In that paragraph Beaudette clearly separate the arguments about heat, calorimetry, artifact...
and the "non-arguments" about theory, that he describe as THE problem. people mostly have this reasoning: - theory as we understand it find no way to PREDICT LENR - thus theory FORBID LENR (fallacy 1) - thus experiments CANNOT be successful (fallacy 2) - thus any apparent success is an ERROR (theorem1) - if not an ERROR (as tritium) it is thus a FRAUD (theorem2) 2013/12/24 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > >
