My response to such "critiques" of P&F is that one daily encounters equivalent "blunders" by respected scientists whose subsequently reviewed research is published by "respected" journals like "Science" and "Nature" without anyone uttering a peep.
All that is really going on with these "critiques" is feeling the power of numbers behind you. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > > Obviously major mistakes were made by P&F. The press conference was a > mistake. > > > That is obvious only after the fact. If F-P had not made a public > announcement, Jones would have. In fact, the claim would have gotten > attention without the announcement > > Calling it fusion was a mistake. > > > But it is fusion. Do you want F-P to lie? > > The question is: were the results (excess heat + nuclear products) a > delusion? 25 years later and hundreds of successful replications later and > 3 major commercial products in the works the clear answer is a resounding > "NO". > > > Yes, this is true. The evidence is now overwhelming. Ignorance is the only > problem. > > > This presentation is both insightful yet beyond myopic and ignorant at the > same time. Stress on myopic and ignorant. > > > I see nothing insightful. The claims are a simple-minded repetition of > what the skeptics said 23 years ago. > > > Regards. > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I could use some help from some knowledgeable vorts to counter these >> accusations... >> >> Cold Fusion Confusion and Questionable Ethics >> http://www.ptei.org/docs/ColdFusionPresentation.pdf >> >> > >
