Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You seem to be suggesting that there is something fundamentally different >> about Rossi's Ni nanopowder compared to the nanopowder cells of Arata and >> Miles, or the Ni cells of Patterson or Piantelli. . . . >> > > What I am suggesting is that the evidence for Rossi's claims is scant . . . > Of course you have a right to your opinion, but bear in mind that most experts such as Kullander and Storms disagree with you. They say the evidence is irrefutable. More to the point, the evidence for Rossi's claims is much stronger than for most other cold fusion claims. It is also much stronger than things like the top quark, which can only be observed in one laboratory, and cannot be even partially replicated. It is reasonable to say that Piantelli and Arata are partial replications of Rossi. (They came first, but anyway . . .) To put it another way, instead of attacking Rossi so vigorously, I suppose you should be denouncing the entire field. Rossi is no worse than many others. Even his secrecy is not unusual. It is caused by the U.S.P.O. . . . and his *modus operandi *is suspicious. I don't know the details of > the other claims. Rossi claims a secret sauce catalyst. > I suggest you learn the details of other claims, although I fear you may lash out at them, too. Many researchers have secret sauces. So does McDonald's, which is where the term originated. So do all corporations and businesses. Do you claim they are all suspicious? Rossi is running a business, not a charity. > That seems unlikely to work. I may have missed it (it's not my field) > but I don't know of any proven and properly tested and documented catalysts > that facilitate fusion or any other nuclear reaction. Do the other > claims involve catalysts? > Yes, I think most experts would say they do. > I get frustrated with Rossi's shenanigans which is why I get sarcastic. > I'll try to tone it down but a lot of what he does is funny if you look at > it a certain way. > As someone else pointed out, you should tone it down because those are the rules here: http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html A modicum of academic decorum is called for. It is hypocritical but helpful. I have no vendetta and I'd be delighted if Rossi would prove his point. > I doubt that. I think you would be abashed or embarrassed. Of course you would not be as upset as Robert Park -- you are not that far out on a limb! -- but I would be surprised if you did not have mixed feelings. Park would be devastated because he he has devoted a large fraction of his life to suppressing cold fusion and savaging the reputations of researchers. He will know that he will go down in history as a laughingstock. People like him, who make themselves famous by ridiculing people and destroying reputations, are themselves highly sensitive to ridicule, and protective of their own reputations. They take politics to extremes. Park boasted to a large crowd of cheering people that he would "root out and destroy any federal scientist" who believes in cold fusion, or even tries to attend a conference. He thinks that is a good idea. He thinks people should do that. He brags about how many scientists he has taken down. When he realizes that he himself should have been "rooted out" decades ago, I expect he will be devastated. I am not vindictive and I never hold a grudge for more than an hour, but I will make an exception for Park and a few others. I hope he lives to see the day when people everywhere laugh at him, and the Washington Post will not answer his calls, or do his bidding and destroy people's lives because he disagrees with their scientific conclusions. The problem is that he could do it easily in a number of different ways. > His nose has been repeatedly rubbed in that issue and he simply won't do > it. Then he apparently commissions two total fools to do his web site > (talk about "clowns"!) and he writes strange things like this claim . . . > This is a discussion of Rossi's personality. It is on-topic, but you should not confuse this issue with the validity or evidence for his claims. You are right that he is an odd person who writes things that seem strange by our standards. You are incorrect when you say "the evidence for Rossi's claims is scant . . ." The two are different subjects. Please do not let Rossi's personality or his sloppiness affect your evaluation of his results. - Jed
