I was wondering when someone was going to react to the Sci. Am. March article. Actually, Jed, I'm surprised it took you this long!
I just noticed it yesterday, thanks to Google Alerts. I subscribe to the print magazine, but overlooked this item.
My only suggestion would be to make sure to site specific references in which to back up LENR's claims.
That is probably a good idea, although it will make the statement crowded.
Ed Storms thinks is a mistake to get into a tit-for-tat argument over technical details like this. He is writing a more general statement. Perhaps we can use both . . .
We will probably slide something like this into the Special Collection - DoE Report section, rather than making it a new Acrobat file.
The Sci. Am. will never published a letter about this, but perhaps they have online discussion groups and someone can insert a message into them.
- Jed
