They don't disagree on the experimental result but on the reality. some think that cold fusion is impossible, so experimental result are bad. point. this is the Huizenga Doctrine.
the history of cold fusion make it clear that NO EVIDENCE IS ACCEPTABLE! when you have 153 peer reviewed papers, measurement above 50 sigma, thousands time the background for tritium, no existing critica paper that critical review (I don't count Nature and Science review as meaningful, they are true deniers), when the opponents are caught defrauding, cherry picking, doing bad calorimetry and are not vilified, there is no science... to be clear waiting for such people to admit reality is like waiting for the pope to admit Jesus did not resurrect. they will NEVER NEVER NEVER admit reality. forget what people told about scientists, it is fairy tales for students. It is a very human job, that is conducted by stubborn people who desperately believe in their ideas... some have the capacity to admit errors because they are stubborn on others details, like on experimental protocol... Kuhn explains well the power of sticking to a paradigm as the way to explore it up to the limits. I don't think the comment reported by Franck is about peer reviewers opposing the paper. I think that people arround the papers, who did not read it thoroughly with a participant beside their shoulder, with some checking done by themselves (probably they re tested), are simply concluding that the test is bad because it is positive, following the Huizenga Doctrine. the Taubes Doctrine is that anything proving LENR that is not covered by Huizenga Doctrine (cannot be an error), is a fraud, and that thus no evidence is required, and defrauding the evidence is just science vulgarization. anyway who cares, businessmen are ready 2014-08-20 21:22 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>: > Alain, > It doesn't sound like good news to me. I don't see how they can disagree > much about the experimental results. > I didn't think they were supposed to pontificate about how it (LENR) > worked. If they do, of course there will be disagreement. > > The story was they were provided with three samples and only used one for > the whole test. If it didn't work, or even didn't work well, one would > think they would try another of the samples. > I also can't figure Rossi keeping on about how he doesn't know if the > results will be negative. Surely, if anyone knows, he must. > >
