Independent repeatability with an open flow of data is not what Rossi has provided. Nice try though.
Still waiting for the deliverables he promised for March 2012
I mentioned Rossi not at all. I was referring to LANR as a technology area. "Nice try, though".
"And by the by Feynman would have laughed at you... He is no doubt spinning in his grave"
LOL, and he'd probably whack YOU "upside the head". I'm advocating science, you're advocating pseudoscience.
"Atkinson and Houtermans and later Gamow and Teller used the Gamow factor to derive the rate at which nuclear reactions would proceed at the high temperatures believed to exist in the interiors of stars. The Gamow factor was needed in order to estimate how often two nuclei with the same sign of electrical charge would get close enough together to fuse and thereby generate energy according to Einstein’s relation between excess mass and energy release.”
Note bolding. In LANR, the situation is totally different. "Nice try, though". Try actually quoting experimental data...not theory.
I'll ask the simple question once again.....where are the LANR experiments incorrectly done and why is the data from same wrong. This is THE ONLY THING that counts. You can quote Gamow's THEORIES (who, like Feynmann, would likely join in with the head-slap) all you like.
"I am not a huckster...You have misstated my comments completely."
IMO, you are. I "mis-stated" nothing.
"What I have suggested is that the folks making grand claims of low temp low pressure fusion have yet to produce data was can be independently verified (including such things as reproducibility of the actual set up)."
Sorry, bubba....wrong. See Arata, Ahearn, and McKubre. But you're "read every report on cold fusion".......SUUURRRREE you have.
"There have been continuous claims of “deliverables” on various dates which have come and gone."
Irrelevant to the question of the scientific validity of LANR.
"And again I suggest simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That has not been resented. Will it ever be? who knows time will tell."
You can "suggest" all you like. The statement is bullshit. Real science requires no such thing. ONE well-documented study validating an experiment is sufficient. But every statement you have made proves you are NOT in any way familiar with the research in LANR, and especially the recent work.