Unfortunately, his reputation most likely carried the day. When someone of authority and assumed great knowledge states that cold fusion is a measurement error and they can prove it, many people who are watching on the sidelines will not want to waste their time.
I just wish that these so called experts would realize that they have limited capabilities, especially in this particular case, and keep their mouths shut. If Lewis did this knowing that P&F actually had discovered a working effect to protect hot fusion research, then he should have been drummed out of science. In my opinion there is no place for such idiocy. If he actually thought that the work of P&F was defective, then he can be forgiven. I would expect an apology to be issued by a dedicated scientist if he realizes that his work has harmed the world. Dave -----Original Message----- From: James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 11:56 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Chuck Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com> wrote: I remember that hit piece in Science from Lewis very well. It was disturbing and really put the whole of Cold Fusion into doubt. Nathan Lewis, published a really good analysis on calorimetry of electrolysis and the physics thermal systems, but he never replicated the P&F effect, for example the "Heat after death" effect Jed Rothwell talks about. At the time, it put into doubt whether the P&F effect was even real. After the Lewis article, CF was kind of dead in the main-stream of science. As it would happen, I was designing my own calorimeter that I never used. Lewis just blew it for me. How could Lewis's critique be taken seriously when he didn't even have the calorimeter design actually used by P&F?
