RE: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
From Abd: ... With all those caveats, and wondering why you'd ask *me*, since I'd really ask someone else, like Dr. Storms, if I cared all that much about it, ... My previous comments were not exclusively addressed to you alone. I opened my query up to comments coming from anyone who wishes to add their two cents. ... my *impression* is that the energy not from deuterium to helium is not more than maybe 20%, and could be much less. And may vary quite a bit with exact experimental conditions. Thanks for your impression. Again, this is just speculation that I am asking for. At the stage of the game who really knows what the actual ratios might be. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
I'll remind, just in case it isn't clear for everybody, that for every two Ds which will have disappeared and every He which will have appeared, 24 MeV of energy will have been released in any case, _whatever the intermediary or concurrent reactions if any_. The energy released by a nuclear reaction is path-independent and depends only on the reactants and products, just like in a chemical reaction. Michel 2010/3/25 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: From Abd: ... With all those caveats, and wondering why you'd ask *me*, since I'd really ask someone else, like Dr. Storms, if I cared all that much about it, ... My previous comments were not exclusively addressed to you alone. I opened my query up to comments coming from anyone who wishes to add their two cents. ... my *impression* is that the energy not from deuterium to helium is not more than maybe 20%, and could be much less. And may vary quite a bit with exact experimental conditions. Thanks for your impression. Again, this is just speculation that I am asking for. At the stage of the game who really knows what the actual ratios might be. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
On Mar 25, 2010, at 7:02 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: I'll remind, just in case it isn't clear for everybody, that for every two Ds which will have disappeared and every He which will have appeared, 24 MeV of energy will have been released in any case, _whatever the intermediary or concurrent reactions if any_. The energy released by a nuclear reaction is path-independent and depends only on the reactants and products, just like in a chemical reaction. Michel There is a wealth of evidence that other reactions than D+D are taking place. Even if there were a perfect measurement of 4He product, and perfect measurement of enthalpy, energy/4He could not be expected to perfectly match 24 MeV because there are products other than 4He. In addition, there is no indication that I have seen that reaction energy balances for heavy element LENR, either in terms of enthalpy or high energy signature particles. There appears to be an energy sink involved. Further, a preliminary energy sink appears to me to be necessary to enable the weak reactions which have been observed, as well as to account for the anomalous branching ratios of the D+D reaction. I think that sink can balance out, return energy, over the extended reaction time however. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
Indeed, DL Hotson's third epo treatise that I just shared with you references this paper: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf whereby, all types of exchanges are occurring. T On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: There is a wealth of evidence that other reactions than D+D are taking place. Even if there were a perfect measurement of 4He product, and perfect measurement of enthalpy, energy/4He could not be expected to perfectly match 24 MeV because there are products other than 4He. In addition, there is no indication that I have seen that reaction energy balances for heavy element LENR, either in terms of enthalpy or high energy signature particles. There appears to be an energy sink involved. Further, a preliminary energy sink appears to me to be necessary to enable the weak reactions which have been observed, as well as to account for the anomalous branching ratios of the D+D reaction. I think that sink can balance out, return energy, over the extended reaction time however. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
Here again are the slides I discussed yesterday: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010KrivitS-ACS.pdf A few weeks ago, Krivit discussed here the graph shown on Slide 30. I pointed out that it should show the zero line, and it should include error bars. In the presentation Krivit put it back the way it was, and for good measure he removed the Y-axis labels. This annoying trick is described on p. 62 of a marvelous little book by Darrell Huff, How to Lie with Statistics (1954, now in its 39th printing). He describes a graph showing a 10% increase in national income: Now that's clear enough. [The graph] shows what happened during the year and it shows a month by month. He who runs may see and understand, because the whole graph is in proportion and there is a zero line at the bottom for comparison. Your 10% looks like 10% -- an upward trend that a substantial but perhaps not overwhelming. This is very well if all you want to do is convey information. But suppose you wish to win an argument, shock a reader, move him into action, sell him something. For that this chart lacks schmaltz. Chop off the bottom. Now that is more like it. . . . the figures are the same and so is the curve. It is the same graph. Nothing has been falsified -- except the impression that it gives. . . . This book was printed the year I was born. As I recall, my mother gave me a copy as a child with the admonition: grown-ups sometimes lie. In other words, Krivit does not know any tricks that I didn't learn at my mother's knee. I am fond of petite women, short poems, and little books. To learn how to write, read Strunk and White, The Elements of Style. To learn how to bamboozle people with numbers, read Huff. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
This annoying trick is described on p. 62 of a marvelous little book by Darrell Huff, How to Lie with Statistics (1954, now in its 39th printing). This book was printed the year I was born. As I recall, my mother gave me a copy as a child with the admonition: grown-ups sometimes lie. In other words, Krivit does not know any tricks that I didn't learn at my mother's knee. I am fond of petite women, short poems, and little books. To learn how to write, read Strunk and White, The Elements of Style. To learn how to bamboozle people with numbers, read Huff. Well, I was ten in 1954, and I think I read the book before I was in high school, and it made a strong impression on me. Krivit's presentation is full of deceptive polemic, and if a reader is careful, it can be detected from the presentation itself. Krivit presents statements from researchers that he thinks preposterous, misleading, deceptive. Slide 25: Explanation 2 Providential Decree Heat and Helium-4 is the Main Reaction Channel. All other LENR phenomena are minor effects (-Bob Bass, March 7, 2009, Private Communications) They Know That No Other Energetic Phenomena Exists in LENR Cells No, that's not what Mr. Bass said. He said that other energetic phenomena would be minor effects. I'm not going to come to a conclusion, myself, that there are no other major effects, but the evidence is quite strong that the main reaction channel is one which takes in deuterium and which leaves behind helium. How it does that is entirely another matter. Krivit's slides aren't journalism. They are polemic, trying to prove his Big Point. Which is? I can tell you what I think the average reader will get from it. They Are Lying To Us. And then, since the people allegedly lying to us are the foremost cold fusion researchers, what will this reader take away as a conclusion about cold fusion? I suggest that it's likely to be that the research results can't be trusted. In fact, however, the central results of the research aren't being challenged by Krivit, he's going after details that seem Very Very Important to him but which, overall, aren't, just as it wasn't newsworthy that Fleischmann had a cold and didn't want to see him in England, which Krivit turned into a Big Expose of How the Quack Doctor behind Energetic Technologies is Failing to Help Fleischmann with Parkinson's Disease. (Because he catches cold?) (Dardik is a quack? That's a cheap shot, and if anyone wants to know better the truth, I'd suggest reading Making Waves, by Roger Lewin, it's quite a story. Dardik is *complicated*.)
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Well, I was ten in 1954, and I think I read the book before I was in high school, and it made a strong impression on me. If you were ten in 1954 you must have been 17 and 18 when you attended the two year Feynman lecture series for freshmen and sophomores at CIT? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
At 11:56 AM 3/24/2010, Horace Heffner wrote: On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Well, I was ten in 1954, and I think I read the book before I was in high school, and it made a strong impression on me. If you were ten in 1954 you must have been 17 and 18 when you attended the two year Feynman lecture series for freshmen and sophomores at CIT? Lucky guess! I had skipped a grade and a half back in elementary school (they wanted me to skip more, but my father declined it, though it would not be socially beneficial), so I graduated high school in 1961, just having turned 17. So I was 17 the first year and 18 the next, just as you wrote. I'm impressed, somebody is paying attention.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
Fits with your 159 IQ. Back on topic, I understand why you are mad at Steve krivit for pushing his POV that the heat/helium = 24 MeV/He is bogus, that's because that correlation is what made you believe CF might well be real. You don't want to doubt again. Michel 2010/3/24 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 11:56 AM 3/24/2010, Horace Heffner wrote: On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Well, I was ten in 1954, and I think I read the book before I was in high school, and it made a strong impression on me. If you were ten in 1954 you must have been 17 and 18 when you attended the two year Feynman lecture series for freshmen and sophomores at CIT? Lucky guess! I had skipped a grade and a half back in elementary school (they wanted me to skip more, but my father declined it, though it would not be socially beneficial), so I graduated high school in 1961, just having turned 17. So I was 17 the first year and 18 the next, just as you wrote. I'm impressed, somebody is paying attention.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
Michel Jullian wrote: Back on topic, I understand why you are mad at Steve krivit for pushing his POV that the heat/helium = 24 MeV/He is bogus, that's because that correlation is what made you believe CF might well be real. You don't want to doubt again. On behalf of Abd, let me say: nonsense. The only reason we are upset with Krivit is because used cheap tricks and ad hominem arguments. Plenty of people doubt the 24 MeV ratio. That does not upset Abd, me or anyone else. During the press conference Hagelstein said in response to a question from Krivit that the ratio does not apply to some reactions such as Iwamura, but he sees no reason why that fact should cause a person to doubt that it applies to the Pd-D system. That seems sensible to me. Different systems and different starting reactants produce different products. When you burn aluminum it does not produce the same product as when you burn wood. I do not understand why Krivit has difficulty understanding this. I do not recall anyone in the last 15 years has maintained that cold fusion is exclusively D+D = ~24 MeV heat + helium. That's a strawman argument. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
On Mar 24, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 11:56 AM 3/24/2010, Horace Heffner wrote: On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Well, I was ten in 1954, and I think I read the book before I was in high school, and it made a strong impression on me. If you were ten in 1954 you must have been 17 and 18 when you attended the two year Feynman lecture series for freshmen and sophomores at CIT? Lucky guess! I had skipped a grade and a half back in elementary school (they wanted me to skip more, but my father declined it, though it would not be socially beneficial), so I graduated high school in 1961, just having turned 17. So I was 17 the first year and 18 the next, just as you wrote. I'm impressed, somebody is paying attention. Not as impressed as I. That's quite an achievement! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
At 03:10 PM 3/24/2010, Michel Jullian wrote: Fits with your 159 IQ. Someone else is paying attention, I like that. 159 is not well enough established to be a reliable figure, it's based on one test in high school. There are other signs, though, judge for yourself. Be careful. It is very, very difficult to judge. Consider the problem of designing a test for very high IQ, which that is. Who makes up the questions? Back on topic, I understand why you are mad at Steve krivit for pushing his POV that the heat/helium = 24 MeV/He is bogus, that's because that correlation is what made you believe CF might well be real. You don't want to doubt again. The technical term for this argument is horseshit. I'm very concerned about Steve because of the impact his pushing his POV is having on the politics, and because I have an instinctive reaction to horseshit presented to impeach the integrity of people, as Steve has repeatedly done. I came to believe -- always a provisional term for me -- that CF is real because of heat/helium correlation, which isn't actually challenged by Steve. It just looks like he's challenging it, and that sloppiness is part of the problem. Take a look at what Steve thinks is the real correlation range, and you'll see it. He still claims that heat and helium are correlated. The importance of this isn't dependent on the exact value, and I don't consider the exact value well-established. What I see from the scientists involved is mostly quite cautious -- and therefore accurate -- statements. The heat/helium ratio found through experiment (10 groups is what was said at the press conference) is consistent with the value expected for deuterium fusion. No matter what the mechanism is, whether it's little teeny hot fusion reactors, operated by super-intelligent bacteria (Vyosotski doesn't know the half of it!) who happen to find palladium really comfortable as a home, and with super shielding that they also fabricated to absorb, immediately, all the radiation (how about an ultradense form of palladium that they manage to push into place temporarily), that smash deuterium together (hot fusion), or it's neutron absorption, or it's cluster fusion (which some in the field now think the most likely explanation), possibly in Bose-Einstein Condensates, or something entirely different, the energy will be, except for what ends up with other products instead of helium, 24 MeV/He-4. The laws of thermodynamics require that. If the value turns out to be 48 MeV instead of 24, I'm not offended at all. But I'll wonder what other products there are in sufficient quantities to explain that. In fact, if it's lower than 24, I'm not offended, it would simply indicate other reactions besides those which turn deuterium into helium are involved. There is no law that says every reaction in a CF cell must be one particular form. (And it's highly unlikely that there are *no* other reactions at all, but it's looking like they are relatively rare, by comparison.) Heat/helium correlation, no heat, no helium, turns CF failures into control experiments, if helium is measured. If the correlation is strong, then common mechanism or common cause must be strongly inferred. So what would produce, together, heat and helium? If there was no helium there, but something that reasonably might be made into helium, what is likely to be going on? If it's not fusion, you are faced with explaining something quite difficult to explain, why bad calorimetry and bad helium measurements, both of which are separately asserted, would come up correlated. If they are correlated, each one confirms the other, as long as no fraud is involved. Ordinary systemic error would not produce this. I can come up with some stretched explanations, but they don't, at all, match the experimental conditions. Helium is a nuclear product, and to make helium as far as any known mechanism is concerned, takes fusion. Krivit is off on a toot about neutron absorption being not fusion, which is a pure quibble, but his loud noises are being read as might be expected: he's casting all the research into doubt over a small detail, by comparison, the exact Q value.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
From Abd: ... If the value turns out to be 48 MeV instead of 24, I'm not offended at all. But I'll wonder what other products there are in sufficient quantities to explain that. In fact, if it's lower than 24, I'm not offended, it would simply indicate other reactions besides those which turn deuterium into helium are involved. There is no law that says every reaction in a CF cell must be one particular form. (And it's highly unlikely that there are *no* other reactions at all, but it's looking like they are relatively rare, by comparison.) Would you care to give your best guestamate (don't worry, I won't hold you to it) on how much is theorized to be due to d+d = He+24 MeV, and how much might be due to other processes? Incidentally, to the rest of the Vort Collective, please feel free to add your own speculations as to what these ratios or percentages might possibly be. I'm only asking for reasonable speculation. IOW, speculation is just that: Speculation. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
It's frightening to think that half of the people of the world have a below average IQ! T (TiC)
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
At 03:42 PM 3/24/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Back on topic, I understand why you are mad at Steve krivit for pushing his POV that the heat/helium = 24 MeV/He is bogus, that's because that correlation is what made you believe CF might well be real. You don't want to doubt again. On behalf of Abd, let me say: nonsense. The only reason we are upset with Krivit is because used cheap tricks and ad hominem arguments. Yeah, but lots of people have used, are using, and will use cheap tricks and ad hominem arguments. I can think of lots of names. It's the combination of that with Krivit's reputation in the field that was built up over the years, with the support of many people, including Dr. Miles. It's the damage that is being done, which damage can delay better funding and thus the day when we do, in fact, know what's going on and how, if it's possible, to harness it for practical use. Plenty of people doubt the 24 MeV ratio. That does not upset Abd, me or anyone else. Right. I was initially pleased by Krivit's criticisms, I thought that it was very important to see some serious criticism. But when I looked at it in detail, I found that it was not only thoroughly shoddy, as if someone set out to criticize a group of people and tossed in everything they could think of to make them look bad, to make them look like sloppy and deceptive, and all the rest. And as I saw multiple examples of Krivit elevating his own weak opinions above solid reporting and mature balance, I got quite concerned. I began by pointing out some of the errors to Krivit. His response was utterly inadequate, and he continued -- and still continues -- to repeat blatant errors. This is characteristic of political polemic from political activists. Once they have chosen a side, and commit to it, it doesn't matter if the arguments are sound, what matters is if they will stick in the minds of the readers or viewers. A lie that can stick is just as valuable as truth, and once you don't care, once it's just the goal that matters, well, you know the old saying, The ends justify the means. They don't. The means, in fact, are all we have control over. There are rare situations where some *necessary* end is seen as being under sufficient control to justify a harmful means, but they aren't even close to applying here. Deception and polemic and confusion are part of the problem here, and if cold fusion is to continue its return to respectability, it must be firmly based on solid evidence and sound argument, and what we want from the skeptics is exactly the same. Please. Please criticize the work, and please try to get it published under peer review, if possible. Outside of that, criticize it in conference papers and places like here. Nobody would be tossed from this forum because they present skeptical arguments clearly, they have to combine this with gross and gratuitous incivility to run into a problem. If you are a skeptical professor, for example, and you read this, assign a student to discuss the issues here, to ask you questions about what the student doesn't understand. I'd suggest, though, being ready to change your mind, or you might lose your best student Send someone you'd trust enough, ideally, that if they come back and say, I think you should look at this, you would carefully check it out, and, if it's wrong, explain exactly why. And if it's right, or at least possibly right, you'd modify your position. If you are a scientist, that's what you would do, right? That this process, normal scientific inquiry and debate, was lost in 1989, is precisely the problem. Consider it from this perspective: Suppose that the skeptics are right and that, somehow the appearance of fusion is an illusion. The critics of N-rays and polywater did not stop with considering that these things were unlikely, they actually impeached the evidence that they were real, showing that this evidence was misleading, actually demonstrating that something else was happening. Doing that work in 1989 would have been difficult, but consider the effect if it had been done: hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding would not have been wasted, and countless hours of work as well, by some of the most talented people around, and the value of that is immense. Sure, some true believers might have persisted, but only a few, a handful by comparison with what actually happened. Science was badly damaged by polemic and partisan attachments. Let's try to stop that, not to repeat it in new forms. During the press conference Hagelstein said in response to a question from Krivit that the ratio does not apply to some reactions such as Iwamura, but he sees no reason why that fact should cause a person to doubt that it applies to the Pd-D system. That seems sensible to me. Indeed. To make his point, Krivit vastly oversimplifies the situation. He's trying to make it into a black and
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
At 03:53 PM 3/24/2010, Horace Heffner wrote: On Mar 24, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 11:56 AM 3/24/2010, Horace Heffner wrote: On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Well, I was ten in 1954, and I think I read the book before I was in high school, and it made a strong impression on me. If you were ten in 1954 you must have been 17 and 18 when you attended the two year Feynman lecture series for freshmen and sophomores at CIT? Lucky guess! I had skipped a grade and a half back in elementary school (they wanted me to skip more, but my father declined it, though it would not be socially beneficial), so I graduated high school in 1961, just having turned 17. So I was 17 the first year and 18 the next, just as you wrote. I'm impressed, somebody is paying attention. Not as impressed as I. That's quite an achievement! Don't be impressed by it. Achievement is something that I'd have to work for. I didn't have to work to get into Caltech. It was easy. Maybe too easy. To sit with Feynman and Pauling, I just had to get up in the morning and go to class. I didn't finish, you know. Dropped out after only one term more than two years to become a folk singer. Now, that was hard! Think about it, coming from being a nerd, socially completely inept, and no musical skills, to being a performer (solo, in fact, usually)? And I could tell stories about Other Stuff I've done that I'm willing to allow people to be impressed over. They involved real work, sustained effort. I have worked steadily, over the last year, to become familiar with this field, and to prepare for the work that I need to do in it. That's a kind of accomplishment. I still have many obstacles to overcome, almost all of them in myself. Ain't it usually that way?
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
At 05:24 PM 3/24/2010, Terry Blanton wrote: It's frightening to think that half of the people of the world have a below average IQ! Complain to your congressperson! It's a shame how education is neglected. On the other hand, they do seem to have this problem addressed in Lake Woebegone.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
On Mar 24, 2010, at 1:04 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Would you care to give your best guestamate (don't worry, I won't hold you to it) on how much is theorized to be due to d+d = He+24 MeV, and how much might be due to other processes? Incidentally, to the rest of the Vort Collective, please feel free to add your own speculations as to what these ratios or percentages might possibly be. I'm only asking for reasonable speculation. IOW, speculation is just that: Speculation. This is somewhat like asking how much milk people buy at the store. It depends on the store. If it is a dairy store, then quite a lot. If it is a hardware store maybe not so much. Grocery stores a variable amount. In a protium based experiment you might expect no alphas (4He), yet it has been published that some of these produce lots of excess heat. Some Pd-D gas diffusion experiments produce a lot of heavy element LENR. Based on some of the Pd-D electrolysis data that was discussed here previously in relation to Steve Krivit's articles, and *assuming* running the cell in reverse freed up the near-surface deuterium by dissolving the cathode surface, it looks like energy from non-helium producing reactions could be anywhere from 0% to 100% of the net heat, with a mean maybe around 30%. Unfortunately, error bars were not given for the background or it would be possible to compute the overall error bars. If you *assume* 24 Mev per 4He then the excess energy, if there actually be such as the graph indicates, would then be from non-He4 producing reactions. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
Below-median IQ. I wonder what percentage have above or below average IQs. Does anyone know if IQ has a discovered genetic basis? What happens to IQ as a person grows older? On Mar 24, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: It's frightening to think that half of the people of the world have a below average IQ! T (TiC)
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
At 05:04 PM 3/24/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Would you care to give your best guestamate (don't worry, I won't hold you to it) on how much is theorized to be due to d+d = He+24 MeV, and how much might be due to other processes? Incidentally, to the rest of the Vort Collective, please feel free to add your own speculations as to what these ratios or percentages might possibly be. I'm only asking for reasonable speculation. IOW, speculation is just that: Speculation. With all those caveats, and wondering why you'd ask *me*, since I'd really ask someone else, like Dr. Storms, if I cared all that much about it, my *impression* is that the energy not from deuterium to helium is not more than maybe 20%, and could be much less. And may vary quite a bit with exact experimental conditions. Please, the way you asked the question, you aren't being careful. I'm not convinced that *any* of the energy is from d+d - He +24 MeV. So that's not the exact question I answered. I'm convinced that we are seeing, in palladium deuteride experiments, the fusion of deuterium to helium, but not at all convinced that it is d+d. My favorite theory has been Takahashi's TSC fusion of 4d to Be-8, but I'm being informed by People Who Might Know, that the more general case is called Cluster Fusion, which would produce anything from single alphas up to other possibilities, with the cluster carrying away the energy collectively. This is apparently Bose-Einstein Condensate theory. And nobody really knows more than a few beans about it and how a small BEC would behave in the lattice or at its surface. I'm also told that Takahashi and Kim might not be mentioning each other, though they are proposing roughly similar things, because they are rivals for funding. I'd love to see them Get Over It! If this field gets serious funding, every serious researcher already well-established will get a share of a much larger pie, and stinginess now will probably hurt, not help the stingy individual. Here we have two serious theoretical physicists, if this rumor or speculation is true, not supporting each other, which then makes the work of each look isolated and unconfirmed. The opposite of what they both need! Have criticisms of each other's work? Have at it! -- but at least pretend that you are working for the same company!
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
Irv Dardik is no quack. He has developed an approach to human health and performance that is based on extensive experience with the US Olympic effort, an inquiring and astute mind, and a considerable track record. Like many new things, it has its skeptics, but I've looked into it and it makes a lot of sense to me given my knowledge of human systems and human performance. Lewin's book is excellent, and I hope that a new book will be forthcoming focused technically on health and performance. Dardik's work with Martin Fleischmann this last summer was impressive as those who know will readily attest. Dardik has already done much good for people. I believe that the best is yet to come. He is one of the good guys. On Mar 24, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: This annoying trick is described on p. 62 of a marvelous little book by Darrell Huff, How to Lie with Statistics (1954, now in its 39th printing). This book was printed the year I was born. As I recall, my mother gave me a copy as a child with the admonition: grown-ups sometimes lie. In other words, Krivit does not know any tricks that I didn't learn at my mother's knee. I am fond of petite women, short poems, and little books. To learn how to write, read Strunk and White, The Elements of Style. To learn how to bamboozle people with numbers, read Huff. Well, I was ten in 1954, and I think I read the book before I was in high school, and it made a strong impression on me. Krivit's presentation is full of deceptive polemic, and if a reader is careful, it can be detected from the presentation itself. Krivit presents statements from researchers that he thinks preposterous, misleading, deceptive. Slide 25: Explanation 2 Providential Decree Heat and Helium-4 is the Main Reaction Channel. All other LENR phenomena are minor effects (-Bob Bass, March 7, 2009, Private Communications) They Know That No Other Energetic Phenomena Exists in LENR Cells No, that's not what Mr. Bass said. He said that other energetic phenomena would be minor effects. I'm not going to come to a conclusion, myself, that there are no other major effects, but the evidence is quite strong that the main reaction channel is one which takes in deuterium and which leaves behind helium. How it does that is entirely another matter. Krivit's slides aren't journalism. They are polemic, trying to prove his Big Point. Which is? I can tell you what I think the average reader will get from it. They Are Lying To Us. And then, since the people allegedly lying to us are the foremost cold fusion researchers, what will this reader take away as a conclusion about cold fusion? I suggest that it's likely to be that the research results can't be trusted. In fact, however, the central results of the research aren't being challenged by Krivit, he's going after details that seem Very Very Important to him but which, overall, aren't, just as it wasn't newsworthy that Fleischmann had a cold and didn't want to see him in England, which Krivit turned into a Big Expose of How the Quack Doctor behind Energetic Technologies is Failing to Help Fleischmann with Parkinson's Disease. (Because he catches cold?) (Dardik is a quack? That's a cheap shot, and if anyone wants to know better the truth, I'd suggest reading Making Waves, by Roger Lewin, it's quite a story. Dardik is *complicated*.)
