My question is not about Lewis. It is about the apparent rejection of basic scientific protocol by those who admitted Lewis's critique for publication in supposedly "scientific" journals.
It is not an arcane bit of scientific philosophy that full disclosure of experimental method is required by scientific protocol. At the point that P&F held their press conference, and even subsequent to the early working paper, the P&F phenomenon had not been admitted to the domain of science. The P&F phenomenon did not enter the domain of scientific discourse until a year later. It was proper for Nature to reject the papers debunking Lewis's critique because Lewis's critique was not legitimately published in the first place. The proper response by the editors of Nature should have been to issue an erratum withdrawing Lewis's critique from publication. Of course, when Oriani's experimental results, with full disclosure of their methods, was approved by Natures peer reviewers, the rejection by Nature was outrageously unscientific -- albeit not criminal. Criminality, however, is properly imputed to those with public trust and authority who allows these shenanigans to influence public policy. At the time Lewis's those who took Lewis seriously. On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:07 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > 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? >
