Yes, a major difference was that LENR was discovered when there was an established, entrenched group which stood to lose out of their public feeding trough if it were true. That was not the case with HTSC. No one lost their funding or ruined their career when they investigated HTSC.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > the difference is that it needed no instrument to be observed > (levitation), and that physicist have replicated it, and not only chemist... > > The tragedy of LENr is that is chemistry experiment, indirectly measured > through invisible characteristic needing confidence in instruments and > computation (balance), and that physicist thinks it is their business > because it is nuclear. > > since they say it is not nuclear, they should let the chemist decide. > > most chemist decided that their funding and career did not deserve to be > ruined for that and they kept silent (because they were not enough > incompetent and crook to support the deliria of > taubes/Huizenga/Parks/Lewis/hansen/Morrison and their parrots)... except > few irrational=honest chemist ruined their career ands lost their funding. > > > 2014-06-15 6:45 GMT+02:00 Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>: > > And yet, there is still no established HTSC theory. Using the reasoning >> that has been applied to LENR... therefore, HTSC must not exist. >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> http://www.superconductors.org/News.htm >>> >>> I am please to be the first to post that Superconductors.ORG reports >>> high Tc has been advanced to 77 Celsius (170F, 350K) >>> >> >> >
