4 ms·

Well, very few published papers are. Reproduction of others' work is usually a foundational preliminary to original research.

• andrewcooke 17y ago
  We're talking about cold fusion, right? Maybe things have changed, but I was under the impression that it was not yet possible to reliably reproduce the effects. In such a context, reproduction would be quite noteworthy.
  • Estragon 17y ago
    You're assuming that a replication of Pons and Fleischmann's original work is necessary for cold fusion to be an interesting research subject.
    • andrewcooke 17y ago
      No, I'm not. As I've said elsewhere, I can understand why this is interesting to researchers. But to be interesting to me (and, I suspect, at least some others) there needs to be some reliably repeatable demonstration of "new physics". I don't see any evidence for that here. There are lots of people investigating lots of exciting ideas out there. That's great. But there's a big difference between "wouldn't it be cool if..." and "hey, I can show that...". When I saw the conference details, I hoped cold fusion was at the "show that" phase. Disappointingly, it continues to not be. Hence my post.