Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I personally do not see WL theory as something that would require much more than an undergraduate level . . . Well, I took undergraduate level physics, albeit in 1975. A mid-level course at Cornell. I got A's. But we never touched on anything as esoteric as this. Maybe you mean an undergraduate degree in science or engineering. Krivit does not have that, and it is not something you pick up casually in mid-life, like a degree in literature perhaps. I am not saying that Krivit could not possibly have any idea what the theory is about. What I mean is that he could not write a paper comparing and contrasting it to other major theories such as Hagelstein's, at a level that would persuade an expert that Krivit is right that this theory is probably the best one around. I have read most of Krivit's serious work. It is pretty good. But nothing remotely as technical as this. It couldn't be, because I understand it easily. Krivit has pointed out some reasons why the theory might be good. These advantages are obvious to me, or to anyone who reads the W-L abstracts. That does not mean the theory is right. It just means W-L know enough about cold fusion experimental evidence that they know what needs to be explained. They know it does not produce many neutrons, for example. I believe Mizuno said he cannot understand simply because the theories presented so far really do not make sense. Perhaps that is the case. I cannot tell if the theories make sense or not. I do not think he can either. It is clear to me that most theories make no useful predictions and are not guides to fruitful research. People have not made progress by depending on theories. They might in the future. That will be a good sign the theory is valid. It will be proof of that. Sometimes a theory can be a good guide even though it is flawed. But he is being polite and not saying they do not making sense... I think he meant only that he could not understand. Based on previous breakthroughs such as fission reactors, transistors and DNA, I have a hunch that that a valid theory to explain cold fusion will seem simpler and more obvious than the ones we have now. I expect it will have broad implications that explain other phenomena now thought to be unrelated. As I said, that was Watson said about his own discovery of DNA. I could be wrong. The answer might be convoluted and beyond the understanding of most people -- including me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
You can tell that WL theory does not fit experiments since it does not predict the formation of He4 within a few hours of experiment. Thus, the constant attacks of Krivit on MacKubre's M4 experiment. That experiment rules out, completely, WL theory. Thus, Krivit makes himself a stooge by saying things like this: My conclusions are that, starting in 2000, McKubre began retroactively to manipulate and fabricate data that was associated with M4. He did so without presenting scientific support and without disclosing his changes to the public or to his sponsor, the Electric Power Research Institute http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/21/mckubre-experiment-m4-index-page-created/ Also, there would be a myriad of radioactive waste given that some of the beta decays of the reaction takes more than a few hours. This also rules out WL theory. Theories related to Hegelstein's need to explain where does the collective energy comes to make fusion from very small grains like those used by Ahern. 2012/2/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I personally do not see WL theory as something that would require much more than an undergraduate level . . . Well, I took undergraduate level physics, albeit in 1975. A mid-level course at Cornell. I got A's. But we never touched on anything as esoteric as this. Maybe you mean an undergraduate degree in science or engineering. Krivit does not have that, and it is not something you pick up casually in mid-life, like a degree in literature perhaps. I am not saying that Krivit could not possibly have any idea what the theory is about. What I mean is that he could not write a paper comparing and contrasting it to other major theories such as Hagelstein's, at a level that would persuade an expert that Krivit is right that this theory is probably the best one around. I have read most of Krivit's serious work. It is pretty good. But nothing remotely as technical as this. It couldn't be, because I understand it easily. Krivit has pointed out some reasons why the theory might be good. These advantages are obvious to me, or to anyone who reads the W-L abstracts. That does not mean the theory is right. It just means W-L know enough about cold fusion experimental evidence that they know what needs to be explained. They know it does not produce many neutrons, for example. I believe Mizuno said he cannot understand simply because the theories presented so far really do not make sense. Perhaps that is the case. I cannot tell if the theories make sense or not. I do not think he can either. It is clear to me that most theories make no useful predictions and are not guides to fruitful research. People have not made progress by depending on theories. They might in the future. That will be a good sign the theory is valid. It will be proof of that. Sometimes a theory can be a good guide even though it is flawed. But he is being polite and not saying they do not making sense... I think he meant only that he could not understand. Based on previous breakthroughs such as fission reactors, transistors and DNA, I have a hunch that that a valid theory to explain cold fusion will seem simpler and more obvious than the ones we have now. I expect it will have broad implications that explain other phenomena now thought to be unrelated. As I said, that was Watson said about his own discovery of DNA. I could be wrong. The answer might be convoluted and beyond the understanding of most people -- including me. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You can tell that WL theory does not fit experiments since it does not predict the formation of He4 within a few hours of experiment. WL try to explain this discrepancy, don't they? Thus, the constant attacks of Krivit on MacKubre's M4 experiment. That experiment rules out, completely, WL theory. I understand Krivit's motivation for doing this, but I had the impression that WL have a more sophisticated explanation. I have not looked closely at their work. If they say the helium data must be a mistake they are clearly wrong. It is one thing to claim the helium data is a mistake. It is quite another to claim it is fraud, as Krivit does. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
No, not at all. They rely on circumstantial evidence of unusual LENR processes and on Krivit, to try to put McKubre to shame. 2012/2/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You can tell that WL theory does not fit experiments since it does not predict the formation of He4 within a few hours of experiment. WL try to explain this discrepancy, don't they? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
From Jed: ... Krivit has done important work, and he has done a lot of good for the field. Both Steven and I have worked with Krivit, and benefited from the experience. So I do not wish to turn this thread into a bash Steve Krivit extravaganza. But I would like to add one thing. From my perspective, it is pathetic that Krivit is advocating a theory. I do not think he has the expertise to evaluate cold fusion theory. I am sure that I do not have that expertise. I am not ashamed to admit that because Mizuno and many other chemists have told me they cannot make head or tail of theory, and they skip the theory sessions at conferences. If they don't have a clue what Hagelstein is talking about, it is cinch I don't. To follow up Jed Rothwell's recent commentary, I have to admit that lately much of what I have had to say about Krivit has not been terribly complementary. But that was not always the case. I agree with Jed in the matter that Krivit has published serious, useful work. I risk repeating myself here, but several years ago I volunteered to be a member on Krivit's NET BoD. Steve asked me to join the NET BoD. I felt I might be of some useful service. In the end, what soured me, personally, was the fact that very quickly it became obvious to me that Krivit's view of investigative reporting differed from what I thought investigative reporting ought to be all about. In the end I could not reconcile, nor in good conscious continue to be a BoD member based on the direction Krivit wanted to take NET. Also, in the end I think Krivit was no longer interested in any advice or insight I might have to share. It seemed to me that all I had become was just another BoD member (of several) he needed in order for NET to maintain its tax exempt status. By law, BoD members must meet regularly every year. That can be done by conducting teleconferences. However, I gather that at least once a year everyone has to meet in person at an agreed-upon location. I participated in a number of telephone BoD conference calls, as well as an in-person meeting held in a conference room at a motel near the Milwaukee airport. A side comment: Krivit used to post the names and photos of BoD members out on NET. When I came on board however, Krivit had already discretely removed all of that information. He did so because he wanted to protect BoD members from potential reprisals from individuals and/or organizations that were unhappy with his investigation efforts. Say what you will about Krivit's investigative intentions, Krivit WAS concerned about the welfare of his BoD members. That was considerate of him. Nevertheless, I still felt extremely vulnerable as a NET BoD member. Talking to a lawyer friend of mine didn’t ease my concerns. If someone with an extremely vindictive nature REALLY got pissed off with Steve I'm sure they would eventually uncover who the BoD members are and make life miserable for them if that is how they wanted to go about settling the score. Meanwhile, as previous stated, I did not like the direction Krivit was taking his investigative reporting. When I confronted Krivit via eMail pertaining to what I thought was a serious issue, Krivit got angry at me for confronting him. As Rothwell once said, Krivit seems to be extremely thin-skinned. I attempted to confront Krivit privately. Krivit, in turn, decided to parade what I said to him in private in front of rest of other BoD members, presumably to prove to everyone what an asshole I was being towards him. This actually amused me. Frankly, I didn't care that Steve had done this. I had absolutely nothing to hide. I originally sent the eMail privately to Krivit as a courtesy because in the past we had conducted MANY private phone calls over various matters. I though those phone calls for the most part had been productive. However, Krivit chose to take my private email in a different direction, presumably to use it as the justification he needed in to remove me from the BoD. I suspect Krivit came to this decision after I had unwisely publicly critiqued him out in Vortex based on an interview he participated in where he basically inferred that McKubre had deliberately produced false data. Krivit never actually said that McKubre had deliberately lied, but he let the listener strongly infer that. After I had heard Krivit's interview, I initially tried to rationalize Steve's intentions as just someone who was inexperienced at being interviewed. That was stupid of me. Krivit meant what he meant, and it was not my job to try to reinterpret Krivit's intentions. I eventually resigned over the matter. But enuf of me and my own saga. This is really about Steven Krivit. Krivit in the past used to participate in the Vortex list. However, when Krivit's investigations into the actions of certain prominent CF researchers caused several Vort participants to begin questioning and confronting
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
Beta delayed? Don't you mean beta speed up? In order to get to He4, tritium decay should be accelerated, from a half life of 10years to something of miliseconds. 2012/2/19 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com this decay is well known, so no new physics involved... it can be considered by classic Q physic... now is it true... nb: if on want to make his own opinion, one should read the dozen of key slides (and papers if more courage) start with the index: http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcindex-to-concepts-experiments-and-documents-september-14-2009 and follow the links the first to read IMHo is http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewjune-25-2009 W-L theory have the characteristic to use many observed phenomenon, and assemble them so they can explain LENR. another key point is that larsen have mane very good documents for evangelization. for that 2 facts, i've never found another more convincing theory. hints welcome. Thus, the constant attacks of Krivit on MacKubre's M4 experiment. That experiment rules out, completely, WL theory. I understand Krivit's motivation for doing this, but I had the impression that WL have a more sophisticated explanation. I have not looked closely at their work. If they say the helium data must be a mistake they are clearly wrong. It is one thing to claim the helium data is a mistake. It is quite another to claim it is fraud, as Krivit does. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
no, as they say in the slide, it is alpha disintegration, that follow the rythm of beta decay. It is their explanation, and it seems standard physic (even if there is a needed trick either with energetic state or pauli-excluded beta) I could find those exambles cited beside the slides of Larsen http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v48/i1/p429_1 http://www.nucleonica.net/wiki/index.php?title=Beta_delayed_processes http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/nuctek/decaytype.html 2012/2/20 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com Beta delayed? Don't you mean beta speed up? In order to get to He4, tritium decay should be accelerated, from a half life of 10years to something of miliseconds. 2012/2/19 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com this decay is well known, so no new physics involved... it can be considered by classic Q physic... now is it true... nb: if on want to make his own opinion, one should read the dozen of key slides (and papers if more courage) start with the index: http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcindex-to-concepts-experiments-and-documents-september-14-2009 and follow the links the first to read IMHo is http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewjune-25-2009 W-L theory have the characteristic to use many observed phenomenon, and assemble them so they can explain LENR. another key point is that larsen have mane very good documents for evangelization. for that 2 facts, i've never found another more convincing theory. hints welcome. Thus, the constant attacks of Krivit on MacKubre's M4 experiment. That experiment rules out, completely, WL theory. I understand Krivit's motivation for doing this, but I had the impression that WL have a more sophisticated explanation. I have not looked closely at their work. If they say the helium data must be a mistake they are clearly wrong. It is one thing to claim the helium data is a mistake. It is quite another to claim it is fraud, as Krivit does. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
But that requires very heavy nucleus, like thorium or uranium. And it would present a similar problem to explain the presence beginning with tritium, since alpha emitters in general have very long decay times, at least for the purpose of the experiment. Just check the list of half lives of the atoms present in the list present in the website you listed: 235U, 238U, 231Th, 208Po, 258Fm100, 256Fm100, 254Fm100, 254Cf98, 252Fm100 and 250Cm96 2012/2/19 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com no, as they say in the slide, it is alpha disintegration, that follow the rythm of beta decay. It is their explanation, and it seems standard physic (even if there is a needed trick either with energetic state or pauli-excluded beta) I could find those exambles cited beside the slides of Larsen http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v48/i1/p429_1 http://www.nucleonica.net/wiki/index.php?title=Beta_delayed_processes http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/nuctek/decaytype.html 2012/2/20 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com Beta delayed? Don't you mean beta speed up? In order to get to He4, tritium decay should be accelerated, from a half life of 10years to something of miliseconds. 2012/2/19 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com this decay is well known, so no new physics involved... it can be considered by classic Q physic... now is it true... nb: if on want to make his own opinion, one should read the dozen of key slides (and papers if more courage) start with the index: http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcindex-to-concepts-experiments-and-documents-september-14-2009 and follow the links the first to read IMHo is http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewjune-25-2009 W-L theory have the characteristic to use many observed phenomenon, and assemble them so they can explain LENR. another key point is that larsen have mane very good documents for evangelization. for that 2 facts, i've never found another more convincing theory. hints welcome. Thus, the constant attacks of Krivit on MacKubre's M4 experiment. That experiment rules out, completely, WL theory. I understand Krivit's motivation for doing this, but I had the impression that WL have a more sophisticated explanation. I have not looked closely at their work. If they say the helium data must be a mistake they are clearly wrong. It is one thing to claim the helium data is a mistake. It is quite another to claim it is fraud, as Krivit does. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
Krivit wrote: Not verified. Just reporting the facts on record. I’m trying to wrap this investigation up and finish up the loose ends. In month 12 now. Has cost me more than $50,000 in labor and expenses. Has cost the field at least a one-year delay/interference in covering real science. Then stop doing it! If this is not real science why spend any time on it? Leave it to fraud investigators. If Rossi is not real, he is unimportant. We make a big deal about him here only because we think he is real. If he is a scammer he has not scammed anyone yet as far as I know. What could be less newsworthy than an unsuccessful scam artist? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
50K$ for that shitty investigation?!? Seriously??? 2012/2/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Krivit wrote: Not verified. Just reporting the facts on record. I’m trying to wrap this investigation up and finish up the loose ends. In month 12 now. Has cost me more than $50,000 in labor and expenses. Has cost the field at least a one-year delay/interference in covering real science. Then stop doing it! If this is not real science why spend any time on it? Leave it to fraud investigators. If Rossi is not real, he is unimportant. We make a big deal about him here only because we think he is real. If he is a scammer he has not scammed anyone yet as far as I know. What could be less newsworthy than an unsuccessful scam artist? - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
I wrote: If he is a scammer he has not scammed anyone yet as far as I know. More to the point, Krivit has not found any victims yet either. What kind of investigation is this? He thinks he has disproved the science. I disagree, but if that is what he did, he could have done it as easily sitting in a chair at home, looking at the data. As Daniel says, what could possibly cost $50,000 about this? What has Krivit done? He has not uncovered anything that has not been reported here, as far as I know. He went all the way to Italy to report that Rossi will not let people use their own instruments and the experiment is poorly done. Rossi told me that when he invited me to visit. He said I can look but make no measurements. He described the experiment, and I thought was lousy. That took me about an hour and 6 e-mails to discover, not $50,000. I reported it here. End of story. This reminds me of Krivit's investigation of McKubre, which has revealed confusion in Krivit's own mind, but nothing in the real world. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: The SK continues to believe that a corporate address and a factory have to be co-located. LOL! If this were true, Delaware would be an industrial behemoth: More than 900,000 business entities have their legal home in Delaware including more than 50% of all U.S. publicly-traded companies and 63% of the Fortune 500. http://corp.delaware.gov/ T
RE: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
From Jed: ... As Daniel says, what could possibly cost $50,000 about this? What has Krivit done? He has not uncovered anything that has not been reported here, as far as I know. He went all the way to Italy to report that Rossi will not let people use their own instruments and the experiment is poorly done. Rossi told me that when he invited me to visit. He said I can look but make no measurements. He described the experiment, and I thought was lousy. That took me about an hour and 6 e-mails to discover, not $50,000. I reported it here. End of story. This reminds me of Krivit's investigation of McKubre, which has revealed confusion in Krivit's own mind, but nothing in the real world. IMO, Krivit is working out of habit he learned years ago. That habit is to look for what he personally perceives to be suspicious activity, and then go digging for dirt. Sometimes filthy dirt is found hiding under carpets. However, what is sometimes perceived as dirt turns out to be valid fertilizer as perceived by others. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Krivit perceives himself to be an independent investigative reporter. I beg to differ. In fact I STRONGLY disagree. When I was still one of the NET BoD directors I asked Krivit whether he was actually pursuing the role of an advocate rather than that of an independent investigative reporter. This was related to the fact that I noticed he was spending a great deal of time promoting the so-called merits of the Widom-Larsen theory out on his NET website. What did promoting the merits of the W-L theory have to do with being an independent investigative reporter? I suggested to Krivit that if he really was an advocate then for heaven's sake make it clear to everyone that you ARE an advocate (nothing wrong with that). Also, stop trying to make yourself out as independent investigative reporter. Krivit disagreed with my outlook. I think I asked the question too late. Let me explain what I mean by that. Years ago it looked to me as if Krivit became disillusioned with McKubre over certain encounters he experienced, the specifics of which I will not go into detail here. However, based on what Krivit told me it seemed pretty clear to me that Krivit's perception of McKubre (which initially was someone infallible, and as a mentor) was seriously challenged. Based on what Krivit inferred I suggested that perhaps now was an opportune time in his life to simply declare his own independence from any particular mentor, individual or organization. Unfortunately, I think I offered up the suggestion too late as far as Krivit was concerned. It soon looked to me as if Krivit had already switched his allegiance from McKubre ( possibly Storms as well) over to mentors residing in the Widom-Larsen camp. I honestly don't know WHO in the W-L camp those affiliates might be, but no matter. The point about forming an allegiance with an affiliate is the fact that when one does so it means THEIR enemy now becomes YOUR enemy. When I see Krivit going after Rossi, McKubre, and the rest of the CF camp, what I often see is someone going after the ENEMY based on his newly formed allegiance. It looks to me as if Krivit never gave himself the chance to declare his independence. It looks to me as if he's just working for someone else now. Under the circumstances, it would be almost impossible for Krivit to dig up anything good about individuals like the mysterious quirky Rossi - someone who obviously exhibits many flagrant personality flaws. Likewise it would be next to impossible for Krivit to have anything good to say about McKubre, based on past history. His new allegiance, and the security and stability he derives from it, wouldn't allow for it. In wacky non-scientific New Age terms I'd say Krivit is still in the throes of learning the valuable lesson pertaining to leaving the ideological nest that has been manufactured by others and declaring his own intellectual independence. IMHO, this is a huge and scary lesson we all must eventually pass through - some more awkwardly and obnoxiously than others. It also explains why, IMO, Krivit is no longer an investigative reporter, or perhaps never really was. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
From Jed: ... As Daniel says, what could possibly cost $50,000 about this? What has Krivit done? He has not uncovered anything that has not been reported here, as far as I know. He went all the way to Italy to report that Rossi will not let people use their own instruments and the experiment is poorly done. Rossi told me that when he invited me to visit. He said I can look but make no measurements. He described the experiment, and I thought was lousy. That took me about an hour and 6 e-mails to discover, not $50,000. I reported it here. End of story. This reminds me of Krivit's investigation of McKubre, which has revealed confusion in Krivit's own mind, but nothing in the real world. In an addition to my previous arm-chair psychology analysis of Krivt. I wouldn't have given out dollar amount, like the alleged $50,000 in labor and expenses unless my intention had been to impress my readership with my observational skills. Giving a dollar amount in the manner that he did tells me this is all about Krivit's ego. He has now wrapped himself in a flag of narcissistic self-importance because investigating Rossi, he claims, has cost him ...a one-year delay/interference in covering real science. So, Krivit is basically inferring to his readership to please admire him for all of the thankless work he has performed to expose the scammer Rossi. Krivit hopes we will all eventually get around to thanking and admiring him when we all come around to his POV. But now that Krivit has unwisely boasted of a specific dollar amount for all of his investigative work to expose Rossi it automatically leads one to ask WHO is footing all of Krivit's expenses to expose Rossi? It seems to me that it isn't likely that one would shell out fifty grand unless the benefactor expects to get something in return, even if that return is nothing more than pushing for a specific ideological POV. If they didn't like what Krivit was investigating and subsequently publishing, no more funding. It's a simple as that. So, who is backing Krivit? What are their motivations, their educational background? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: When I was still one of the NET BoD directors I asked Krivit whether he was actually pursuing the role of an advocate rather than that of an independent investigative reporter. This was related to the fact that I noticed he was spending a great deal of time promoting the so-called merits of the Widom-Larsen theory out on his NET website. Krivit has done important work, and he has done a lot of good for the field. Both Steven and I have worked with Krivit, and benefited from the experience. So I do not wish to turn this thread into a bash Steve Krivit extravaganza. But I would like to add one thing. From my perspective, it is pathetic that Krivit is advocating a theory. I do not think he has the expertise to evaluate cold fusion theory. I am sure that I do not have that expertise. I am not ashamed to admit that because Mizuno and many other chemists have told me they cannot make head or tail of theory, and they skip the theory sessions at conferences. If they don't have a clue what Hagelstein is talking about, it is cinch I don't. I get the impression I have a somewhat stronger background in physics and biology than Krivit does. But I am sure that you gave me an oral exam on these theories and asked me to explain some paragraphs from the W-L theory papers, I would have slightest idea what they mean. Here's the thing: I am pretty sure that Krivit would not have the slightest idea either. He can parrot some of the claims in the papers but that is far from understanding what it means, or being able to argue the merits of the theory compared to Hagelstein's theory or some other. For example: Imagine asking Krivit to explicate this: Generally it can be considered that all effective mass calculations about the charges (electrons and holes) in solids are based on the corresponding electron band structures ignoring the rule given in [1, 2]. However, recently some authors [3, 4] have considered the impact of interaction of external electro-magnetic field with electrons in solids on the electron effective mass, and they have found that increase of this mass can be expected. Imagine asking him: Can you explain what an effective mass calculation of charges is? What rule is ignored? How can a magnetic field increase the effective mass of an electron, and what does this mean? Why is this expected? I wouldn't have a clue! I can barely make out the claim, and I can't imagine how a magnetic field can increase mass in any sense, virtual or real. Ask him what Eq. 1 means, and what the terms r is the radius-vector of the electron, E(q) is electron energy in the quasi-elementary cell mean and I am sure he would be lost at sea. There is a paper by Krivit that says: Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen propose that, in condensed matter, local breakdown of the Born–Oppenheimer approximation occurs in homogeneous, many-body, collectively oscillating patches of protons, deuterons, or tritons found on surfaces of fully loaded metallic hydrides; Born–Oppenheimer breakdown enables a degree of electromagnetic coupling of surface proton/ deuteron/triton oscillations with those of nearby surface plasmon polariton (SPP) electrons. Such coupling between collective oscillations creates local nuclear-strength electric fields in the vicinity of the patches. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrivitSanewlookat.pdf That is impressive but I suspect it is was written by his co-author Marwan. Anyway, I could crib a similar description of many theory papers without actually knowing what I was saying. I have often edited such papers and occasionally translated them. Naturally, I warn the authors that I may mess things up since I do not understand the content in any depth. There are many secretaries in university departments who edit and rewrite papers without knowing in detail what the papers really mean. Needless to say, there are hoards of nitwits out there editing Wikipedia and making trouble elsewhere who do know the first thing about cold fusion yet who pontificate about it endlessly with great assurance. Krivit is not the only one who does this. But someone is paying him 50 grand to do it . . . Back in the 1980s I read several computer science papers written by management consultants that were cribbed. That is to say, the authors knew how to string together impressive sounding jargon describing what was then state-of-the-art programming techniques and the latest microcomputer hardware. It sounded good, like an article in Byte magazine. But I knew a more about computers than these people did, and I could tell they were faking it. I recall in particular a report from McKinsey Co. in which the authors confused EPROM firmware with operating system object code and application object code. As Dirty Harry said, a man should know his limitations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
If one is advocating it, this limitation should be overcome. With 50k$, a year, that is possible, either by self learning or going to an university. 2012/2/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com As Dirty Harry said, a man should know his limitations. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: If one is advocating it, this limitation should be overcome. With 50k$, a year, that is possible, either by self learning or going to an university. I believe you are suggesting that with $50,000 per year, Krivit might study by himself or attend classes at a university to the point where he could master these theories and make credible critique of the W-L theory. I do not think that is possible. Take Mizuno for example. He earned a PhD studying with Bockris, who was a notorious slave driver who expected top notch work and made his students work 80-hour weeks. Mizuno has decades of practical experience in chemistry. Yet he says he cannot understand these theories. As I said, I know several other scientists with similar deep backgrounds and experience who cannot understand the theories well enough to debate which is best, or even which has merit. If people like this cannot debate the issue, I doubt that Krivit could after a few years of school after reading some textbooks. Modern physics is extremely complicated. It is not something you can master in your spare time, and probably not after you pass age 30. That would be like trying to become a concert pianist in your 30s when you had only amateur-level training in high school. It may be that these theories are particularly complicated and difficult to learn because they are wrong. I wouldn't know, but in the past incorrect theories have often been complicated than correct ones. In the book The Double Helix Watson wrote that he could not make head or tail of the theories proposed to explain cellular reproduction before 1952. They were over his head. He paid no attention to them. It turned out they were all completely wrong. He discovered the actual cause, and it was relatively simple. (Simple enough that even I understand it in some depth.) There are some disciplines you can master to the farthest extent anyone can go in a few years. Learning a modern foreign language for example. Once you can read an adult level book, understand a movie, conduct business or write a speech or newspaper column in another language, you may not be a native speaker but you have mastered it. No language is more intrinsically complicated than any other, because children everywhere master their own languages by age 5. There other disciplines such as physics or biology in which the amount that can be learned is far greater than any individual can master -- or even hear about. In the mid-19th century there were still a few people who could understand every major development in these fields, but that is impossible now. I think that is one of the reasons the pace of progress in science is slowing down, and why it has taken 22 years for people to accept cold fusion. Science is too big and too complicated for the human mind. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
Well, I personally do not see WL theory as something that would require much more than an undergraduate level, or for the most complicated ones, anything close to a PhD. I believe Mizuno said he cannot understand simply because the theories presented so far really do not make sense. But he is being polite and not saying they do not making sense... 2012/2/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: If one is advocating it, this limitation should be overcome. With 50k$, a year, that is possible, either by self learning or going to an university. I believe you are suggesting that with $50,000 per year, Krivit might study by himself or attend classes at a university to the point where he could master these theories and make credible critique of the W-L theory. I do not think that is possible. Take Mizuno for example. He earned a PhD studying with Bockris, who was a notorious slave driver who expected top notch work and made his students work 80-hour weeks. Mizuno has decades of practical experience in chemistry. Yet he says he cannot understand these theories. As I said, I know several other scientists with similar deep backgrounds and experience who cannot understand the theories well enough to debate which is best, or even which has merit. If people like this cannot debate the issue, I doubt that Krivit could after a few years of school after reading some textbooks. Modern physics is extremely complicated. It is not something you can master in your spare time, and probably not after you pass age 30. That would be like trying to become a concert pianist in your 30s when you had only amateur-level training in high school. It may be that these theories are particularly complicated and difficult to learn because they are wrong. I wouldn't know, but in the past incorrect theories have often been complicated than correct ones. In the book The Double Helix Watson wrote that he could not make head or tail of the theories proposed to explain cellular reproduction before 1952. They were over his head. He paid no attention to them. It turned out they were all completely wrong. He discovered the actual cause, and it was relatively simple. (Simple enough that even I understand it in some depth.) There are some disciplines you can master to the farthest extent anyone can go in a few years. Learning a modern foreign language for example. Once you can read an adult level book, understand a movie, conduct business or write a speech or newspaper column in another language, you may not be a native speaker but you have mastered it. No language is more intrinsically complicated than any other, because children everywhere master their own languages by age 5. There other disciplines such as physics or biology in which the amount that can be learned is far greater than any individual can master -- or even hear about. In the mid-19th century there were still a few people who could understand every major development in these fields, but that is impossible now. I think that is one of the reasons the pace of progress in science is slowing down, and why it has taken 22 years for people to accept cold fusion. Science is too big and too complicated for the human mind. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
