Dear Jed, You are right. I am working out- in the frame of my blog a system for real life problem solving. The painful puzzle of CF's bad reproducibility seemed to be a "*wicked problem" (*see Wikipedia etc- it is an fundamental concept) Now it has one solution. I think we have to wait for the quantitative data.And to avoid to fall in the trap of the High Art of Problem Dilution. Is Rossi's diploma relevant? I knew so many good, creative people without any diploma Anticipating Ralea's definition of intelligence (to not mix the points of views, my Grandma used to ask: "With whom is better to sit at the table- with a serial killer or with one who is munching?"
The device works. Basta! On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay, I spoke with one of the people in the project about the calorimetry. > Then I typed up the notes from our conversation as a brief report (400 > words). I e-mailed the report to the researchers so they can confirm I got > the numbers and other details correct, and also add the name and model > numbers of some of the instruments. > > They are exhausted so I do not expect to hear back before tomorrow. I will > post the information as soon as they clear it. I do not want to circulate > dumb mistakes that I made writing down a phone conversation. Most of what I > learned you already know. I confirm the blogger's description, that the > calorimetry is mainly based on the heat of vaporization of water. Here are a > few other details: > > * They measured the relative humidity of the steam to confirm it is dry. > > * The person who designed and implemented the calorimetry is a > distinguished expert on that subject, and former president of the Italian > Chem. Soc. Several other professors took part in the test. > > * They are writing a detailed report covering the calorimetry and > nuclear measurements. > > My guess is that these people know what they are doing. I suggest that > people here should stop harping on the details of Rossi's personal life. > That subject strikes me as increasingly irrelevant. > > > To change the subject -- > > Rossi told me months ago that he intended to do a public demonstration. I > hinted at this here, but he told me no specifics so I could not say more in > any case. I confess I began to doubt that he would follow through. I am > delighted to be proved wrong. He did follow through, and for that he and his > co-workers deserve a big round of applause. I cannot understand Italian but > I got the impression that press conference was a serious exposition with > detailed questions and answers. I hope they continue to reveal technical > details and they follow through on their plans to build a 1 MWh reactor. > Assuming the measurements in the January 14 test were accurate, I think they > will be able to do this quickly, perhaps within months. > > Again, assuming there is no mistake, and that the thing can be replicated, > I agree wholeheartedly with Cousin Peter that this is what we have been > waiting for all these years. > > Although it is best to reserve judgement, and you cannot be sure of a claim > until it is independently replicated . . . this reaction is so large that I > think a mistake is highly unlikely. I think the likelihood of fraud is > vanishingly small. There is no way you could fool the professors involved in > this, and I am sure they are not all engaged in a conspiracy to fool the > rest of us. Sometimes, a single test in isolation is so convincing it > reduces or eliminates the need for independent replication. The most > dramatic example in history was the Trinity atomic bomb test. This test is > not quite as convincing as that, but in my opinion it is far more compelling > than any other cold fusion test in history. > > - Jed > >
