It seems that you simply cannot accept the peer reviewed papers, like in Current science, Naturwissenschaften.
What is funny is that you interpret the paper of McKubre who explains that the consensus you repeat is based on 2 failed experiments, done by now proven incompetent teamps, who had not a single chance to observe LENR given their incompetence, and the lack of knowledge on LENR triggering condition at that time, as "it is just an evidence that it could be not working".
yes, you are right, MIT and caltech simply proved nothing... but they used their influence to launch insults, attacks, defunding, reviewing blocking....
It seems you did not understand how unethical was the Baltimore conference? (read Beaudette)
do you support this kind of practice ? or do you judge it is simply unacceptable ?
What McKubre write is simply that all was decided by Baltimore...
The experiments came later, in the 1990s, and it was to late to remove the bias.
You cite bias, and it is clear when good papers are rejected by nature not even being reviewed (Report 41 Denino), when positively reviewed papers are rejected (Oriani), or wne erroneous papers that break consensus in calorimetry and electrochemistry (lewis, hansen, morrison) are nor retracted by Nature or Science, despite evidence.
This is a mechanism that is known, and I cannot convince you because it seems you never have integrated Semmelweiss, Wegener, nor you are competent enough to understand that MIT and Caltech experiment were simply broke and tweaked by the bias you denounce.
This is fact, and I see you don't accept those facts.
This is not a conspiracy. You state a conspiracy theory when you say that Fleischmann and Pons, or Bockris, who were among the best electrochemist on the planet at that time were incompetent.
The consensus in media support a fraud and a conspiracy theory when you support the theory of Taubes on Bockris tritium experiment. That is not an accusation, but a simple fact. This theory is not possible. Storms have explained how adding tritium could have given the results), and is even based on a cherry picked statistic (of DoE visit correlated with results), that was exposed by texas AM statistic department.
There is no conspiracy as all is public, and simply there is exactly all you denounce.
there is fraud, visible, there is bias, visible, there is bad science, visible...
There is non reviewed evidences facing reviewed evidences, published or at least available on internet.
did you simply read any of the documents I cite, honestly ?
did you support the 4 , the only 4 , papers that tried to criticize F&P, and the answers that debunk those theories ?
Now for industrial claims, even if data are more circumstantial, it seems you think you are more intelligent than Elforsk, Nasa, Boeing, Airbus, Tohoku University, Tom darden, ... that they are less informed than you are.... may I laugh?
Maybe I don't master English language, but I have read more evidences than you, it is clear. Don't feel shy, I watch the domain since 2012 and I have now a good network, from business to science.
I cannot convince those who refuse to read seriously, the papers and their references, the critics, and the critics of the critics. SciAm accepted the reality of Wright brothers plane, not only many years after they flight in public, with written certified testimony and journalist report, but they accepted it 1 years after it was sold to French Army. Before that they were laughing at "Wright Aeroplane and it's fabled performance".
There is a proverb who says: you cannot wake up someone who just pretend to sleep.
It takes time.
Let us talk of bias, you love bias, so I give you bias and misconduct, fraud, and incompetence... nothing different from what you blame the hundreds of LENR scientists . Because, you are right, science is not clean. this is not supporting a conspiracy to say there is some bias, some funding bias, some ideological bias, as in all human activity.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedg.pdf#page=138 page 138, about teh errors in MIT calorimetry
The vision of the editor of MIT paper no less,
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
about how Science refused to correct Caltech paper
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
The comparison of caltech,MIT, F&P and Longchampt calorimetry that sure you did not read
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/confer...s-Examples-of-Isoperibolic-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf
The paper of Oriani that was rejected, after a positive peer review...
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf
no weakness found, just get away.
The letter of rejection of Science to ENEA DeNinno paper on Heat and He4 correlation (there is a review paper in current science on that subject, one of the best evidence)
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchieste/documenti/letteraSCIENCE001.pdf
and the report itself
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf
the claim that bias is the only source of positive results LENR research is a wildcard argument, based on no evidence.
You can consider that review article that try to answer your question , it it real :
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcoldfusiond.pdf
There is a mass of results, peer reviewed, some even in renowned journals (not the top wone who as I show have a coherent policy not even to consider anything around LENR).
Just see page 6
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf#page=6
the list of reviewed paper... i know you love reviewed papers... in journal of analythical electrochemistry, in naturwissenschaften...
and recently in CurrentScience, reviewed by physicist, who never worked in LENR .
If you doubt on the quality of the review, it was done by non LENR physicist too.
You argument fall down.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/CurrentScience.pdf
Regarding the peer review process adopted for the Special Issue, each paper was reviewed by two reviewers : One from the International CMNS community and one by an Indian Academician who was unfamiliar with LENR, in some cases they were even known skeptics!
Some Indian reviewers gave the authors a very tough time as Abd has commented. If some of the papers became long it was because the Indian reviewers wanted completeness.
The records of the reviewers comments and the authors responses thereon have all been compiled and submitted by us (the guest editors) to the Editorial office of Current Science for archival!
Infinite Energy Magazine is carrying an interview with the Editor on some of these aspects.
anyway who care, there is already investors.
you refuse to consider those evidence, as all other scientific evidences.
Just don't try to prevent others to considers the mass of available evidence, complex, but converging.
I don't support a conspiracy theory where thousands of evil and incompetent scientists fraud by pleasure, inventing experiments and results. I just support classical evolution of science where a phenomenon that have no theory is rejected by those who don't practice it, from their armchair, producing no paper, just interviews...
You are right, there is bad science, bias, frauds, incompetence. I just says that it is concentrate on a dozen of influential people, who convinced the crowd of lazy believers by tweaks, insults, politics, money, but not by science.
People who don't know what to think (good!), should simply take a month to gather evidences.
What I give already is only a beginning, and most interesting data is in the bibliography and citations.
I don't want to convince, I want people to consider the tons of available but complex evidences, and a biased mind cannot understand in 30seconds.
It took me 2 month.
Hope this helps people to make their own opinion, based on evidences.
Good reading.
