Anyway - I understand Jed has a respect for experts which I applaud - but do not trust. I am not a 21st century "ditch the experts" type. But all expertise comes with its potential limitations and group think.
- LENR advocates can claim rightly that it was possible historically when the world turned against LENR.
- Skeptics now can claim it is possible now (and historically) within the LENR community when a small group of expert advocates examine evidence that is ignored by the vast majority of scientists
Both of those factors stay on the table. Science gets round this by replications that over time become more definite, or by predictive theories that join together a whole set of definite anomalies into a whole. Groupthink is prevented by sheer numbers. For example in AGW there will be barve (non-political) souls who advocate mechanisms for lower-tan-expected an well as higher-than expected climate sensitivity. All these arguments go through the process of many people trying to find new evidence for or against them.
LENR has the problem that it has only a few people trying to find evidence for (compared to what could be) and no people trying to find evidence against. The latter because there is to my knowledge not yet a refutable LENR theory. And that is what puts off many people (including me). I am biassed in favour of LENR, but that lack of refutability makes my skepticism very high. Anyone reading the points about groupthink can see why I (and many others) will be ultra-suspicious of things that cannot be refuted. Note that the unexpected aspects of LENR, which make it frustrating to study, also make it impossible to refute. (Relative lack of replicability, lack of consistent high energy products well above background, lack of definite refutable theory).
LENR comes out of the shadows when various claimed anomalies can be related in a predictive way, or just one definite replicable experiment can be found. TG was looking for the latter. Well funded. If even one of the ICCF24 industrial groups has what they hope it would imply - now - a definite replicable experiment. For example a Clean Planet boiler that generates say 100% more heat out at kW levels than can be expected from the H2 in.
Industrialisation has many hurdles, but such a prototype, would make a definite an replicable experiment. In fact it can be tested as a black box, with multiple groups testing the black box in different ways. Replicable beyond doubt. Such a things, as a prototype, would convince scientists the effect was real and unlock enormous resources.
Those here (except me an maybe a few others who don't post) are all convinced by the fact that no-one (including me) can poke clear holes in the very many reputable positive results on the table. For Jed, and others here, that is enough.
For me - I do not know whether those many positive results are expert groupthink - nor do I have the arrogance to believe I am capable myself of detecting subtle groupthink or unexpected errors. I mean, I can try, I can look at possibilities that others (e.g. Shanahan) advance. The mistake most here make when reading my post is to substitute "I don't trust it because there could possibly be an error" for "I don't trust it because I know there is an error". Even for Rossi, where all here agree he is a liar, no-one can prove he did not have something. I know many here agree that he did (but not as much as he claimed). For the reasons above, a rational skeptic of LENR will be overall negative until a certain "reference experiment" has been replicated and tested to death, or until LENR becomes a refutable theory.
It is not popular here - but that is why for new science you need a refutable theory, or very definite everyone can see it anomalies. That fact is not group think, or hidebound conservatism. It is humility - because we know even groups of experts get things wrong, and the real world throws things at us which are unexpected (but not, eventually, unexplainable). Like UFO sightings, or apparently spot-on premonitions.
Anyway, if you are positive about the ICCF24 commercial stuff you can be positive that a 30 year old logjam will shortly be broken by a reference experiment which will be headline news. Without that it is fine for people here to be positive because they hope. It is worth their while understanding why most serious people will be negative. "I don't understand that" is not the same as "I have proven there is a nuclear reaction of an unexpected type".
THH