I think its pretty safe to say Dr. Gluck is not focused on the science now that he has proximity to one of the Ni companies that, although they aren't submitting any disclosures to the patent offices, do appear to have reproducibility as a trade secret. As you point out in the case of Rossi's trade secret, it doesn't help the scientific field one iota. The only argument I can see for Ni in the science realm is the lower cost of the metal -- independent of any fabrication issues which, of course, bring its price up due to the cost of nanoparticle formation.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually I have said it very often however that it is >> disaster not an error, it is more historical misfortune than >> error of judgment.Let's e realist, we live in memecracies >> and the meme of palladium-the cradle, the origin, the magic is still too >> powerful. Technological progress will solve this problem- not with/for >> palladium. >> > > If you could tell us how to make Ni work, your position would be a lot > stronger. As I said, most people who have tried Ni saw no heat or any other > evidence of cold fusion. There are no known control parameters with Ni. > Whereas Storms, Cravens and others have described how to make Pd work, and > McKubre has described the control parameters. > > Since most people do not know how to make Ni, work, and you probably do > not know either, I do not see why you criticize those who use Pd instead. > Would it be better for them to spend years working with Ni getting no > results at all? > > You might make the case that Rossi should file for a patent and tell > people how to make Ni work, to speed up the pace of progress. Maybe he > should. But he has chosen not to. So that option is out. > > As a practical matter, what do you suggest? > > - Jed > >
