[TXnMA]

Like it or not, "heavy hitters" like industrial research labs have the capital backing to remove or minimize many of the variables with which independent "shoestring" researchers must suffer. Just a look at Iwamura's labs' equipment says, "This is solid stuff!"

Frankly, having access to such resources is one of the reasons I chose to do my research in an industrial environment, rather than as an independent. The downside is that all my patents are owned by big corporations... :-(

~~~~~~~~~

Again -- like it or not -- "shoestring" lab setups tend to be cobbled together with whatever is at hand, and, frankly, look "sloppy". In fact, I just saw a video of one italian LENR lab setup with cheap, hand-held (battery powered) meters precariously resting on the platen of a drill press that had been dragged over to do duty as a lab bench.

Not only do such "lashups" hinder viewer confidence because they "look unprofessional", they do tend to produce unreliable results because things are not fixed in place to minimize deviations and instruments usually are not displaying the labels of recent calibrations. Worse, such "jury-rigs" frequently display little attention to safety, as well.

~~~~~~~~

Bottom line: shoddy-looking experiments performed by non-credentialed researchers are expected to produce less credible results. And when you add in one or two hucksters of the Rossi type, (who explain little, communicate poorly -- and [repeatedly] promise [but don't produce] miracles) it is only human to discredit the whole endeavour...

Then, when you add in vocal (but not necessarily erudite) non-professional "champions of the underdog", who belittle critics -- credibility of the subject takes off in a handbasket.

Sorry -- "Dat just de way t'ings is..."

[Wonder Warthog]

"Bottom line: shoddy-looking experiments performed by non-credentialed researchers are expected to produce less credible results. And when you add in one or two hucksters of the Rossi type, (who explain little, communicate poorly -- and [repeatedly] promise [but don't produce] miracles) it is only human to discredit the whole endeavour..."

Any credentialed scientist who thinks like that should be drummed out of the profession. And that is most certainly NOT what I am talking about. The vast majority of the work on LENR has been done by well-qualified researchers at mainstream organizations or who have emerged FROM mainstream organizations.

That the work has been forced to operate on a shoestring is due to political manipulation of the science review process both in government and academia to shut down any and all funding and research. Said manipulators have even interfered in industry funding.

"Then, when you add in vocal (but not necessarily erudite) non-professional "champions of the underdog", who belittle critics -- credibility of the subject takes off in a handbasket."

The pathological skeptics have been criticized by fully qualified professionals in addition to "non-professional "champions of the underdog"".

I suggest again that you read Beaudette's book. He is certainly a "well-qualified professional". So was Eugene Mallove. So was Julian Schwinger. So is Brian Josephson.

[Kevmo]

Sorry — “Dat just de way t’ings is...”
***Yes, for engineering, but not for science. The science results have been solid for years. The engineering is just beginning to scale up. Almost all the criticism of the engineering results has crossed over to anti-science due to ignorance of the subject matter.