[RightWhale]

It's been a long time and no results. There's a lot of new stuff in science, but this ain't it.

[Diogenesis]

You must be talking about something other than cold fusion.

There have been hundred of good papers and results.

Cold fusion got a bad deal, both by the coverup in 1989 and thereafter.

[JedRothwell]

RightWhale wrote:

"It's been a long time and no results."

Actually, it has been a short time. In research, time is measured in man-hours, and equipment hours. It takes somewhere between two man-months and two man-years to perform a single cold fusion experiment. It usually requires the use of many instruments that cost millions of dollars in the aggregate. Given the number of people who have been working on the field, and the amount of time they have been allowed to work with these expensive instruments, only a little research has been done, yet the results have been astounding and compelling.

Measured in man-hours and research funding, and compared to other research such as plasma fusion, high-temperature superconductors, or the DNA Human Genome project, cold fusion research has lasted a week or so. Yet some cold fusion devices have already produced hundreds of times more energy than any hot fusion experiment on record, albeit much less power.


"There's a lot of new stuff in science, but this ain't it."

The authors of the papers at LENR-CANR disagree. They think that the science is new. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you write a detailed critique of the papers explaining your reasons. A single sentence here on this forum does not constitute a valid response to the literature in my opinion. If your critique is well written I would be happy to add it to the LENR-CANR Library even if I disagree with it.

- Jed