I've been thinking about the SURGES in LENRF site hits. They might originate from colleges.

In several universities and colleges cold fusion is cited as an example of " poor " science.

1. 1989 is a long enough time ago and educationalist are comfortable with fossilised topics.

2, The sociopoliticalethical issues are accessible for students/educationalists alike

3. A human story is so much more debatable than an electrochemical formula.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/cold_fusion_01

"Homework: "Using the internet (search engine) research another controversy in science and compare it with the cold fusion story.

Why was it a controversy? How was Methodology involved? Define one word in the article that you did not know the definition

– and had to look up in a dictionary."

Perhaps there is opportunity for LENRF in the market for ideas?

The EAR #0624436 grant for the science education website started 2006

https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0624436

Start DateJune 1, 2006
End Date:	May 31, 2011 (Estimated)
Awarded Amount to Date:	$521,943.00

Twenty-seven teachers from the Pikes Peak region of Colorado took part in a 2-semester-long evaluation study of the Understanding Science (US) project tools and approaches in the 2009–2010 school year. Of the original 27 teachers who volunteered to take part in the evaluation study (18 middle and 9 high school), 25 completed two-thirds of the required evaluation benchmarks, while 23 teachers completed all of the requirements. Teachers used the US materials with 1,287 students (804 middle school and 483 high school). "

I suspect that the cold fusion pages followed the evolution pages after 2010 ...perhaps around 2012

Tney may need an update .to their simplified narrative

... perhaps they have some of that $521,943.00 left over?

The narrative is being rewritten in the laboratory now..but older educationalists are uncomfortable with unfossilised narratives.