We are at the point where you are going to have to study up on the scientific method
I'm sorry, but that sort of condescension is entirely uncalled for. I am perfectly familiar with the scientific method. What you seem unfamiliar with is protections for intellectual property, about which, I suspect, as a working, published author and screenwriter, I know a great deal more about than you do.
Further, you dodged my question. After stating several times that they had nothing to fear from piracy if they did something which you refuse to clearly outline - and by the way, the "scientific method" has absolutely nothing to do with piracy, patents, or protections of intellectual property - you end up not not only not responding to legitimate requests for clarifications about fuzzy and unsupported statements you've made, but you also sneer at me.
UPDATE: Just to clarify: There are two issues in this discussion.
1. The legitimacy of the Foucard-Rossi cold fusion "reactor."
2. How "submitting their research to scientific scrutiny" protects them from piracy.
I believe the first of these has reached a conclusion: Wait and see. If they do roll out a working reactor, whether they publish or not, "nevertheless, it moves," and your skepticism may have been warranted, but turned out to be in error.
As to the second, I don't believe it has been anywhere near resolved, and I feel it is important, because you base your skepticism on their refusal to go public within the scientific community, and they say they refuse to do so until they have strong patent protection, for which they have applied. You say the Italian patent, which they have received, requires "less rigorous" support, and it is a matter of legal record that it only applies to Italy, and offers no protections elsewhere. So their stated position regarding holding off on release until they obtain strong patent protection makes sense to me.
This second issue, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the first issue, that is, whether the thing actually works or not, and how it works. It deals purely with the protection of their intellectual property, which I think is a perfectly legitimate concern on their part.
If you would actually care to address the second without condescension, I'd be happy to hear your reasoning.
In short, your skepticism isn't bothersome, but your attitude is becoming greatly so.