In any case, a test as today's unofficial Bologna test (18 hours 15 KW) will not convince him. Possibly the water was not heated- it was actually cooled. See my posting Peter
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
