One day, I hope you explain why this matters so much to you that you persist as you do? What motivates you to such an extent, that you dedicate so much of your time to refuting LENR?
Not refuting LENR, but searching truth, which eventually is the same.
At first it was only Rossi's early years at the UOB, which was understandable, but now you are taking on FP's, and that makes me curious.
As already said (1), between the Ecat affair and the F&P activity there is a strong analogy and many points of contact.
One of the most interesting was provided by Huw Price in his two essays on cold fusion (2-3), in which he seems to draw a line connecting the two most famous CF/LENR initiatives (2):
"The latter [LENR] was popularised in 1989 by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who claimed to have found evidence that such processes could take place in palladium loaded with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). A few other physicists, including the late Sergio Focardi at Bologna, claimed similar effects with nickel and ordinary hydrogen. But most were highly skeptical, and the field subsequently gained, as Wikipedia puts it, ‘a reputation as pathological science’."
He refutes the definition of "pathological science" and urge people to look at the evidence (2):
"Again, there’s a sociological explanation why few people are willing to look at the evidence. They put their reputations at risk by doing so. Cold fusion is tainted, and the taint is contagious – anyone seen to take it seriously risks contamination. So the subject is stuck in a place that is largely inaccessible to reason – a reputation trap, we might call it. People outside the trap won’t go near it, for fear of falling in."
I looked at the available evidences and found wet steam or liquid water instead of dry steam (in the Ecat tests) and foam instead of boiling liquid (in the F&P experiments). It would seem the real contagious attitude in the CF field is to mislead people.
Now is the turn of HP to look more carefully at the evidences. His bet is going to expire and he should inform his Aeon readers about its outcome, publishing a new essay to complete his CF trilogy. As a philosopher of physics, he is in the right position to provide a socio-psychological explanation why some glass tubes full of foam have been able to produce tons of paper along three decades, with a cost of hundreds of millions of public and private money.
I hope that he has been duly informed about this discussion, so that he can write his piece being aware of the "foam issue".
Not complaining, as we all here have passions that engulf us with little reason. However, my guess is you do have a reason.
Well, we all have plenty of serious reasons. Just to remain on the same track, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge welcomes the visitors with this sentence:
We are dedicated to the study and mitigation of risks that could lead to human extinction or civilisational collapse
Working together to safeguard humanity
We are an interdisciplinary research centre within the University of Cambridge who study existential risks, develop collaborative strategies to reduce them, and foster a global community of academics, technologists and policy-makers working to safeguard humanity. Our research focuses on biological risks, environmental risks, risks from artificial intelligence, and how to manage extreme technological risk in general.
Well, the author of (2) and (3) is one of its three co-founders (4).