Ludicrous. I've got more than enough experience in practicing science to understand whether or not data is good or bad. Theory has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
"You do not have the slightest clue on what fusion is about——’cold’ ‘hot’ or any other kind."
Again ludicrous. Since I've followed fusion research of all flavors for 45 years, I think I have a reasonable idea of what it's about.
"I suggest you perhaps fit into to R.C. Hoagland model of science."
I have no clue who "R.C. Hoagland" might be. And the approach to science I am advoctating is completely orthodox....that is, experiment confirms the validity of theory (and not the reverse). Apparently, Julian Schwinger was right.....physics HAS forgotten that it is an experimental science.
"Call names all you want. The cold fusion people still have not produced what they said years ago would be available in six months. IF they ever do then we can have a discussion.
LOL, you and "Moonboy" have done nothing BUT call names. Not one shred of actual science in any of your responses. As to the "cold fusion people" not delivering.....neither have the "hot fusion people". And the time interval has been a lot longer.
The hot fusion people have not made the claims that the CFers have. They have steadily built their knowledge base.
Theory has everything to do with how one views data. If one ignores the double slit experiment (for example) then light and its travel becomes very troublesome and confusing. If one does not understand nonlocal interaction then spooky action at a distance leaves one with all sorts of unexplained data.
Go back to your spectroscopy. It is where you are best suited to make evaluations