Alain, many critiques were made. I have 213 listed in my file. Many
were about a particular paper or claim. Jones was an outspoken critic
as was Shanahan. Gradually the challenges were answered and this
answer was accepted as true or the critic ran out of rational ways to
attack. Now the evidence is so overwhelming, a critic looks foolish by
challenging the basic claims. Of course, individual papers still
contain potential errors, as is always true in science. The problem
now is ignorance. Some people simply will not go to the effort of
reading the reviews, looking at LENR.org, or reading my book. Some of
these people have an opinion fixed in their mind that no amount of
argument will change. As they say, concepts in society change only by
death. I expect many personal beliefs also change at death.
Ed Storms
On Dec 24, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
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
