One of the best books I have read. A precise, comprehensive historical synthesis of CF-LENR (up to 2002 of course). Goes far in exposing what the "skeptical" state of mind was like then and now. Objections centered on faulty neutron detection and lack of evidence (gammas, etc.) for a traditional d+d nuclear reaction. Good evidence for tritium and helium ash were found in reputable labs by 94', suggesting a nuclear reaction of some nature.
The arguments all avoided the excess heat discovery, which was and is the most important discovery to this day. Well they didn't exactly ignore it. They brushed it aside very early with very limited, poorly defended criticisms of calorimetry such as "improper stirring" (Lewis, etc.) and possible recombination (Jones, etc.) have not stood up against the test of time in the slightest (Fleischmann, Oriani, McKubre, etc.). Yet these are enshrined ideas because they uphold a biased community based on physicists understanding of a clockwork controllable universe revolving around the high repeatability of 2-body vacuum interactions. The book is rather dense however, but is good at bringing it back to central theses and key points. Regards. On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >> >> > >
