On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ah yes. That one slipped my mind. The recombination hypothesis. > > That is even more pathetic and preposterous than Morrison. > It's one thing to say that you don't agree with any of the published challenges to cold fusion. We already know that, or you wouldn't be a true believer. Likewise, skeptics are not convinced by the cold fusion publications, and yet the most common argument to justify its legitimacy is the number of publications. But what you said is that skeptics have not published their objections, when clearly they have. In both the cases in question (and there are others), there was spirited controversy in the literature, and neither side conceded. But in both cases, history has vindicated the skeptics. Because there has not been another refereed paper with excess heat anywhere close to the claims of P&F, and there has not been another refereed paper claiming quantitative heat/helium correlation a la Miles. > This is why I stopped paying attention to people such as Jones and Cude 15 > years ago, and why Cude is on my auto-delete list. > Evidently that auto-delete is working about as well as cold fusion...
