On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I cited 5 papers in Science, Nature, and JPC, all from different groups, >> and I excerpted the parts where they make explicit claims to have produced >> polywater. Whatever you recall is wrong. >> > > Yes, there were reports of replications, according to Franks. > Finally, an admission, > They were retracted in the end. > Well, yes, in the case of polywater (and N-rays), it was debunked to everyone's satisfaction. That is much more difficult in some fields like homeopathy and cold fusion that involve health or calorimetry (and world saving potential). It hasn't happened yet in cold fusion, and it may never happen. It doesn't change the fact that until that debunking there were hundreds of papers published on polywater, that were wrong. It happens. It took a decade for polywater, it's been 2 for cold fusion and a century for homeopathy and perpetual motion machines. Polywater was not real before its debunking, and so the absence of debunking does not make cold fusion real. You need positive credible evidence to convince people that cold fusion is real. And there isn't any. > No one has retracted cold fusion claims. More to the point, no one has > found any errors in any major cold fusion claim, whereas after 2 years they > found the artifacts that caused the Polywater effect. > > - Jed > >
