On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On the contrary, Edison's strategy resembled Rossi's. He did > demonstrations with goal of impressing the public and causing a tremendous > buzz. His demonstrations looked impressive to the public but they proved > nothing. The scientific establishment did not believe him. > > >From your descriptions, there seems to be a fundamental difference between Edison and the light bulb, and Rossi and cold fusion.
Scientists may have been skeptical of Edison, but not of his ability to produce light from electricity. They may have been skeptical of the practicality of it; of the feasibility of the necessary infrastructure, and maybe the cost of the lamps, and so on. But skeptics of Rossi don't believe he is producing heat by nuclear reactions. That's a very different skepticism. And, more importantly, if they did, they would instantly recognize the importance of it. That was proved in 1989 when scientists thought P&F just might have demonstrated a very impractical example of cold fusion. All over the world, scientists were excited, and trying to replicate. P&F were (briefly) international celebrities. The scientific establishment knows very well the potential of cold fusion if it were real. Heat is familiar, we know how to use heat. If Rossi can produce heat, no further (novel) infrastructure is needed to take advantage of it. So, in Rossi's case, it is the fundamental principle that is in doubt, and moreso because if Rossi's claims were real, an unequivocal demonstration would be very easy to stage. In Edison's case, the fundamental principle was accepted, but the potential was not nearly so obvious.
