My motives are very clear. I want to stop a silly and useless discussion between believers and deniers.
That is a damaging motive. "useless" has a lost performative. "One man's junk is another man's treasure."
To put that goal into practice requires identifying "believers" and "deniers" and "silly" and "useless." So what does Wyttenbach do to try to "stop" this discussion? Jump in to attack someone he thinks is a "denier." He's a "believer," it occurs to me.
And, yes, he attacks. He does not merely discuss. There have been some very interesting points brought up by THH and in discussion with him. If something remains after discussion, I have, in the past, taken issues to the CMNS list and have had personal discussions with the scientists.
The kind of critique that THH is engaging in is essential to cold fusion coming out of the cold. The kind of response he is getting from Wyttenbach is poisonous.
Jed is just being Jed, THH, I think you understand that. He doesn't have a lot of patience, dealing with skeptics. His attitude is the product of dealing with pseudoskeptics for two decades. Jed does not seem to hold grudges except maybe after long abuse. He will answer questions. I've disagreed strongly with him on many issues and still he is maximally helpful. He has enormous experience.
He has made some comments here that are based on impressions, not necessarily published literature. I have followed and participated in the invitation-only CMNS list since late 2009, I think it was. He's been on it forever. He is at every ICCF, for a long time, I think. (He can correct me). So he has heard Stringham discussed many times, and has met Stringham. And he has heard the opinion of other researchers about Stringham's work.
There is a serious problem in the CMNS community, and it's mentioned, as I recall, by the sociologist Bart Simon, in Undead Science. There is a reluctance to critique the work of others. This is a product of the rejection cascade. Those who have been rejected without cause, whose careful work is rejected without review by journals, based on "this is about that cold fusion nonsense," or there is similar from a reviewer (see my Current Science paper for a recent example), do not want to appear to be like the pseudoskeptics, do not want to appear to reject studies just because they see some problem in them.
I noticed that Kim and Takahashi, both of whom propose BECs in a "room temperature environment," never cite each other. I asked Kim about this at ICCF-18. He immediately rejected the question, "I never talk about the work of others."
This is not scientifically normal. It's a product of a social pathology, a social defensive reaction. Call it "circling the wagons."
Wyttenbach is naive about all this. The results look good to him and if you critique them, he attacks. In fact, THH, you know much more than he about this work, you have personal experience which he doesn't have. Wyttenbach is a Planet Rossi troll, though he is unusual in that Wyttenbach is his real name and he has a PhD. So he deserves a little respect on that basis. But cold fusion, he doesn't know, he is not in communication with the real researchers, and, yes, he is attempting to disrupt the discussion, as he admits above.
It's ironic. That would be attempted FUD, what he accuses you and others of. He will find any error or possible error in what you write and jump on it as if it proves you are an idiot.