Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Physics Today appears to have come down heavy, and somewhat inaccurately, on the DOE report.
"Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago.
That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at advances in
extracting energy from low-energy nuclear reactions.
A report released on 1 December 2004 echoes DOE's 1989 study that
followed the headline-making claims of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann."
Those who have followed this are aware that this is not accurate.
First, eighteen anonymous DOE reviewers "split approximately evenly"
on whether or not there is excess power observed in the cold fusion phenomena.
That is a great change since the 1989 ERAB report.]
That is true, and it is important, but the DoE paid no attention to that split in its own official "Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions." In other words, Physics Today accurately describes the DoE position: "claims . . . are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago."
Second, not all 2004 cold fusion data was reported to the DOE.
Ah, but fortunately at least some of the anonymous reviewers went out and found the data by themselves, at LENR-CANR.org and elsewhere. I do not suppose we should not congratulate them for this show of initiative. They are professional scientists, after all; it is their job to think independently and find things out for themselves. They do not deserve brownie points for taking a trip to library or spending an hour on Google. Anyway, the lesson for CF researchers is clear: if you want people to find out about your research, you must publish it on the Internet. Any web site that costs nothing and requires no registration will do, just so long as Google finds and indexes the paper. There is no advantage to publishing on LENR-CANR.org or any other web page. In fact, readers hardly notice where a paper is uploaded nowadays.
- Jed
LOL. This is in error and quite funny.
First, actually, the DOE reviewers were reasonably disappointed by the lack of controls and the lack of time-integration in the
presenters data and information.
Second, some of the very papers which contain controls and time-integration are not present
at the censored (and misnamed) LENR-CANR.org site.
Third, therefore the putative fantasy posted is not supported.
BTW, FWIW, Cold fusion is not LENR because the excited states of the nickel and palladium
are several MeV (about 2 and 20 MeV) about the ground states ----> ergo, HIGH ENERGY.
Cold fusion is not CANR because the reactions require a coherent crystalline
lattice and not chemistry.
Dr. Mitchell Swartz
=====================================================
COLD FUSION TIMES - the Uncensored cold fusion web site
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
