What I have studied are the published papers on experimental studies of LENR. Not all of them, but more than sufficient to understand that LENR is real science, done by real scientists. Which is more than you have done.
FYI, I put no credence in BLP, either in theory or fact. I ran across them originally quite a few years back, and, although at the time, it appeared they might have something, I simply forgot about them until this latest episode popped up. My own judgment is that they have had more than sufficient time to bring something to market (kind of like the "hot fusion" boys, who have had even more), and have not done so.
You have done nothing on these thread but try to shout down, shut out, and prevent discussion. Those are NOT the actions of a legitimate practitioner of science. You claim to be a retired scientist, but I don't think the act of retiring frees you from the practice of scientific ethics, of which you have given no indication, either of understanding or practice.
Your actions have been those of a propagandist.
OTOH, over all these threads, "I" have simply said "look at the data", and told folks where they can find data.
My PhD is in chemistry, and I have dedicated my entire career to methods and devices to "make better measurements", which, not "theory" is the fundamental basis of science. I know more than enough to judge the quality of the experiments run and whether or not the experimental methodologies were valid and correctly applied.
I certainly claim no deep knowledge of nuclear physics, but none are needed to make a qualified judgment of the experiments performed.
Nonsense. I have pointed out the theoretical shortcomings and criminal pasts of "LENR" hoaxers. This isn't shouting down anyone.
Those are NOT the actions of a legitimate practitioner of science.
Scientists have an obligation to point out to interested laymen and other scientists not necessarily schooled in a particular field when they are being scammed. It is unethical to do otherwise. If an astronomer were alerted to some astrological claim which purports to be "science" on FR, or a psychologist saw claims that ESP has been scientifically validated, their ethical obligation is to point out that this is nonsense, and to say why. In addition to doing that, I have also repeatedly provided citations from other scientists, just in case you don't believe me. This is the Internet. Anyone can claim to have a PhD. I don't personally believe you have one, and I don't personally believe that Kevmo has ever even taken a science course, let alone passed one. But credentials are irrelevant for the reason given; the quality of argument is all that matters here, and other than sloganeering you've never produced any.
On this thread, I have told you and Charlatan #1 why this BLP's claims are ridiculous. Look up-thread. I'll repeat it and elaborate: The eigenstates of hydrogenic wavefunctions have been known for 90 years. The solutions are EXACT. There are no lower energy eigenstates. If you disbelieve the Schroedinger equation, which is perfectly adequate for all but the finest structure of hydrogen-like atoms, you can use the Dirac equation, which adjusts the result very marginally. Neither of them allows for the existence of lower energy eigenstates than principle quantum number n=0, and neither of them have energy eigenvalues that could produce energies anywhere near those claimed by BLP's "theoretical" mechanism. If you want to argue that those equations for some reason don't apply, you have an even bigger problem, because even if they're wrong, THEY CAN'T BE WRONG BY MUCH: the Uncertainty Principle places an absolute lower bound on the average radius of a hydrogen wavefunction, and it is many orders of magnitude larger what BLP's "theory" claims.
Oh, but since you're an experimentalist, AND "experiment trumps theory," try this on for size: the manufacturer of the spectroscopy equipment BLP uses has been saying for years that their equipment cannot measure the wavelengths claimed by this "experimentalist."
Contrary to the nonsense you constantly post, that "extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary proof," the fact is that if you want to challenge literally thousands of experiments and a whole edifice of scientific thought which is interconnected with additional supporting evidence, experimental and theoretical, then YES, you must provide extraordinary proof of your claims, part of which includes at least a plausibility argument for why earlier experimenters results supports a theory which yours doesn't.
Example: Researchers at CERN claim to have seen neutrinos moving at greater than light speed. Does anyone currently believe them? NO! Why not? Not because there is any bizarre conspiracy against CERN and its researchers, but because even an experiment that's been verified as well as their result has, is simply NOT going to be accepted until it's duplicated in more than one place -- AND -- and this is a key feature that you don't seem to understand -- we must also have a mechanism which explains this experimental result in light of the fact that so much science, so many experiments by competent researchers over so many years and so many interconnected results say it CANNOT happen.
So ... whatever the reason for superluminal neutrinos -- IF THEY EXIST -- we must know not only why this result is seen, but why it does not -- [and cannot] -- overturn so many other, previous experiments which at least appear under existing explanation to say it shouldn't happen.
Instead, you and Charlatan #1 jump around like a bunch of aborigines in war paint around a campfire screaming "Experiment Trumps Theory! Experiment Trumps Theory!" NO. IT DOESN'T. Not when that theory explains countless other experiments which themselves imply that the experiment you're touting IS WRONG. Good theories and good experiments support each other. The "absolute trumping" of theory is only valid science in very young fields when there is no previous experimental work held together by mutually supporting explanations. Your idea of "science" is troublingly immature and naïve for someone who claims to have a PhD. [And one of the reasons I don't believe you do.]
And please don't quote Feynman to me. Feynman was not a child, and the oversimplification he felt necessary to explain complex scientific principles and the scientific method for public consumption doesn't mean he believed a few people diddling with electrodes should overturn quantum electrodynamics.
Do you seriously believe that if an experimenter came up with a result that seemed to contradict the basics of atomic theory that every scientist in the world -- including all but a handful of experimentalists would throw up their hands and say, "Well experiment trumps theory. And, after all, he only really required ordinary proof to overturn everything, according to Wonder Warthog, so ... OK. And even though he has nothing even so much as a sketch of how this works, we've got to erase all the blackboards... just because."
No.
I have read the theoretical papers of LENR advocates. AND THEY ARE NONSENSE. We have literally hundreds of thousands of experimental results which say that low energy nuclear reactions CAN NOT HAPPEN, and we have a number of theories which support each other, from basic classical nuclear understanding of 100+ years ago, through non-relativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and quantum field theory to say why this is so. These theories all come at this issue from different perspectives, and they all reinforce each other, and they explain the countless experiments. And they say that overcoming the Coulomb barrier does not, under any circumstances we understand, happen at low energies. And ... other experiments verify them, and don't validate LENR.
And until YOU have a workable theory which explains why we should overturn countless well established experiments by competent researchers, no one gives a sh!t about some silly, badly reported, very problematically duplicated heat anomalies in a handful of cases. And simply rerunning those experiments doesn't make them any more convincing, nor supply any explanation for why we should believe them.
In addition to which, your problem is compounded by the fact that BLP, Rossi, and many other cold fusion "researchers" are frauds and conmen. Rossi is a convicted tax cheat and conman.
To this Kevmo replies that everybody cheats on their taxes, including thousands of FReepers. Sorry, BUT I DON'T cheat on my taxes, and painting your fellow conservatives as criminals to defend one hoaxer isn't going to get you any credibility or friends on this site. Kevmo also claims that Rossi never defrauded anyone but himself -- WRONG. I've put up a link to the court record against Rossi. Charlatan #1's response: Oh that's from a biased source. No, it isn't. It's from the Italian Court in which he was convicted and sentenced, reproduced in full on a web site he simply doesn't like because it has fully documented all of Rossi's crimes.
Frankly, I'll put my scientific ethics up against yours any time of the day, pal. People who post crap and then call everyone else names because they don't have the science on their side are NOT going to get a pass from me. 99% of what Kevmo breathlessly posts -- and you support -- is complete drivel. My only ethical lapse is that I only weigh in a small fraction of the time to refute this bilge. I should be on every thread denouncing you two scam artists, but frankly, your constant name calling and ad hominem attacks, and the fact that in all of these years you haven't yet produced a single clue as to how this stuff supposedly works, or why it can't be turned into practical energy are self-refuting, and I don't even need to bother. When I do, it's for the benefit of educable but naïve FReepers who think these press releases are "science." They aren't.
Finally, I'll tell you this: I myself was not a high energy physicist, and in fact most practicing physicists aren't. They suck most of the air out of the room in terms of money, public awareness, and public interest, and given the fact that almost all actually useful science being done in physics is being done by condensed matter physicists and materials researchers, and not by cosmologists and particle guys, I actually have no particular use for them, knew very few of them when I was in the life, and don't feel any compulsion to defend them ... but ... Contrary to the lies told by faux fusion fanbois, hot fusion researchers have NEVER claimed they were on the brink of producing a controlled fusion. They always said this is a very remote endeavor. They have been honest about that. I did go to seminars, and heard them say it on every single occasion where they represented the state of their work, including some of the most famous people in the world.
But even if they had, their failures DO NOT justify the con-artists plying their trade in the cold fusion business.