Re: Cold fusion

[Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4PI.COM>]

> First of all, just because someone like Stefan Jeglinski says 'a new
> result is only accepted if there is at least a plausibility argument
> advanced to support it' doesn't make it so.  You don't have to look
> any further back than the announcement of high-Tc superconductors to
> see that such is not the case.


It was not my intention to imply that nothing can proceed without at
least a plausibility argument (if not more). My point, admittedly not
well presented, was that experimental results, in order to be
peer-reviewed published, generally require more than a vacuum of
discussion. If nothing else, such results, to be published, at least
require a discussion of how or why current theory might be inadequate
to explain the results, if that appears to be the case.

Rondo further pointed out a crucial requirement in the particular
case of anomalous result: that any published work of this nature,
peer-reviewed or not, provide great and specific detail regarding the
duplication of the measurement, so that everyone can literally rush
to their labs to try it, with more to go on than the proverbial video
tape.

At times there exists an uneasy truce between theory and experiment.
A comparison of the examples of high-Tc superconductors and cold
fusion will probably make for interesting reading some day, in the
annals of social studies.



Stefan Jeglinski