Allen Dick wrote:

> I don't think a true trial is necessary to prove the obvious.  More subtle
> effects, or understanding the underlying principles more clearly may require
> scientific approaches and controlled trials in order to refine understand of
> what is happening and how such effects can be best used in other situations.
snip
> There is no arguing with their success, but many questions remain unanswered, or
> at least unproven to the sceptical among us.

Generally a scientist would try to first replicate what was done. It may
seem obvious, but there are enough experiments that cannot be duplicated
in other labs but were touted as successes by the proponents. Cold
fusion is probably one of the best known. There have been more than a
few on this list.

If it cannot be replicated, then trying to find out what might be
happening is not worth the time or expense.

There is a lot of junk science out there, so I understand the reaction
that bringing up science can generate.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME