Recently I've been re-reading known history of science.
I got so horrified, that I report here my finding.
LENR is often rejected because people cannot imagine that scientific can reject clear facts that a kid of five years old could understand, or at least an illiterate women during 19th century.
I have found recently many example.
A recent one is : Prof. Dan Shechtman - 2011 Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry
He was ridiculed by the physicist community for claiming a 5-simetry pseudo-crystal.
Finally he get fired for bringing shame on his team.
then he get Nobel price
EDIT: another article in the guardianImagine yourself making a new scientific discovery and nobody believing you. What would you have done if the most famous double Nobel laureate and head of a big scientific professional society publicly ridiculed you as a quasi-scientist in front of thousands of people in a scientific conference? How would you have behaved if, because of your discovery, the head of your research group fired you for "bringing disgrace" to the team? You would probably have quit university, science, technology and possibly even life.
That's not what Professor Dan Shechtman did. Probably because he is a materials and metals scientist and engineer! He possesses deep scientific conviction, courage and persistence. He discovered quasi-crystals exactly 30 years ago, in 1982, while fast quenching an aluminum and magnesium alloy. This went against the established scientific knowledge which recognized only crystals and amorphous phases. Nobody believed him and furthermore he was ridiculed. A double Nobel laureate, fought against him for a decade and once ridiculed him in front of thousands of people at a scientific conference by saying: "There are no quasi-crystals, there are only quasi-scientists." The head of Shechtman's research group told him to "go back and read the textbook" and then fired him for "bringing disgrace" to the team.
Quite older but much more clear and deadly was the story of Ignaz Semmelweis :
He was assigned to study on an anecdotal yet popular question about infanticide and noticed (more seriously) that there was an awful mother mortality in hospital linked to puerperal fever. He noticed that similar hospital have very different mortality. Even poor mother know that, and preferred to give birth in the street than get in the deadly hospital. He validated that choice by observing that giving birth in the street was less dangerous than in the deadly hospital. After observing that the only difference was the doctors were doing autopsy in the deadly hospital, he proposed that cleaning hands whit chlorinated-like water would avoid mortality. It worked very well.
Since, like LENR is worked but without an accepted theory, he was ignored and blamed.
The most ironical is that he get crazy (nor far from Eugene Mallove), get send to psychiatric asylum, and died of : Puerperal fever !
In between there is the story of the Wright Brothers, discussed on other topics here.
The US Government funded a research program than failed miserably, and retrospectively was obsolete and could never have worked.
The Wright brothers used some engineering method, finding that control was very important, testing the aerodynamic behavior of wings (phenomenological model), and helices. they made demo, but between bad media coverage and what seem to be their despite to stay hidden, nobody believed they fly, until they fly in front of French experts who bought their technology.
Meanwhile it was a subject of jokes in SciAm, and Kelvin publicly claimed it was impossible, despite all evidence that it may be hard, but that impossible was impossible to be sure. Some even used theorems to prove it was impossible.
All of that is no surprise.
Thomas Kuhn, in his works on the structure of scientific revolution have clearly observed that science evolve by jumps called "paradigm change". Normal science when theories work well refuse any anomaly observed. It is factually impossible to convince the mainstream science with experimental result, even if their are undeniable.
The mainstream science use hypocritical selection of data to raise the points on the opposing theories, and refuse to see their own problems. It lead to the idea that the theory are "incomparable" at the mathematical sense, this mean like comparing apple and cars. Each camp use different set of criteria that match their opinion. Apple is tasty against car goes faster, is the kind of sterile battle you find when the two paradigm compete.
The most annoying is that it is a theory battle, not a fact battle. If challenging scientists only have facts, and no theory they are ignored, bullied, black-listed.
Finally when the challenging theory get ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, with no hole, covering all the scope of the previous theory, addressing all weakness, AND giving HUGE ADVANTAGE, then the old-theory get abandoned slowly and the new one catch success.
Notice how, like with Semmelweis, it can be ignoring fact and killing people, just because there is no theory... once there is a theory, that works well, then the usefulness of the theory may be considered...
What Wright brothers may have shown is that if there is an industrial application, that get demonstrated to people with a huge practical interest, then finally the science community surrender to facts.
This is why, sadly I think that the work of MFMP or Hagelstein&Swartz to demonstrate LENR is HOPELESS.
Don't try to convince scientific community. You can convince one, maybe two scientists, but you will simply convince black-sheep formerly black-sheep, or newly labelled black-sheep.
This lead to a quote I send when infuriated about that psychiatric situation :
so, please help Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, LENR-Cities, Nichenergy, Kresenn, LENR-Cars, GEC, ChavaScience, ... so they make an industrial application. And if you are one of they, please collaborate.Scientific community will discover LENR in Wall Street Journal