What I am saying here is that you can't just make up arbitrary new rules and apply them to cold fusion. You cannot demand standards never applied to any previous breakthrough in science or technology. Widespread, peer-reviewed, high sigma replication is not just the gold standard of truth in experimental science; it is the *only* standard of truth. You can't just throw that away and substitute whatever pops into your head.
I guess I should say you can set arbitrary new rules, but it is a transparent ploy. You are really saying: "I will find one excuse after another to reject this discovery." It makes no sense to demand "a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device." Science does not work that way. It usually starts with discovery and then progresses to theory, to practical device. (On rare occasions the theory comes first.) Gibbs is putting the cart before the horse. He is not the only one. Many professional scientists who should know better are also saying this. - Jed
