On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Moab Moab <[email protected]> wrote:
> my first post ... > > Mary Yugo wrote > > > As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the > > better the evidence has to be. Anyone can claim anything and there are > > plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the > > > phenomenon. The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the > > claim, especially when it comes to Rossi. > > In their 2009 book *"COLD FUSION The history of research in Italy"* > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-ENEAbook-14> > > The Italian National agency ENEA present an overview of the research > in ENEA departments, CNR > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consiglio_Nazionale_delle_Ricerche> > Laboratories, INFN, > > Universities and Industrial laboratories in Italy. > > In the foreword of the book Luigi Paganetto, president of ENEA says: *"In > other words, two government programs – carried out in close interaction > and with check of results – have proved the existence of this > > phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process. This > must be considered a starting point. The results achieved so far > represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already > started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied > > phenomenon."* > > My question to Mary Yugo: > > Why would the president from ENEA endorse the existance of the phenomenon ? > What would be is the rationale for that in your opinion ? > > If you use rhetoric to dismiss the ENEA as competent research agency or to > dismiss its > > president as a loony then I will know that you have no real answer. > > Thank you > Moab > > I have no idea what the ENEA is much less what they're talking about. Sorry if that disappoints you. FYI, I am interested in discussing Rossi's claim-- not LENR/cold fusion in general. That's because I don't know much about nuclear physics but I do know about calorimetry. Rossi's claims depend on calorimetry and the calorimetry he's done is not reliable or credible in my opinion. As I've said probably too many times, much better methods could be used if Rossi could be persuaded to make use of them. I am suspicious about the veracity of his claims because he makes no effort to prove them by the best and most reliable methods possible. Also because his tangential answers to simple "safe" questions and some of his weirder claims (self funding which is probably a lie, self destruct systems and isotope enrichment on the cheap) suggest the same sort of pretenses and responses scammers often make.
