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: [email protected] To: [email protected] On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> 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.
