Any solutions to these problems ?

[Oberon]

Well the key is, when someone says they have done something and publishes a paper on it, whatever they have done should be able to be reproduced by following the procedures indicated in the paper. If it cannot be done then the initial claim is judged as being baseless.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Well the key is, when someone says they have done something and publishes a paper on it, whatever they have done should be able to be reproduced by following the procedures indicated in the paper. If it cannot be done then the initial claim is judged as being baseless.

Thank you. So this E-cat is nothing more than "Propaganda"

Markus

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Thank you. So this E-cat is nothing more than "Propaganda"

Markus

Time will tell.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Thank you. So this E-cat is nothing more than "Propaganda"

Markus

Andrea Rossi, who pushes this e-cat technology, does not act like he's trying to convince anyone, and he's not acting like a guy sitting on a real technology. Rossi acts precisely like he's trying to convince the marks in some sort of penny-stock scam.

The evidence favoring "Rossi is a scammer" is much, much stronger than the evidence saying "Rossi has discovered cold fusion". I would tend to believe the stronger evidence. There's no dishonor in distrusting someone who won't do proper experiments, challenging that person and assuming, if it smells like a scam, it's probably a scam. Now, subsequently, if that person turns out to be correct, it's no fault of the scientific community that they couldn't do a proper demonstration to begin with.

[TorpX]

I took a quick look at the Wiki page on 'cold fusion'. I think this sums it up nicely:

There is currently no accepted theoretical model which would allow cold fusion to occur.

Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes fell with the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[