You should know that efforts to provide a review article using more up
to date information have failed when submitted to major journals. The
mainstream journals still do not accept review papers about LENR.
Increasingly, rejection is based on ignorance, not on logic or
scientific evaluation. The effect of denying information is paying
off for the people who do not want this technology developed.
Fortunately, they are fighting a loosing battle that will eventually
cause them harm as the better informed develop and benefit from the
technology.
Ed
On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:18 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
Hi all,
I imagine it is a FAQ, and it will launch discussion, but if you had
to give reference to scientists asking for peer-reviewed articles
On internet, or just the bibliography data, letting them buy the
paper.
I first put Ed Storms review 2010 in naturWissenschaften
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-010-0711-x
I have that tally from Jed, but it is long and not so recent, and
not so selected
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
the bibliography of Ed LENR review may contain some PR paper, but I
don't know which one are PR, and which one are PR in journals which
are not dedicated to LENR or judged as not serious by (moderate)
skeptics...
the idea is to have a handful of good papers for skeptics
(I know it is hopeless, but I'm in cognitive dissonance)
