On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 

> Subject was Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from
> Rossi device
> At 04:12 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>  Not true. I have described what it would take to convince me (and so has
>> Jed Rothwell), and if cold fusion could deliver a tiny fraction of what has
>> been promised for 22 years, my criteria would be easily met.
> This discussion has been about the Rossi work, which is based on a secret
> process, and which is inadequately confirmed, there has merely been a
> somewhat convincing demonstration that *something* is going on in that
> thing. This is nothing like the accumulated evidence for cold fusion, based
> on open and documented and reproducible experimental techniques, widely
> confirmed.
> I'm not interested in Rossi's work for the moment. Obviously, if *Rossi's
> promises* are fulfilled, all bets are off. Rossi, by the way, is also
> working on "unknown nuclear reaction," he'd merely be succeeding, if he
> does, in demonstrating a far more vigorous reaction than any prior reports.
> So I'm going to ask, as to cold fusion in general, "what has been promised"
> and what do promises have to do with science?

A new energy source has been promised.

> And... "convinced of what"?

Convinced that nuclear reactions in cold fusion experiments have produced
measurable heat.

Reply via email to