By the way, that was for "charge 2" Most went along #3. Charges are:
"(2) To determine whether the evidence is sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that such nuclear reactions occur. (3) To determine whether there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if so, to identify the most promising areas to be pursued . . ." In other words, most of the ones who do not think cold fusion is nuclear still voted to fund it. Unfortunately the DoE ignored their recommendation. Aussie Guy E-Cat <[email protected]> wrote: 6 Yes, 10 No and 2 undecided. Wonder how they would vote today? > Most of the Ns would still be N, as you see from their opinions: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf Some examples of unchanging Ns from Melich and Rothwell (unpublished): Reviewer 6 Much of this review is devoted to refuting existing cold fusion theory. See Appendix A, and *Theoretical objections to experimentally proven facts are a violation of the scientific method* * * Reviewer 15 This review is a travesty. It has no place in a serious scientific discussion, and it should be stricken from the record. Claim 15.1. “The August 2004 Popular Mechanics gives an overview of the present DOE review and the cover states that one can build an H bomb in the basement. Also, the article claims that this is a cheap way to make tritium. Clearly this article sets the tone for this field of research, one of paranoia with the added impetus that someone will get there first. It is this aspect of the field that the DOE must somehow deal with.” This remark is deplorable, and Popular Mechanics is not a scientific journal. The article in it was not written by a cold fusion researcher and it does not represent the views of any cold fusion researcher. The DoE and the cold fusion researchers are not obligated to “deal with” lurid claims in popular press that are far removed from actual science. . . . Reviewer 16 Much of this review is devoted to refuting existing cold fusion theory. See Appendix A, *Cold fusion is an experimental finding, so you cannot disprove it by showing errors in theories that attempt to explain it* and *Theoretical objections to experimentally proven facts are a violation of the scientific method* One other typical example: Claim 18.8. “The alterations in the decay ratios of the d+d fusion reaction that would be required to explain the electrochemical data in terms of LENR cannot be understood in any sensible model.” See Appendix A, *A result need not be explained theoretically before it can be believed* and *A reviewer’s inability to imagine or understand a result is not a valid reason to reject it* The "Ns" here are are not good at the scientific method. They make 68 elementary logical and methodological errors like the ones underlined above. Most opponents do. They probably made more than 68 errors. I stopped counting in some cases. If they were in high schools their reviews would be covered in red ink and given failing grades. I do not exaggerate. Read the reviews and see for yourself. - Jed
