Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: 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. >
Wasn't that mainly a defense of the MIT work? And an argument over theory? > 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. > Perhaps what he meant was that Lewis was one of the few people to address the calorimetry and the electrochemistry. The technical details. The other critics were mainly nuclear physicists who talked about why it was theoretically impossible. Plus Morrison who said it was the cigarette lighter effect. Lewis is one of the few negative papers that gets into the nitty gritty of electrochemistry. I do not think he critiqued F&P, but he did make some points about Huggins et al. Some valid points, I think. I found Lewis convincing. I am convinced he did measure significant excess heat. He came up with an untenable reason to reject it. Apart from that it is a pretty good paper. - Jed
