On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: > > but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? >>> >> >> When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. >> >> So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a >> willow-the-wisp ... >> > > I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. > Alas, you really aren't sorry. That's just a technique to try to avoid being called out for incivility. > Cold fusion is far closer to being a practical device than things like > plasma fusion or HTSC, and -- needless to say -- the Top Quark and the > Higgs boson will never have any practical use. Yet no journalist would say > these are "will-o-the-wisp" findings. Everyone knows they are real, even > though they are of no practical use. > "Far closer"? How close? Next week? Next month? And throwing in other scientific experiments - no matter what their payoff might or might not be - is simply setting up a straw man argument ... > > (snip, snip, snip) > > It is the height of arrogance, and *gross ignorance of history*, to > dismiss a laboratory finding because it seems to have no immediate, > short-term practical use. Frankly, it is incredible to me that a science > journalist such as Gibbs does not realize this. Have you read *nothing*about > history?!? > "Gibbs"? Are you replying to me or simply grandstanding to the list? I think your passion for cold fusion is getting in the way here. There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and overdue promises. Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested.
