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. >
Yes. As I said, getting back to Beaudette's statement about four critiques, I think he mean four papers that addressed the calorimetry in F&P's original paper. There may be a few others but those four are the important ones. I do quite see why he included Lewis. But it is an important paper in the early history of the field. > Jones was an outspoken critic as was Shanahan. > I guess Beaudette should have included Jones. Such as: Jones, J.E., et al., Faradaic efficiencies less than 100% during electrolysis of water can account for reports of excess heat in 'cold fusion' cells. J. Phys. Chem., 1995. 99: p. 6973 This was mainly a critique of Miles, I think. These two are about F&P: Jones, S.E., L.D. Hansen, and D.S. Shelton, An assessment of claims of excess heat in cold fusion calorimetry. J. Phys. Chem. B, 1998. 102: p. 3647 Jones, S.E., Chasing anomalous signals: the cold fusion question. Accountability Res., 2000. 8: p. 55Y JonesSEchasingano. They might have been after Beaudette wrote the first draft. > 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. > That's the main point. - Jed
