Why now? Perhaps it was the publication of the photos after this:
Jam April 30th, 2013 at 5:46 AM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802&cpage=6#comment-687451> Did you start loading on the truck? Don’t forget to take a few pictures. Andrea Rossi May 1st, 2013 at 8:04 AM Dear Neri B.: The delivery, after an acceptance test, has been made today. Dear Neri B.: The delivery has been made today. the photos of the plant will surely be published. We will publish them on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics Warm Regards, A.R. julian_becker May 1st, 2013 at 9:57 AM dear mr. Rossi, when can we see the images. Eagerly awaiting them. Can you just publish a few now? People are going crazy about waiting for them I believe. Best regards, Julian On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > I address this issue in my book, which Joshua obviously has not read. But > you are right, Jed. This issue has been laid to rest so completely, one has > to wonder why it has been brought up now. This is like someone now arguing > for the flat earth concept. > > Ed > > On May 4, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Joshua Cude wrote: > >> Surely you're aware of the Jones' challenge to Miles' results in Jones & >> Hansen, "Examination of Claims of Miles…", J. Phys. Chem. 95 (1995) 6966. >> >> > Ah yes. That one slipped my mind. The recombination hypothesis. > > That is even more pathetic and preposterous than Morrison. As Miles > pointed out, Jones uses a cell in a shape than no one else would think of > using, and he set the power level a thousand times lower than Miles. Miles > said: "Why not throw a handful catalyst powder into the electrolyte while > you are at it, just to make absolutely sure you have recombination." > > My suggestion was to put the cathode above the anode. There are other ways > to ensure recombination. The thing is, there are also many ways to prevent > it, and to verify that you have prevented it. For example, you measure > effluent gas. Miles, along with EVERYONE ELSE uses these methods, so what > Jones asserts is not only preposterous and unrealistic, it is factually > wrong. > > Jones reached the living end -- the final frontier! -- when he boldly > asserted to me that recombination can explain McKubre's results, even > though McKubre uses a closed cell with a recombiner. At that point I > figured that either Jones had taken leave of his senses, or Jones thought I > understand absolutely nothing about cold fusion or grade-school chemistry. > > The fact that Cude still flogs this kind of nonsense tells me that he, > too, has employed a warp drive to move light years beyond rational, > fact-based argument, into the netherworld of recombination causing false > excess heat in closed cells. > > This is why I stopped paying attention to people such as Jones and Cude 15 > years ago, and why Cude is on my auto-delete list. Note that the Wikipedia > article still flogs the recombination bugaboo. It did last time I checked, > a few years ago. That is a handy litmus test. When a person says > "recombination might explain the excess heat!" you can disqualify them. > > I will grant, there are a few other attempts to critique experiments, by > Shanahan. I have some of his papers at LENR-CANR.org > > - Jed > > >
