By: AlainCo on Lunedì 01 Settembre 2014 18:41
sorry to answer in english... just for the cultureabout Gary taubes theory, which is consensus (you can judge the quality of consensus and skeptic self-review):
Fire From Ice by Eugene Mallove, page 239
"One of the major proponents of the possible fraud theory at Texas A&M, Charles Martin, was quoted: "I can't go before a committee and accuse anyone of scientific fraud when all I have is circumstantial evidence." Martin, you may recall, had been in the Texas A&M group that made the first announcement of corroborating Fleischmann and Pons's claims of excess heat, but his group had made an error that voided that particular claim and he never was able to get excess heat in subsequent experiments. Martin and his colleagues' April 10, 1989, claims for excess heat were never publicly withdrawn, even though it was known that an improper electrical connection in the apparatus had produced spurious results. Due to various rivalries and disagreements with John Bockris and his colleagues, Martin had left Texas A&M to take another position.
As an example of how flimsy was this circumstantial evidence for tritium doctoring, Taubes cited at least two occasions on which high levels of tritium were found—each of them near a time when funding officials came to the University. However, he failed to mention the other times of visits by sponsors when high tritium levels had not been announced— a statistical misrepresentation. (The figures were run by the statistics department at A&M and they found no strong correlation with
the visits.)
The article made an even more fundamental mistake by asserting at the outset,"... Bockris's tritium data remain not only the single most extraordinary 'cold fusion' effect, but also the only compelling evidence in support of the original cold fusion claims." This false proposition elevating the Bockris results to keystone significance—is used to exaggerate the importance of possible fraud at Texas A&M. In fact, there is much other evidence to support cold fusion that is as compelling as the tritium: bursts of heat, integrated excess energy, low-level neutron emissions, evidence that the phenomena occur in related systems (for example, gaseous deuterated metals), and blank cell controls without deuterium.
"
a book to read, after "The science of LENR" by Ed Storms, and Excess Heat by Beaudette.
in The science of LENR, Ed Storms remind that he proved taubes was wrong in another way:
page 82
"Attempts to produce tritium were undertaken at many laboratories immediately after people learned of the Utah claims. Prof. Bockris at Texas A & M was one of the first to start a study and was the first to report seeing tritium in five cells. This success quickly unleashed a controversy at Texas A & M leading to accusations of fraud by Gary Taubes, a contrived article in Science (note h), and an internal investigation, which cleared Bockris of all charges. The observation that started this unwarranted series of events is shown in Figure 43. The production behavior is similar to that observed at LANL (Figure 4). Perhaps the use of nickel anodes, in contrast to the use of platinum, was the reason for this early success. Later, another active sample having detected copper on its surface and significant H2O in the D2O generated an amount of tritium that was 100 times background. Production could be stopped by simply shaking the cell or adding D2O. The production rate could even be changed by changing the cell current (voltage). This unusual behavior is shown in Figure 44 where the tritium concentration can be seen to increase in a linear manner and then change its production rate when cell current was increased at about 90 hours.
note h: The accusation made by Taubes in his article, published in the June 1990 issue, was countered by a letter to the editor I wrote to Science on June 25, 1990. The known behavior of tritium in such cells made the charge very unlikely to be correct. This letter was ignored, thereby allowing the false accusation to remain unchallenged."
the letter is there
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/taubesfabrication/Storms-LetterToScience1990.pdf
Ed Storms describe also the accusation of recombination , here by Jones
(page 195)
"The values attributed to Jones et al. 1 in the figure are from a paper that gives a good example of biased reasoning. They measured the recombination fraction at very low currents, where it is high, and used these values to dismiss all measurements using open cells, without acknowledging that most successful studies used much higher currents or closed cells where this correction is unnecessary."
you can see similar character described in that article
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4
Beaudette is more focused on the epistemology errors (part called validation), after observing all 4 critic papers were void.
Only in latest chapters (22+) does he covers the incompetence and dishonesty of many authors.
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
just comparing the citation pages can make you see who is serious. see also the dates.
You now know where is the fraudster gang, and worst of all who protected them from the consequence of their frauds.
all is public.
