Jed, He did say " ...there are various reactions that output more energy than is put in..." which is good enough for me.
What i think is more curious is that everyone, including you want to call it "cold fusion". Even Martin F. regretted calling it that according to what i read. On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: > The most recent Gibbs article is here: > > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ > > I find this annoying. He writes: > > "So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments > performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various > reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether these > effects can be scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of > energy and operate reliably still isn’t clear." > > This response does not answer the question! Gibbs asks "Is cold fusion > real" and then -- instead of answering that -- he talks about "whether > these efforts can be scaled up." "Real" and "scalable" are two different > things. No one disputes that muon catalyzed fusion is real, but it cannot > be scaled up. Tokama plasma fusion is real but it cannot be scaled *down*. > > This is sloppy. Ask a question and then answer it. Do not answer another > question. > > The answer is: Yes, cold fusion is real, because it has been replicated in > hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications have been published > in carefully vetted, top-of-the-line peer reviewed journals. That is the > definition of "real" in experimental science. There is no other criterion > for being real. Whether it is scaled up or commercialized has no bearing on > that question. To answer this, Gibbs should cite the journals. > > If you are asking: "can cold fusion be scaled up?" the answer is: "we > don't know yet. It seems Rossi has scaled up but there is no independent > proof yet." > > - Jed > >
