On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote:
Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge > castle on a foundation of sand. > This is my sentiment exactly. Holmlid presents his work as experimental work, but there's such a long chain of tenuous theoretical assumptions woven into the reports that it make it difficult to follow him to his conclusions. There's something pathological about that. That's a pity, because he might actually be observing something anomalous and interesting, whatever it is. I am not surprised that mainstream scientists, from what I can tell, are wary of Holmlid's body of work. We should make an effort to distinguish between good science that has been unfairly neglected and discredited (e.g., some of the LENR studies) from tendentious science that has further work to do to support its conclusions. Eric
