Formalont-Kopeiken experiment

[Satie]

From this list, I think the point about the importance of refereed papers appearing in top quality journals is clear. The remarkable feature of the Kopeikin affair is that he does have a previous record of respectable publications; a common denominator of many wild claims discussed on the crankweb is that the protagonists often have an unimpressive record of prior scientific publications, and often possesses somewhat dubious scientific credentials. (In particular, engineers are not trained to perform basic scientific research.) Another common denominator of many of these claims is that the protagonist has formed a company, perhaps to seek private investment in his schemes.

Hi!
From what I have read in this thread, it seems to me that there is a difference between Kopeikin and Fomalont claims analysed critically by C. Will and you, and Felber´s, Mayer´s and the others you cite. As others contributors on this thread agree with you, Kopeikin is recognized as a scientist because of previous contributions. But as for the other people, it seems they have serious flaws in their knowledge of the subject they try to cope with.
In the history of Science, there had been several "Pathological Science" events (Irving Langmuir dixit), among them, the Memory of Water, the Polywater affair, the N-Rays, and the Cold Fusion.
The scientists involved are recognized by the mainstream, they published their claims in the very best of the scientific journals, but, as you pointed up, normally they make their claims to the media before they published.
Somehow, this conduct is not as abnormal as one may think. The analysis of this probably is not a matter of discussion in a Physics Forum, but is very interesting.
As for the Cold Fusion, I came to know that there was some recent evaluation, meaning that things are not as clear as they should yet.
I have quoted this part of your answer because that is very similar to Langmuir´s conclusions about the Pathological Science business.