polywater artifact were proven... LENr is proven, tritium, he4, many factor are studied.
don' use manipulation techniques, it is shameful of someone working in scientific domain. I work in corp and I know the techniques. LENr in hydrides is LENR in hydrides. it is proven, yen not understood. polywater is something else. papp is something else. I have my opinion, probably similar to yours... and maybe we are wrong... fact will say later... but that have no link with hydrides LENR. LENR in hydride is neither endangered by bad theories that shock me, using uncommon QM or hard to swallow hypothesis... It is experuimental anomalies, proven far below 50sigma, with many kind of anomalies proven, correlation with real-world factors and not with possible artifact source... Many realities have been discovered or supported by crazy people, like Kepler (an astrologist illuminated), Newton (an integrist), Colombus (a man that did not re-read ancien greek who knwos teh size of earth)... This is probably a rule according to Nassim Nicholas taleb, and this explain why I invented nothing, because I'm conservative and rational. I accepted LENr because there is no escape beside going to the the psychiatric hospital and living in a delusion. LENR is a reality, and it is as evident as Duncan, Dominguez, Celani, Gerisher (ex-sckeptics) have seen it. 2013/5/9 Joshua Cude <[email protected]> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> ***Then by your own reasoning, LENR is not pathological science. >> > > Again with the semantics. I don't really care what word you use. To me, > both polywater and cold fusion are almost certainly bogus phenomena, they > followed similar publication trajectories (if on somewhat different time > scales), made essentially no progress after the alleged discovery, and kept > a following long after the mainstream had largely dismissed them. They're > not identical. Cold fusion got far more attention and love at the start, > but polywater got more legitimacy for a longer period (with publications > in Science and Nature etc). Since the polywater debunking has been mostly > accepted, it can be used as an example of how a large number of legitimate > scientists can all make similar blunders, or interpret erratic data in a > similarly bogus way. It makes the bogosity of cold fusion much more > plausible. > > > In my vocabulary, both are examples of pathological science. Your mileage > may vary. > > > (By the way, if you look at another thread here, you'll see that even > polywater has not been completely dismissed by everyone. It's the nature of > pathological science…) > > > > >
