On Scientific Amateur site, an article on ITER hot fusion mves to LENR
http://www.scientificamerican.…ch/?nocache=1#postcomment
funny 
when will I be moderated ?
I keep my violent messages from the bin
QuoteDisplay MoreIt seems you did not search the evidences
In his (free) book Charles Beaudette makes a nice summaries of the absence of critic against the mass of evidence, from calorimetry...
get it on Uni Tsinghua site...
"Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.
The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.
The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told."
Fiasco of the century indeed. Like Wright brother plane fabled performance.
search Edmund Storms (Naturwissenschaften) for more resources.
QuoteDisplay MoreIf only it was the only initiative.
ENEA is doing basic science (boring), report for EU, conference in EU parliament.
NASA after basic research in nasa GRC, after SUGA report with Boeing, have a seedling project of LENR plane with Doug wells.
SRI works with Brilloui, who is funded by Sunrise Securities... slow and hard work, but as reality is.
E-cat seems the most ready, supported by Swedish EPRI/DoE : Elforsk, bought by Cherokee fund which have created a technology transfer structure in Tianjin.
In EU soon LENR-Cities, will launch it's ecosystem proposal with a nucleus of few scientists, corps, startup and investors. (I hope more news in November).
why you don't know it ?
simply ask Roubini when he had evidence of subprime crisis and when people considered him seriously?
read Roland Benabou Groupthink theory...
read Thomas Kuhn.
nothing new.
in strategic watch we call that weak signal... it is the weak signal of a M9 earthquake with that is ignored until the tsunami reach the house.
most weak signal or blackswan are simply grouthink, not hidden or unseen.
for the science best to read is the books of Edmund Storms (The science of LENR, the Explanation of LENR) and some of his free article and booklets like "a student guide to cold fusion", or "cold fusion an objective assesment" or naturwissenschaften published article "Status of Cold Fusion 2010"...
They cite many peer reviewed articles... yes there is, and many despite huge opposition.
searching more you can find the list of errors in MIT,Caltech, harwell key papers that were not published.
For history "Excess Heat" by Charles Beaudette is the most documented history book on LENR, with very good analysis of the epistemology fallacies around.
Fire from ice is strangely calm, but mostly descriptive of the first 2 month where all was decided and frozen.
You can then read all other books and find where are the fallacies and errors.
If you find evidence (read Beaudette to see what is an evidence) against my position, I'm waiting for any... I would not like to be wrong.
good reading.
groupthink is solved by information. get informed!
