Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: So what?! We have had a number of companies and individuals making > significant claims about productizing something that they contend is > CF/LENR. >
Rossi is the only one I can think of. I suggest you ignore him. He has not published any scientific data. The only way you can confirm his claims is to talk to people who tested his device independently when he wasn't there. (He was on another continent.) Unfortunately they do not wish to go public. > Much excitement has been generated about this and many people contend, > apparently without much evidence, that we'll have "jam tomorrow." > Not "many people." One person: Rossi. Plus Defkalion, I guess. As I said, there is plenty of evidence but Rossi and his supporters wish to keep it secret, for reasons I find perverse. They are not the first inventors to do this. Edison and many others played this game, for similar reasons. > You might be in it just for the science but if CF/LENR can be turned into > a product it will be, as many people contend, revolutionary. > Many people contend this. You can confirm their assertions by looking carefully at the scientific evidence. McKubre's data proves it. It is about a zillion times more convincing than anything Rossi every published! Okay, it is not dramatic. It is only a few watts at best. But drama and scale play no role in science. The s/n ratio is fabulous and no skeptic has ever found a fault in it, or ever will. The Curies detected only microwatts of heat from radium, but they proved radioactivity is real. Their results prove it no less than the first nuclear bomb did in 1945. People are more likely to be convinced by the bomb because it is big and impressive. That is understandable to it is not a scientific outlook. Assuming Rossi's 16 kW is real, that does prove cold fusion is close to commercialization. Much closer than McKubre's data indicates. However, if you are looking for proof that the phenomenon is real, look at McKubre, or at Fritz Will's tritium data. Do not confuse "real" with "close to commercialization." > Er, nothing other than write about it and attempt to figure out who's on > to something . . . > Read the literature to do determine this. You will never discover this by reading Rossi's blog! . . . and who's simply hyping that market for whatever reasons. > That is unanswerable. You would have to read Rossi's mind. I can't even read his English. > Rossi is a great example of the problem with the CF/LENR world. > No he isn't. He is nothing like any other researcher. He is sui generis, and not an example of anything. The closest person in history to him is Edison. > He's grandiose, evasive, makes unsubstantiated claims, and generally > confuses the picture all the while promising jam tomorrow. > True! But this is not a problem with the CF/LENR world. No one else in this business resembles Rossi. No one else confuses the picture or promises jam tomorrow. Look at the Italians or Pam Boss. Much as I love them, those people are NOT flamboyant. You are looking at Rossi, ignoring everyone else, and claiming that he sets the standard and he is the only one who counts. > And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that there appears to > be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real > and what's fake. > Okay, so do your homework. Read the literature. Talk to Rob Duncan. Stop fretting about Rossi. Ignore the flamboyant nonsense and look at the science. > Sure, to the extent of writing about them if they're done ... I'm not in > the business of fund raising for other people's projects ... > It would help if you would stop publishing mistakes and unscientific assertions. Also if you would look at the science and ignore Rossi and his nonsense. - Jed
