By: AlainCo on Domenica 07 Settembre 2014 18:17
@Nevanlinna
Source:
how nature refused to reexamine caltech experiment
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
"In 1989 Nature published a paper by Lewis [1] showing no excess heat in a cold fusion
experiment. Several researchers including Noninski, Miles and Fleischmann discovered errors in this paper. Noninski wrote a critique of the paper describing one of these errors, and submitted it for publication. David Lindley, an editor at Nature, rejected the critique. This paper examines some of the errors in the paper, and Lindley’s reasons for refusing to re-examine the experiment."
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=264
"The reports resulting from the several years of endeavor by Bush and
Miles were severely criticized by Steven E. Jones, professor of physics, and
Lee Hansen, professor of chemistry, BYU, in the Journal of Physical Chemistry,
17 although the original papers were published elsewhere. The journal’s editor
did not follow conventional protocol by placing Miles’s defense in the
same issue. Rather, after much pleading with the editor, it appeared three years
later.18
There is a sense of futility in this mention of the Jones criticism. Jones
does not allow that a record of anomalous power exists in the scientific literature.
He must, a priori, find that helium is not a product of anomalous power
generation because (1) he is convinced that anomalous power does not exist in
cold fusion experiments, and (2) the evidence for anomalous power generation
is far more extensive than the evidence for helium. These arguments critical
of the helium-four measurements have been debated earlier, yet they are
presented in the referenced paper as though they had not been previously
mentioned. It would not serve any pedagogical purpose, therefore, to present
Jones’s arguments here in detail as was done earlier withWilson’s critique. The
interested reader will have to resort to the referenced literature"
pamela Mosier Boss: How the Flawed Journal Review Process Impedes
Paradigm Shifting Discoveries
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol12.pdf#page=6
"Previously published physics papers have discussed CR-39 as an energetic particle diagnostic. Kino *** a [35] employed CR-39 in high-energy physics experiments. Clark [36] used CR-39 for studying proton transport in magnetized plasmas. Li et al. [37] also used it for diagnosing laser plasma interactions. Contrary to Reviewer B, CR-39 has been in use for decades. The fact that the editor selected and then stood with reviewers who were ignorant of standard practices in fast neutron detection indicates editorial failure, as it is incumbent upon editors to select competent reviewers.
The journal refused to provide us with the report of reviewer A as it was of “no value to either of us”. It is unheard of for an editor to refuse to provide all responses to the authors, regardless of whether the editor thinks the responses have merit or will do the authors any good. This is unethical. The attitude of both the editor and Reviewers B and C demonstrate an unwillingness to examine observations contrary to accepted beliefs."
and others like Report 41 rejection, Taubes fraud and proven error, already published here...
I base my Venomous answer on evidences, not one beliefs or trust in "physics laws" that most don't understand deeply enough .
again sorry for the english, but sure one cannot discuss of cold fusion without understanding data and history in english.