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.
The facts in the article speak for themselves. I don't need to provide quotes. Your laziness is not my problem.
Any person calling themselves a scientist, when presented with a reference, must read the entire article. That's called "intellectually honest scientific debate". But you're apparently incapable of such debate.
"How can you know the facts without credibly reproducing the experiment?
By reading the article, checking its included references, and comparing what it says about methodology with my fifty years of practicing science. The article itself is already a replication of previous work showing the same phenomena. The linked article is simply a more extensive/careful replication of past experiments done by others.
"The NIF is a useful device. Fusion bombs are useful devices. High school students have reproduced hot fusion without question.
None of which are practical devices for producing usable power, which was your original point. But, as usual, you change the subject.
"In contrast, cold fusion is represented by an Italian con artist and elderly scientists making claims they can't back up."
LOL. More intellectual dishonesty. LENR is "represented" by dozens to hundreds of scientists. Yeah, a lot of the guys are old....since when does that invalidate experimental work.
"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."
Shorter summaries of what Storms writes in his book containing many of the same facts are available on-line, for FREE, and have been linked to in these threads.
"Really, how many quotes have you made from the article? All you did was provide a link and call me names.
Providing the link is all that any REPUTABLE, HONEST scientist would need. And yes, I "call you names" because your behavior justifies it.
And in fact you don't even deserve THAT much attention. I've proved my point.....your intellectual dishonesty and unwillingness to engage in an honest debate of the science.
So henceforth, you will get exactly the attention you deserve.....which is none.
Coefficient of performance (COP) is a measure for heat pumps. Someone with your claimed credentials should know better.