After reading Beaudette's book (Excess Heat) I would like to list, details the critics that were published on LENR calorimetries. Forget about theory, neutrons, isotopic shifts... just calorimetry.
corrst me if I'm wrong He talk of 4 critics. 1- Nathan Lewis, who was unable to stirr his cell, unlike Fleischman. Fleischmann show it was stirring quickly, but it took 1-3 (90/92) years to make a real experiment showing with measurements the perfect stirring including near the walls. 2- Lee Hansen criticized the data reduction techniques (91). It seems good. Later he simply observed in 1995 at BYU recombination (and like Lewis) assumed it was ruining all data since the beginning... good experiment, exgagerated conclusion. Fleischman hopefully measured recombinations<1%(via replaced quantity). Oriani separated gas. McKubre, Huggin, Oriani had closed cell. Moreover control cells should suffer too. Burst are hard to explain too. B Buehler at BYU like Some claim of chemical energy release, but it was ridiculous given the quantity of energy. 3-Wilson who was quite competent and raised minor corrections, not able to turn down the biggest results. Beaudette recognize he was the only competent, yet overstating his findings. In a way he have also conformed many assumption of Fleischmann (no stirring needed). Papers (3) are said good by beaudette, peer-reviewed. reinterpreted without the assumptions, it is a confirmation of reality, and canceling of many critics. Minor question on data reduction critics, which cannot rule out a big result. 4-Morrison critics in 1994 was according to Beaudette a misunderstanding, and Morrison when facing details did not answer. beside what was written there was some demand of control experiment... many asked light water, but it was not really identical for calorimetry. Fleischmann proposed dead palladium, or palladium. (who, was it expressed?). Some says that inactive period, before of after burst were blank period. I notice that if as some says there was no positive, but there was huge changes, it was meaning either negative energy, or huge storage above chemical possibility... as an engineer I would be enthusiast to find a possibility to store and free energy at that density? why if they believed they fairy tale, don't they try to make an industry of that ? (sorry not to be scientific) I remember of CCS theory but it does not match burst events, blank cells, dead cells, good calibration of some cell like McKubre isotherm cells... Maybe some could add some detail about that recent critic Shanahan had other critics, and I found a rebuttal on many claims, from electrolysis to iwamura and mizuno styles... What I would like is detailed rebuttal, references, but als detaile recognition of problems ... If one would have to make a magazine with the serious critics and their rebuttal and confirmation, what would be in ? the booklet any hones skeptic should have!
