<p><pre><code>  A &#x27;real scientific&#x27; article wouldn&#x27;t do anything to
  convince people - it would be picked apart and doubted
</code></pre>
A&#x2F;K&#x2F;A the scientific process, which is why experimental scientists publishing results with 5-sigma confidence intervals also painstakingly account for all of the different ways they could have screwed up, e.g., the recent gravitational waves paper, the Higgs boson discovery, etc.  It goes the other way, like those guys who thought they might have discovered FTL neutrinos (but it turned out to be errors in either the apparatus or their analysis, I can&#x27;t remember which).<p>And there being a real-world production with industrial and customer installations doesn&#x27;t guarantee the absence of snake oil.  How many millions of dollars were squandered on the ADE 651?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;ADE_651" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;ADE_651</a>