Hi Alan, I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of the reasons for the delay. I hope Kevin reads it.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: > > - Andrea Rossi > June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM > <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=8#comment-972594> > > Giuliano Bettini: > I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. > You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually > takes 6 months as an average. > The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as > you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the > time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any > reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made > during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it > is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must > take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis > of the results, positive or negative as they might be. > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > > - Andrea Rossi > June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM > <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=8#comment-972560> > > Angel Blume: > We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in > operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the > moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not > years, though. > Warm Regards, > A.R. > >
