At 04:58 AM 12/30/2012, Moab Moab wrote:
Any lab could take the Reifenschweiler effect and replicate it. If
successful the notion (axiom?) that the radioactive decay rate is
constant would be void. And the notion (axiom?) that chemical
environment cannot influence nuclear reactions would also be void.
What excuses does "science" have for not performing the research
that would disprove the accepted axioms ? My assumption is that the
funding agencies only promote the deepening of the current
understanding out of convenience: "Anomalies are too plentiful to
investigate all" and it would likely "endanger" the validity of
running programs.
I haven't seen any science journalist write a story about this
topic, asking these questions, let alone answering them.
First of all, the point to the Reifenschweiler effect is not actually
a serious controversy. Sometimes an argument is levelled against cold
fusion that, allegedly, the electronic environment (the chemical
environment) cannot affect nuclear reactions. Hoffman skewered that
argument in his 1994 book. There are known counterexamples, they are
merely rare, and generally involve electron capture.
While the R Effect is of interest, it's hard to see why it might be a
research priority. There are many that I'd put in front of it.
For example, Vysotskii reports biological transmutation, using
techniques that would be expected to be definitive. This has
*enormous* practical implications, if confirmed. As far as I know,
nobody has tried.
While we may rue a collective failure, there is nobody specific to
blame it on. The "Anomalies are too plentiful to investigate all" is
probably true to a degree.
What we can and should do is to make sure that if someone does
investigate and does the work reasonably well, that this gets
published *somewhere.* We can work to ensure that journals follow
fair standards on what they report. The argument about "too many
anomalies" would not apply to reports of actual experimental work --
either way.
