Oh no, I think that you misunderstand me. I think that Rossi's claims, even if
they're bollocks, got people talking about LENR again. It was Rossi's claims
that got Piantelli to blow the dust off of his equipment and reevaluate. He was
a catalyst for studying Ni-H.
In no manner am I trying to supplant all of the work done by Piantelli, Arata,
and Mills; I'm just saying that a lot of important whispers in the shadows grew
louder, more urgent, and have come into the light.
If Rossi doesn't cause catastrophic damage to the field, he may just be the
catalyst that drives its funding. As I read more and more news articles,
authors seem capable of separating Rossi from the science - which is great news!
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:25:31 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian Nuclear Kurchatov Lectures in St. Petersburg Will
Include LENR
From: maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Even if he doesn't have a secret catalyst that enhances his reaction, he may
inadvertently become the catalyst that brings LENR into the mainstream...
I disagree with that reasoning. If Rossi is a fraud, legitimate but subtle
claims of LENR will be even more ignored by the public and by funding sources
than they already were. Probably with a comment of the nature of that's
probably another Rossi!
On the other hand, any *valid* robust claim can easily be tested independently
and everyone will be interested if it is verified, just as they were (and many
still are) in Rossi. Rossi got considerable main line press such as Forbes
and various network news mentions even though he's an obvious flake.
Imagine the coverage if someone ever really has robust LENR power and can prove
it properly.It won't be because of Rossi that they get coverage but in
spite of him.
