On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If Polywater is an example of pathological science, then how many of > those peer reviewed papers were published AFTER the main realization that > chemicals in the cleaning process had affected the glassware used in the > experiments? I doubt it's going to be more than a dozen. 20 years after > that episode in science, no one was investigating Polywater. If there were > a contingent still researching Polywater, then yes, that WOULD be a good > example of pathological science. > You're right. Polywater is different from cold fusion in that it was debunked to everyone's satisfaction. That may or may not happen in cold fusion, but it hasn't happened yet. Not all field are the same, but they can still be similar. For a decade, people chased polywater in vain. So far it's been 2 decades for cold fusion. It's been a century for homeopathy and perpetual motion and dowsing.... If cold fusion is ever debunked to everyone's satisfaction, or when the principals disappear by attrition, research in cold fusion will stop too. Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now. What's left now are only the mentally feeble and the scammers. > But there is no such contingent. > > You try the same argumentation approach towards cold fusion papers. > > LENR is different because there are still anomalous results being found 20 > years after the scientific establishment threw it under the bus, because > there is no definitive study that proves it to be an artifact. And if it > IS an artifact, it will likely be a chemical way to produce energy, so in > itself it will still be something worth following. > Then you write this: > So bad that none of the CF claims survive peer review in main-stream > *nuclear* physics journals — the most relevant field. (If a single result > had any credibility, you couldn’t keep it out of Phys Rev or PRL or Science > or Nature.) > ***And for my own little corner of LENR, I know what you write is utterly > untrue. I made money by betting that Yoshiaki Arata's results would get > replicated in a peer reviewed journal, and one of those journals was > Physics Letters A. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg37542.html >
