Nowhere did I say it is BS. Indeed, I said:
"A couple of experiments like the ones described here are fine and worthy endeavors, and the experimenters should be encouraged."
Let the experimenters carry on. I'm an experimentalist myself, I like it when people rock the boat.
I'm only objecting to the idea that these initial forays are already worthy of talk about challenging the laws of physics. Reality check...
Oh, yeah. There's also got to be some serious math behind it. Physics and math are fraternal twins -- not identical, but they are so tightly bonded as to be inseparable. There is not one good scientific hypothesis, much less theory or law, that doesn't have a solid mathematical basis. That's some of what takes decades. If there is anything that smacks of "proof" in physics, it is due to the math, not to any number of experiments. Experiments can only disprove.
Consider something as simple as Ohm's Law in electricity. He got it wrong for years due to the internal resistance of his own batteries. The simple truth emerged long after the original experiments and documents, for which he was roundly criticized.
"New" is not a compliment, in physics. It is grounds for healthy and tough skepticism.
The math and the physics frequently follow behind unusual experimental results. If there is anything to bubble/cold fusion or sonoluminescence the physicists and mathmaticians will get around to explaining it if they ever are able to obtain consistent lab results.