This report is frustrating. It reads as if some PhD was told to write the report to prove she came up to speed on the current state of claims of LENR research, but she spent so much time saying "but there are many criticism" that it becomes worthless to read. A PhD should be able to denote those criticisms and explain which ones are valid and which ones are not, and why. This is a paper written by someone who is trying to cover his ass, and also by someone who knows that people do not know how to process hypothetical information. Otherwise it would have said: IF (and again I say IF) Oh, and for those of you in Rio Linda , IFF <---see that, it means IF.... IF LENR is actually happening, what would be the explanation, what could we do to take advantage of it?
Instead it reads... well, some guys are still experimenting in this realm and many criticisms and well, it might possibly eensy teensy wittle bit possible but some major criticisms and if it eeensy tiny wittle bit possible major criticisms then what could be said about how to move forward on many criticism technology so let me point out the obvious (POTO) but first let me say many criticisms.
