On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We need more robust, long running, high output, credible experiments. >> > > SRI and the ENEA have done robust, long running, credible experiments for > 20 years, albeit at low output. > You can't call something credible just because you believe it. Or even if a small band of cold fusion advocates believe it. Credible means it is believed by anyone, and in particular by mainstream science. Which it's not. Scientists would love to believe in cold fusion. That was obvious in 1989. But 2 DOE panels that have studied it found it not credible, and most scientists have concluded that if the claims had merit, an unequivocal and simple demonstration would be possible. If there were credible evidence for it, you couldn't keep scientists or funding away. Skeptics, the DoE and most of academia have paid no attention to them. > Well, the DOE enlisted 2 panels to study it. And there are academics all over the world who have paid attention to it, as you frequently point out. They have had no success convincing the mainstream it's real. > They could do another 20 years and no one would hear about it. > Another 20 years like the past 20 years, and you're right. If they did one convincing experiment, that others could repeat, and it'd be back on the front pages. > What we need are people like Rossi to blow the skeptics out of the water. > Yes, well he's trying, but so far, the skeptics are still in the water. > The academic approach is hopeless. > > As it would be, if the effect were absent. Hey.
