that point merit some correction http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?815-Celani-discovery-of-High-Temp-Superconduction-rejected<http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?815-Celani-discovery-of-High-Temp-Superconduction-rejected&highlight=celani+superconduction>
Celani found HTSC as an anomaly, and as Kuhn explain, anomalies are rejected as long as possible... mainstream accept HTSC when is was so undeniable ... and by the way it is not so shocking, not so far from the usual paradigm... " - (1983-1987). After the experience with silicon detectors (sensitivity of about 1e-/3.6eV energy released), I decided to study innovative detectors having an equivalent sensitivity thousand times larger. So I started to study Superconducting Tunnel Junctions (Ni-Pb; T=4.2K), in collaboration with Salerno University, having an intrinsic energy gap of only few meV. Found some quite intriguing results using thick junctions on 1985. One of these were contaminated (by chance) from several other elements and showed behaviour similar to superconductivity even at temperature as large as 77K (LN2). It was stated a multi-disciplinary Commission in order to clarify the origin of such signals. *Unfortunately the results were rejected, a-priori, because in disagreement with the BCS model/theory* (i.e. max temperature of superconductivity stated at 32K). One year later Bednorz and Muller (from IBM, Zurich), independently (and starting from different points of view), found similar results in Cuprate Oxides mixed with rare-hearts and got Nobel Prize." It is funny as the myth of teleological and materialist science is denied by evidences. 2013/5/29 Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Both HTSC and CF were discovered before their time both >> are very different from what was thought in the moments >> of discovery and both need new tools, concepts and ideas >> in order to be understood.. >> > > The validity of the HTSC evidence says nothing about the validity of the > cold fusion evidence though. > > HTSC shows that mainstream science is perfectly willing to accept > experimental results without a theory to explain them. Therefore the > rejection by the same mainstream of cold fusion-- a far more desirable > phenomenon -- should be given *more* credence, not less. > > >>
