Do any skeptics, or even non-believers, feel there is enough evidence to continue on with LENR research?
Wyttenbach: It's the words (believers) you use that show your intentions: We are not LENR believers. We know that the phenomenon exists and how it can be replicated / produced.
I, personally, feel there is enough evidence to continue quite a few of the "positive but v complex" experiments. For example the SRI results, Alan's lovely gammas, etc. In all these cases there is an initial exciting positive result with clear possibility of instrumenting it better, double-checking, etc.
I myself itch to have this done by others less lazy than me, and find the results fascinating.
I'd be very excited were the results to be positive. What would than mean? With all of these strong indications you would expect with a bit of effort the result could be made more bomb-proof. That then would mean a replication closing holes in the original, adding more experimental insight to reduce the possibility of unconsidered systematic errors, which would be very strong. And this could be iterated with more strength each time.
I have not seen this yet. But, in both Alan's case and SRI given the nature of the results if they are real I'd expect that. So I live in (some) hope. But not much, since I would have said the same thing 5 years ago or 10 years ago.
I also find it somewhat frustrating and unscientific that with all these exciting results, the positives get reported, the detailed examination and (presumably) negative attempts to tighten up don't.
And, I find it 100% unscientific to give credence to remarks like that from Wyttenbach about people with special knowledge who "know" things but have not openly disclosed enough for anyone outside the magic circle to have a similar view. Joining such magic circles is a dangerous activity because of the probability of group think, and an annoying thing because without the robust third party examination that comes from full disclosure you can never know your ideas are real.