There are only four options:<p>1) this works
2) this is a scam, and the reviewing authors are collaborators
3) this is a scam and the reviewing authors are being duped by Rossi
4) it isn't a scam but it doesnt work as advertized either, it's honest scientific mistakes both by Rossi and reviewers.<p>Earlier, My scam-meter was at quite a high reading. Now I'm not so sure. I'm still sceptical, but what's interesting is the fact that the other options now also look a lot less appealing.<p>The authors come from very respected institutions and would be jeopardizing their careers by participating in a scam. Could this be the case? Certainly, but it would be one of the largest academic scandals ever, at least in Sweden (UU and KTH are two of the most regarded universities)<p>Thr experiment appears to do what it can to rule out them being scammed by Rossi. The probability that a group of honest researchers could be fooled in an experiment like this feels quite slim. There would have to be a LOT of smoke and mirrors in order to tamper enough with instruments, swap samples of fuel to show isotope changes and so on.<p>I don't want to use circumstantial reasoning like "If this worked it would be in journals" or "if this worked he wouldn't need funding". What I will say is: if this works then it can and will be repeated. I'll remain sceptical until it's repeated by several groups of researchers. It's s fantastically simple device and an experiment that is relatively small and easy to perform.<p>If the past is any indication this won't be followed by repeated experiments by independent groups, but by a long period of silence. That won't raise credibility.