Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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. 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 Darwinian selection? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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 be one of the founding members of the Cold Fusion Energy, Inc. (CFEI) consortium - along with Hagelstein, McKubre, Storms,... See -- http://www.cfeis.com/ Daniel Rocha wrote: 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. 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 Darwinian selection? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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, 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 be one of the founding members of the Cold Fusion Energy, Inc. (CFEI) consortium - along with Hagelstein, McKubre, Storms,... See -- http://www.cfeis.com/ Daniel Rocha wrote: 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. 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 Darwinian selection? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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 textbooks etc. (Not that I'm going with his WL or die position). So I've reluctantly decided to give up on CF (see my previous rant at: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47696.html ) and stick with LENR or maybe UNR (Unexplained Nuclear Reactions). That or Alchemistic Transmutations.
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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 guess. Pardon if I misinterpreted. Daniel Rocha wrote: 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, 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 be one of the founding members of the Cold Fusion Energy, Inc. (CFEI) consortium - along with Hagelstein, McKubre, Storms,... See -- http://www.cfeis.com/ Daniel Rocha wrote: 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. 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 Darwinian selection? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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-- 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 guess. Pardon if I misinterpreted. Daniel Rocha wrote: 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, 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 be one of the founding members of the Cold Fusion Energy, Inc. (CFEI) consortium - along with Hagelstein, McKubre, Storms,... See -- http://www.cfeis.com/ Daniel Rocha wrote: 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. 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 Darwinian selection? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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 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 Darwinian selection?
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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 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 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 Darwinian selection?
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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 unimportant. I refer to these bizarre notions: 1. You should fight for a theory. Nope. If the theory is right, it will prove itself over time. There is no point to trying to shove it down people's throats. 2. That there is some sort of conspiracy by people who think this is a form of fusion, and some of them such as McKubre have fabricated data to support that hypothesis. I regard that as the single most idiotic notion in the history of this field, and this field has produced a cornucopia of stupid notions. 3. It matters what you call cold fusion. Correct terminology is important. It isn't! This issue is about language, not physics. I know more about language than Larsen does. If the WL theory is right, and if in the future enough people agree the technical terminology should be adjusted to reflect reality, they will change the name. 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 like. Let history decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so. It is better to view terms and other people as how their statements can be true instead of trying to force others to use your terms and then assume others wrong. Nature does not care what we call these events. I have been reading more books about the history of electricity from 1880 to 1910, especially this one, which my daughter got me for Christmas: Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the Race to Electrify the World. Two things about this stand out in my mind: First, the terminology for light bulbs, filaments, transformers and many other things changed quite a bit in the early years. Second, while this history is inspiring and the work of genius in some ways, it is also chock full of politics, theft of intellectual property, ignorance, stupidity, hubris, jealousy, mismanagement, wasted opportunity, and all of the other problems that plague cold fusion. It makes me feel better about cold fusion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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 like. Let history decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so. It is better to view terms and other people as how their statements can be true instead of trying to force others to use your terms and then assume others wrong. Nature does not care what we call these events. When I was still a New Energy Times BoD member I recall at one time emailing Krivit and the rest of the BoD members asking Krivit why he was spending so much of his editorial skills going after the cold fusion word. What was the point of trying to prove to the world that the fusion word was such a terribly inaccurate description of what was alleged to be happening on the nuclear level? IMO, I never got a straight answer from Krivit. Alas, none of the other BoD members seemed inclined to question Krivit the same matter either, so obviously my concerns were never addressed. I was left with the impression that either the other BoD members agreed with Mr. Krivit's philosophy - or perhaps they just didn't care. I suspect it was the latter. I have no bone to pick with the W-L theory itself. I'm not knowledgeable enough to pass judgment for or against it. Privately, however, I have received an earful from certain individuals who I realize are far more knowledgeable than I on prevailing theories pertaining to nuclear reactions. What these critics have had to say would suggest to me that the W-L theory appears to have certain fundamental problems that in their view have not been adequately addressed. Whatever... If it eventually turns out that the W-L theory accurately depicts the way of nuclear reactions. particularly when it comes to LENR (or cold fusion), then that is the way of things and the W-L camp can have their cake and eat it too. However, I detest attempts originating from the W-L camp and Krivit to cast researchers and other prevailing theories in a bad light, especially since at present it seems to me that nobody really knows for sure which theory is probably the most accurate one. As for my involvement with Krivit and NET, everything came to a head when I privately complained (in a confrontational email) to Krivit about his criticism of McKubre, after Krivit had indirectly inferred on a radio program that McKubre had lied about some of his experimental data. I think at that point Krivit had had had enough of me. Krivit forwarded my confrontational email, which as a courtesy had been intended for Krivit's eyes only, to all the other BoD members - presumably, I would speculate, to show everyone what an asshole I was being towards him. Quite frankly, I didn't give a damn what Krivit had done with my private email. I really had nothing to hide. I sent the email to Krivit privately was a matter of professional courtesy. What he did with it was his business. What Krivit did with it was tack on a message of his own. an ultimatum telling me in front of all the other BoD members that I ought to resign if I couldn't behave in a more civil manner towards him. I was more than happy to resign. It was, in fact, a tremendous relief to resign. Incidentally, several former NET BoD members have also experienced similar fates. What I encountered is by no means unique. Years ago my brother drove a delivery truck supplying beer and wine coolers to various grocery stores in the Bend, Oregon area. He constantly complained about how other delivery personnel, when they came through, would shove or hide his product brands to the back of the shelves. There was a constant product placement war going on amongst all the delivery men as they maneuvered to get their merchandise optimally placed. As far as I'm concerned the war against the fusion word is nothing more than a petty self-serving theoretical product placement war. WTF cares. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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 anti-semantic. A rose by any other name . . . T
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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 while we watch the FPE Days Of Our Lives soap opera. AG On 12/31/2011 12:12 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 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. WTF cares.
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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 is behind the strong emotions about WL theory -- even though WL theory doesn't debunk the FPE and the FPE is all that is needed to see that the nuclear physics establishment is rotten to the core. Public relations is insane, which is why sensible people are rarely successful. On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: 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 like.* *** Let history decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so. It is better to view terms and other people as how their statements can be true instead of trying to force others to use your terms and then assume others wrong. Nature does not care what we call these events. ** ** When I was still a New Energy Times BoD member I recall at one time emailing Krivit and the rest of the BoD members asking Krivit why he was spending so much of his editorial skills going after the cold fusion word. What was the point of trying to prove to the world that the fusion word was such a terribly inaccurate description of what was alleged to be happening on the nuclear level? IMO, I never got a straight answer from Krivit. Alas, none of the other BoD members seemed inclined to question Krivit the same matter either, so obviously my concerns were never addressed. I was left with the impression that either the other BoD members agreed with Mr. Krivit's philosophy - or perhaps they just didn't care. I suspect it was the latter. ** ** I have no bone to pick with the W-L theory itself. I'm not knowledgeable enough to pass judgment for or against it. Privately, however, I have received an earful from certain individuals who I realize are far more knowledgeable than I on prevailing theories pertaining to nuclear reactions. What these critics have had to say would suggest to me that the W-L theory appears to have certain fundamental problems that in their view have not been adequately addressed. Whatever... If it eventually turns out that the W-L theory accurately depicts the way of nuclear reactions… particularly when it comes to LENR (or “cold fusion”), then that is the way of things and the W-L camp can have their cake and eat it too. ** ** However, I detest attempts originating from the W-L camp *and Krivit* to cast researchers and other prevailing theories in a bad light, especially since at present it seems to me that nobody really knows for sure which theory is probably the most accurate one. As for my involvement with Krivit and NET, everything came to a head when I privately complained (in a confrontational email) to Krivit about his criticism of McKubre, after Krivit had indirectly inferred on a radio program that McKubre had lied about some of his experimental data. I think at that point Krivit had had had enough of me. Krivit forwarded my confrontational email, which as a courtesy had been intended for Krivit’s eyes only, to all the other BoD members – presumably, I would speculate, to show everyone what an asshole I was being towards him. Quite frankly, I didn’t give a damn what Krivit had done with my private email. I really had nothing to hide. I sent the email to Krivit privately was a matter of professional courtesy. What he did with it was his business. What Krivit did with it was tack on a message of his own… an ultimatum telling me in front of all the other BoD members that I ought to resign if I couldn’t behave in a more civil manner towards him. I was more than happy to resign. It was, in fact, a tremendous relief to resign. Incidentally, several former NET BoD members have also experienced similar fates. What I encountered is by no means unique. ** ** Years ago my brother drove a delivery truck supplying beer and wine coolers to various grocery stores in the Bend, Oregon area. He constantly complained about how other delivery personnel, when they came through, would shove or hide his product brands to the back of the shelves. There was a constant product placement war going on amongst all the delivery men as they maneuvered to get their merchandise optimally placed. As far as I’m concerned the war against the fusion word is nothing more than a petty self-serving theoretical product placement war. ** ** WTF cares. ** ** Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson
Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
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 Effect (FPE). 2) The FPE generates excess heat. 3) The FPE does not generate significant radiation. 4) The FPE generates element transmutations, both up and down scale. (shall we call in Cold Fission as well?) 5) The FPE works in both Palladium / D2O and Nickel / H2. AG On 12/31/2011 2:44 PM, James Bowery wrote: 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 is behind the strong emotions about WL theory -- even though WL theory doesn't debunk the FPE and the FPE is all that is needed to see that the nuclear physics establishment is rotten to the core. Public relations is insane, which is why sensible people are rarely successful.
RE: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics
SVJ 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. WTF cares. I wholeheartedly agree Steven, but it's not you and I that needed convincing these past 20+ years; it's the physics establishment. I asked a close friend (PhD physicist) and he said the same thing as Krivit; that fusion has a *very* specific meaning *to a physicist*, and neutron capture is not 'fusion' as far as they're concerned. Now, if I was a physicist, I would hope that I'd be more concerned about whether the LENR/CF data was rigorous enough and not be concerned about what it was being called. but then, my job and my field of expertise is not likely to be ridiculed for delaying the dawn of a new era for 20+ years. Humans are interesting indeed. Fortunately, there are so many non-physicists now who are aware of LENR, that the physics establishment's influence is severely undermined. Those non-technical, influential people being advised by the physicists are now going to want to get a piece of the action in the next revolutionary technology, and will be getting second and third opinions from non-physicists. -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: 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 like. Let history decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so. It is better to view terms and other people as how their statements can be true instead of trying to force others to use your terms and then assume others wrong. Nature does not care what we call these events. When I was still a New Energy Times BoD member I recall at one time emailing Krivit and the rest of the BoD members asking Krivit why he was spending so much of his editorial skills going after the cold fusion word. What was the point of trying to prove to the world that the fusion word was such a terribly inaccurate description of what was alleged to be happening on the nuclear level? IMO, I never got a straight answer from Krivit. Alas, none of the other BoD members seemed inclined to question Krivit the same matter either, so obviously my concerns were never addressed. I was left with the impression that either the other BoD members agreed with Mr. Krivit's philosophy - or perhaps they just didn't care. I suspect it was the latter. I have no bone to pick with the W-L theory itself. I'm not knowledgeable enough to pass judgment for or against it. Privately, however, I have received an earful from certain individuals who I realize are far more knowledgeable than I on prevailing theories pertaining to nuclear reactions. What these critics have had to say would suggest to me that the W-L theory appears to have certain fundamental problems that in their view have not been adequately addressed. Whatever... If it eventually turns out that the W-L theory accurately depicts the way of nuclear reactions. particularly when it comes to LENR (or cold fusion), then that is the way of things and the W-L camp can have their cake and eat it too. However, I detest attempts originating from the W-L camp and Krivit to cast researchers and other prevailing theories in a bad light, especially since at present it seems to me that nobody really knows for sure which theory is probably the most accurate one. As for my involvement with Krivit and NET, everything came to a head when I privately complained (in a confrontational email) to Krivit about his criticism of McKubre, after Krivit had indirectly inferred on a radio program that McKubre had lied about some of his experimental data. I think at that point Krivit had had had enough of me. Krivit forwarded my confrontational email, which as a courtesy had been intended for Krivit's eyes only, to all the other BoD members - presumably, I would speculate, to show everyone what an asshole I was being towards him. Quite frankly, I didn't give a damn what Krivit had done with my private email. I really had nothing to hide. I sent the email to Krivit privately was a matter of professional courtesy. What he did with it was his business. What Krivit did with it was tack on a message of his own. an ultimatum telling me in front of all the other BoD members that I ought to resign if I couldn't behave in a more civil manner towards him. I was more than happy to resign. It was, in fact, a tremendous relief to resign. Incidentally, several former NET BoD members have also experienced similar fates. What I encountered is by no means unique. Years ago my brother drove a delivery truck
