Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: the quote about the 4 articles is in chapter one >
Thanks. > The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim > for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. > Lewis, N.S., et al., Searches for low-temperature nuclear fusion of deuterium in palladium. Nature (London), 1989. 340(6234): p. 525 Well, it was more a report on Lewis' own work. It was a pretty good paper except of the conclusion. I learned a lot from it. It had a lot of valid information about what can go wrong with calorimetry. I can't upload it, but I wrote about it here, and you can get the gist of it: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf > A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly > supported the claim. > Hansen, W.N. Report to the Utah State Fusion/Energy Council on the Analysis of Selected Pons Fleischmann Calorimetric Data. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion". 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy Y HansenWNreporttoth. > An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical > though not conclusive. > Wilson, R.H., et al., Analysis of experiments on the calorimetry of LiOD-D2O electrochemical cells. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1992. 332: p. 1 Beaudette discussed this in detail in a chapter at the end of the book. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the > implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was > produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. > I guess this refers to: Morrison, D.R.O., Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil. Phys. Lett. A, 1994. 185: p. 498 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf - Jed
