Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]> wrote: > > The problem is that it is difficult to write about Rossi, because he has > not shown any reasons why anyone should take him seriously. On the other > hand, there are very serious reasons to believe that he > is committing massive fraud.
I do not know of any reasons to believe that he is committing fraud. He is flamboyant and he often says contradictory things. Many people suspect he is committing fraud, but no one has stepped forward and said "Rossi defrauded me."If he defrauded anyone, I suppose it would be Defkalion or Ampenergo. I have heard from both of them. Neither says he defrauded them. Unless you can point to actual evidence of fraud, I think you should refrain from making such serious accusations here. It is inappropriate. > What comes to cold fusion, there are no established scientific point of > view . . . > Yes, there is. It is the set of facts in the peer-reviewed literature published in mainstream journals. This is the definition of an "established scientific point of view." There is no other definition. These facts constitute overwhelming evidence that the effect is real. The people at Wikipedia, at Sci. Am. and elsewhere have replaced this standard with a set of rumors or nonsensical assertions made by people who know nothing about the research. > . . . therefore it is impossible to write a good Wikipedia article on > cold fusion that would satisfy everyone. > You do not need to satisfy people. You need to report the replicated, peer-reviewed facts of the matter. Science is not a popularity contest. > Cold fusion advocates have failed to market their ideas. Instead many cold > fusion advocates (such as Krivit) took seriously that there would be > evidence for Ni–>Cu transmutations, although scientific evidence was mostly > zero. If Krivit-level experts are doing such mistakes in basic science, how > it is possible that this field could be taken seriously by Wikipedia? > Krivit is mistaken. He is not an expert at any level. What he takes seriously has no bearing on what is true. You need to look at journals and professional scientists to judge what should go into an encyclopedia. > Although Abd is saying that there is good correlation with helium and > excess heat, somehow I find it very odd, that if correlation is good, why > it is so darn difficult to replicate? > You are confused. The quality of the correlation and the ease of the experiment are completely separate qualities. They have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The correlation might be very low with an experiment that is dead simple to do; or the correlation might be high with an easy experiment; or the experiment might be difficult and the correlation nonexistent -- which the case with tritium. > The correlation is so difficult to understand that even Krivit cannot > understand it. > Understanding the correlation is quite easy. Anyone can see it in the graphs. Krivit cannot understand it because he often fails to understand simple concepts such as scientific notation. In any case, you should not gauge the validity of the arguments by looking at Krivit's understanding of them. This is a nutty metric. Therefore I would say that Abd is exaggerating the quality of evidence. > You say this based on Krivit's (mis)-understanding? I suggest you look at the data yourself! - Jed
