Rossi is doing ENGINEERING research, not SCIENTIFIC research.
The goals of engineering research are a bit different from scientific research. One is intended to say, "I have proved (this natural phenomenon) does (something)". The other says "I've done enough data collecting sufficiently validly to justify spending further money on this possibly commercial idea".
It's sort of like the Wright brothers and Edison: they did the research necessary to get something that worked. They didn't wait to devise an airtight theoretical basis for what they sought to do before doing it. And from what I've read, the physical basis for lift in
heavier-than-air flight is still subject to contention.
"It's sort of like the Wright brothers and Edison: they did the research necessary to get something that worked. They didn't wait to devise an airtight theoretical basis for what they sought to do before doing it." They and many others. Of course, "doing the science" gets you a higher degree of certainty, but in the meantime, you may get "scooped" by a competitor.
"And from what I've read, the physical basis for lift in heavier-than-air flight is still subject to contention."
That may no longer be true. Some time back I ran across an article that said that the aerodynamics guys could finally explain how the bumblebee "does its thing" in the air.