Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote:
> My sense is that most cold fusion researchers have become quite skeptical > about Rossi. As Terry said, you have not conducted a public opinion poll so you have no basis for having this sense. At ICCF-16 and later I spoke with several people who attended the first demonstration, and who have been in contact with Levi, Rossi and the others. They have no doubt the effect is real. They have not expressed any reservations to me. > A few are "supportive," but mostly this boils down to them thinking that > Rossi's claim confirms their own understanding of Ni-H. Even they are > realizing that Rossi has probably faked some demonstrations. > Who are these people -- "they" who who realize he "probably" faked some demonstrations? Which ones? How did he "fake" them? That is an outrageous accusation. There is not a shred of evidence to support it. I can think of some ways in which some -- by no means all -- of the demonstrations might be fakes, but I do not know any reason to think they actually have been. You should think twice about making such inflammatory and baseless accusations against Rossi, Forcardi, Levi and the others. There is no chance Rossi is faking and these other people are unaware of it. Despite the blather written here, any method of producing fake results would readily apparent to Levi or any other experimentalist in five minutes. He has to be cahoots with Rossi. > By the way, the 18-hour test, on its own, certainly seems convincing, but > the problem is that we can't trust it. We can trust it as much as we can trust any other cold fusion experiment. Or any boiler safety certificate. Cold fusion has been observed roughly 14,000 times. In nearly every case, the tests were private, observed by one person or more often by no one -- only recorded by instruments. If you can only trust tests done in the presence of independent observers, you will not believe in cold fusion, or the Top Quark, or any of thousands of other experimental results. - Jed
