[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My advice: Don't call it CF just report on excess heat or anomalous isotope ratios in Pd alloys after refining process or some such.
It does not make the slightest difference what you call it. Scientists will instantly recognize what you mean.
Keep on with the peer review . . .
Most peer reviewers summarily reject cold fusion. The peer review system has broken down in the case of cold fusion. Despite this, most major cold fusion results have passed peer review several times, and the reviews have been far more severe than usual. How many times do you demand we overcome this same barrier? For that matter, how many replications do you want? Five or 10 should be enough for any claim, and cold fusion has been replicated hundreds of times.
People who oppose cold fusion live in a "Groundhog Day" (movie) based world. Events never make an impression. Everything is repeated from scratch every single day. It does not matter how many times papers have passed peer review, or how many high Sigma experiments have been published -- every morning we wake up back at square one, with mindless fools demanding that we pass peer-review, replication and other goals that were met in 1990.
. . . get it into universities and get young grad students on it.
Any grad student who does cold fusion will not be a grad student for long. He will be kicked out, and he will be persona non grata at every university and corporation.
Be patient, be humble.
We are altogether too patient. We will all be dead at this rate. Look at the photos of ICCF conference attendees, shown at LENR-CANR.org. They are all in their 70s and 80s. There also the world's leading experts in electrochemistry, material science and other fields. They literally wrote the books on these subjects. It is ridiculous to demand that someone like Fleischmann, Bockris or Josephson be humble.
- Jed
