi since 2011 (earlier than 2012). As I have long wondered, was IH put together just to find a way to get access to Rossi's ip after the NASA approach fell in a hole in 2011.
The more I read of past events as they are spilling out in the contract data, the more it seems Rossi was actually telling the story more accurately (over the past 4 years) than many give him credit for.
Doug Marker
Great report Peter !!
ReplyDeleteI have now spent several days studying Rossi's legal Complaint and the associated documents, which reveal much that was speculation before.
ReplyDeleteIt's fascinating to spend that much time with evidence, and then watch people commenting who obviously haven't.
I do have a general assessment. Rossi's paranoia, which has been evident since 2011, has gone over the edge. It is likely that he refused to turn over the IP to IH as the Agreement required. The core of the agreement was a fully independent Guaranteed Performance Test. Regardless of reason, what was actually done was a test under intimate Rossi supervision and activity. Without the IP, and without a fully independent test, IH was not willing to go ahead and up their investment. However, it might still have been worked out,and relatively easily, if the 1 MW plant -- which is legally owned by IH, not Rossi -- actually works. Instead, Rossi, as quickly as possible, actually jumping the gun, filing before the payment deadline, sued, and not just for performance, but alleging fraud. His complaints about patent filings are off-the-wall, that is all fluff, things that, if, in fact, there is some error, can easily be fixed, there would be no emergency.
Lots of people have attempted to analyze this affair as if Rossi were a rational actor. Yet the appearance is of someone with a high level of paranoia.
Rossi's original strategy made some kind of sense, back in 2011. Create demos that were interesting enough to attract investors (and that worked!) but not conclusive enough to create massive competitive effort. Make himself look shady, reject highly sympathetic offers to conclusively test (Rothwell and others), make grandiose promises that aren't kept, etc.
But that no longer makes sense. Rossi will now be tied up in court, depending on how IH responds. He has shown himself not to be a reliable and stable business partner. The odds of a Rossi Reactor on the market soon just went way down.
Doug Marker has some questions for IH, why they ...
ReplyDelete"1) Paid $1.5million to Rossi *after* the Lugarno test if they weren't satisfied,"
The payment of $1.5 million was made about October 26, 2012, to secure the Agreement, as a purchase price for a 1 MW plant. The Lugano test was performed in March 2014, with some support from IH. The Lugano test is of no legal import.
"2) Paid $10million *after* a further mutually approved and monitored 24hour test, if they weren't satisfied,"
The 24 hour Validation Test was performed by the ERV, completed May 2, 2013. We have no details about that test, but it appears that it was considered satisfactory enough to allow making the progress payment of $10 million. That was a single test of the 1 MW plant, done at the Rossi facility in Italy, supervised by a single expert, assisted by Rossi and a Rossi associate. At that point, with that payment, Rossi delivered the 1 MW plant to IH, and was obligated to deliver *all* the IP. Did he? We don't know. The Complaint fails to allege this, so Rossi might be in default.
"3) then, Progressed to the 12 month eCat reliability test, if they weren't satisfied,
They did not progress to the Guaranteed Peformance Test, there were problems with regulatory approval (Rossi says). Rossi, impatient, arranged to perform the test himself, using the same ERV, and entirely managing it, which was not what was contemplated in the agreement. It appears that IH allowed this. We do not know what other communications or agreements existed between Rossi and IH around this. It is plausible that they elected to go along with Rossi, in hopes that it would all work out.
"BUT, all the while :-
4) filing patents for eCat technology around the world when we all know it is Andrea Rossi's eCat."
The patents I have seen all name Rossi as inventor, and IH as applicant. They appear to have had the right to do that. They now, with the $1.5 million, owned a 1 MW plant, and with the $10 million, supposedly had all the IP.
I'm not seeing any big mystery in the IH behavior. I can, arm-chair judging, think that I would not have approved of a GPT done by Rossi, but Rossi may have misled them about the identity of the "customer." There are many unknown details which could radically change how we color this. Bottom line, the GPT was another Rossi-managed test, in what was effectively a Rossi facility, not the fully independent test contemplated. Did IH adequately protest this? Or did they go along, again, hoping it would work out?
LOmax
DeleteThanks for your input, I realised later I had inadequate detail of the dates & sequence. Am still thinking IH owe a better explanation.
Doug Marker
It could also be that IH, who had been given all the know-how to make a reactor, and according to Rossi at the time, did actually make a reactor, decided to do a test of their own, completely independent of Rossi, and found it did not produce excess energy. There is nothing in the agreement which would stop them doing this.
ReplyDeleteUnder the agreement, Rossi was obliged to provide IH all and any help IH needed to make the technology work. Evidently, whatever help Rossi gave was not enough to enable IH to make it all work.
Thus the conclusion of IH after twelve months of non productive effort could only be,
either Rossi was holding back critical information, which would be in breach of the agreement,
or
the technology is invalid and does not work.
Either way, the logical conclusion would have to be not to make any further payments.
I suppose this situation could be rectified by Rossi offering to provide a reactor which IH could independently operate and test to validate the technology without Rossi being present, but I don't believe that will happen.
Thus, the Rossi / IH partnership has gone the same way as all the others.
Personally, I'm not at all surprised.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Lugano Report is accurate and valid. It clearly documents non radioactive high temperature LENR thermal and transmutation of elements. IH and Rossi are not in dispute over the reality of this. No sense in anyone else disputing it either. High temp LENR thermal is real.
ReplyDeleteThese recent works depend on the reality of high temp LENR thermal.
So much effort for nothing? I do not think so.
My basic view of the Lugano report validity rests partly on these two works that reference in it 2015/16. Good enough for them good enough for me.
Canadian Defence Agency
A) High temp LENR thermal as described in:
“Evidence base for the development of an enduring DND/CAF Operational Energy Strategy (DOES)”
They have no problem with the Lugano report.
B) “LENR Phenomena and Potential Applications” Dr. Louis F. De Chiaro
He joined the US Navy as a civilian Physicist in September, 2006 and since 2009 has been performing investigations in LENR physics and supporting the EMC efforts of Branch Q51 at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA. During the period 2010-2012 he was on special assignment at the Naval Research Labs, Washington, D.C. in their experimental LENR group.
They have no problem with the Lugano report.
Also dependent upon high temp LENR thermal.
a) “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft” 2015 NASA/NARI
b) “The Application of LENR to Synergistic Mission Capabilities”
Presented at AIAA AVIATION 2014 Atlanta, GA USA
Douglas P. Wells NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA and
Dimitri N. Mavris Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
Dimitri Mavris is the Boeing Professor of Advanced Aerospace Systems Analysis at the Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, and the director of its Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory (ASDL). Dimitri Mavris received his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. His primary areas of research interest include: advanced design methods, aircraft conceptual and preliminary design, air-breathing propulsion design, multi-disciplinary analysis, design and optimization, system of systems, and non-deterministic design theory.
c) “Impact of Advanced Energy Technologies on Aircraft Design” 2014 Roger Lepsch, NASA Langley Research Center; Matt Fischer, National Institute of Aerospace; Christopher Jones, National Institute of Aerospace; Alan Wilhite, National Institute of Aerospace; 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA SciTech, (AIAA 2014-0538).
d) “MPD Augmentation of a Thermal Air Rocket Utilizing Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” 2012 Roger Lepsch, NASA Langley Research Center; Matt Fischer, National Institute of Aerospace; Christopher Jones, National Institute of Aerospace; Alan Wilhite, National Institute of Aerospace.
Once again, So much effort for nothing? I don't think so.
Links found in:
"LENR NRNF Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Non Radioactive Nuclear Flight US and EU Applied Engineering" http://gbgoble.kinja.com/lenr-nrnf-low-energy-nuclear-reaction-nonradioactive-nu-1765958500
Just because some authority is looking in to something, that does not make it real or workable. There is an awful lot of effort wasted on things which turn out to be nothing.
ReplyDeleteAnd spending time on something is a long way short of verifying it's validity. If it was, hospitals would now be using homeopathy as a first treatment for disease because it has absolutely no side effects, other than your disease wont be cured.
I find it difficult to understand why there is so much IH-bashing on the web in line with Doug Marker's comment above. I think it is shameful, and counterproductive, because in years to come IH will be the people with money to fund LENR.
ReplyDeleteWe have not heard IH's side of the story, and Darden + Vaughn's reputation from previous actions is surely better than Rossi's.
The "IH have explaining to do" questions fall down. I'd agree mostly with Abd here.
The key issues is how to IH change from being enthusiastic about Rossi 6 months ago to claiming they have NEVER been able to substantiate his technology now.
It makes perfect sense to me. During the license early stages they has 7 independent tests, documented in 4 separate reports, all claiming major and consistent positive results (these are all open except for the Penon 24 hour test that released the $10M and therefore was presumably also positive).
That, from a non-technical manager's point of view, is a lot of validation.
Against that they had (we now know, unless they are lying) the experience of not being able to replicate Rossi's tests even on his own reactors - some of which they had bought.
For the first part (all?) of this effort they had Rossi guiding the technical work as CSO and that, given every one of Rossi's tests has known easily preventable loopholes for positive errors, could have made it very difficult for them to get accurate in-house information.
But, obviously, eventually they got enough independent technical input to see that the apparent positives were in fact from non-rigorous tests and that better testing made that go away. Hence "could not substantiate". They will of course hope that the Rossi effect exists and some different set of conditions can allow them to measure it under rigorous test conditions.
Why did they agree originally if the 7 tests were so poor? They would get reviews from different people and possibly would dismiss all negative comment as "anti-LENR bias". Lugano is the only test where the positive result can be proven to be an artifact. In all the others there are just loopholes, some more glaring than others. Would you want to give a world-changing discovery the benefit of the doubt?
Why did they agree to the 1 year test? it makes sense if at the time they signed the license they were sure Rossi's stuff worked. I think 7 independent tests might give them that certainty.
Anyway, we will know a little more when they make a reply to Rossi's action but looking at the contract it seems unlikley rossi has much of a case.
My only reservation is that for IH reputation is so important, and they are in a tricky position having gained large funding on the back of Rossi's tests. To say now they do not believe them is a serious thing and very harmful to LENR generally, which they absolutely don't want. So they maybe are not going to want to pick major holes in Rossi's own test evidence, on the other hand they have to show that they can't get his stuff to work.
The way through these things is to hide behind "scientific uncertainty" which is also sort of true. Bad tests can convince people because the scientific checking needed is complex and multi-disciplinary.
"substantiate" does not apply to the technology but business.
DeleteThat is a bit of a stretch." Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success".
DeleteResults claimed from the technology. Not business.
-1.
DeleteTom
DeleteTom posted "I find it difficult to understand why there is so much IH-bashing on the web in line with Doug Marker's comment above. I think it is shameful, and counterproductive, because in years to come IH will be the people with money to fund LENR."
Tom, it seems to me you are not partaking in an open and fair discussion but it looks like *you* are seeking to marginalize those who don't see your POV. 'IH-bashing' ? - that is a rather emotive remark, 'shameful' ? - who are you seeking to direct shame at ?.
Tom, IMHO you are stepping over the mark.
I would hope we all can express differing POVs and not feel we are starting to come under some form of personal attack. I could say I find it shameful when debaters undermine opponents with emotive targeting.
I remain of the conviction that after 4 years since establishing contact with Andrea Rossi, that IH would have a pretty good idea if what they had obtained from Rossi worked as they hoped or it didn't. I trust you accept that there are other POVs to yours and your ideas of bashing & shame don't belong in the discussion other than for questionable purposes. In fact, IMHO and after years of observing, the nastiest bashing and shameful remarks come in torrents from those who are anti LENR.
Doug Marker
G.B.Goble:
ReplyDelete"The Lugano Report is accurate and valid. It clearly documents non radioactive high temperature LENR thermal and transmutation of elements. IH and Rossi are not in dispute over the reality of this. No sense in anyone else disputing it either. High temp LENR thermal is real."
Please note: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf
Which shows that the Lugano heat measurements do not give COP > 1, and do not give "acelleration" in COP. Both phenomena are artifacts.
I've argued through that work in various places with others and it stands up. In fact if you read it you will see that it includes and explains the various other takes on Lugano that exist, as well as precisely specifying the mistake the Lugano testers made in calculating excess heat.
The really compelling reason for believing it is that when properly calculated the "acceleration" in excess heat exactly cancels.
Although I did not have a good "hand waving intuitive" explanation for that when writing the report - it came from the more precise numerical work - I've now developed that and I can explain to anyone with high school Physics who is willing to use a web Planck calculator what is going on and why without heavy numerical integration. Let me know if you'd like this.
Tom
Just one more thing about Lugano. The isotopic results must surely be treated with caution.
ReplyDeleteRossi's last set of isotopic measurements in fact showed natural copper mixed in with Ni and therefore was highly unconvincing. Talk to Peter Ekstrom. Rossi eventually, years after, stated categorically that he had "contaminated" the sample. It is extraordinary that the possibility of contamination was not told to the testers at the time - it would have saved a lot of head-scratching.
So how can we know this sample is not similarly "contaminated"?
G.B. Goble;
ReplyDeleteOne more thing. My Lugano comment (as on lenr-canr) and the discussion of it is banned on ECW for reasons that elude me - I did initially start to discuss it on there with some interest from others. So you will find many of the people there have never read it and if they hear rumours dismiss it as "pathoskeptic bashing". If you read it you will see it is very far from that.
Tom please talk to Dimitri Mavris and Dr. Louis F. De Chiaro.
DeleteThanks
G.B. - would you like to supply contact details, and also how I should approach them? I'm sure I would have noticed any refutation of my refutation of Lugano... But if anyone can find any issues with the paper I'd be happy to discuss that and if needed correct it or them. (I'm not like the Lugano testers!).
ReplyDeleteG.B. -
ReplyDeletesorry to go on about this. from what you have written above you say "they have no problem with the Lugano report". I would need the precise technical people who have reviewed Lugano and therefore would be interested in my refutation. It has been on lenr-canr for more than 6 months and is more substantive than the original report! I will e-mail whoever you think has either not read it or has issues with it, quoting your name as the person saying that they are disagreeing with me in this area, and asking for their critique of my paper, or for them to restate their position. Is that fair?
OK, so the only person you reference so far is Louis F Dechiaro. It looks like he has enough technical knowledge to read my report and agree with me - so I guess he is just unaware pf the IR thermography issue - it is well enough described so he'd be interested. But I don't have his e-mail. It would help also if i had a written reference to his "not having issues" since that would mean he had to support that. I don't like to bother people unnecessarily.
ReplyDeleteAnd... I've found Mavris's e-mail. I need your contact details if possible.
ReplyDeleteMavris contacted - I've given your name but no other details
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDe Chiaro has a well protected e-m so I can't contact him.
ReplyDeleteI think that unless these gentlemen have read the Levi report seriously, and also my refutation, you should take the view of the later written work as most likeky true. (or you could read it yourself). I'm sure if they disagreed with my refutation that would have contacted me.
The error I note is specific and definite. Not a matter of interpretation or assumptions. And it leads to the wrong answer. The maths is clear.
The Levi "Lugano" test report:
ReplyDelete(from the conclusions of my refutation)
The Report [2] details a test of a new device with supposed
extraordinary properties of sustained power generation with
high energy and power density, that if true would be of
great scientific and commercial significance. The suggested
mechanism of low temperature nuclear reactions, capable of
delivering the claimed high energy and power density, is
supported by unusual isotopic shift measurements. These two
measurements together, if correct, would be difficult to explain
without some extraordinary mechanism.
The Report calculates a COP (power out / power in) of 3.2
and 3.6 for two tests with 755W and 865W input respectively.
They suggest that the high calculated COP is evidence of large
excess heat, and that this is further supported by the high
differential COP: in this case 110W of extra input results in
761W of extra output.
The report uses an indirect method to calculate COP, and
has neither control data, nor direct measurement of the device
temperature.
The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in the
Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that
alumina is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity.
In fact alumina has a non-gray-body frequency-dependent
spectral emissivity that combines with Plank’s Law to result
in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The infra-red
thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant
band emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent
total emissivity.
We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature
is 779C, not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated
power out from the system shows a COP of 1.07 and matches
power in to within possible experimental error. Remarkably,
the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar
COP, and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in
parameters such as alumina emissivity. Thus the argument
for high differential COP used by the Report as additional
evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP are as
expected for a system with no excess heat.
The code used to perform the recalculations is shown in
Appendix A together with the precise data used to obtain the
results quoted here. The potential errors in this experiment
remain considerable and are discussed in Section VI above.
Just for the curious,
ReplyDeleteIndustrial Heat manage the patent of mileys in IHL Holdings limited
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/117-Miley-s-patents-and-a-heating-coil-patent-assigned-to-IHL-Holdings-Limited-Is-It/
and Miley recent said he was active in the domain.
Recently Robert Godes, know for being one investment of IH supported IH in discussions.
and there is more.
It seems Industrial Heat is building an interesting network, maybe an ecosystem of LENR researchers and startupn with maybe an IP pool.
as some said, trust opens the door to vulnerability, and those who have been abused refuse to open that door.
and without trust there is no cooperation, thus no business and no innovation possible.
Too bad, but nobody is absolutely required.
Someone else will have to invent the reactor of the revolution.
maybe a collective achievement.
Let us hope that rationality triumphs and the lack of trust attaches only to those who deserve it - in this case Rossi.
ReplyDelete