4 ms·

> I'm not aware of any scientist that 'opposes LENR' Say what? From the article: Ever since 1989, in fact, the whole subject has been largely off-limits in m

> I'm not aware of any scientist that 'opposes LENR' Say what? From the article: Ever since 1989, in fact, the whole subject has been largely off-limits in mainstream scientific circles. Authors who do put their head above the parapet are ignored or rebuked. Most recently, Lundin and Lidgren reported that they had submitted their paper to the journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, but that the editors declined to have it reviewed; and that even the non-reviewed preprint archive, arxiv.org, refused to accept it. This is not just about Rossi by any means; he showed up relatively recently. This goes all the way back to Pons and Fleischmann. I wish I could remember the name of the physicist whose career was destroyed for no more than being publicly seen to entertain the possibility that cold fusion could be real. Read up on this a little bit -- you'll see that pretty much the entire physics establishment opposes LENR. > being oversold makes a field toxic Yes, and there certainly has been some overselling. Even if P&F's work had been replicated, one could legitimately criticize their handling of the situation (it appears that the University of Utah, their employer, had a hand in this). But can one seriously suggest that because some researchers made premature announcements and oversold what they had actually accomplished, we should punish them by denying humanity what would be an almost miraculous invention, if it could be made to work? That makes just no sense at all, but that's pretty much how the physics establishment reacted.

jacquesm 11y ago
> Most recently, Lundin and Lidgren reported that they had submitted their paper to the journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, but that the editors declined to have it reviewed; and that even the non-reviewed preprint archive, arxiv.org, refused to accept it. Since when is a journal under obligation to review or accept a publication? They're free to publish it on their own website. > I wish I could remember the name of the physicist whose career was destroyed for no more than being publicly seen to entertain the possibility that cold fusion could be real. Well, history will vindicate him if it is real. That's the way these things go and cold fusion is not an exception to this. Any kind of very much off the beaten path scientific idea that turns out to be true after all has gone the same route. There are even cases of Nobel prizes being awarded many years after the original discovery. One thing I do know about cold fusion: nobody to date has been able to demonstrate beyond doubt the production of a net energy surplus over an extended period. And since evidence would be very easy to provide we don't need to rely on rumors for this, just show the device and we'll call it the breakthrough that it is. And I'm sure that even nature would be more than happy to publish the write-up in that case.

jacquesm 11y ago

> Most recently, Lundin and Lidgren reported that they had submitted their paper to the journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, but that the editors declined to have it reviewed; and that even the non-reviewed preprint archive, arxiv.org, refused to accept it. Since when is a journal under obligation to review or accept a publication? They're free to publish it on their own website. > I wish I could remember the name of the physicist whose career was destroyed for no more than being publicly seen to entertain the possibility that cold fusion could be real. Well, history will vindicate him if it is real. That's the way these things go and cold fusion is not an exception to this. Any kind of very much off the beaten path scientific idea that turns out to be true after all has gone the same route. There are even cases of Nobel prizes being awarded many years after the original discovery. One thing I do know about cold fusion: nobody to date has been able to demonstrate beyond doubt the production of a net energy surplus over an extended period. And since evidence would be very easy to provide we don't need to rely on rumors for this, just show the device and we'll call it the breakthrough that it is. And I'm sure that even nature would be more than happy to publish the write-up in that case.