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.
LOL. You're ridiculous. Nothing I have posted is even remotely like "hyping flying saucers". And if CF pans out as the latest data indicates, it will be the biggest scientific discovery since fire. But I guess you haven't bothered to look at Celani's talk at CERN, have you.
"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.
EVERYTHING that I have posted refers back to the best available data, INCLUDING the items about Rossi. Your only purpose is to stifle ANY positive discussion on LANR. Note that this thread has nothing to do with Rossi, and certainly can't be taken as "promoting scams".
And I fail to see how pointing people to where they can look at the facts themselves can possibly "make conservatives look bad".
"We also haven't read all the papers on the Loch Ness monster or flying saucers. If an award winner like yourself can't make the case for cold fusion based on the papers, why should we waste our time?
I've referred you to LENR-CANR repeatedly. I have no idea which sources you might have access to, or which journal(s) you accept as having the best peer-review.
"By peer you mean members of the cold fusion mutual admiration society. And sites like LENR-CANR were set up to publish all the cold fusion hype that respectable scientific journals won't publish. It's only one step up from Rossi's fake "peer reviewed" journal.
Which statement tells me that you have never examined the contents of the LENR-CANR library section. There are plenty of peer-reviewed journals cited there. They are specifically identified as such. And LENR-CANR "also" contains negative papers.
I'll make a guess....the only journals you and "Nifster" will accept as "adequate" are those that refuse to accept CF papers. Talk about "Catch-22".