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.
There is very good article about Blacklight Power in Wikipedia. That is because BLP is respectable company. Rossi instead is just nothing. There is already an article about Andrea Rossi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur) There is no need to separate article for his latest probably fraudulent and certainly controversial cold fusion stunt. On 9 September 2012 23:07, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wikipedia is dysfunctional and cannot be fixed. The problem is in the > structure and guiding philosophy. > > That is untrue. And I am sad that although you are mostly rational, you are saying this. I fully understand that you have personal grudges, but I am sad that this personal conflict is clouding your judgement. What comes to cold fusion, there are no established scientific point of view, therefore it is impossible to write a good Wikipedia article on cold fusion that would satisfy everyone. 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? 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? The correlation is so difficult to understand that even Krivit cannot understand it. Therefore I would say that Abd is exaggerating the quality of evidence. Quantity does not replace quality. I hope that Celani could produce first ever clear and replicable cold fusion cell that produces, not quantity, but high quality data. That is what we need. There is needed only one convincing demonstration, that can be replicated at independent laboratory, and then the amount of skeptical scientist is exactly zero. Therefore it is sad that Celani is refusing independent replication of his cell. How could we the scientists take him seriously if he is refusing the independent replication? –Jouni
