-Basically, there's a new physical effect that I think was found in the lab more than 20 years ago by Fleischmann and Pons [University of Utah electrochemists who were later derided for their work on cold fusion], said Peter Hagelstein, an MIT professor of electrical engineering and computer science and one of the most mainstream proponents of cold fusion research. -It was not accepted by the scientific community. It's been laughed at and criticized. However, over the years the effect has continued to be seen.
-In a nutshell, it seems that [in cold fusion] there's a new kind of process involved in nuclei reactions, Hagelstein told Life's Little Mysteries. "The essential difference is that in conventional nuclear physics, when nuclear energy is released, it comes out as nuclear radiation. In this process, when you make energy you don't get radiation at all, implying there's a new physical mechanism at work."
"If some arrangement could be made we would love to do a test of the E-Cat at MIT to verify that it works."
"If some arrangement could be made we would love to do a test of the E-Cat at MIT to verify that it works."
CONTINUE TO BLOGPOST AT LLM
Here is Andrea Rossi´s own COMMENTS about the interest to verify the function of E-Cat
Here is Andrea Rossi´s own COMMENTS about the interest to verify the function of E-Cat
Dear Mr Frank:
I receive every day requests from all the world of Universities, Associations, Laboratories from any Country, of any kind which want to make an “indipendent” test to offer us the only possible real validation of the technology. Should I accept, 24 hours per day, 365days per year would not be enough to be so much validated. I respect all the wannavalidate of the Planet, but I want to remember that:
1- In October we will start deliver to our Customers our plants, so that the validation will be made by the Customers: they will use our plants 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. That is the sole real validation that counts for us, also because if the plants work, Customers will pay us, if not, they will not pay us. The plants have to respect precise guarantees we gave about their efficiency and their safety. We are not searching any validation. We never did. We just wanted to make a good product.We have already made our public presentations, no more of them will be made. With the University of Bologna we will continue the R&D program, but not to “validate”: the validation must arrive from the market. The aim of the R&D program with the University of Bologna, financed by us, and therefore made with our money, is to develope our future, not to “validate”. Not to mention the fact that the real target of the wannabe validators, in 99 cases out of 100, is to get information and make industrial espionage, as already occurred to me with another “validator” with whom we severed any collaboration after getting evidence of the fact that data obtained from us have been utilized for a competition.
2- I thank anyway Prof. Peter Hagelstein for his attention. If the MIT is interested to our product, they can buy a plant, and make all the validations they want, for themselves, and get from it good heating too, during the hard Bostonian winters ( I lived there for some year, mamma mia, che freddo!)
Warm regards,
A.R."
I receive every day requests from all the world of Universities, Associations, Laboratories from any Country, of any kind which want to make an “indipendent” test to offer us the only possible real validation of the technology. Should I accept, 24 hours per day, 365days per year would not be enough to be so much validated. I respect all the wannavalidate of the Planet, but I want to remember that:
1- In October we will start deliver to our Customers our plants, so that the validation will be made by the Customers: they will use our plants 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. That is the sole real validation that counts for us, also because if the plants work, Customers will pay us, if not, they will not pay us. The plants have to respect precise guarantees we gave about their efficiency and their safety. We are not searching any validation. We never did. We just wanted to make a good product.We have already made our public presentations, no more of them will be made. With the University of Bologna we will continue the R&D program, but not to “validate”: the validation must arrive from the market. The aim of the R&D program with the University of Bologna, financed by us, and therefore made with our money, is to develope our future, not to “validate”. Not to mention the fact that the real target of the wannabe validators, in 99 cases out of 100, is to get information and make industrial espionage, as already occurred to me with another “validator” with whom we severed any collaboration after getting evidence of the fact that data obtained from us have been utilized for a competition.
2- I thank anyway Prof. Peter Hagelstein for his attention. If the MIT is interested to our product, they can buy a plant, and make all the validations they want, for themselves, and get from it good heating too, during the hard Bostonian winters ( I lived there for some year, mamma mia, che freddo!)
Warm regards,
A.R."
Same post in Tehran Times
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=238830
If this device hits the market I think universities might have some explaining to do themselves (Maybe not MIT who to my knowledge has done some research). One might ask what they have done the last 22 years.
ReplyDeleteAfter the treatment MIT gave Ponds and Fleischman I think that their motivations should be tested to verify their credibility.
ReplyDelete