I agree that it is not very good politic to convince. however it is clear and true.
you should read the facts. i don't even understand how people can express so much doubt, when not simple usual denial. just read the data, and remind that consensus can be pathologic... history says so. the maximum that seems rational given the data (that I just survey in 1993 and in 2012) is not to be absolutely sure... I feel irrational to be rejecting LENR as a fact. for the rest it is well explained, and I'm always shocked that so many people ignore the history of science and engineering (engineers being the first to get into reality, because they get a practical advantage seeing the reality, unlike scientists who get a practical advantage following the consensus)... only recently, since the 50s with laser, GPS, were there no real invention obtained from flat theory... Theory was used only to improve existing engineering. even some example of theory driven invention like semiconductors were in fact driven by experiment , and delayed by denial... see the germanium junction ... Capacity of scientist to rewrite the history is so funny. all the bullshit about LENr being impossible according to QM, is simple stinky busllshit for any engineer in semiconductors, in superconductors... that scientist, especially physicist might have said that LENR was impossible in room temp lattice should be taken as a proof of incompetence... I don't know is some physicist said that LENr was breaking thermodynamic laws, hope no, but is yes they should be fired instantly... because any one with a science bachelor know that nuclear reaction don't break TD laws. Even is LENR is finally disproved (which should call for a new physics, alien intervention, international conspiracy) all that have been said and done, like Nature report 42 rejection, should be studied as a pathologic event. This why i'm so supportive of Roland Benabou Groupthink and collective denial theories ( http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf)... because instead of psychiatry, it uses an interpretation as semi-rational psychology. if not, we will have to call psychiatry. just try to find an interpretation of ENEA paper about crystallography impact on LENR effect. add McKubre isothermal calorimetry, nasa&others gas permeation experiments, tritium findings, ENEA report 42... and try to find a coherent explanation for all as artifacts, correlated to cristallography, he4... of course you can invoke fraud, but for know the fraud and conspiracy is clearly proved at MIT, Nature & Science... Occam razor give a clear scenario: LENr is real, complex, and since few months usable... otherwise we should invoke some much more irrational explanations... to find many proof of current pathology, try that forum http://www.lenr-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?29-Scientific-community there are pile of stoky evidence... and for the rest, look at other business and scientific data. many data come from jed, which explain why he is so confident. he just know the data. Me I just got them in 93, and updated in 2012... 2012/12/29 Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: >> >> but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? >>>> >>> >>> When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. >>> >>> So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a >>> willow-the-wisp ... >>> >> >> I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. >> > > Alas, you really aren't sorry. That's just a technique to try to avoid > being called out for incivility. > > >> Cold fusion is far closer to being a practical device than things like >> plasma fusion or HTSC, and -- needless to say -- the Top Quark and the >> Higgs boson will never have any practical use. Yet no journalist would say >> these are "will-o-the-wisp" findings. Everyone knows they are real, even >> though they are of no practical use. >> > > "Far closer"? How close? Next week? Next month? And throwing in other > scientific experiments - no matter what their payoff might or might not be > - is simply setting up a straw man argument ... > >> >> (snip, snip, snip) >> >> It is the height of arrogance, and *gross ignorance of history*, to >> dismiss a laboratory finding because it seems to have no immediate, >> short-term practical use. Frankly, it is incredible to me that a science >> journalist such as Gibbs does not realize this. Have you read *nothing*about >> history?!? >> > > "Gibbs"? Are you replying to me or simply grandstanding to the list? > > I think your passion for cold fusion is getting in the way here. > > There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and > overdue promises. Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is > there a testable theory? I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of > explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested. > >
