You may recall that the USPTO did issue a few patents accidentally to Dr. James Patterson for his innovative bead cathode flow-type cold fusion devices. Patterson had received so many non-cold fusion patents that his patent examiner just pass them along. There has been at least one physics doctorate awarded for cold fusion research at Portland State University, Oregon (Dr. John Dash's student). Recent work from Dennis Letts is very interesting (
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LettsDlaserstimua.pdf) With due respect, this is hardly a forum to establishing validity of the claims of scientists.
Some of the more impressive scientists, IMO are Italian and Russian, but the political issues surrounding establishing credibility of the evidence still dominate. It is a sad fact in this day and age that simple and accepted validation of simple and very important set of experimental results cannot seem to occur. It is easier and more gratifying to most to naysay than to investigate and consider, and suspend judgement, or apply it wisely.
is a sad fact in this day and age that simple and accepted validation of simple and very important set of experimental results cannot seem to occur. It is easier and more gratifying to most to naysay than to investigate and consider, and suspend judgement, or apply it wisely. I will not argue that there is a strong element of cynicism with regard to cold fusion, and that it would make it difficult to release any peer-reviewed papers on the document.
The DOE review is therefore welcome, so long as it's an honest assessment.
Still, if the results are as "simple and important" as you say they are, they should also be overwhelmingly obvious -- and people would be building working models. Where are the working models?