[Wonder Warthog]

"It is obvious that we didn't go to the same schools of science. Rossi is a FRAUD, so are most of those in this field. There is a REASON it is not considered science by APS or any other noteworthy electrochemistry, physics or other scientific community. Again, really. Believe what you want. I'm hiring 5 folks to work in the electrochemistry world for energy research this week. Well, technically, I made an offer to a PhD today and we are interviewing over the next week or so for another, a MS level and two technicians, but go ahead and say what ever make you feel good.

Standard skeptopath cant. EVERY cold fusion critic I've encountered on these threads absolutely refuses to make an argument based on the published data.

And THANK GOD we didn't go to "the same schools of science". Here's a clue. The "argument from data" trumps both the "argument from authority" and the "argument from theory". ALL the science requires is replicated data. No more, no less.

"The fuel of choice has been “heavy water”, which is non-radioactive and can be recovered from ocean saltwater. Four ounces of heavy water today costs about $50 and contains enough energy when converted to electricity to supply the average American with electricity for a lifetime. The commercial efforts are focused on plain fresh water, some with a hydrogen gas flow, now.

"Really? So the average household spends about $3,000 annually on energy (car and home/condo). We have what, 100,000,000 to 125,000,000 households? Let's just talk about one so as not to be completely ridiculous. So a household “lifetime” is around for 50 years. That means $150,000 can be generated from $50 worth of material (today's dollars) ROI of 3000:1. Of course this is the “preferred” fuel, instead we use fresh water and H2? WHY???

Again....WTF are you going on about. There are certainly still LENR researchers who are pursuing deuterium-based systems. A tiny minority is focusing on Ni-H. If it works, who cares WHAT they use.

"NOTHING HAS A 3000:1 ROI!!!!! I am in the energy game and if we get 50:1 we are RICH RICH RICH!!!! But instead of using the very best components to prove the greatest discovery since electricity, they are using something else and the preferred stock is $50 a pop with a 3000:1 ROI? BEEEEEEE EEEEEESSSSSS!

More manager-think BS. LOOK AT THE DATA. Even if LENR is a long shot, don't you think investing even 1% of what has been spent on "hot fusion" to actually check it out would be worth it.

The CURRENT success rate in LENR experiments is 75% (it started out around 15%). And the most recent information shows even higher replication successes.

Your information (and that of your consultants) is simply out of date. Hell, even Robert Park and Richard Garwin have modified their positions on LENR, at least somewhat.

Drag your "scientist hat" out from under the rest of the debris in your junk closet, put it on, and LOOK AT THE DATA.

[fuente]

Maybe we think your data is junk as is your continuous whining. If the data is so solid, the world (and scientific community) would be doing back flips, but it is not. You posted Rossi’s data over and over, but it wasn't real data or useful data. It was absolute junk. He was a fraud and the defense of him is plain silliness that completely undermines your credibility. The very way this silly article is written smacks of junk science,
“Your humble correspondent.” My global warming believer colleagues always said the same thing, “the data this..., the data that..., the data says.... Yet they were completely unwilling to look at all of the data. The data seems interesting in this case, but I'm not sure that I buy it. The fact that others cannot reproduce it causes me great pause. If others cannot reproduce it, it ain't science! I definitely don't believe the hype and junk science approach to this potential technology. It is not a scientific or political conspiracy against this technology. It is science that is against this technology. Want to impress me? Can the hype and build a usable prototype that can light up a neighborhood and do so in an open and scientific way that can actually be verified by independent observers. Again, extraordinary claims MUST be backed by extraordinary evidence if you want it to be considered science, it needs to be repeatable.