I commend this discussion for taking Rossi seriously . . . but not too seriously.
I think it is a good idea to give him the benefit of the doubt. We all know he is controversial and he sometimes contradicts himself. He says odd things. Yet I think he is worth paying close attention to. Many people blame him for the poor quality of the Lugano experiment. I doubt that he shares the blame. Both Levi et al. and Rossi insist that he had nothing to do with the design of the experiment, and no influence over how it was done after he assisted setting it up. I think that must be true, because the first set of experiments were done in his lab, where I assume he did have some influence, and those experiments were better than Lugano. His influence was beneficial. If they had done an improved version of those first experiments, it might have been a triumph. By the way, I uploaded another review of Lugano by Thomas Clarke: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf - Jed
