Reply To: Iconography

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

Peer review becomes even more critical after the Cold Fusion Fiasco. ‘Til then, there’s no reason we can’t benefit from FUD instead of getting whacked on the head by it.

“What if this grabs headlines the day before the Primaries? If not by then, what if it happens before the election?”

Peer review applies to getting articles approved by the little collegial clubs that run science journals. The problem with Cold Fusion was that no one could replicate the results, which were subtle and hard-to-measure excess heat production in test tubes storing hydrogen in titanium/palladium molecular vacuoles, and possible hard-to-detect stray neutrons here and there.

Like I said, a prototype cranking out power, with designs available for anyone who wants to duplicate the structure and do the same, is a whole different story, and the peers can blow smoke out their posterior orifices if they don’t like it.
Please, don’t get me started on scientific peer cliques. 😆 What I have in mind is greasing the skids so that several universities can’t wait to throw the switch. Not just on a test rig like Baby, but one that actually has enough foils to exceed breakeven. This would be a coup for the schools of physics and engineering, not to mention the pols and business people who had the balls to make it ready to happen. It would also bring deployment at least a year closer, possibly two. After all, no guts, no Glory.