Jones Beene wrote: > > Well - given that the Italian group set out with the expressed intention of > validating or even improving on the now famous A&Z (Arata/Zhang) finding, > even if they did not replicate it precisely - they essentially validate the > main parameter, which the importance nanoparticles below 10nm; and given > that they succeeded and even exceeded Arata; then the two experiments: > Celani and Arata are pretty much mutual validations of each other wrt the > importance of a specific geometric size of active particle. > > Do you not see it another way?
Well . . . I agree that the nano particle method has great merit. And Celani expresses appreciation to A&Z so there is no question the Italian group was inspired by them. But it seems to me that the method is different from any previous work mainly because it incorporates electromigration. The calorimetry is unusual too. I expect Ed Storms will have something grumpy to say about it. So overall I would say the work is sufficiently different from other approaches that it needs independent confirmation -- yet not so different that we should not feel some confidence that the result is real. How's that for a Washington-politician style answer? A double negative and something for everyone! Like a confirmation hearing. - Jed
