Warthog is too funny. He defines an acceptable journal as one that prints what he wants. I know plenty of ‘acceptable’ journals that won’t print all sorts of papers. Sometimes it is because the focus is different than what the journal focusses on. Sometimes it is because perpetual motion machines are thought to be in violation of fundamental laws of physics. That’s the way it goes.
At one point CF had the potential to be presented but since the results in the 1990s everyone has steered clear. Every now and then it is reviewed again only to come to the same conclusion (eg the Naval RResearch review in 2004-— or there abouts)-— CF represents a field that has touchy experiements with inconsistent history of repeatability.
Methinks you have the case exactly backwards. I look at ALL the data, from whatever source, and judge it both as to source and the quality of the data itself. You, OTOH, choose to do precisely what you accuse me of, giving sole credence to journals that refuse to publish good-quality papers just because the subject is "not in the mainstream".
Note that the journals you choose CENSORED a Nobel-laureate theoretical physicist (Julian Schwinger) because he wanted to publish theoretical works on CF. I would think that a scientist of Schwinger's capabilities would be worth hearing out, no matter what the area of science or technology.
"At one point CF had the potential to be presented but since the results in the 1990s everyone has steered clear. Every now and then it is reviewed again only to come to the same conclusion (eg the Naval Research review in 2004-— or there abouts)-— CF represents a field that has touchy experiments with inconsistent history of repeatability.
Up to 2004, you're right, because at that point virtually all CF attempts focused on electrochemical loading. The electrochemical loading method is fraught with major difficulties (as a chemist, I probably understand that better than you do.....I "hate" electrochemistry....virtually all its techniques are "touchy...with...inconsistent....repeatability). But that changed with the onset of gas loading approaches, first (but not really...see below) by Arata in Japan, and later by others, including several groups here in the US.
As I have studied this, one of the major missed opportunities was the very, very simple/cheap experiments done at NASA's Glenn Research Center....in 1989! Due to the cyclonic shit-storm generated by the hot physics community, that got shelved and went unreported. Thanks to Rossi (real or fake as he may be), that information has now gotten out..and been reproduced (at least by the folks at Glenn (they repeated the test recently and got the same results).
THAT particular experiment can be replicated with totally off-the-shelf and relatively inexpensive hardware.
Now maybe you know of actual experiments that disprove the NASA approach, but I have found none.