Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
dogmatists ironic.
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011
Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
Perhaps some relic of
I started with stage 2 of negation and went to 1...
2011/12/30 pagnu...@htdconnect.com
Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
dogmatists ironic.
Daniel, you may be correct.
I do not know.
However, both Akito Takahashi and Hideo Kozima may regard W-L viable.
See -- Second Cold Fusion Theorist Cites Widom-Larsen Theory
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/23/second-cold-fusion-theorist-cites-widom-larsen-theory/
Takahashi appears to
No, Takashi used the weak force in the sense of finding a cross section
for the reaction electron proton, but he laid a very harsh criticism on WL
theory and make it clear the difference between the approaches. In fact,
he didn't take WL seriously.
2011/12/30 pagnu...@htdconnect.com
Daniel,
Krivit finally convinced me : LENR Researcher Refuses to Abandon Fusion Term
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/29/lenr-researcher-refuses-to-abandon-fusion-term/
that neutron capture (and subsequent decay to a proton) is NOT
fusion, per wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capture
Again, I am not sure.
Looking at the slide on p.105 at JCF12 Abstracts at--
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2011/JCF12/JCF12ExtendedAbstracts.pdf
-- I see the reaction 59Ni + e- 59Co + v + Q
I cannot read Japanese, but this looks like a heavy electron capture,
but that is just a
You can find it here, a google translation, which is what I used:
http://www.ecatplanet.net/content.php?142-Frontiers-of-Cold-Fusion-Eng
2011/12/30 pagnu...@htdconnect.com
Again, I am not sure.
Looking at the slide on p.105 at JCF12 Abstracts at--
I am told by cold fusioneers (as WL calles them) that the WL theory
makes many wrong predictions. You will only hear from WL the correct
predictions.
harry
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
It is unfortunate that WL refuses to acknowledge the many difficulties
associated with their own theory.
harry
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
I am told by cold fusioneers (as WL calles them) that the WL theory
makes many wrong predictions. You will
There have been many disputes in the history of cold fusion. They have been
about theory, experimental results, and in some cases politics and
personality. In my opinion, this dispute, as carried on by Larsen and
Krivit, is the most absurd. It is the most pointless. I do not mean that
theory is
From Jed:
...
The researcher quoted here has it right:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/29/lenr-researcher-refuses-to-abandon
-fusion-term/
I feel it would be much better to allow people to use the terms
they are comfortable with. Let people use dozens of terms if they
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 8:42 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
As far as I’m
concerned the war against the fusion word is nothing more than a petty
self-serving theoretical product placement war.
It's all quite absurd actually. SK appears to be
Well said. It is what it is, the FPE which:
1) Generates excess heat.
2) Generates very little radiation.
3) Transmutes elements up and down the scale.
Maybe call it the PSE (Philosopher's Stone Effect)? Nah calling it the
FPE is good enough. BTW pass another box of hot buttered popcorn
The war against the phrase cold fusion seems to derive from some sort
of attempt at spin control on the whole affair. At some level, if the
phrase cold fusion can be debunked then the physics establishment can
save face in the eyes of the vast majority of the population. It is that
concern that
Bout time for some to wake up and stop claiming as fact what is
obviously not fact. What is fact is we do not know what is happening and
until we do know what is happening there is no point in claiming what is
and is not fact.
What we know as fact:
1) It is called the Fleischmann and Ponds
.
-Mark
From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 5:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR
politics
From Jed:
...
The researcher quoted here has it right
16 matches
Mail list logo
