Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?
2010/3/14, Steven Krivit <stev...@newenergytimes.com>:
> Ladies and gentlemen,
>
> The truth is, I plead, to a large degree, ignorance of this Focardi&Rossi
> matter.
>
> It had been originally brought to my attention as a patent, and then I
> pointed out to the person it was merely a patent application and I said,
> "So what, don't bother me."
>
> Even granted patents don't mean that the devices work as stated. Just look
> at Seth Putterman's patent for sonofusion.
>
> So here's my question for all you science hounds: Have Focardi&Rossi
> actually published a real paper or presented one at a science conference?
>
> Has the Focardi&Rossi paper/work been vetted, in any way, in the formal
> science channel or has it just been hyped up on some bogus Web site that is
> masquerading as some sort of Journal?
>
> "Journal or Nuclear Physics"? Really??? Can someone please tell me
> something about this?
> http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
>
> And can someone please explain why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly
> representing the entire "DoD", is involved with this?
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2
>
> And isn't there some mention in the paper of this having to do with the
> "DoD" yet the paper provides no details?
>
> And a "Board of Advisers" comprising the key authors of this "paper?" Is
> this a con or what?
>
> Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone is not running a false flag to
> discredit Ni-H work.
>
> Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone did not go to Focardi and Rossi
> and represent himself as the "DoD" and thereby test and validate inflated
> claims to set them up for a fall.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
