The paper has two major flaws. First, it confuses cold fusion with hot fusion. These are two entirely different and independent nuclear processes having different nuclear products and conditions required to cause the reactions. This confusion shows that the authors know nothing about what is now known about the cold fusion process. Second, they do not cite the sources of known information.
Yes!!! Exactly. Well said.
Maybe the authors do know, but the Nature editors do not? I do not know how much editorial control editors have at Nature. It varies from one journal to the other.
But what does this mean? Does this mean that people supported by Google do not know how to do their home work. Or does this mean a paper about LENR can not be published in Nature unless it is seriously flawed? What does such a flawed paper say about the approach Google is taking toward cold fusion?
Again, I agree 100%. I have no idea which of these statements applies.
That is why I'm not hopeful about what Google is doing.
Me neither, but perhaps things are better than they seem. The paper is uninformative. Maybe they know more than they let on. Or, maybe the paper was written a year ago and they subsequently made progress. It takes a long time to publish a paper in some journals.