Hello Peter, Your reservations on nano-Ni may be correct.
However, today Rossi claims a breakthrough: "Andrea Rossi -- May 5th, 2012 at 8:38 AM Dear Dr Joseph Fine: I agree. ItÂ’s Saturday, but today and tomorrow we will work 24 hours a day on the reactor we have made here in the USA: we have stabilized it at very high temperaturesÂ…and when I say very high I mean it. We understood the reason of the instability, so now the work is going on hard. Warmest Regards, A.R." So, given the above and Defkalion's claims, do you think either has a reasonable chance of being correct? Lou Pagnucco Peter Gluck wrote: > My dear friends, > > I have published QUI CITO No.14 on my blog; you can > discover here interesting things, ideas; please do it! > > After an unusually long hesitation I have also published > a paper about miscoveries in LENR, it is quite heretical > and in some sense even blasphemious by what it states > and even more by what it predicts. > To be sincere I am not seeking popularity but I need the > friendship and sympathy of my LENR colleagues. > I was afraid that ideas as Pd-D systems have no technological > future and that nanometric powders have a very limited one, and > that Rossi and Defkalion are not LENR but LENR+, will not > be liked by LENR dogmatics and will be used by the anti-LENR > dogmatics. > But I had a revelation: *there do not exist LENR dogmatics at all*; for > all > my > colleagues solid facts are more important than old ideas. If I am right, > OK > if I say false and stupid things, this will be obvious very soon. > On the other part, anti-LENR dogmatists have their standard arguments > against LENR and are not using any other ideas. > > I well know that the impact of my writings is barely measurable on a > Richter > Scale, however please call from now on-* what Rossi and Defkalion have* > *LENR+.* It is LENR+! > Thank you and don't be angry with me. > Peter > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
