On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Randy wuller <[email protected]> wrote:
> ** > Joshua: > > Don't you find the following scenario just a little disconcerting. > > For 24 years the scientific community has been certain (to the point of > claiming that "Cold Fusion" was pseudoscience" that the anomalous heat > found by P & F was delusion. They now have tests clearly demonstrating the > effect which they can only explain away by proposing acts of fraud. > What they have is an untestable claim from a person with a controversial past who stands to make money by convincing a few people, and a few scientists who could be either complicit or fooled. And it's a claim that could, if true, be made in a vastly more convincing way, but isn't. And before they should consider them in any way you feel it is necessary > for the entrepreneur (clearly not a scientists) to demonstrate it in public > so that there can be NO doubt. > > I am quite convinced that that is what would happen if he had something, whether it's necessary or not. If that doesn't happen, I consider the likelihood of his claims to be real to be vanishingly small. I suspect that's a pretty common view. I suspect that any claim of MJ/g or higher energy density in a small-scale setup that needs to be plugged in to run is almost certainly bogus. Cut the umbilical cord, and they'll get attention. > How foolish do you want the world's scientific community to look? > Wouldn't it be better for the scientific community to get on top of it now > and either help prove it to the world or expose the fraud? > > No. If the likelihood of it being real is held to be vanishingly small, then they should do nothing. How do they get on top of it anyway? Rossi doesn't let his ecats out of his sight according to one of the interviews. I find your point of view incomprehensible. > > > Well, that's mutual.
