Someone suggested I upload papers about the controversies in cold fusion,
and papers by skeptics. So I uploaded some papers about this. I mentioned
these two already:
*Editorials from the early history of cold fusion*, in *New York Times and
others*. 1989. (As I mentioned before)
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/editorials.pdf
APS, *Information from the APS meeting in Baltimore, May 1-2, 1989*. 1989.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/APSinformatio.pdf
I added --
Two papers that were published together in New Scientist magazine:
Close, F., *Cold Fusion I: The Discovery That Never Was.* New Scientist,
1991. *1752*: p. 46.
Bockris, J., *Cold fusion II: The Story Continues.* New Scientist, 1991.
*1752*: p. 50.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CloseFwhateverha.pdf
Hoffman, N.J., *Book Review BAD SCIENCE The Short Life and Weird Times of
Cold Fusion.* Fusion Technol., 1994. *25*: p. 225.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HoffmanNJbookreview.pdf
Five papers about the controversy between Jones and Miles, which are
together in one file:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEexaminatio.pdf
The essence of the dispute was summarized by Miles in his second response:
"My journal publications criticized by Jones and Hansen report only
experimental results; hence, theoretical arguments are not germane to this
debate. In science, theory guides but experiments decide."
Miles said some unkind things about Jones, such as:
"More serious errors by S. E. Jones et al. are found in their presentation
of the electrochemical aspects of the cell operation. In particular, they
stated that the exchange current density depends on the electrode surface
area. The exchange current density always has dimensions of A/m2 or similar
units; hence, it cannot depend on the electrode surface area. Furthermore,
there is no such thing as an exchange current density for their reaction 4
in ref 8. This cell reaction consists of the oxidation of hydrogen at the
anode and the reduction of oxygen at the cathode; hence, there are two
distinctly different exchange current densities associated with the cell
reaction."
(Jones said that current density depends on the surface area. That is a
geometry error. Current density is a function of surface area. It is as if
Jones said that mass density varies with volume. Or that joules per gram of
fuel depend on how many grams you have.)
Skeptics wrote many papers attempting to show theoretical reasons why cold
fusion is wrong. But there are only a few papers by skeptics that attempt
to find actual experimental errors. For a while I thought that Morrison
versus Fleischmann was the only one that was formally published in a
journal:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf
I knew there was a dispute between Jones and Miles. I have seen letters
between them. But I forgot that they both published journal papers about
this. So I should say that both Morrison and Jones attempted to find errors.
So did Shanahan. That is rather strange, and more like a theoretical
objection than an experimental one. As I recall, he does not point to any
specific experiment that has the problems he describes.
As always the most recent uploads are listed here:
https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=3009
