btw i should note that the little papers contain that subsection of work that comments on the use of sims to support nuclear heavy metal transmutation that i tried to include in the 'criticisms' section of the cf wiki article and which pcarbonn block deleted i have to plead guilty about putting technical discussions on these pages but that was brought about because pcarbonn wanted to argue every detail i tried to add some discussion was necessary anyway because i assumed the article should be written for an 'average' user not familiar with the field and some of the quoted comments needed some explaining for those readers in agreement with the comments above the article always was too biased towards the 'reality' of cold fusion and i tried to make it less so with the result that i was opposed at every step by pcarbonn the general state of affairs regarding cold fusion today as observed by myself as a worker in the field of the materials claimed to show cf is that the average scientist thinks the issue was setled c with cf being declared 'bad science' or pathological or pseudoscience they don't tend to distinguish between these various terms almost universally including me these scientists when presented with current cf papers or statements say what i thought that was over a very few are aware it is not most of them are somewhat incensed that cf is not dead and at this point only one me has actually studied the field and published conventional explanations the other w b clarke passed away this situation has allowed the cf die hards to experience a resurgence of their view in the popular press since not enough informed scientists are available to stop them which is not a nefarious plot they just do lousy science and rarely make it through a good peer review and they actively suppress mention of the outstanding criticisms of their work thus we have the recent book published via the acs