I mean this with respect and admiration for your decades of excellent work. Unfortunately, your discussion of Rossi illustrates my point about accomplished, even renown scientists failing to discriminate between real science and complete bullpucky!
I'm afraid that this is drifting off topic for this thread. I don't want add to existing clutter. I will be happy to take this discussion with you to the Rossi Blog thread or perhaps to the Playground thread if you'd like me to illustrate my take on early Rossihistory, and Rossifiction. I've not read enough to satisfy JedRothwell apparently, but I have followed Rossi for coming up on 9 years, in meticulous detail. This was in part because early on, I thought like you do about him. I was curious how he briefly fooled me and it was not difficult to find out.
I did decrease my attention when he switched to the ridiculous hot cats with their faulty and unnecessary three phase input and obvious lack of forced cooling or proper calorimetry. Be that as it may, please indicate if you wish me to illustrate my issues with Rossi, early on, in fact from the very start, in the Rossi Blog thread. Otherwise, we can drop the old scoundrel and leave him to his current passions-- Florida condominium development and his ill-named (Journal of Nuclear Physics- really?) , entirely censored, pompous and asinine blog.
seven_of_twenty , I think in that statement you are being insulting to Mr. Storms, by mistaking his genuine scientific curiosity with gullibility and lack of capacity of distinguishing a potential con. The work of the Now resident in Florida Italian was, and still is, worthy of interest from the scientific point of view, as it was based in the previous published work of Piantelli and Focardi. I don't recommend anyone to invest in the e-cat but I sure think it is an interesting scientific subject and the attempts of replication of the basic effect with nickel powder by Parkhomov and the MFMP, even if did not confirm the Italian's estrambotic COP claims, indeed produced interesting anomalous results, enough to keep research on that line alive, which Parkhomov has, and was published and also presented at the ICCF22. You have to separate the scientific interest in a topic from taking that as a sign of support of the current activities of the person who originates the initial interest.