Someone wrote:
> Don't be silly. The field is already dead. No one cares anymore. The >> credit of which you speak has already been handed out to Koonin and Lewis >> and Huizenga and others. >> > Lewis' experiment was positive. He showed that cold fusion probably does exist. This was some of the best early proof. It is ironic that any skeptic still points to this.I expect that skeptics who point to this have never read the paper, because it is quite clear from the paper that this is evidence in favor of cold fusion. Lewis misinterpreted his own results. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf When you publish a result that contradicts your own assertions, that is strong evidence that your result is real. You are presenting evidence against your own interests. You are proving yourself wrong. It cannot be self-deception or wishful thinking. Especially not in this case, when Lewis remained blind to the facts about his own work. Despite his self-deception, he as much as says the result is anomalous! Quote: "These changes often resulted in a sustained temperature rise of the cell (which might be interpreted in terms of the onset of excess enthalpy production), but recalibration with the load resistor method during this period showed no evidence for any anomalous power production . . ." With this calorimeter and this data "might be interpreted" is incorrect. It should say "can only be interpreted." The method of recalibration with a load resistor to disprove this makes no sense, as several people explained, and as I reiterate. It was a sloppy mistake, quite simple really. The only reason he did not see it is because he did not want to see it. Most of his paper is excellent, by the way. - Jed
