> > That seems unlikely to work. I may have missed it (it's not my field) >> but I don't know of any proven and properly tested and documented catalysts >> that facilitate fusion or any other nuclear reaction. Do the other >> claims involve catalysts? >> >
> Yes, I think most experts would say they do. > That I would like to know more about. It should be easy to show -- add the catalyst and get evidence for a nuclear reaction namely neutrons and/or radiation. Run the same way without the catalyst and the evidence of nuclear reaction disappears. Someone has done that? Can you provide a link or citation? > > >> I get frustrated with Rossi's shenanigans which is why I get sarcastic. >> I'll try to tone it down but a lot of what he does is funny if you look at >> it a certain way. >> > > As someone else pointed out, you should tone it down because those are > the rules here: > I'll try. I will simply have to avoid humor. I'm sorry but I suffer fools badly and I tend to respond to what I see as stupid or wildly illogical posts with sarcasm. I see that is not welcome here so I will abstain as well as I can. It will be difficult. > I have no vendetta and I'd be delighted if Rossi would prove his point. >> > > I doubt that. I think you would be abashed or embarrassed. Of course you > would not be as upset as Robert Park -- you are not that far out on a limb! > -- but I would be surprised if you did not have mixed feelings. > Please avoid trying to read my mind. I would be totally, completely and unequivocally delighted if cold fusion turns out to be feasible and substantial. I have no reservations about it whatsoever. I am not aware that Park has done what you accuse him of. Rather, I think of him as someone who, like me, hates scams and despises scammers. But I have not followed his work since the days of Uri Geller and that well known "psychic power" scam that Randi and Park so wonderfully exposed, in the process making Puthoff and Targ (and the journal *Nature*) look like fools. Park would be devastated because he he has devoted a large fraction of his > life to suppressing cold fusion and savaging the reputations of > researchers. He will know that he will go down in history as a > laughingstock. People like him, who make themselves famous by ridiculing > people and destroying reputations, are themselves highly sensitive to > ridicule, and protective of their own reputations. They take politics to > extremes. Park boasted to a large crowd of cheering people that he would > "root out and destroy any federal scientist" who believes in cold fusion, > or even tries to attend a conference. He thinks that is a good idea. He > thinks people should do that. He brags about how many scientists he has > taken down. When he realizes that he himself should have been "rooted out" > decades ago, I expect he will be devastated. > Any idea why anyone would do that? It makes no sense and I tend to doubt it. As for destroying reputations, nothing restores them more than a few good experiments with convincing results and reliable data subject to replication by others. > The problem is that he could do it easily in a number of different >> ways. His nose has been repeatedly rubbed in that issue and he simply >> won't do it. Then he apparently commissions two total fools to do his web >> site (talk about "clowns"!) and he writes strange things like this claim . >> . . >> > > This is a discussion of Rossi's personality. It is on-topic, but you > should not confuse this issue with the validity or evidence for his claims. > You are right that he is an odd person who writes things that seem strange > by our standards. You are incorrect when you say "the evidence for Rossi's > claims is scant . . ." The two are different subjects. Please do not let > Rossi's personality or his sloppiness affect your evaluation of his results. > I am not holding out Rossi's sloppiness as *prima facia* evidence of bad work or scamming. However, I think there is some correlation with writing logically and making sense and telling the truth and an inverse correlation between truth and the sort of evasion, double talk, blog censorship, and tangential response that Rossi provides. As for his results, we'll just have to continue for a while to disagree on their credibility. I suspect in some months it will become clear who is correct.
