Replies

Peer review is only as good as the reviewer. I was at NSF not long ago reviewing proposals, as I have a number of times. It always amazes me how some names carry the day, regardless of the science behind it. I have seen the same thing a number of times with journal peer review as well. I have also been the receiving end of those who do not understand what they are reviewing. I have looked over a number of your references and talked with a number of experts within the Navy's community, including those at NRL. There is a good reason that this work is essentially banned or frowned on in the electrochemistry and physics groups I work with, and that includes more than a dozen universities and five US government research labs within DOD, NIST and DOE clients. But you go ahead and cheer-lead to your heart's content. Rossi was a scammer. A number of us told you so. You acted like an ass to those who disagree with you. Now you are harping about another and making claims and organizational connections in an effort to show gravitas, that I personally know to be specious at best and damning of your claims at worst. But what do I know, I only have 4 different labs that are involved in energy research. Extraordinary claims MUST be backed by even more extraordinary evidence that stand against extreme scrutiny.

"Peer review is only as good as the reviewer.

Yup. Which is why I don't put much faith in it. I depend more on what is actually contained in the paper.

"I was at NSF not long ago reviewing proposals, as I have a number of times. It always amazes me how some names carry the day, regardless of the science behind it. I have seen the same thing a number of times with journal peer review as well. I have also been the receiving end of those who do not understand what they are reviewing.

Same here.

"I have looked over a number of your references and talked with a number of experts within the Navy's community, including those at NRL. There is a good reason that this work is essentially banned or frowned on in the electrochemistry and physics groups I work with, and that includes more than a dozen universities and five US government research labs within DOD, NIST and DOE clients.

Blah, blah, blah. You just got through telling me that you didn't review "voodoo science", and now you're trying the old "argument from authority". Critique the data, not the politics.

"But you go ahead and cheer-lead to your heart's content.

LOL. I have NEVER "cheer-led" on ANY of these threads.

"Rossi was a scammer.

STILL not proven. This is simply speculation. Of course the reverse is also true.

"A number of us told you so. You acted like an ass to those who disagree with you."

LOL. When the first response on every thread is "Rossi is a crook" or some equally fatuous comment, how to you expect me to react. I respond to people exactly as they start the comversation.

"Now you are harping about another and making claims and organizational connections in an effort to show gravitas, that I personally know to be specious at best and damning of your claims at worst.

WTF are you talking about?? "I" have claimed precisely nothing. I have presented references to scientific works which contain data. NOBODY (including you) is willing to actually critique the DATA.

"But what do I know, I only have 4 different labs that are involved in energy research."

SURRRRE you have.

"Extraordinary claims MUST be backed by even more extraordinary evidence that stand against extreme scrutiny."

Sorry.....not true! This comment is constantly made and it is NOT part of any real science. This is an umbrella comment for people who are actually saying "no amount of data will ever change my mind".