No, it does NOT. Neither of those notions has anything whatsover to do with the facts in the article. Those facts either correctly express how nature works, or they don't. The "influentuality" of the paper is sociology...not science.
And as far as useful devices, you "hot fusion" boys have been working on THAT for a lot longer than 19 years, have soaked up TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in funding, and have not yet produced a device with a COP greater than one, much less a "useful device".
"The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and promoting the disreputable science."
And with this statement, you have talked yourself in a complete circle and back to your starting point. Let me refresh your memory:
You made the above statement previously quite a while ago. I then provided references to the scientific papers to be found at LENR/CANR. You refused to look at the data because "it would be too much work".
I then provided reference to Storms book, which provides a much condensed and more easily read and understood summary of the state of LENR science. You refused to look at the data.
You then said, "pick one paper and defend it", which I have done. And you now refuse to look at that paper and address the facts therein. And then repeat once again that the burden of proof is "on me".
That, dear boy, is intellectual dishonesty of argument. You are a disgrace to whatever institution granted your degree or degrees.
What are the facts in the article? Your proportion of words not from the article to words from the article is something like 5000 to 0. How can you know the facts without credibly reproducing the experiment?
And as far as useful devices, you "hot fusion" boys have been working on THAT for a lot longer than 19 years, have soaked up TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in funding, and have not yet produced a device with a COP greater than one, much less a "useful device".
The NIF is a useful device. Fusion bombs are useful devices. High school students have reproduced hot fusion without question. In contrast, cold fusion is represented by an Italian con artist and elderly scientists making claims they can't back up.
I then provided reference to Storms book, which provides a much condensed and more easily read and understood summary of the state of LENR science. You refused to look at the data.
The elderly Storm's book is $100. It seems to me he's found another way to get money from gullible cold fusion suckers. He's probably doing better than Rossi and won't have to go to jail either.
You then said, "pick one paper and defend it", which I have done.
Really, how many quotes have you made from the article? All you did was provide a link and call me names.
And you now refuse to look at that paper and address the facts therein.
Once again, how can the facts be known without credibly reproducing the experiment? We do know for a fact that in 19 years it hasn't led to a useful device. It should have, considering all the claims of the con artists and fan boys saying it's going to solve all our energy problems.