Since there has already been an announcement regarding an article in Infinite Energy Issue 132, I assume it is out and available. I don't get IE but in that issue I have been led to believe that Dr. Melvin Miles presents a paper  authored primarily by M. Fleischmann with Miles, S. Szpak, and P. Mosier-Boss as coauthors, which had been rejected for publication in 2003. Miles describes this in a brief ‘cover letter’ . He states therein:
“This Part 3 paper is especially important because it contains the only written rebuttal by Fleischmann to K. Shanahan, an active and prominent critic of cold fusion calorimetry over many years. This excellent rebuttal of Shanahan by Fleischmann is found in the Discussion section of this paper.”
As such, I believe this letter-paper combination deserves a response.
Dr. Miles continues a practice first established by Dr. Storms regarding my rebuttals of negative comments made in the CF-related literature. In 2006, Dr. Storms published a Comment  on my 2002 paper , which I responded to in an article published immediately after Storms’ . Subsequently, in his 2007 book , Storms mentions my 2002 critique and his 2006 rebuttal, but fails to note my response to his critique, instead choosing to say that all concerns raised in the 2002 paper were dealt with in the 2006 paper. Of course they weren’t, as my 2006 rebuttal paper pointed out.
In the new 2017 letter , Dr. Miles references the 2004 paper by the same authors , this one being primarily authored by S. Szpak , which had also contained criticisms of my 2002 paper. But, as with Storms, Miles fails to note that I replied to that paper in 2005 , and rebutted the criticisms. This is a form of intellectual dishonesty. One is expected to present the whole argument in literature papers, and not a subset with selective bias.
The criticisms raised in the 2003 rejected publication are essentially the same as those in Szpak’s 2004 version, with a couple more misrepresentations/misunderstandings of what I had written. As a practicing scientist, I am quite disheartened by the ease with which these authors fail to understand what I have written. I haven’t found any instance where they seem to have grasped what I wrote, yet what I wrote was in the end, very simple and easy to understand.
What is so ironic is that the 2003 rejected paper focuses heavily on comparing the various mathematical methods used to evaluate ‘heat transfer coefficients’ from the classic F&P dynamic energy balance equation used in their calorimetric work, which Miles also adopted. That process of determining the ‘best’ method is nothing but an effort aimed at avoiding a mathematically-induced CCS (calibration constant shift), although not having grasped my 2002 argument, those authors would likely not understand the analogy. Their herculean effort to find the best math method should have been matched by an effort to test the possibility of a chemistry-induced CCS (i.e. ATER), but of course it wasn’t.
I’m not going to go through the CCS argument all over again. I will just state that Fleischmann, et al, didn’t get the point. They claim I was discussing the use of regression analysis, which I wasn’t. They claim I was discussing electrochemical recombination, which I wasn’t. Those two misunderstandings seem to drive their criticisms of my work, but since they are wrong from the start, in fact this paper  never addresses my concerns raised in 2002. This mimics the problems with the sequence of papers in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring [9, 10, 11].
The comments that I would have made to any journal editor who submitted the 2003 paper  to me for review are:
There is a redundancy in the Figures and data Tables. The Tables should be moved to supplemental material.
Figure 6 disagrees with Table 2 during the ‘Day 8’ period. This difference must be resolved.
Input power is never delineated. This must be done. A suggestion is on Figure 6 or 8 as a second curve.
The idea that the transition occurring between Day 2 and Day 3 illustrates a ‘heat-after-death’ example needs to be clarified extensively. The data simply suggests a slow system response to step-function changes in input power (as evidenced via current).
The discussion of Shanahan’s work seems to not actually address his work. This needs to be clarified or deleted. The Shanahan work does not relate to the method of k determination
Likewise, the invocation of electrochemical recombination as a criticism is inaccurate. Shanahan invokes simple combustion, not electrochemistry
Much is made of determining the ‘best’ method of obtaining the heat transfer coefficients. This seems to be a minor issue as compared to determining if a steady state change has occurred due to in initiation/cessation of ATER during the run. The paper needs to address the potentially more important issue adequately.
The verdict that would be sent to the Editor would be “do not publish until revised”, and of course the corrected version would have to be reviewed before acceptance as well.
“Our Penultimate Papers on the Isoperibolic Calorimetry of the Pt-D2O and Pd-D2O Systems. Part 3: The Pd-D Codeposition System”, M. Fleischmann, M. Miles, S. Szpak, and P. Mossier-Boss, Infinite Energy 132 (2017) 2
“Introduction to Fleischmann’s Analysis of my Codeposition Experiment”, M. Miles, Infinite Energy 132 (2017) 1
“Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion”; Edmund Storms Thermochimica Acta 441 (2006) 207
“A Systematic Error in Mass Flow Calorimetry Demonstrated”: K. L. Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 2002, 387, 95.
“Reply to ‘Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion’, E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta (2005)”; K. L. Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta 441 (2006) 210
“The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction”, E. Storms, 2007, World Scientific, Singapore
“Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition”; S. Szpak, P. Mosier-Boss, M. Miles, M. Fleischmann, Thermochimica Acta 410 (2004) 101
“Comments on ‘Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition’”; K L. Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta 428 (2005) 207
“A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research”, S. Krivit and J. Marwan, J. Environ. Monitor. 11 (2009) 1731
“Comments on ‘A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research’”, K. L. Shanahan, J. Environ. Monitor. 12 (2010) 1756
“A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research: a response to Shanahan”, J. Marwan, M. C. H. McKubre, F. L. Tanzella, P. L. Hagelstein, M. H. Miles, M. R. Swartz, Edmund Storms, Y. Iwamura, P. A. Mosier-Boss, and L. P. G. Forsley, J. Environ. Monitor. 12 (2010) 1765