by quickly reading the structure of the paper, I noticed something like about pomp&eriksson pamphlet:
it seems many details , if not full section , of the papers were ignored by the commentators . is it a common practice in science to have partial critics ? when you have been caught in such a pitiful situation, how does usually the commentator react... a simple "I screwed up, sorry", plain silence, or desperate race to justify initial thesis... one argument by Beaudette about the emptiness of critics is the absence of followup and confirmation of the critical papers... is it a good argument? note that naively (I'm a corp engineer, so my logic is maybe too much grounded) I interpreted the lack of others critics to levi&al paper, as evidence there is no better scientific critics, and lack of acknowledgement of answers to pomp&eriksson as lack of counter arguments... maybe naive vision. 2013/12/24 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I didn't know that. Was the slab of Pd much larger than the Pd electrode >> used by P&F? >> > > It must have been. In the experiments in question, Fleischmann's electrode > could produce at most 6 nW of local heating from this de-gassing effect. > See: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf > > The 19th century palladium electrodes used as cigarette lighters were > probably a few ounces (60 g), and they were fully exposed to air. That is > much larger than Fleischmann's cathode, which was in D2O vapor with a > little air. For the earlier experiment with a 1 cm cube, Fleischmann > calculates: "the rate of diffusion of oxygen through the boundary > layer could lead at most to a rate of generation of excess enthalpy of ~5 > mW." > > - Jed > >
