>From the preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review. "Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, *even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary*."
The theory tested was the standard interpretation of physics which states that it should be impossible for nuclear reactions to occur in systems such as those created by P&F. This interpretation is testable. It was tested. It was falsified. Dr. Norman Ramsey was co-chair of the DoE's cold fusion review panel. He was was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. He was also the only Nobel laureate. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble to the DoE panel's report as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: > James, > > Which theory is that? > > [mg] > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: >> >>> Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable >>> theory? >>> >> >> Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and >> falsified by experiment. >> >> That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry. >> >> >
