I say again. Theory is irrelevant to the scientific validity of cold fusion. The ONLY necessary criterion is replicable data, which despite your assertions, IS available.
"We should see very few mentions of cold fusion compared to hot fusion. Yet on FR, thanks to the nutbag section (you and Kevmo) we see hundreds if not thousands of such postings. It makes conservatives look out of touch with reality and untrustworthy.
Perhaps there are so few mentions of hot fusion because it has been promising results for fifty years and not delivered. Kevmo and I happen to be interest in cold fusion. I'm also interested in and follow hot fusion as well....Bussard's legacy Polywell and Focus Fusion have some very promising possibilities. If you want articles on hot fusion...post'em. I suggest in future you simply ignore threads on cold fusion. We'd all be a lot happier.
Even if it's scientifically valid, it's also scientifically insignificant (not being supported by a valid theory is a big part of that). How good can the data be if an award winner like yourself can't make the case for cold fusion without looking like your hyping flying saucers?
Perhaps there are so few mentions of hot fusion because it has been promising results for fifty years and not delivered. Kevmo and I happen to be interest in cold fusion. I'm also interested in and follow hot fusion as well....Bussard's legacy Polywell and Focus Fusion have some very promising possibilities. If you want articles on hot fusion...post'em.
My point is that the cold fusion postings are grossly disproportionate to their scientific or commercial importance. They also sink to the level of promoting scams and making conservatives look bad, which is why challenging them is more important than making you and Kevmo happy.