Joshua Cude to vortex-l show details 2:21 PM (7 hours ago) Part 2B
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: ..... > There are now about 17 reviews of cold fusion (not primary papers, there are many more of them) that have been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals since 2005. ..... In part, Joshua Cude replied: ..... By my count last December, from Britz's CF bibliography, since 2004, there have been maybe 20 - 25 peer-reviewed papers reasonably closely related to the subject (excluding reviews, comments, and papers on hydrinos). Of those, 5 can be considered negative, and maybe 9 are theory papers. I identified 9 experimental claims of positive results in 6 years, or less than 2 per year. And of those, 5 are from the Mosier-Boss group on dubious claim of tracks in CR-39, and two or three are on sub-watt level gas-loading. So I'd say there are fewer positive, experimental, primary papers than reviews. That's a sign of a dying field. Those reviews? Obituaries! > There are no negative reviews. People don't write reviews of dying fields. What would be the point? > At this point, there is a massive imbalance, and one would think that, say, > Nature, or Science, would realize that the other journals are eating their > lunch. Which journals? NW, with an impact factor of 2 and change? I'm sure they're sweating. > Surely if a negative review can be written, of all this research and review > that is appearing under peer review, it would be! Why? The believers have demonstrated stubborn resistance to reason. And the vast majority of mainstream science already ignores it. Pouring salt on the wounds of CF advocates would be seen as not only a waste of time, but unnecessarily impolite. ..... Rich Murray: Again, Joshua Cude describes with simple facts the actual present rate of positive peer-reviewed cold fusions claims in recent years -- "... less than 2 per year."
