maye be they could change their position because a board of physicist did not publish a Fatwa claiming tha HTSC was pseudo-science and crook job, and because it was easier to reproduce...
the pattern of thing that are accepted are qite clear : - fact should be so huge that it is stupid to deny - ther should be at least an embryon of theory that let this as possible maybe the specificity of LENR is the Fatwa of MIT, linked to previous enthusiasm of the press... maybe also materia science is more open to the unknown tha particle physics, too focused on theory. this is another axis to dig... I'm from that culture (lower level), and sure having a definitive opinion in material science is best way to be stupid. In particle physics, you can play with strings and symmetry, but not with more day-to-day practices (twobody, BO...) you can escape from the top, not the bottom. You raise good point that the pattern of scientific denial of anomalies as described by Kuhn, is clear at the beginning, but LENR seems to be out of usual rules afterward... It reach the denial of Wegener, Semmelweis, germanium P/N spurious junction... but not like 5symetry, and even of plane... long denial mean something specific... LENR have many caracteristics that make it hard to swallow : - really unexplanable today (yet not forbidden, but for many theory-centered people non explanation is impossible to exist) - uncontrolled until recently (like germanium P/N) - potentially really important impact on real life (energy!, not like SC) - really no impact until recently - huge impact in bigscience/planned budget (hot fusion), in fashion research (green) - dirty technology (chemistry and other cooking jobs), facing pure brain science (physics). It remind me semmelweis. - media deliria and public insults (I feel it is the biggest fact - maybe something to remember not to do). 2013/5/29 Joshua Cude <[email protected]> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>wrote: > >> that point merit some correction >> >> http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?815-Celani-discovery-of-High-Temp-Superconduction-rejected<http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?815-Celani-discovery-of-High-Temp-Superconduction-rejected&highlight=celani+superconduction> >> >> Celani found HTSC as an anomaly, and as Kuhn explain, anomalies are >> rejected as long as possible... >> mainstream accept HTSC when is was so undeniable ... and by the way it is >> not so shocking, not so far from the usual paradigm... >> >> " >> >> - (1983-1987). After the experience with silicon detectors >> (sensitivity of about 1e-/3.6eV energy released), I decided to study >> innovative detectors having an equivalent sensitivity thousand times >> larger. So I started to study Superconducting Tunnel Junctions (Ni-Pb; >> T=4.2K), in collaboration with Salerno University, having an intrinsic >> energy gap of only few meV. Found some quite intriguing results using >> thick >> junctions on 1985. One of these were contaminated (by chance) from several >> other elements and showed behaviour similar to superconductivity even at >> temperature as large as 77K (LN2). It was stated a multi-disciplinary >> Commission in order to clarify the origin of such signals. *Unfortunately >> the results were rejected, a-priori, because in disagreement with the BCS >> model/theory* (i.e. max temperature of superconductivity stated at >> 32K). One year later Bednorz and Muller (from IBM, Zurich), independently >> (and starting from different points of view), found similar results in >> Cuprate Oxides mixed with rare-hearts and got Nobel Prize." >> >> >> It is funny as the myth of teleological and materialist science is denied >> by evidences. >> >> >> >> > It demonstrates how quickly the mainstream accepts unexpected results when > the evidence is good. In one year, they got the Nobel prize for results > that had not theoretical support. Kind of shoots down the claim that cold > fusion is rejected because of the absence of theoretical support. In 24 > years, the evidence for cold fusion has not improved. Only the number of > claims from people looking for investment has increased. > >
