In case you haven't noticed:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9522x473v80352w9/
Britz, ever the anti-optimist, reviews it this way:
Review. Storms admits that there is controversy, even within
the field, and presents here "a fraction of what appears to be sufficiently
well supported to encourage further investigation". He then states at the
outset that cold fusion generates mainly helium, so that neutrons, tritium
etc play a minor role. The review than goes on to describe key work in the
field, such as that of Arata and Zhang and McKubre et al, among others.
Transmutation is mentioned, as are theories, none of which is as yet
satisfactory.}
Storms certainly admits there is controversy, but this is the abstract:
The phenomenon called cold fusion has been studied for the last 21
years since its discovery by Profs. Fleischmann and Pons in 1989.
The discovery was met with considerable skepticism, but supporting
evidence has accumulated, plausible theories have been suggested,
and research is continuing in at least eight countries. This paper
provides a brief overview of the major discoveries and some of the
attempts at an explanation. The evidence supports the claim that a
nuclear reaction between deuterons to produce helium can occur in
special materials without application of high energy. This reaction
is found to produce clean energy at potentially useful levels
without the harmful byproducts normally associated with a nuclear
process. Various requirements of a model are examined.
Keywords Cold fusion - CMNS - LENR - Heat production - Transmutation - Review
I could call this a major turn, except that the turn actually
happened probably somewhere around 2004 or 2005. I show, at
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Recent_sources, sixteen
prior peer-reviewed secondary sources (reviews of the field or
aspects of the field) basically saying what Storms confirms in this
latest review). What is different about this review is only the depth
(150 sources cited), and the level of prestige of the publication,
Naturwissenschaften.
No prior negative reviews, with three possible exceptions that aren't
really reviews, such as papers talking about pathological science
that simply cite cold fusion as an example. And those have
disappeared, last one was 2006. Except for the last, very recent,
critique of Marwan and Krivit's review last year in Journal of
Environmental Monitoring, that was copublished with a devastating
response, and Shanahan is complaining that they won't let him reply further.
Funny how those fringe advocates whine and whine, eh?
It is kind of sweet, yes?
Britz reviews that sequence with:
In his criticisms of the review article on LENR by Krivit and
Marwan, Shanahan has raised a number of issues in the areas of calorimetry,
heat after death, elemental transmutation, energetic particle detection
using CR-39, and the temporal correlation between heat and helium-4. These
issues are addressed by the researchers who conducted the original work
discussed in the Krivit and Marwan (K\&M) review paper". In other words,
Shanahan was wrong.}
Britz just quotes Shanahan without comment:
"Cold fusion researchers have accumulated a large body of
anomalous results over the last 20 years that they claim proves a new,
mysterious nuclear reaction is active in systems they study. Krivit and
Marwan (J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1731) give a brief and
wholly positive
view of this body of research. Unfortunately, cold fusion researchers
routinely ignore conventional explanations of their observations, and claim
much greater than the real accuracy and precision for their
techniques. This
paper attempts to equally briefly address those aspects of the field with
the intent of providing a balanced view of the field, and to establish some
criteria for subsequent publications in this arena."}
Shanahan has been claiming, on Wikipedia, that the reviewers at
Naturwissenschaften are biased, that NW naively chooses experts in
the field to review, and that these are all "cold fusioneers," or
"fanatic CFers," as he styles them.
The fact that NW (established 1913?) and Springer-Verlage
(established 19th century) aren't about to risk their very
considerable reputation -- Einstein published in NW -- by turning
over their pages to a Review of a field that isn't solid science --
is completely beyond Shanahan. Sad case, he is.
Hitched his star to a dying horse, or something like that.
Notice that Storms completely abandons hiding this behind "Low energy
nuclear reactions." Even though he acknowledges that the exact
reaction isn't known for sure. It's fusion, you idiots. You take
deuterium and you get helium, you've got some kind of fusion, even if
it isn't d-d fusion. COLD FUSION. Get over it!
(Krivit, if you take deuterium, and make some neutrons with it, and
insert these neutrons into other nuclei, and produce some helium, you
have accomplished the "fusion" of deuterium to helium. If the input
is deuterium and the ash is helium, it's FUSION. You also need to get
over it. Widom-Larsen, fine, if you are so foolish, it's not
*disproven* yet. But if I can't understand it, to make sense out of
it, and Storms can't understand it to make sense out of it, I'm
pretty sure you can't, either. So be careful whom you trust!)
Haven't I been saying that the corner had been reached, and that the
turn had started?
Watch. This could get interesting.
