I like his theory, it may well be the process happening. Even if it isn't entirely, it provides a good starting point for further research. I also very much like his notion of other systems that may show LENR processes already. Including failing Li-Ion batteries, (natural) isotope fractionation and processes in ordinairy car catalysts. After all if it's possible at low energy nature must already know about it!
I don't understand his objection to "cold fusion". From a science perspective, what he describes: H or D + Metal going in ==> very detailed and particle physics sound description of processes happening ==> Metal + He + E coming out. Most experimental claims from cold fusioneers don't disagree with his theory. "cold fusion" is just the abstract of the thing in the middle of his reaction scheme. I don't understand it from a business perspective either. What merit is there in claiming that all cold-fusion experiments are wrong and your theory is right? If he plays it right he might end up with the Nobel price for correctly describing cold fusion processes, which might have helped experimentalists. He might do further research building onto the Rossi device and making it better. If he plays it wrong, he will be the theorist who knows it all but have nothing. Nobody cares about the right theory for something that doesn't work, very few people care about the right theory for something that does work. On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:02 PM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote: > More controversy between LENR competitors --- > > Lewis Larsen-Lattice Energy LLC-Comments re Mr. Andrea Rossi & E-Cat > Technology-Nov 26 2011 > > http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lewis-larsenlattice-energy-llccomments-re-mr-andrea-rossi-ecat-technologynov-26-2011 > > >
