Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
At 03:50 PM 2/21/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:40:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] But the result that is known is that helium is produced, and the observed energy supports the conclusion that the primary fuel is deuterium. unknown nuclear reaction would bring us full circle. That is what Pons and Fleischmann actually claimed, not fusion.) [snip] Even hot fusion operates on tunneling rather than overcoming the Coulomb barrier by brute force. (The latter would require about 30 MeV). I think 30 MeV is vastly overstated. But, regardless, the Coulomb barrier is really a probability of fusion, which varies with incident energy. At room temperature, forgeddabout it. But this is not relevant to what was quoted from me.
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
At 03:54 PM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: What about in the core of the sun? What mechanism operates there, if not brute force? All that is necessary is that the temperature be great enough that some level of fusion occurs. It's enough that the Boltzmann tail allows enough nuclei to have enough energy to start tunneling, so, yes, practical fusion would not require the average energy to be brute force. Nor that, even the fusion be taking place by nuclei that run up the hill and make it to the goal, based on the simplified model of a barrier.
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
At 01:51 AM 2/21/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/21/rothwell-makes-pre-emptive-strike-against-new-lenr-textbook/ http://tinyurl.com/4s3xhjt Right there, in a nutshell, is perfect evidence as to Krivit's effective demise as a reporter on LENR. This leads me, at the end, to specific situations as to how to proceed. But to start: Rothwell wrote a letter based on his impressions. Looks like Jed made a mistake, an assumption, connecting Wiley, the publisher of the encyclopedia, with the proposed textbook. So? People make mistakes all the time, especially when it's based on a verbal announcement. Rothwell is *not* a professional reporter. And for all we know, what Krivit did and said in Chennai might have been susceptible to that explanation. Or not. The Rothwell mail was more of a mild warning that there are experts concerned about Krivit, re the field, than a pre-emptive strike. Rothwell believed that Wiley had already agreed. Krivit then takes his own knowledge and frames Rothwell's action as if Rothwell knew differently, thus pre-emptive, i.e, before the fact. Krivit writes: Rothwell also e-mailed additional lies to one of the Wiley editors and then posted them in the Vortex-l chat room. Thus Rothwell's belief as to what Krivit has announced becomes, not an error, but a lie. This is the comment of someone who has become very highly involved, very personally. What Krivit then presents is then the highly involved, highly reactive view of someone taking things very, very personally. The people who wrote one of the Encyclopedia articles Srinivasan and Storms and others were at the conference, Rothwell wrote. They assumed he would ask them to contribute to the new textbook, as well. So they approached him and asked about his plans. They were disconcerted when he told them to shut up and go away. Literally. Rothwell is presenting a loose summary of an event. Did he witness the event? Is his understanding of what happened based instead on comments made by others? Rothwell is writing about, not just Storms, but others. Specificity is lost in Rothwell's comment, then about the approach. It could have been someone else, for example. Presenting the state of mind of a whole group of people is dicey. I have extensive correspondence with Jed. I've found him to be highly knowledgeable, truthful, I'd be astonished to catch him in an actual lie. However, he's not a skilled objective observer and reporter. Sometimes he presents his personal conclusions and opinions as if they were objective fact. Lots of people do this, but we expect something different from professional reporters, who are trained -- and paid -- to carefully separate their own opinions from what they know to be fact. A reporter might still cherry-pick facts, because reporters still have biases and also find it necessary to present what is important -- they aren't robots, nor should they be -- but they don't present opinion (such as lie) as if it were fact (in this case, a declarative statement of an opinion or conclusion without expressing the source, such as according to Steve Krivit, Rothwell was lying.) And, normally, backing up and regulating professional reporters are editors and publishers, who ensure that work is checked and that the biases of reporters don't overwhelm what is published. What we've linked to is a blog, Krivit's opinion. The concern of LENR experts is that Krivit's opinions have become so strong that they may badly warp his professional work, the reporting. And we can see that, with one clear example. To my mind, the biggest event in cold fusion history this last year -- let's set aside Rossi! -- was the publication of the Storms review in Naturwissenschaften. If Wikipedia were following its own guidelines, this would have radically reformed the Cold fusion article there. As far as I can see, Krivit has not mentioned it. It's not listed in his page showing recent and significant papers. It is as if it did not happen. Why? I think it's obvious. In the abstract for that paper, Storms states, The evidence supports the claim that a nuclear reaction between deuterons to produce helium can occur in special materials without application of high energy. The title of the paper is Status of Cold-Fusion (2010) Cold fusion has come out of the closet. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf (I believe I suggested different language for that abstract, but whether or not I did, it would have been more accurate or more neutral to state something like the claim that an unknown nuclear reaction is fusing deuterium to helium, occurring in special materials Using the term deuterons implies bare deuterons, thus leading some readers into the old error of assuming d-d fusion, which makes the theoretical problem far more difficult. It might be deuterons and it might even be some
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
Ah. It seems Wiley has not agreed to publish this textbook. That is relief! I tried to ask Krivit about this textbook, but as I said, he refused to talk to me. He acted as if I was not there. When I tapped him on the shoulder he walked away. An extraordinary thing to do! If he had paused for a moment to answer a few of my questions this entire misunderstanding could have been avoided. I was planning to ask who was going to write the chapters and I probably would have asked about Wiley again. At very least, I would have written to him first, rather than Wiley. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
This was all a tempest in a teapot! Good thing. I sent a message to the Wiley editor, pointing to Krivit's article, and apologizing for the misunderstanding. Regarding Abd's comments, several potential authors told me that Krivit pulled this stunt of pretending you are not there. I mentioned McKubre. I witnessed another, a few others people told me. I did not ask Storms or Srinivasan. I don't see any point to sharing the names. It is enough to say that Krivit made a fool of himself in this manner, and if he had not acted like such an ass, I would have spoken to him or written to him first, rather than write to Wiley. I was not the only one to get the wrong impression from his announcement. I circulated a draft of that letter to several people at the conference, and they all agreed I should send it. If even one had expressed reservations or said, I don't think Wiley is the publisher I would not have sent it. Regarding the WL theory, as I have stated before, I have no opinion about this theory, or any theory, and I could not care less whether it is true or not. Some experts recently advised me that if the WL theory is correct, cold fusion would not technically be fusion, so as I said here, score one for Krivit. I do not know what the ratio of helium to heat would be if this theory is correct. In any case, I am quite sure McKubre is not committing fraud, and Krivit's assertions about this are misunderstandings. I know practically nothing about theory, but I am pretty sure I know enough to see that Krivit knows even less than I know. For him to champion one theory or another is preposterous. It would be like me arguing about which vintage of French wine is better suited to foie gras. I don't even know what foie gras is, and all wines taste okay to me. (Mind you, I am very, very choosy about wine: I won't touch anything that costs more than $10 a bottle). It is rather annoying to see that Krivit was photographing people, including me, and uploading the photos without permission. I posted two message on this article, which I expect he will delete: 1. Ah. Then Wiley has not agreed to publish this textbook. That is a relief! When I tried to ask you about this textbook at the conference, you not only refused to talk to me, you refused to acknowledge my presence. When I tapped you on the shoulder you walked away. An extraordinary thing to do! If you had answered a few questions I might have asked you about Wiley, rather than writing to them. I hope that you can make amends with some of the researchers and produce a good textbook. I hope that you do not intend to write a textbook yourself, because you are not qualified. 2. Kindly remove my photo, if you would. I don’t like having photos of myself on the Internet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
At 09:50 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ah. It seems Wiley has not agreed to publish this textbook. That is relief! I tried to ask Krivit about this textbook, but as I said, he refused to talk to me. He acted as if I was not there. When I tapped him on the shoulder he walked away. An extraordinary thing to do! If he had paused for a moment to answer a few of my questions this entire misunderstanding could have been avoided. I was planning to ask who was going to write the chapters and I probably would have asked about Wiley again. At very least, I would have written to him first, rather than Wiley. Jed, your mail talked about the rejection as being of a whole group, not just you. Did you extrapolate from your own experience to that of the group, or do you have any other testimony to present? I.e., your actual experience, or as close to actual quotations of what others told you as you can muster? Indeed, extraordinary, but to be expected from the personality type. It's unfortunate, and signs are that Krivit has been completely impervious to attempts to encourage him to reconsider, he takes them all as hostile, attempting to censor or suppress him. I've asked this before, with no effective response. Does he have any friends he trusts, who might be able to help him see how he's trashing his career as an investigative reporter?
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
At 10:38 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: This was all a tempest in a teapot! Good thing. I sent a message to the Wiley editor, pointing to Krivit's article, and apologizing for the misunderstanding. Regarding Abd's comments, several potential authors told me that Krivit pulled this stunt of pretending you are not there. I mentioned McKubre. I witnessed another, a few others people told me. I did not ask Storms or Srinivasan. I don't see any point to sharing the names. It is enough to say that Krivit made a fool of himself in this manner, and if he had not acted like such an ass, I would have spoken to him or written to him first, rather than write to Wiley. Right. Krivit shoots himself in the foot. I think part of his is his sense of story. He likes dramatic stories. So ... he creates them! I'm quite sure there are plenty of real stories to be investigated. As I noted, I'd really like to know more about W-L theory. But Krivit's reporting on it is shallow, mostly telling the story of CF believers reject it, and how unfair that supposedly is. I was not the only one to get the wrong impression from his announcement. I circulated a draft of that letter to several people at the conference, and they all agreed I should send it. If even one had expressed reservations or said, I don't think Wiley is the publisher I would not have sent it. In other words, it's likely Krivit was ambiguous. He might even have wished to create some ambiance of his own acceptance, i.e., since he'd just done this encyclopedia thing, surely he'll have a publisher waiting and eager. But that's speculation. I haven't seen the video he cites, as if it would be some kind of proof. He might even have been explicit in the video that he didn't have a publisher, but people remember, Jed, impressions, and the people you approached hadn't studied the video or a transcript, they might have been distracted, etc. It will be of some mild interest what is actually in that video Regarding the WL theory, as I have stated before, I have no opinion about this theory, or any theory, and I could not care less whether it is true or not. Some experts recently advised me that if the WL theory is correct, cold fusion would not technically be fusion, so as I said here, score one for Krivit. I do not know what the ratio of helium to heat would be if this theory is correct. In any case, I am quite sure McKubre is not committing fraud, and Krivit's assertions about this are misunderstandings. That opinion (about fusion) is a particular point of view that depends on a very narrow definition of fusion, and that is about fusion as a specific mechanism, rather than as a result. If you start with deuterium and you end up with helium, inside a black box, with the expected energy, you have a fusion box. A box that results in the fusion of deuterium to helium, no matter what happens inside. The box may contain quark gremlins who can dismantle stuff, using their Special Powerz, into component quarks, provided that they then reassemble them to something energetically favorable, and if the imput is deuterium and the output is helium, they are using their Powerz for fusion. Krivit (and others) confuse two different meanings of fusion, one being process and the other result. W-L theory, however, as I understand it, predicts a whole lot more Stuff going on in the box than deuterium fusion to helium. (W and L are vague about what they actually predict! but they do show a pathway from deuterium to helium, and that pathway, if it predominated, would then show the expected net energy, the same as any other pathway. The laws of thermodynamics care not about pathways.) Problem is, I'd expect a very different product mix than what is known, from W-L theory. There are some severe rate problems. By confining the definition of fusion to d-d fusion, which is only one of many possible pathways, Krivit can then attempt to shed the dirty mantle of cold fusion, pretending that it's something else. ULM neutron-induced nuclear reactions. Except that if you make the ULM neutrons from deuterium, and use them to create helium and other heavier elements, what you have done is a fancy, complicated form of fusion, defined as the creation of heavier elements from lighter ones. Really, Jed, don't agree with Krivit on this one! If W-L theory is correct -- that's highly undefined! -- the production of helium is still fusion. Some pathways might make this vaguer. It could get really complicated, when we start considering fission caused by neutrons. But, Jed, 25 MeV! Read Storms (2010). There really is only one set of candidate reactions, those that start with deuterium and end up with helium. TSC theory is one that predicts the ratio, but cluster fusion, if it starts with some nanomass of deuterium and ends with helium, through a Be-8 or other pathway, may be the most likely. And let's agree on this: we don't know
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
At 10:38 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: This was all a tempest in a teapot! Good thing. I sent a message to the Wiley editor, pointing to Krivit's article, and apologizing for the misunderstanding. Your letter may have done good, pointing out to Wiley that there could be problems with agreeing to publish a textbook authored by Krivit. At the very least, they'd make sure that there was some knowledgeable editorial review. If I were at Wiley, I'd start looking around for other possible authors/editors. What I've noticed is that the largest scientific publishers in the world have signed on to cold fusion: Elsevier, Springer-Verlag. At some point, the others will start playing catch-up. Jed, do you see why I'm claiming that the corner has been turned? It's not over, the skeptical position is probably still predominant *as to general scientific opinion.* But not among experts, by which I mean reviewers who actually review papers at the mainstream journals, presented with evidence to assess in the normal scientific manner. Given that there have been 19 positive reviews of cold fusion in mainstream peer-reviewed journals and academic sources (i.e., the stuff of the Britz database), since 2005, where are the negative reviews? All that has appeared is a Letter from Shanahan to the Journal of Environmental Monitoring, copublished with a devastating rebuttal by Everybody And His Brother. It's obvious to me what JEM was doing. They knew that lots of their readers, looking at the article by Marwan and Krivit, would be sputtering, But... but ... but, so they published Shanahan's ravings, so that they could be clearly refuted. They were running classic CYA, interdicting unspoken criticism from their readers. My guess is that they got a lot of spoken criticism, but not of a quality that they could publish. Shanahan gave them something more cogent (relatively!) to bite on. And then they told Shanahan, no more. Shanahan sputtering, himself, receding into the history of failed information epidemics. Ironic justice. That's publishing politics, not science, but ... it cuts both ways! (Failed information epidemic is a reference to the last negative review, from about 2006, in the Journal of Informatics, did I get that right?, which simply analyzed publication frequency, and, in 2006, it looked like the field was dead, i.e., was following the path predicted by Langmuir's pathological science criteria. 2005 or 2006 were the nadir, publication rates have quadrupled since then. Failure was a premature judgment, an appearance, and represented no judgment of the science itself.)
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, your mail talked about the rejection as being of a whole group, not just you. Did you extrapolate from your own experience to that of the group, or do you have any other testimony to present? Three others told me Krivit was pretending they were not there. Several others are, shall we say, peeved. Without them it would be hard to write an authoritative textbook. Perhaps he can make amends and all will be well. He has done a darn good job editing books and this could be an useful contribution. He has to stop acting like a cranky 2-year-old. Also, stop pretending he is a scientist. Hearing him use the jargon is embarrassing. (I talk like a programmer occasionally, with words like enable, null set and FIFO. By gum, I have earned it. Arthur Clarke used to throw around radar and RAF terminology such as main bang and over and out.) Marianne Macy wrote to me saying he did say it was Wiley. That's what I thought he said. But the editor there did not find an upcoming project so I guess not. Anyway, let's not fret about this. Krivit is just being silly. I think most observers will agree that my letter was gentle and should not considered at attack. It was polite suggestion. I am relieved to hear Wiley is not involved. It was worth making a fool of myself to find that out. I would not have found out any other way. Does he have any friends he trusts, who might be able to help him see how he's trashing his career as an investigative reporter? I have no idea. Ask him! He deleted my messages but not my photo. That's annoying. People should not take photos at conferences and upload them without permission. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:40:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] But the result that is known is that helium is produced, and the observed energy supports the conclusion that the primary fuel is deuterium. unknown nuclear reaction would bring us full circle. That is what Pons and Fleischmann actually claimed, not fusion.) [snip] Even hot fusion operates on tunneling rather than overcoming the Coulomb barrier by brute force. (The latter would require about 30 MeV). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Even hot fusion operates on tunneling rather than overcoming the Coulomb barrier by brute force. (The latter would require about 30 MeV). You mean Tokamak plasma fusion on earth. Right? What about in the core of the sun? What mechanism operates there, if not brute force? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:50:02 +1100: Hi, Sorry, for D-D fusion 30 MeV is wrong. It would take about 1 MeV. In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:40:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] But the result that is known is that helium is produced, and the observed energy supports the conclusion that the primary fuel is deuterium. unknown nuclear reaction would bring us full circle. That is what Pons and Fleischmann actually claimed, not fusion.) [snip] Even hot fusion operates on tunneling rather than overcoming the Coulomb barrier by brute force. (The latter would require about 30 MeV). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:54:52 -0500: Hi, [snip] mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Even hot fusion operates on tunneling rather than overcoming the Coulomb barrier by brute force. (The latter would require about 30 MeV). You mean Tokamak plasma fusion on earth. Right? Yes. What about in the core of the sun? What mechanism operates there, if not brute force? - Jed Also tunneling. In fact temperatures at the core of the Sun are not as high as in a Tokamak, because in a Tokamak they are trying to achieve fusion at much lower pressure density than is available at the core of the Sun. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/21/rothwell-makes-pre-emptive- strike-against-new-lenr-textbook/ http://tinyurl.com/4s3xhjt Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
