Abd wrote:
Quote(Me:)
In spite of challenges, Joshua has not shown this with actual evidence. He cited the 2004 Doe review as being an example of 17 to 1 convince that the preponderance of the evidence was against cold fusion, when that simply wasn't true.
We all know the importance of cold fusion, if it were real, so the unanimous decision by the DOE panel *not* to allocate money for the field is clear evidence that they considered the preponderance of evidence to be "against" its validity. Indeed, it would be unconscionable to reach such a recommendation if they considered there was even a small chance that it was real.
17 of 18 wrote that the evidence for nuclear reactions in "cold fusion" experiments was not conclusive. For a bold and extraordinary claim like cold fusion, inconclusive evidence in the face of such copious and robust evidence that it should not happen is damning. And that attitude was emphasized by the fact that the DOE has not funded cold fusion research since.
Aside from the DOE panels, I also cited the absence of reports in the most prestigious journals, where it automatically appear if it were taken seriously. And the complaints of Hagelstein and Boss an others that it is difficult to publish in high impact journals, and that there is a stigma associated with the field. All these things are indications of essential dismissal of the field in the mainstream.
We saw in 1989 what it looks like when mainstream scientists just thought LENR might be real. It was huge. And we know that accepted fields of far lessor potential importance (like graphene or nanotubes or superconductivity) generate thousands of papers per year, and show clear measurable progress. Meanwhile cold fusion generates a paper or two per year reporting new experimental claims, and the claims become more modest as the experiments improve.
And I also cited a list of prominent scientists who have expressed skepticism. The best scientists make it their business to be informed about relevant new results, which is why the subject was given such an enthusiastic welcome back in 1989, and why scientists all over the world went to the lab to get in on the revolution. None of them wanted to be left behind. It's probably not a coincidence that all the smartest scientists are skeptical, like Nobel laureates Gell-Mann, Weinberg, Glashow, Lederman, Seaborg, and also distinguished scientists like Close, Lewis, Koonin, Garwin, and Park.
Essentially all scientists working in the energy field (or advocating alternative energy) have rejected cold fusion implicitly. These people include Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox, who advocate hot fusion research, Frank Close, who (like Cox) is passionate about science and society, and Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, who has in fact given cold fusion an audience, and was involved in cold fusion experiments (including helium correlation measurements), but is now working on sub-critical thorium reactors.
Now, I know the response to this is always that these poor laureates don't have the benefit of having seen those all-important web sites and blogs, which hold the secret to utopia. But that's unlikely, because if the evidence were persuasive to even a small fraction of qualified experts, there would be an exponential explosion of interest (like in 1989). Because some scientists *do* see the data, and it is their nature to tell others -- many, many others -- and for a subject like this, to become involved themselves.
And there have been scientists who examined the evidence. Scientists like Ekstrom and Thieberger and Motl and Eriksson and Pomp have all been involved in the ecat debate, and will have looked at those all-important web sites. Ekstrom, e.g., has been active on some Swedish forums, and was involved in an exchange with Krivit, and wrote a critique of the Levi paper, so you can be sure he's seen much of the evidence. Thieberger wrote a rebuttal to the WL theory, so he is likely informed. Other scientists have written recent rebuttals to the WL theory (Cuiche et al and Tennfors), so they're clearly aware of the activity. Garwin was interviewed in 2009, so you can be sure he was made of aware of the claims up to then.
Duncan is an example of someone who was convinced by the evidence, and look at the exposure he's given it, with colloquia at Missouri and even a conference at Missouri, and the establishment of two institutes. Other physicists could not miss this exposure, and yet, the subject fizzles instead of explodes. Missouri had to issue a correction when Duncan claimed sponsorship. They were embarrassed instead of convinced. Much like the physics department at Bologna, which could not have escaped the publicity of Rossi's ecat, but instead of the belief spreading through the department like a virus, they had to issue statements denying formal support.
As you yourself said, scientific literature reflects the view of scientists. Any subject that is not fringe science appears in refereed journals. A subject like cold fusion would appear thousands of times a year if it were taken seriously.
And yet, not counting the special issue, there have been *zero* claims of excess heat in the literature in the last 6 years (according to the Britz bibliography 2010 - 2015), and *zero* papers on the helium correlation in more than 15 years. Even if you include the special issue, it mainly represents reviews of work from before 2010.
