Unpublished and unverified claims that mean nothing. ***Sure they do, but they aren't worth as much as published and 'verified'. But does that mean your 450 published & peer reviewed papers on Polywater are worth more than a visit to a sitting professor at MIT with a 6 month ongoing experiment? No.
Hagelstein's work was published and there are some who visited him for verification. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/05/hagelstein-public-invited-to-see-continuing-cold-fusion-demonstration-at-mit/ He even held a class and featured the experiment *www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6zYdy5D4oY* But what he didn't do is get it published in a physics-level peer reviewed journal, at least not yet. The situation for LENR is similar to what the Wright brothers experienced between 1903-1908, when they OBVIOUSLY had made huge advances in aeronautics but their article was rejected by Scientific American because such progress was deemed impossible. The Wright brothers had to publish their results in a beekeepers journal. View shared post <https://www.google.com/#> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> ***As I stated, Hagelstein's experiment was over 6 MONTHS. Rossi claims >> he ran an industrial hot water heater for 2 YEARS. The time factor is the >> one which has grown. >> > > Unpublished and unverified claims that mean nothing. Maybe you're not > familiar with the claims from the 90s. Check Roulette et al (from the P&F > Toyota lab fame) or Piantelli for claims of tens or even a hundred watts > for months at a time. Piantelli's were even published; Roulette's weren't. > Hagelstein's claims are chickenfeed in comparison. > > > >> I can see why researchers would want to scale down the reaction when they >> study it, so they can come to an understanding of it. >> >> >> > It's much easier to understand when the effect stands out more, not less. > > >
