32) Another case
Ludwik Kowalski (January 6, 2003)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043
Return to the clickable list of items
http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/index.html
Even those who are not prepared to deal with some technical details (like myself) will appreciate the main points, and interesting reflections of a highly competent scientist. I strongly recommend this article to all those who are interested in AE. Storms writes that “the phenomenon called ‘cold fusion’ has been duplicated hundreds of times in laboratories throughout the world and the subject has been discussed in over 3000 papers . . . Unfortunately, because of the rejecting attitude of conventional scientists, much of this information is not available in scientific journals.” After listing previously unrecognized metallurgical factors, influencing either success of failure of an AE experiment in the electrolytic PdD systems, Storms writes:
“What can I conclude from this experience? First, the phenomenon claimed by Pons and Fleischmann is real, but it is only a small part of a much larger picture. The reality of this phenomena has an even greater importance to science and technology than was ordinarily proposed. Second, the method used by Pons-Fleischmann is useless for eventual production of commercial power. Active palladium is too difficult to find and conditions are too sensitive to impurities. Nevertheless, it is a very useful and inexpensive method to explore certain aspects of the phenomena. . . . And third, the field is sick and on life support. . . .
The amazing claims for [nuclear] transmutation are getting increased attention and are accumulating experimental support, but acceptance is hard to find even in the cold fusion community. These claims require expensive tools to show their reality - money that is not generally available. The only solutions are for the Patent Office to change its approach and/or for individuals or companies to provide funds toward a basic understanding without an immediate guarantee of financial return; several very unlikely possibilities.”
By the way, Dr. Edmund Storms is a radiochemist who worked on important projects at Los Alamos National Laboratory for thirty-four years. He is a recognized authority in the field of material science, as reflected in several books, and in over seventy research publications. But even a person of that caliber was not able to publish an important paper in Physical Review, in Review of Modern Physics and in two other journals. The PR editor rejected the paper because “we do not publish reviews” while the editor of RMP wrote “Cold fusion is a classic example of pathological science. I will certainly not publish articles supporting its disproven claims.” Apparently this is a typical case; AE scientists are not given a chance of sharing their data with the rest of us. We are being protected from them by editors and administrators. Something is not right with this.
The title of the rejected 2001 paper was: “Cold Fusion: an Objective Assement.” It is avaialble as a downloadable file: StormsEcoldfusionc.pdf at
http://lenr-canr.org./Features.htm
Why was this paper labeled “pathological science?” Read about the new APS Ethics Guidelines; they do address the issue of professional responsibilities. (The article summarizing the guidlines, as indicated above, can be found on page 20 of the January 2003 issue of Physics Today.)