User talk:Kirk shanahan/Archives/2009/December

Literature question

Have there been any peer-reviewed publications questioning cold fusion subsequent to yours? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent to 2006, no, I am not aware of any technical antiCF papers. W. B. Clarke, et al published several papers in the 2002-3 time frame, which was after my 1st publication, but Brian Clarke passed away unexpectedly also during that time frame. Kowalski had a Comment regarding the SPAWAR publication, but he isn't an antiCFers, and his comment was highly focused, so it doesn't really qualify (but it might if you're generous). I have submitted a Comment on Kitamura's paper, and they apparently will be publishing a Response. Based on an email I sent today, both should be moving to peer review shortly. I also am working on another paper for submision soon I hope. The mainstream believes cold fusion was stopped in c. 1994, and does not consider any effort on the subject worthwhile. I am an anomaly in that respect. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your description places the editorial board of Physics Letters A and several European journals out of the mainstream. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's excellent! Keep on thinking I am God, able to alter the status of mainline journals with the wave of my wand (or pen, or keyboard (I did. I actually waved my keyboard over the screen when I wrote the comment above.)). No "99", Phys. Lett A and Eur. Phys. J. are still 'mainline' or 'mainstream' journals. The fact that some pseudoscience slipped in does not change their status. I think I am safe in saying that every 'scientific fiasco' has been published at one point.

No, 'mainline' and 'mainstream' are terms used to describe 'the average scientist'. Today, the average scientist when asked any question about 'cold fusion', typically says; "What? I thought that issue was settled years ago." and "Wasn't that stuff determined to be garbage science." (or the equivalent). Note the period in that last 'quote'. The statement is written like a question, but the period makes it a statement, and that's exactly how it is spoken. You might think of the scientist slightly raising one eyebrow while saying it. In other words, the mainline scientist, when challenged on this issue, immediately assumes you (the questioner) are 'one of them', i.e. a psuedoscientist. How do I know this you might ask? Because that's exactly what has happened to me on many occassions. In those situations, I have to educate the person as to the validity of the idea that CFers have documented many anomalies, but that I believe they have misexplained them all because of a bias towards the nuclear solution.

In any case, the reason there are no other antiCF publications out there is just that, everyone believes the issue was settled back in '92. They have moved on. As I have explained many times previously, I didn't get into metal hydrides until 1995, and when I found my collegues didn't have good explanations for why CF was 'junk', I went hunting. I can now say I know why CF is junk, and the prime reason is that CF resarchers do not look at anything but nuclear explanations. Unfortunately, non-nuclear explanations are much more rational and reasonable. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)