2012/9/10 Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]> > > I did not say that. I just said how science works and it is working very > well. Science has (almost!) nothing to do with politics and actually it is > surprising immune for political prejudices. And usually when someone gets > caught on political bias (such as Climate Gate) that will lead into global > scandal. Cold fusion research is far more valuable than puny climate > science. >
Is'nt climategate officially a non-event, especially on Wikipedia ? yet it's content is confirmed by the authors, and there was clear manipulation of peer-review process, magazine terrorism, political pressure... Isn't CF a denied scandal already... By the way when I ask my beloved political expert, she said me that after that after her PhD, workin in research prepared her well to work as NGO lobbyist, then PM assistant... Saying that real science is not driven by politics (palace battle, not necessarily left/right battles) is... lie, naiveness or incompetence. > > Miley et al. experiment was not expensive by any means and yet Miley was > unable to produce an apparatus for demonstration purposes that could have > allowed other scientists to replicate helium correlation experiment with > their own instruments. > Just question to the expert, naively I've look for replication of LENR... I'm serious, it is not (only) a rhetorical question. I might me innocent, since my experience of science is mostly corporate and applied. am i wrong when I quote Spawar, and claim it have been replicated after they publish their protocol and even gave kits ? Am I wrong when I quote Iwamura and claim it has bee replicated in china by another japanese motorist (toyota?) Am I wrong when I quote, like Miles in ICCF17, the experiments of CEA Grenoble as a better replication of F&P Am I wrong when quoting the initial loose experiment of NASA GRC in 89, lose because the fousn anomalous heat but don't look further because no neutrons. that have been replicated in China with an US company support, and re-replicated by Nasa GRC in 2008. Am I wrong quoting report 41, and the Science rejection letter, as a proof that peer-review is not working. Was that experiment deserving respect. was it worse than many other Science papers. Am I wrong when I quote National Instruments claiming 10 labs have worked on that subject... I don't know exactly who, where, and I don't know the paper, but as I'm more corporate than longitudinal hair cutter, I can imagine that they checked the details more than Science peer-reviewer, before making a public claim. Was the McKubre isothermal calorimetry lacking of reliability. The protocol seems one of the best I've read. Was is replicated? Can someone give me any credible paper criticizing one of the famous replicated calorimetry with an experiment proving a real artifact in the measures. I assume you all have access to those article so I don't give the references (all is on lenrforum.eu, where you can correct my errors) as i say in my open letter, only one of that pair of replication should have raised huge interest and heavi research... Is it wrong to assuma that a good pair of 5 sigma experiments, without any credible experiments proving it is artifact, is enough to assume that LENR is a reality (non chemical, ie nuclear or alien), until proved else. Maybe I misunderstood science method. Finally observing that all those experiment are ignored, that the scientifc method is not respected, is it right to assume there is a problem of non scientific nature ... I'm convinced to be right with the statements above, yet I know I can be convinced an wrong. Please, if I've made false assumption, correct me. we need to have rock-solid statements to answer the hyper-skeptics.
