I wonder how long the excess heat debate will take to settle. In my opinion, the evidence is clear there is a huge amount of excess heat. No one has been able to make a significant argument otherwise. Perhaps data from a month long run in Sweden will settle the minds of some skeptics. If not, perhaps the final results from the University of Bologna's testing will do so. Of course I'm glad that Rossi is not concerned about validation, and is simply going strait towards commercialization. The market place should not wait for technologies to be "validated" by the cult of mainstream science. If testing shows a technology works they should further develop it, and market products ASAP.
Rossi is the true hero here. He is moving ahead with this technology despite most of the world is ignoring him, despite many skeptics are still making ridiculous arguments, and regardless of those still squabbling as to the nature of the reaction. Of course it would be really cool if he would allow the folks in Stockholm to build a blast proof room to put an E-Cat in, and see how long it will operate in self sustain mode. I think a few days of 130 kW or more being produced with no input should silence all the skeptics, except those that are being paid or have personal agendas. ________________________________ From: Wm. Scott Smith <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 8:59:43 PM Subject: [Vo]:Focusing on Excess Heat Prevents Red Herrings Yes, we should discuss the likelihood that some kind of Fusion is taking place; nonetheless, from a rhetorical standpoint, a label should put forth the most striking, least-deniable aspect. Arguing about whether fusion is possible in such a context is foolish until we first focus on why we are sure that there is excess heat. If we are to open many closed minds, we ourselves should start with more wisdom-humility (not shame-humility) and try to reach a level of agreement, that something totally unanticipated could be going on, but the excess heat is undeniable. In other words, it is just bad strategy to try to convince them what the cause is, when we who believe this do not even agree. Scott ________________________________ Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 23:27:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Non-Chemical Heat Phenomenon" Label more neutral. From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: Yes there is fairly convincing evidence of tritium and helium production, however >the evidence that they are produced in same ratio as plasma fusion is really >meager. Tritium is far from the same ratio. Millions of times off, and inconsistent. Only the helium is in approximately the same ratio. Some say the evidence for this is meager, others say it is strong. My point is that people in the latter group should go ahead and call it "fusion." If you want to give it some other name, feel free. The name is not important. But I think it is somewhat important that you not insist we are ignorant, and you not demand that others agree with that. People who have concluded it is have thought about this carefully, and they have a right to their opinions. Discussion of this topic veers into lunacy when Krivit insists that not only is cold fusion not fusion, but McKubre and others who believe it is have published fake data and are involved in a weird vendetta to enforce this point of view. McKubre does not care one tiny bit whether other scientists think it is fusion or not, or whether they believe his helium results. They can take those results or leave them. There is no reason for him to publish falsified data. If he cared about other people's opinions he would never be working in the most controversial field in the history of modern science! - Jed
