One big question, relating to Steve Krivit's quest for documented 100% reproducibility in a given *type* of LENR experiment
Minor clarification.
Such is not my quest. Uh-oh. Now having flashbacks to Monty Python... "My quest is to seek the Holy Grail!"
But seriously folks, reproducibility is no longer a focus of mine. An effect that happens "more often than not" is good enough for Richard Garwin and it's good enough for me.
If it's not good enough for skeptical observers, that's their problem -- and their loss because it's used a straw man argument to dismiss the recognition of a new science phenomenon.
And I don't waste my breath on people who are listening-impaired who play "straw man" games.
s
