QuoteBut physicists turned their back on Fleischmann and Pons way too early. F&P where right in their excess heat measurements, energies far beyond possible chemical artifacts. But physicists are just like people in general: don't like changes, especially from "outsiders".The problem in 1989 and which possibly still exists, is that physicists thinks there are no possibilities of "mysterious" nuclear reactions that would not produce expected gamma rays. The complete herecy of 1989 was that two chemists dared to claim some new unthinkable discovery within the area of physics. Like some outsiders trying to learn the dear physicists something completely new. Well, It took only 40 days for the physicists to shoot them down. Would not help If they had a new theory to explain it. Actually, It would make it only worse, since it would be inconcievable that some non physicists where to both discover a new phenomenon and have the theory to explain it. All physicists knew and still know that with nuclear reactions and fusion follows gamma radiation, and none where measured. So it had to be a pure chemical effect or measurement errors. But nature is full of surprises , and we have not reached the end of science..yet..After this event Cold Fusion was put in same category as Ufology, so only the boldest scientists would touch the subject, on the risk of their career.
This polemic sounds good but I do not see evidence for it and when considered objectively it seems unlikely for all the obvious reasons expounded better by others (Joshua) than by me.
QuoteAnyhow: there are dusins of LENR theories, but lack of funding and interest in the Scientific community holds back the progress of the field. And no theory will initially be able to explain all phenomena, enough with one testable that can predict some outcome as a start.
I think you have not been paying attention to Popper, as summarised by me above.To be a hypothesis (a candidate theory) we must get testable new predictions - not fitting to old known data which is all too easy to do by adding cherry-picked parameters or assumptions.I know only a few such, and none such that have been successful - e.g. their predictions, when tested, have panned out.
Therefore I await you putting forward such an LENR hypothesis, with the new predictions it made, and the subsequent tests that gave it credibility as a plausible new theory.If you do not find this, then I think your statement above is incorrect.