Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: > > Also, your expectation that "the media" should "have either, confirmed a > fraud OR confirmed something newsworthy" is equally nonsensical. >
I would say you should only investigate something if you agree it is newsworthy and you intend to publish something about it. There are countless claims of strange machines and off-beat scientific discoveries. It would take dozens of full-time reporters to cover them. Most reporters do not consider them newsworthy. The only objection I have to any mass media report is when it is written *without a careful investigation. *Many reports are based on ignorant rumors, or Wikipedia (which amounts to the same thing). I also object when reporters repeatedly confuse the issue with elementary mistakes, such as claiming that cold fusion researcher think the effect is real because output energy exceeds input energy. > Just consider that all of you on the Vortex list with all of your enormous > brains applied to the topic for way longer than I've been following it and > with far more scientific knowledge than I have on the topic and with all of > your connections can only, at best, come up with what are ifs and hopes and > theories. > That is incorrect. I have some hard data from people who tested one one of Rossi's devices. Unfortunately, they asked me not to publish this data. Regarding other cold fusion claims, I have ~3,500 papers, and I have uploaded 1,200 of them. That amounts to ~20,000 pages of information. A lot of it is inconclusive because the results are unclear. Some is inconclusive because the researchers are confused. But it is original source data, which is the best thing you can get. To take one example, I am not a bit confused about claims made by Iwamura, at Mitsubishi. Plus I can tell you in detail why David Kidwell of the NRL disagrees with these claims, and why N. Takahashi of Toyota Central Research agrees with them. Iwamura, Kidwell and Takashi have published scientific papers and data. If you do not have that, you cannot draw conclusions about a claim. All you can do is speculate. Speculating is fun but it is largely a waste of time. We are mainly speculating about Rossi because he refuses to publish, and he will not let me or others gather our own data. Therefore we cannot draw any conclusions about him. That's how science works. When a scientist does not want to give me a paper, or allow me to take measurements, I do not reach a conclusion about his work. I am not a reporter. I am not Krivit; I would never try to pry information out of someone who does not want to give it. I would *never* agree to go to Rossi's lab after Rossi told me I cannot take my own measurements. Krivit did that. The result was a fiasco. Krivit measured nothing and did not even tell us what observations he made, such as whether he confirmed the flow rate. It is hard to imagine a better way to generate chaos, confusion and misinformation. I have papers from thousands of scientists. I really do not give a damn if a few people such as Rossi do not want to publish. I suggest you ignore them. - Jed
