Jones and Jed, thanks. Very interesting. I found that the two possible refutation-type papers I received "on the side" are available, one on the archive, one on New Energy Times (and maybe also on the archive, I didn't check). Again, I recognize this was/is all probably well known to both of you, just doing a bit of diligence here in case it helps or is interesting to others.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dmitriyeva-Using-Bakeout-Paper.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevacontrolofe.pdf Jeff On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wrote: > > >> I give this more credence than anything from Rossi, DGT, Brillouin or >>> Piantelli, for instance. >>> >> >> Me too. >> > > That's not to say that DGT and Piantelli lack any credence. > > Rossi is on a planet by himself. Impossible to judge. I have no technical > reason to doubt him but by every other metric I have no reason to believe > him. If Celani, Brillouin and others had not reported high power density > Ni-H reactions I would not believe Rossi. He inspired these others, yet in > the course of inspiring these others, he did *nothing* to improve his own > credibility. Nothing! When he might easily convince the world his claims > are true. This is why Mike McKubre and I are convinced that Rossi does not > want credibility, for the same reason Patterson did not want it. That seems > to be the only explanation. > > - Jed > >
