There is one thing certain in the cold fusion arena – there will always be someone who disagrees with almost anything written about it. When those with a little or a lot of knowledge fight constantly over the most trivial of points, it would be a miracle if someone new to it managed to report otherwise. This is why I wrote the eCatNews Briefs linked to in the menu.
Following the Fox article guessing at the identity of the 1MW customer, Sterling Allan of Peswiki posted in the comments section at eCatNews. He points out a number of errors and omissions in the article. I agree there are errors and said so in the first post. However, the journalist was not saying these things, he was supposed to be quoting specific individuals. That said, when it comes to Sterling himself, he denies those quotes and therefore we must be even more careful with the conclusions no matter how we might wish we were closer to the truth. This from Peswiki:
Let me make some corrections on his quotations of me.
First, he said:
“Sterling Allan, CEO of the alternative energy news agency Pure Energy Systems, told FoxNews.com he attended Rossi’s demonstration and the E-Cat is self sustaining.” [snip]
…Next, he wrote:
“Allan hinted on his blog that an unnamed ‘customer’ of Rossi’s device is a military organization that starts with an N. Rossi said this customer measured and verified the test — and told FoxNews.com that Paul Swanson with the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems unit (SPAWAR) can vouch for the demonstration.”
Correction: That reference to a U.S. (I didn’t say “military”) organization that starts with an N was not in relation to the “customer” but a previous entity that independently and successfully tested the E-Cat. I never intended to tie those two together, and I actually separated them in my communications with him (or at least I thought I did).
I don’t know who the customer is, so I can’t give hints about it. I told him as much.
Also, I didn’t give him the name of Paul Swanson. That must have come from someone else he talked to.
Those following the eCat story for some time are used to seeing newcomers to the subject struggle with the balance. I absolutely disagree with much of the negative reporting we see but fully understand why it comes about. Anyone – journalist or not – has little chance of pinning the tail on the donkey when faced with such an avalanche of apparently conflicting facts. All they can do is report what others say and make a call on the tone they wish to strike. We hope for more from the serious science publications when they eventually get round to covering the eCat. but even then, what are they to say when all their normal sources tell them it’s all nonsense?
This state of affairs will only be resolved when we get some certainty from Andrea Rossi or one of his customers. Why should we expect a journalist fresh to the subject to believe one party over another without evidence? And the apparent duff quotes? That’s something else. One of the most interesting comments is said to come from Dr Rossi. It would be fascinating to know if that was true or not. If it is, then the guess may have some substance (correct or otherwise). If not, we are back to NASA, NATO, Disney or Robert Park 😉
Rossi said this customer measured and verified the test — and told FoxNews.com that Paul Swanson with the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems unit (SPAWAR) can vouch for the demonstration.
[As an aside – Sterling’s comment regarding the US entity beginning with N “..that independently and successfully tested the E-Cat…” N— successfully tested the eCat? That is new to me. Is that a typo, Sterling, or have I missed something important?]
———-<< Previous Post -- -- Next post >>