Someone suggested I upload papers about the controversies in cold fusion, and papers by skeptics. So I uploaded some papers about this. I mentioned these two already:
*Editorials from the early history of cold fusion*, in *New York Times and others*. 1989. (As I mentioned before) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/editorials.pdf APS, *Information from the APS meeting in Baltimore, May 1-2, 1989*. 1989. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/APSinformatio.pdf I added -- Two papers that were published together in New Scientist magazine: Close, F., *Cold Fusion I: The Discovery That Never Was.* New Scientist, 1991. *1752*: p. 46. Bockris, J., *Cold fusion II: The Story Continues.* New Scientist, 1991. *1752*: p. 50. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CloseFwhateverha.pdf Hoffman, N.J., *Book Review BAD SCIENCE The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion.* Fusion Technol., 1994. *25*: p. 225. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HoffmanNJbookreview.pdf Five papers about the controversy between Jones and Miles, which are together in one file: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEexaminatio.pdf The essence of the dispute was summarized by Miles in his second response: "My journal publications criticized by Jones and Hansen report only experimental results; hence, theoretical arguments are not germane to this debate. In science, theory guides but experiments decide." Miles said some unkind things about Jones, such as: "More serious errors by S. E. Jones et al. are found in their presentation of the electrochemical aspects of the cell operation. In particular, they stated that the exchange current density depends on the electrode surface area. The exchange current density always has dimensions of A/m2 or similar units; hence, it cannot depend on the electrode surface area. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an exchange current density for their reaction 4 in ref 8. This cell reaction consists of the oxidation of hydrogen at the anode and the reduction of oxygen at the cathode; hence, there are two distinctly different exchange current densities associated with the cell reaction." (Jones said that current density depends on the surface area. That is a geometry error. Current density is a function of surface area. It is as if Jones said that mass density varies with volume. Or that joules per gram of fuel depend on how many grams you have.) Skeptics wrote many papers attempting to show theoretical reasons why cold fusion is wrong. But there are only a few papers by skeptics that attempt to find actual experimental errors. For a while I thought that Morrison versus Fleischmann was the only one that was formally published in a journal: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf I knew there was a dispute between Jones and Miles. I have seen letters between them. But I forgot that they both published journal papers about this. So I should say that both Morrison and Jones attempted to find errors. So did Shanahan. That is rather strange, and more like a theoretical objection than an experimental one. As I recall, he does not point to any specific experiment that has the problems he describes. As always the most recent uploads are listed here: https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=3009