The most recent Gibbs article is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/
I find this annoying. He writes: "So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether these effects can be scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of energy and operate reliably still isn’t clear." This response does not answer the question! Gibbs asks "Is cold fusion real" and then -- instead of answering that -- he talks about "whether these efforts can be scaled up." "Real" and "scalable" are two different things. No one disputes that muon catalyzed fusion is real, but it cannot be scaled up. Tokama plasma fusion is real but it cannot be scaled *down*. This is sloppy. Ask a question and then answer it. Do not answer another question. The answer is: Yes, cold fusion is real, because it has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications have been published in carefully vetted, top-of-the-line peer reviewed journals. That is the definition of "real" in experimental science. There is no other criterion for being real. Whether it is scaled up or commercialized has no bearing on that question. To answer this, Gibbs should cite the journals. If you are asking: "can cold fusion be scaled up?" the answer is: "we don't know yet. It seems Rossi has scaled up but there is no independent proof yet." - Jed
