I posted three messages in response to this article; one from Ed Storms and two of my own. All three disappeared within about 20 minutes. I assume they were erased. I just re-posted two of them. We will see if they vanish again.
Here are two of them: Here is a response to this article written by Dr. Edmund Storms. Storms is not able to post messages here today because of some sort of technical glitch. “The scientific proof supporting the claims made by Fleischmann and Pons is now overwhelming. This is not the opinion of a “handful of diehard supporters” but of several major universities and corporations. The information is easily obtained at http://www.LENR.org and in many books written about the history and the science. We are no longer in 1990 when the claims were in doubt and many people attempted to replicate them, some with success. Many of the reasons for success and failure are now known. An explanation for the phenomenon is being developed and claims are being demonstrated for commercial-level power. Surely a writer for a magazine as important as Scientific American would know these facts and not continue using the myth that was created before the facts were known.” Let me repeat the website address: http://lenr-canr.org/ Shortcut: http://lenr.org/ The author quotes Robert Park: “Maybe there is… some funny reaction going on…. If there is, it may solve some puzzles, but it won’t be important.” Park told me and many other people that he has not [read] any papers on cold fusion. When I offered him printed copies of papers, he refused to take them; he let them fall to the floor. I am sure that he is telling the truth when he says that he has read nothing about this subject, because all of his technical assertions are wrong. He does not know what instruments are used, what is measured, what the signal to noise ratio is, or any other salient fact about this research. Therefore he is not in a position to judge whether the research is valid, and he cannot predict what will come of it. A person who remains willfully ignorant of a scientific subject has no right to any opinion, positive or negative. - Jed
