Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here is one example of the good peer-reviewed paper, but where is the > replication of the data? > There have been only a few replications in Italy, at SRI and elsewhere because the experiment is expensive and time consuming, and there is no money to do cold fusion. That is a political problem. It has nothing to do with the quality of the science. In essence, you are saying we should ignore the data because people opposed to cold fusion have successfully cut off funding. We should let politics dictate what we believe. > This finding about the correlation to be reliable, there should be several > successful replication attempts published. > Should be? Only if funding is made available. You can't do experiments without funding. > But where are those? The paper is almost 20 years old. There are few, yes, > but not good enough quality data and often the data is even conflicting. > Nonsense. There are no conflicts in the data. > E.g. some studies suggest that both H and D are working. > That has nothing to do with helium correlation. Helium has only been checked against D. - Jed
