On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>wrote:
"The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to > give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox > views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical > reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in > 1989 (N. S. Lewis). ... > I like Charles Beaudette's book a lot, but I think this is inaccurate. There were many articles in 1989-1991 that were implicitly critical of Pons and Fleischmann and Jones et al., including a quite negative series exchanges between Petrasso and others at MIT and Pons and Fleischmann. An article by a team at Harwell and one by a group in Germany (don't recall if it was at the Max Planck institute) were polite but suggested error as the explanation. Perhaps Beaudette used the word "review" in order to exclude these papers. But if that is the case, I'm not sure why he mentions the Caltech paper by Lewis et al., which I don't recall being a review. More likely, I think Beaudette probably slipped into polemical exaggeration. Eric
