The Rossi patent appears to be full of theoretical blather. Either that, or Rossi is Newton and Einstein rolled into one, and he will revolutionize 21st century physics. We'll see how that comes out.
A point I would like to make is that Rossi may well be right about the calorimetry but wrong about the nuclear physics. Furthermore, he does not get to decide what his reaction is, or isn't. When Mills came out years ago, he insisted that his reaction is "not cold fusion." He meant it is super-chemistry. He may be right about that for all I know. His theories are closer to the mainstream than Rossi's. But what was irrational about his assertion was that he seemed to think that since he discovered the reaction, he gets to decide how it works. He gets to dictate the physics. Not only that, but as I recall he said "cold fusion may be fusion, but my nickel reaction is not." It seems more likely to me that nature has only way to make extraordinary amounts of heat without neutrons from metal hydrides, and whatever the reaction is, it is fundamentally the same in Pd, Ni or Ti. I got the impression Mills was trying to avoid the stigma of "cold fusion." His own theory is so radical, it was sure to bring upon him all the stigma mainstream physics can muster, so that seemed like a futile gesture to me. Lately, Rossi stated categorically, "my reaction is not the Mills reaction." I don't know whether that means "Mills has no reaction" or "I have a different reaction" but anyway, he does not get to decide. Many people will do many experiments, look for products, spin theories, and eventually it will become clear what explains these experiments. Since they are both Ni-H I would be astounded if they had different mechanisms. That is a violation of Ockham's Razor. (Still, one must remember, O.R. that is a rule of thumb, not a law of nature.) Even the skeptics have joined in game when it suits them. One of them told me "Rossi said it isn't LENR so don't talk about LENR. Previous experiments have no bearing on this because Rossi says they don't." This person would not, in a million years, buy into the blather in Rossi's patent, so she has no business citing it as proof that previous experiments have no bearing! Skeptics also say: "It can't be true because the discover's physics are wrong" -- a variation on the theme. That's preposterous. Again, everyone's physics was wrong in ancient times, but their machines, metallurgy and even their medicine worked. To summarize: * Never judge a book by its cover. * Everyone is right about some things and wrong about others. A person can easily be wrong about theory but right about a technical claim. As proof of that, consider that before 1800, everyone was wrong about everything, including the people who perfected Damascus steel and other technologies that still challenge the experts. * The discoverer has no special privilege to explain it. He or she cannot dictate that: "This is my discovery so it must work the way I say." Or: "my discovery is [or is not] cold fusion." * You must separate in your mind the discovery, the explanation for the discovery, and the person who made the discovery. Put them in different boxes. Try to forget all about theory when evaluating an experiment, and pay no attention to the fact the Robert Stroud was a homicidal lunatic when reading his textbook on canaries. That is not germane. I realize it is tough to separate out different aspects of a thing like this. It goes against human nature. You have a feeling that if Stroud would kill a person just for heck of it, he might also have it in for your canary. He might tell you do something that will hurt the poor thing. But you have to trust the scientific method and peer review. After all these decades, if Stroud has secreted evil advice in his book, veterinarians would have found out. People seem to have great difficulty separating Rossi from his discovery, perhaps because he is so flamboyant. If he were a mousy gray-haired lady professor from Hokkaido or Buffalo NY, people would probably find it easier to believe him. Needless to say, it is naive and unscientific to judge a claim by looking at the personality of the researcher. Flamboyant people are often right. Staid, credentialed academics sometimes present egregious nonsense, such as the anti-cold fusion screeds. A claim must be judged on its own merits, without reference to the person making the claim, the other claims that person makes, or circumstances surrounding the claim. It is tough to live up to that standard, but if you find yourself slipping, and you start to say: "How could a person with such strange notions about physics be right!?!" or "Rossi says he can enhance Ni isotopes at practically no cost -- he must be a liar or crazy!" -- stop right there, and remind yourself that you just made a logical error. When the discussion is about calorimetry, that evidence is not admissible. The obverse applies. Just because Rossi is right about calorimetry, that gives no support to the physics in his patent. - Jed
