tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8127365951826617010.post503256246207227315..comments2020-03-16T08:08:26.651-07:00Comments on EL BLOG DE CENTENO: FUSIÓN FRÍAMANUEL CENTENO http://www.blogger.com/profile/04094482849700027083noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8127365951826617010.post-28636126033441477462014-05-01T10:29:06.242-07:002014-05-01T10:29:06.242-07:00sorry to answer in english
The best book to unders...sorry to answer in english<br />The best book to understand the detail of that tragedy is the book of Charles Beaudette : Excess Heat<br />http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35<br /><br />"Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.<br /><br />The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.<br /><br />The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.<br />"<br /><br />Comparing with Titanic myths, Rothwell describe the horrific behaviors of Taubes, Morrison<br />http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4<br />"This shows how easy it is to spread false information, and how careless distinguished scientists can be. It takes only a small group of people to poison the well of public opinion. There may be a few other active critics in the mass media, but most attacks originate from these four: Morrison, Park, Huizenga, and Taubes. They are not famous or influential. They succeed because many scientists bear a grudge against cold fusion, and are willing to believe the worst about it.<br /><br />beside it is confirmed phenomenon, at last some inventors and scientists have make a breakthrough, and industrial applications are underway :<br />http://www.lenrftw.net/home/are-low-energy-nuclear-reaction-devices-real<br />http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/<br />or that journalist report http://animpossibleinvention.com/<br /><br />best regards.<br />Alain_Cohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08352476615242858677noreply@blogger.com