On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Randy Wuller <rwul...@freeark.com> wrote:
> Jed: > > His two questions can easily be answered. > > 1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be > impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a > potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of fact > is a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed advance > may produce. > > He didn't ask how the result would advance knowledge, but how the paper would. Since the claim is not testable, the paper does *not* serve to change the misperception, as should be obvious by now. What he's saying is that for this exercise to advance knowledge, it is necessary for others to be able to test the claims, and that's not possible. > 2) Mankind. > > Mankind will not benefit from this paper. If the claim is real, mankind would benefit from the technology. He admits that. But this paper will not promote that. Something else is needed. Something testable. As it stands, it benefits Rossi's ability to attract investment, and he's got several academic stooges to help him do it. If Rossi has what he claims, then he has to show the world in a way that they will believer
