At 12:59 AM 10/28/2010, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
The video is pretty good considering that it was done with no money
and no help. It is
a fine job I believe. Lane is a quick study and I am learning
more. In the end it does not matter because
cold fusion has died with the cancellation of the ACS meeting.
Why sweat the details, no one is watching any more.
Has the ACS cancelled a meeting? Is this a confusion over the APS
cancelling the publication of the volume of papers from the APS
session on cold fusion etc.?
As I see the field of cold fusion, it's almost over, all but the
shouting. The skeptical position is dead, as far as publication in
journals is concerned, but positive publication continues at a pace
that is roughly four times that of the nadir in 2004-2005.
I'm sure there will be some last-ditch efforts to head this off. But
realize that the best skeptical position published recently has been
that of Kirk Shanahan, as a letter commenting on the Marwan/Krivit
review published last year in Journal of Environmental Monitoring.
The editors allowed the scientists whose work had been reviewed by
Marwan and Krivit to respond, and they tore Shanahan's flimsy
arguments to shreds. And then Shanahan is complaining that the
editors would not allow him a second response.
And why should they? They printed the first response, my guess,
because it was the best they got.
Over the last five years, there have been 17 positive reviews of cold
fusion, printed under peer review, in mainstream peer-reviewed
journals or other publications as listed by Dieter Britz, excluding
one journal with a series of reviews that is dedicated to "neglected science."
There have been no negative reviews in that period.
When does it become obvious that something shifted, somewhere around 2004-2005?
Cold fusion has not died, and it will not die because skeptics manage
to win some battle here and there. They can, by this time, only
succeed in environments where they can operate behind the scenes.
They may be able to negatively impact funding for some time. They may
be able to successfully oppose the publication of a collection of
papers in the field, as probably happened with the APS volume. But
that's of little importance. They are trying to stick their fingers
in holes in the dike, when, in fact, the damn thing is collapsing.
