On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
And while you incorrectly deny the claimed replications of polywater, it is quite similar.There were 450 peer-reviewed publications on polywater. Most of those professional scientists turned out to be wrong. There were 200 on N-rays; also all wrong. Cold fusion has more, but polywater had more than N-rays, and if you can get 450 papers on a bogus phenomenon, twice as many is not a big stretch, especially for a phenomenon with so much greater implication, and if an unequivocal debunking doesn't come along. ***Polywater is an interesting episode in science. In trying to verify your claim of 450 peer-reviewed publications, I came across this discourse between you and Jed on Skeptoid. http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/02/26/lenr-a-bright-future-part-1/ 87 Responses to *LENR: A bright future? Part 1* 1. Jed Rothwell <http://lenr-canr.org/> says: February 26, 2013 at 12:25 pm<http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/02/26/lenr-a-bright-future-part-1/#comment-34632> Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in over 200 major laboratories worldwide. I have a collection of 1,300 peer-reviewed journal papers on cold fusion, copied from the libraries at Los Alamos and Georgia Tech, and 2,000 other papers from conference proceedings, national laboratories and other sources. I suggest you review this literature. See: http://lenr-canr.org Reply<http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/02/26/lenr-a-bright-future-part-1/?replytocom=34632#respond> - Joshua Cude says: February 27, 2013 at 3:34 pm<http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/02/26/lenr-a-bright-future-part-1/#comment-34660> That sounds impressive, until you realize that in the last decade or more, the publication rate has slowed to a trickle of only a few peer-reviewed papers per year, and that they are all bad. So bad that none of the CF claims survive peer review in main-stream *nuclear* physics journals — the most relevant field. (If a single result had any credibility, you couldn’t keep it out of Phys Rev or PRL or Science or Nature.) So, here I can see you going off into the weeds. If Polywater is an example of pathological science, then how many of those peer reviewed papers were published AFTER the main realization that chemicals in the cleaning process had affected the glassware used in the experiments? I doubt it's going to be more than a dozen. 20 years after that episode in science, no one was investigating Polywater. If there were a contingent still researching Polywater, then yes, that WOULD be a good example of pathological science. But there is no such contingent. You try the same argumentation approach towards cold fusion papers. LENR is different because there are still anomalous results being found 20 years after the scientific establishment threw it under the bus, because there is no definitive study that proves it to be an artifact. And if it IS an artifact, it will likely be a chemical way to produce energy, so in itself it will still be something worth following. Then you write this: So bad that none of the CF claims survive peer review in main-stream *nuclear* physics journals — the most relevant field. (If a single result had any credibility, you couldn’t keep it out of Phys Rev or PRL or Science or Nature.) ***And for my own little corner of LENR, I know what you write is utterly untrue. I made money by betting that Yoshiaki Arata's results would get replicated in a peer reviewed journal, and one of those journals was Physics Letters A. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37542.html
