Both HTSC and CF were discovered before their time both are very different from what was thought in the moments of discovery and both need new tools, concepts and ideas in order to be understood.. For LENR I recommend you to watch very carefully and without prejudices what our colleague Axil says. Peter
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson <markiver...@charter.net>wrote: > >> "There have been more than 60,000 papers published on high-temperature >> superconductive material since its discovery in 1986," said Jak Chakhalian, >> professor of physics at the University of Arkansas. "Unfortunately, as of >> today we have **zero theoretical understanding** of the mechanism behind >> this enigmatic phenomenon. In my mind, the high-temperature >> superconductivity is the most important unsolved mystery of condensed >> matter physics."**** >> >> ** ** >> >> After over 60000 published papers, way more than LENR, and as the expert >> himself says, **** >> >> “we have zero theoretical understanding of the mechanism…”**** >> >> ** ** >> >> <sarcasm ON>**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Obviously they don’t know how to make simple measurements, and must be >> engaged in a massive instance of self-delusion/group-think, or the grandest >> conspiracy to maintain their funding…**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Makes LENR look like small potatoes…**** >> >> ** ** >> >> <sarcasm OFF>**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> > I wonder what your point is. I like to use this example to show that in > fact science embraces new and surprising results, even when there is no > theory to explain them, contrary to the common rationalization from true > believers that cold fusion is rejected because there is no theory. > > Superconductivity itself (low temperature) took decades before a detailed > theory appeared. > > The difference is quality evidence. High temperature superconductivity has > it in spades, whereas it is absent in cold fusion. > > No one rejects cold fusion just because there is no theory. It's rejected > because there is no good evidence for it, and it is contrary to > generalizations that are based on 60 years of copious, robust, and > consistent experimental evidence. > > In fact, it was obvious in 1989 that science was fully prepared to embrace > cold fusion in spite of the lack of a theory (or that it was contrary to > theory). That's why scientists by the thousands suspended their research > and started doing electrolysis of palladium in heavy water, and why Pons > got a standing ovation from thousands of scientists at the ACS meeting, and > why P&F became instant celebrities, and so on. The rejection came later, > when the claims did not stand up to scrutiny. > > No one accuses high Tc superconductivity scientists of errors of > measurement or delusion because the measurements are consistent and > reproducible. This should *add*, not weaken, confidence in the claims of > the same people who do not accept the far more lame results from cold > fusion claimants. After all, cold fusion has much greater potential > benefits for everyone than superconductivity, which is also why it was > greeted with even more enthusiasm in 1989 than High Tc SC was in 1986. > > > > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
