What I wanted to say with the missing word "technological"? The truth is that Pd-D LENR has contributed to science but has not succeeded to become an energy source. If it ever will, that's an open question but in the spirit of fairness you cannot tell that Pd- D is nothing. The second non-ethical aspect in Focardi's discourse was that he well knows that Piantelii is the leading scientist in the field of Ni-H but he just mentioned "en passant" about Habel *and *Piantelli, as somebody of no importance. Peter
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:32 PM, SHIRAKAWA Akira <shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com>wrote: > On 2011-04-15 16:04, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> But Peter Gluck wrote: ". . . one word is missing: 'technological.'" >> >> What do you mean by "missing word"? Did Focardi say this and it is >> missing from the translation? Or did he fail to say this and he should >> have? >> > > He didn't say that in the interview and in retrospect he should have. > I don't believe he really thinks there haven't been positive results from > Pd-D LENR research, he was more referring to their scale. In that sense he > is somewhat right that the difference between those and his/Rossi's is so > large that in practical terms other researchers haven't got anything so far. > > > You see that he is outspoken and he says all kinds of things, including >> stuff better left unsaid. Maybe he was just exaggerating, or mouthing >> off. It is hard to believe he does not know there have been positive >> results from palladium. >> > > It was a very informal interview on a local radio station (located in > Bologna) with people that he already knew and already invited him a few > times in the past months. Focardi probably didn't expect that an > international audience would dissect it word by word, so he spoke without > filters as he, reportedly, usually does. > > Cheers, > S.A. > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
