At 04:38 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident to me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second test proved that beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it.
Jed might be right. However, in the absence of the kind of information that is needed to rule out steam quality issues, people are going to discuss it.
What I find offensive is Rossi's dismissal of questions and inquiries as being based in pseudoskepticism. There are grounds to be skeptical. After all, the implications are huge. You yourself stated that you were skeptical, until you heard this private information repeated, over time.
The rest of us were neither eye-witnesses, nor do we have that private information, except through you. I personally place a great deal of weight on it, because it comes from you. But I completely understand if others don't, just as I don't expect skeptics (real skeptics!) to fall down and believe in cold fusion because I say that the evidence is convincing, if reviewed carefully (which takes a lot of time!
Rather, it's my responsibility to present that evidence, clearly and cogently, if I want people to look at it. If I fail in that, it's my fault, not theirs.
I will also claim that it's the responsibility of the U.S. DoE to act on the recommendations of their own panels, both in 1989 and 2004, to fund research to answer the obvious questions. That should not depend on my political skill! Or that of the cold fusion community.
