Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote:
> This discussion has been about the Rossi work, which is based on a secret > process, and which is inadequately confirmed . . . I think the confirmation is better than most claims, simply because the power is so high, and the input to output ratio is so good. It was a rather sloppy demonstration. You might say that the NRL tests with Pd powder are the extreme opposite. They are as careful and exacting as any test can be, and they have been repeated automatically hundreds of times. Yet, because they produce only ~100 J per run, I find them less convincing than the Rossi demo. > . . . there has merely been a somewhat convincing demonstration that > *something* is going on in that thing. That is what Levi reportedly said recently, in conversation with another researcher. "Something worth further investigation" is how I think he put it. I am not arguing with that Cude should accept the Rossi demo completely. I have some doubts about it myself. Any claim of this nature calls for more tests, especially independent tests. However, I do think that questioning the flow rate is ridiculous. I think these demands about the pump and reservoir are mere excuses to evade the issue. If there is a problem, it isn't in the flow rate. You have to look elsewhere. Cude has added that he is not "convinced that nuclear reactions in cold fusion experiments have produced measurable heat." From my point of view that puts him in the category of creationists who are not convinced of the evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years old, or that people did not ride on dinosaurs. The evidence for cold fusion heat far beyond the limits of chemistry overwhelming. If you do not believe it, you are not a scientist. Period. The evidence for tritium and commensurate helium is not quite as overwhelming but I have never seen any rational reason to doubt it. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Cude to provide one. - Jed
