1. The list is of EPRI papers is here, as I mentioned:
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
Also:
http://lenr-canr.org/FilesByDate.htm
I may upload a few others next week. Steve Krivit has them listed and
uploaded here:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/EPRI-LENR-Archives.shtml
Some of these are my scans, which are better than EPRI's. Others are
their scans converted to searchable format by me with ABBYY
FineReader. This does more accurate OCR than the Hewlett Packard OCR
program that many people use. Not sure how it compares with Nuance
PDF Professional 6, but the output file is smaller.
2. The NSF/EPRI Workshop proceedings offer a fascinating look at the
early history of cold fusion, both the confusion and also the rapid
progress in the first year. The comments inserted after each paper
are interesting. There is a brief intro by Teller.
See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf
3. As I said, I highly recommend McKubre's book:
McKubre, M.C.H., et al., Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear
Processes in Deuterated Metals, TR-104195. 1994, Electric Power
Research Institute.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf
I wrote a review of it long ago:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofmc.pdf
Reading the whole book is a bit like spending a week in the lab,
peering over McKubre's shoulder. You can watch the reaction respond
to the control parameters. It "responds" in the sense that an
airplane flying in gusty winds responds to the ailerons. There is a
lot more in the book that I could cover in that review. When I read
it I compiled several pages of notes & questions. I went over them
with Tom Passell and learned more, but I still a lot to learn from
the book. (Tom told me I may be the only person who read the whole thing.)
4. The ICCF-4 proceedings are a mixed bag. You can see why I never
bothered to upload many individual papers. If you take the trouble to
compare my version to the printed one in the book you will also see
how much work I did on the ones I did upload. I edited the papers in
cooperation with the authors, especially papers from Bockris et al.,
which are great in content and lousy in presentation.
There has been some discussion over the years about the wisdom of
editing papers that have already been published. I would never change
a paper that was published in a journal, except to correct a typo or
something like, or to correct a mistake made by the journal itself.
One of Oriani's papers had a big mistake made by the journal, which
upset him. Naturally, I fixed it. I think the journal had a
correction in the next issue.
As I see it, these ICCF proceedings papers were never really
published. Plus, people will not read papers with spelling errors and
so on, so there is no point to reprinting the papers as is. So, while
I have never changed the content, I did rewrite them. A few authors
say I should reproduced papers exactly, with every typo intact.
Naturally, I will do that if the author demands but it seems
pointless to me. Anyway, as I tell these people, LENR-CANR.org is
supposed to be a useful online source of information, not a museum
for papers that no one will read because they are so poorly written
and presented.
I have had rather contentious discussions with some ICCF organizers
for several of the past conferences, and for the upcoming conference.
I am trying to ensure that the proceedings data will be preserved,
and also that minimum quality standards will be applied for things
like spelling and grammar. Some of the recent proceedings have been
printed in splendid hardback books published by World Scientific in
India. Take a close look and you will see that for some of the
papers, no one bothered to edit the content or correct the English.
So we have splendidly printed books with papers that would not have
passed high school English classes in 1975. It is ridiculous!
Presentation matters. People will not read papers they have
difficulty understanding.
In a way, this book reveals the "dirty laundry" of cold fusion to the
world. It shows how many bad papers there are. I do not mind doing
that. If I could make every paper ever published available, I would.
Looking at the ICCF-4 document strictly as a book, without regard to
content, the production quality of these early proceedings is
abysmal. I do not understand why. In 1994 I could have done a much
better job scanning and printing use the paper's return on paper and
not as machine readable files (LaTex, word processor or at least a
scanned image). You have to wonder why on earth they do not demand
word processor files and why they did not preserve them.
- Jed
