“Either way, all this reproducibility and peer review stuff is being ignored for the useless procedure it is.” - K
Wow - in one post you claim Pons Fleischman is valid because it has been replicated 14,700 times. In the next, you claim that reproducibility doesn’t matter. Hmmmm....
And just who is this customer, Rossi claims to have?
Whatever is going on here - it is not science, it is much more like a Ronco veg-o-matic infomercial.
“Either way, all this reproducibility and peer review stuff is being ignored for the useless procedure it is.” - K
Wow - in one post you claim Pons Fleischman is valid because it has been replicated 14,700 times.
***So then you acknowledge it has been replicated so many times? Why the demand to have it replicated yet again? So that it can be ignored, yet again? Do you or do you not acknowledge that it has been replicated that many times? Simple question. If you do acknowledge it, why would you need to see it replicated yet again? If you do not acknowledge it, what good is getting it replicated yet again? Your own attitude towards this subject demonstrates that it is wise for someone who has a lead on this technology would be better off selling it to satisfied customers and treating the scientific replication path as a secondary consideration.
And just who is this customer, Rossi claims to have?
***Why do you ask? Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem? No one knows, DUHH.
Whatever is going on here - it is not science,
***I agree, it is not science it is business. Rossi is sending two units to two universities and the scientists can play catchup after he’s sold 30 1MW plants.
it is much more like a Ronco veg-o-matic infomercial.
***Those guys sold a lot of vegomatics.