Re: [Vo]: The Strange World of "Cold Fusion"
On Oct 29, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: One thing worth emphasizing (in regard to UV lensing) is the effectiveness of a properly sized pinhole array. EUV is "universally absorbed" meaning that every possible transparent window is problematic. Everyone except the "nonwindow" or pinhole. But the sizing is critical. As is placement. I think polypropylene is EUV transparent, at least across some of the range. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]: The Strange World of "Cold Fusion"
One thing worth emphasizing (in regard to UV lensing) is the effectiveness of a properly sized pinhole array. EUV is "universally absorbed" meaning that every possible transparent window is problematic. Everyone except the "nonwindow" or pinhole. But the sizing is critical. As is placement. The usual objection to the pinhole is that (some will say) it cannot be used in a liquid. False. A pinhole can be effective even in a pressurized liquid if it is small enough. Look at the Italian expresso filter (for the pump machines). The holes are small but way larger than they need to be for a UV window and yet water will not go through these holes until it gets up to a substantial pressure (10 bar). Of course the electrolyte can change the surface tension and/or particulates can block a single pinhole. That is why a pinhole lens array may be the answer. Microlithography is an enabling technology for this. Otherwise one might start with a cathode that "once was" an espresso filter (before being co-plated). (just keep your hands off my shiny new DeLonghi) Jones -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner On Oct 29, 2009, at 5:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Which can make a delta T of even 1/2 to one degree C. - seemingly low to the outside observer, but really rather significant, when you consider the actual number of nuclear events per second for the small amount of reactant. > Earthtech could possibly detect massive radiation if they would look for it in the right spectrum (EUV). I could not agree more. 8^) You need to get right up close to the action to measure it though, unless you only want to observe in a water EUV transmission window. This is one of the reasons I came up with the edge-on-grid method. You can get window right up against the active surface. To see the value of the edge-on-grid method, consider that the edge on grid method can be implemented with even a single hole in a cathode plate (or thick foil). This is in fact what gave me the idea in the first place. It is much superior to pressing wires against a detector I think. Coating the cathode plate with etch resist provides a superior barrier to the electrolyte than Mylar, because leaking around the Mylar edges has been experienced. It is possible to use a Mylar bag which opens only outside the electrolyte to avoid this, but that causes other problems. When the edge of the hole is used for the cathode surface, you don't have to worry about keeping wires in place, and and varying pressures, up against 6 micron Mylar, which easily rips, or bubbles that form under the Mylar etc. By choice of hole size, you can control the amount of stress the Mylar or other covering has to handle. By choice of cathode thickness and hole size and number of holes, you control surface area for co- deposition. The cell geometry is far more controlled than it can be by using wires for cathodes. The edge-on geometry is identical to the original SPAWAR cell (SZPACK cell, see : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Szpak.pdf by which anomalous effects of electric and magnetic fields were observed on the co-deposition layer, and cold fusion as well. I think the edge-on geometry may be useful in continuing investigation of these anomalies. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:The Strange World of "Cold Fusion"
On Oct 29, 2009, at 5:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Which can make a delta T of even 1/2 to one degree C. - seemingly low to the outside observer, but really rather significant, when you consider the actual number of nuclear events per second for the small amount of reactant. Earthtech could possibly detect massive radiation if they would look for it in the right spectrum (EUV). I could not agree more. 8^) You need to get right up close to the action to measure it though, unless you only want to observe in a water EUV transmission window. This is one of the reasons I came up with the edge-on-grid method. You can get window right up against the active surface. To see the value of the edge-on-grid method, consider that the edge on grid method can be implemented with even a single hole in a cathode plate (or thick foil). This is in fact what gave me the idea in the first place. It is much superior to pressing wires against a detector I think. Coating the cathode plate with etch resist provides a superior barrier to the electrolyte than Mylar, because leaking around the Mylar edges has been experienced. It is possible to use a Mylar bag which opens only outside the electrolyte to avoid this, but that causes other problems. When the edge of the hole is used for the cathode surface, you don't have to worry about keeping wires in place, and and varying pressures, up against 6 micron Mylar, which easily rips, or bubbles that form under the Mylar etc. By choice of hole size, you can control the amount of stress the Mylar or other covering has to handle. By choice of cathode thickness and hole size and number of holes, you control surface area for co- deposition. The cell geometry is far more controlled than it can be by using wires for cathodes. The edge-on geometry is identical to the original SPAWAR cell (SZPACK cell, see : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Szpak.pdf by which anomalous effects of electric and magnetic fields were observed on the co-deposition layer, and cold fusion as well. I think the edge-on geometry may be useful in continuing investigation of these anomalies. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
At 08:40 AM 10/29/2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 03:43 AM 10/29/2009, Michel Jullian wrote: 2009/10/28, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax : > ...I believe that Earthtech has a very accurate > calorimeter. If they got no excess heat, that would make their > finding of no radiation quite understandable! Not so. Detecting excess heat takes far more nuclear events than detecting radiation with a SSNTD, at 24 MeV per event you need 10^10 events _per second_ to produce the 10 mW the best calorimeter can detect! Certainly it is possible that there would be radiation without detectable excess heat, but there is a very important point that Earthtech seems to have not addressed clearly. They claimed to observe "SPAWAR pits," but then the pits that they observed appear to be, to me, chemical damage, the "hamburger" as the Russians call it, at the cathode, and then background pits immediately beyond the edge of the hamburger. The hamburger has a fairly crisp edge. The resemblance between it and radiation damage is weak. But SPAWAR, and another Galileo replicator, show other kinds of pitting that Earthtech did not report. One problem could be the silver cathode. SPAWAR reports no back side pitting with silver, plentiful with platinum, and copious with gold. SPAWAR also long reported low damage with H20 and high with D20, Earthtech reports similar results with H20 and D20. It seems to me that they did not see "SPAWAR pits" at all, but rather chemical damage, and that the cause is some process variation that resulted in no nuclear activity. As to calorimetry, it's one thing to accurately measure total excess heat, it's another to identify heat itself at the cathode. SPAWAR codep does appear to generate heat at the cathode, the cathode becomes warmer than the electrolyte, indicating heat being sourced there, whereas the cathode should be low resistance compared to the electrolyte and so almost all Joule heating would be in the electrolyte. (Though maybe it would be more intense at the interface?) The problem with the Earthech replication is that it can be interpreted to impeach the SPAWAR conclusion of radiation detection, when it's more likely that they didn't create NAE. And that's of concern, itself. What was different? I'd say we need to know, but Earthtech doesn't seem to have pursued the question. The only major difference I've seen is that they appear to have used half as much PdCl2, in the single run claimed as a Galileo replication, while their cathode may have been (possibly) larger than the SPAWAR cathode. With the silver cathode, it's hard to tell if they got NAE at all, because back side pitting is low with silver. If they had used gold, with no back side pitting over background as they reported, the probability would become very high that there was no NAE. It's crucial to develop other signatures of NAE, one is not enough for rapid development in this field. It doesn't matter greatly if the other signatures "prove" nuclear activity. It does matter if they are strongly associated with NAE. That's why I'm looking for sound, because SPAWAR has reported anomalous shock waves detected by a piezo detector made into a codep cathode. These are ultrasonic, and I don't know if I'll see them with sensors taped to the cell, but I'm going to look. Likewise light emission should theoretically be there, if indeed palladium is melting as SPAWAR has claimed. So I'm looking for that. I'll be looking for temperature elevation as well; I'd like to directly measure the cathode temperature, but I don't think that's going to be possible in my first pass. But at least I'll be measuring electrolyte temperature close to the cathode, and close to the anode. Any other ideas? I'm getting pretty excited about using a mylar window, because of what might be found. Consider the cathode wire which is in contact with the mylar windwo. I expect that the palladium deuteride deposit that builds up will be flat against the mylar, I may be able to see the wire itself, in the middle of the deposit, which would build out along the mylar, and which would have a thickness that decreases with distance from the wire. If NAE arises at some specific depth, *maybe* I'll see flashes of light only along a line or region that corresponds, roughly, to that depth. I'll want to arrange the LR-115 detectors so I can remove and replace them in exactly the same position, and they will provide a somewhat diffused radioautograph of the wire, I expect, which may also provide some location information.
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:The Strange World of "Cold Fusion"
Which can make a delta T of even 1/2 to one degree C. - seemingly low to the outside observer, but really rather significant, when you consider the actual number of nuclear events per second for the small amount of reactant. Earthtech could possibly detect massive radiation if they would look for it in the right spectrum (EUV). -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian > ...I believe that Earthtech has a very accurate > calorimeter. If they got no excess heat, that would make their > finding of no radiation quite understandable! Not so. Detecting excess heat takes far more nuclear events than detecting radiation with a SSNTD, at 24 MeV per event you need 10^10 events _per second_ to produce the 10 mW the best calorimeter can detect! Michel
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of “Cold Fusion”
2009/10/28, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax : > ...I believe that Earthtech has a very accurate > calorimeter. If they got no excess heat, that would make their > finding of no radiation quite understandable! Not so. Detecting excess heat takes far more nuclear events than detecting radiation with a SSNTD, at 24 MeV per event you need 10^10 events _per second_ to produce the 10 mW the best calorimeter can detect! Michel
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
At 09:05 AM 10/27/2009, Michel Jullian wrote: Some of the Hyde parts, while obviously not always factual (Abd --I gather he prefers to be called by this name, which is why Mr Hyde called him Dennis-- is obviously not on a crusade against the WL theory) are interesting and informative though. Thanks. Yes, Abd is fine for short. I'm not on a crusade against anything except arrogant ignorance and failure to respect and seek genuine consensus, which afflicts our society in many different ways; because I'm one person and I see numerous important issues worthy of "crusading" in at least some sense, I have to combine them! So I'm trying to resolve issues around cold fusion at the same time as I work on social structure there is no conflict. Worse than infighting, my feeling is that what would reflect badly on the field would be to depict it as rosier than is natural for any field of science. I have suggested that the cold fusion community would benefit by better communication and coordination process. Good process depends on honesty and openness (more accurately, repression of differences in hopes of "presenting a good face to the world" slows down the formation of genuine consensus). I have today reread the 2007 Galileo Project Report written by Krivit. It's worth reading for anyone interested in these exchanges or in the Galileo project and its implications. http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/projects/tgp/2007TGP/2007GalileoProjectReport.pdf Krivit designed the Galileo project in certain ways to meet certain objectives, and there are implications from them. He wanted independent replication, but he also wanted participants who were "stakeholders." To define this, he said we should "Look at a candidate's track record to see whether the person has a clear interest in a positive outcome." When I first read this, I agreed. And, indeed, as part of the process for developing a bulletproof protocol, good idea, I still agree. However, it should not stop there. He makes the analogy with alpha and beta releases of software, and implies that public release takes place only after beta testing is complete. Alpha testing will typically be within a company, and company employees are stakeholders. Beta releases are generally to a segment of the public, sometimes they are completely open, but these are people whose only "stake" is that the product works and that errors are found and fixed, and quickly. That is, they have no stake, per se, in positive results, and negative results from beta testing would be preferred by a sensible company to false positive results caused by wide-eyed testers who assume that the company could do no wrong. Negative results in beta from "spies" who are actually agents for competitors not only do no harm, but they help, if actual flaws are identified. Beta test results, released to the public, can do little harm, because everyone knows that beta testing is, well, *testing.* Only if a beta program is completely punk, stupid, useless, would beta leakage or attempt by unskillful users be a problem. Because of the restrictions, the Galileo project, so far, was all alpha testing, even though he divided the groups into alpha and beta. The protocol was actually developed by SPAWAR, but then more thoroughly documented in a back-and-forth between Steve, Pamela, and two alpha testers. Alpha testing is not fully independent, and if the goal is to convince skeptics, for it to be known that experimenters were selected based on a goal of "success," i.e., positive results, would be damaging to the goal. It's fine, though, for developing a protocol, but not for beta testing. While Steve is a journalist, he's not neutral, he has formed goals as to the effect of what he publishes, and the Galileo project was clearly intended to be "successful," and he's clearly irritated that one of the beta groups didn't, he claims, follow the protocol, that they "rushed ahead" before the protocol was complete. This is rather obviously Earthtech, from the Earthtech report. Steve was also irritated that Earthtech published their work on the web. However, I don't consider the Earthtech work to necessarily be journal-worthy, perhaps because Kowalski beat them to the punch, so to speak. It's worthy of a conference presentation, perhaps, but ... I think that on-line publication is perfect for it. I think they failed to analyze their results adequately, however, and that's a shame, because it creates an unnecessarily negative coloring to their work. Krivit neglects the implications of the Earthtech and Kowalski results. That's unfortunate. He reports verbal conversations with the Russians, but criticizes them as being contradictory, but he seems to explain his ignoring of the Earthtech work: he wanted it to be "published" seriously. He's got a goal of convincing skeptics. But I can say this from contact with real skeptics who can read what's on the inte
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of “Cold Fusion”
Jed sez: ... > It may be that a few people who spend a lot of effort disputing > the Mills theory. I have heard there are some on the Mills > discussion group. But that is an unusual case. That theory > attracts a lot of interest. ... You speculate "it may be" ??? It certainly has generated plenty of entertainment for the rest of us who reside in the peanut gallery. I gather certain Hydrino discussion forums have been where noted individuals, like Dr. Peter Zimmerman, a vocal critic of Mill's CQM theory, have been able to achieve a special kind of notoriety for which that they might not have otherwise acquired. It should also be noted that Dr. Zimmerman has acted in the role of a science adviser to Senator Biden, that is when Joe Biden was a senator. I don't know if a professional relationship continues to exist. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Michel Jullian wrote: (Abd . . . is obviously not on a crusade against the WL theory) . . . More to the point, no one anywhere is on a crusade against any cold fusion theory. The whole notion is ridiculous. People who disagree with a theory simply ignore it. They may make a passing remark ridiculing or dismissing it, but I do not know anyone who goes around crusading against theories. Why bother? It may be that a few people who spend a lot of effort disputing the Mills theory. I have heard there are some on the Mills discussion group. But that is an unusual case. That theory attracts a lot of interest. As far as I know no one is interested in the WL theory except W&L. That does not mean it is wrong. I have idea whether it is right or wrong, but I can see that it is unpopular and largely ignored. Famous theories outside of cold fusion such as special relativity and natural selection attract a great deal of criticism. That is a different story. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of “Cold Fusion”
One can only applaud the parts of Steve's post below which were written by the Dr Jekyll in him, such as this excerpt: "I applaud your quest for truth, progress and improvement in our energy options and I thank you for your care and interest along these lines. I do hope that you and I can eventually find greater harmony in how we are both attempting to achieve the same goal." Some of the Hyde parts, while obviously not always factual (Abd --I gather he prefers to be called by this name, which is why Mr Hyde called him Dennis-- is obviously not on a crusade against the WL theory) are interesting and informative though. Worse than infighting, my feeling is that what would reflect badly on the field would be to depict it as rosier than is natural for any field of science. Michel 2009/10/23 Steven Krivit : > Dear Dennis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, > > For a few years - you have been a great fan of New Energy Times. You have > been militant and aggressive on Wikipedia in your support of New Energy > Times and you were instrumental in getting New Energy Times removed from the > Wikipedia blacklist. You did this, I note, even when I made it clear to you > that I did not care about Wikipedia and had no desire for you to embark on > your crusade to get it delisted. > > But I did not want to participate with you in your crusade in Wikipedia. I > thank you, and a I hope back then that I did thank you, for your care, > desire and effectiveness to support New Energy Times. This was the situation > as of April this year. I do recall you seemed to be a bit bristly to me > though when I did not want to join you in your crusade; you lectured me and > argued with me against my disinterest in your Wikipedia crusade. > > Sometime after all this, you seem to have completed your focus on Wikipedia, > you advised me of your interest to develop a "cold fusion" kit. You > contacted me because of my experience with the Galileo Project, a > replication effort of the SPAWAR SSNTD and Co-dep expt. Again, I think - as > I recall - I had limited interest in your project, though I believe I did > direct you to the laboratory protocol. > > You wrote to me in April the following: > > "Meanwhile, your work is appreciated; please be careful to not get caught up > in squabbles, pass them by, just do your job and do it well. It's sad to > watch the infighting among those who support lenr research, and it, > unfortunately, reflects badly on the field and makes it more difficult for > the awakening to come." > > In spirit, I agree with your thoughts - and I would completely love to focus > my entire attention on scientific work. Alas, I have found that science does > not occur in vacuo; for some strange reason, there always seem to be human > beings involved. > > So in a span of a few months, you have become a staunch advocate of New > Energy Times and now you are spewing language filled with hatred, hostility, > and derision and you appear intent to cause destruction. > > I'm curious how you explain your 180 degree shift. I'm curious about exactly > what bothers you. Were you expecting that New Energy Times should be more of > a PR organization and be soft on snake oil salesmen within the field? Were > you expecting that we would or could discuss the science, the business and > the politics of the field without discussing human behavior? Or were you so > offended that I repeated things that 60 Minutes said about someone's health > conditions? Or have the facts I've recently published caused you angst and > disillusionment about your "cold fusion" heroes? > > What is it about my recent reporting that bothers you so much? You have > conveyed a lot of drama and emotion, but you are sparse when it comes to > identifying any real problems, aside from your judgment about editorial > perspectives and decisions. If you don't like the editorial decision-making > of New Energy Times, you don't have read it. So what's the problem? > > I really do appreciate your enthusiasm for this field. I know you truly care > about the end result - a better world and a better choice for energy > solutions. I'm not going to be able to explain all of the details to your > satisfaction in an e-mail, or even in a slew of e-mails, but you appear to > be are under a mistaken belief that individuals who are principal > researchers in the field are homogenous and unified in their approach and > philosophy of LENR. This is a myth as great as the myth that Caltech and MIT > "disproved" excess heat. > > Following from the myth of "all for one and one for all" of "cold fusion" > researchers against the "evil empire" of mainstream science, you appear to > assume that observers and proponents of LENR should, in turn, all be unified > in their approaches and philosophy. This may or may not be true, I don't > wish to argue the point with you, but I will say the obvious - I don't > agree. There is the very great danger of groupthink. As is the danger with > observers such as you and I
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Dear Dennis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, For a few years - you have been a great fan of New Energy Times. You have been militant and aggressive on Wikipedia in your support of New Energy Times and you were instrumental in getting New Energy Times removed from the Wikipedia blacklist. You did this, I note, even when I made it clear to you that I did not care about Wikipedia and had no desire for you to embark on your crusade to get it delisted. But I did not want to participate with you in your crusade in Wikipedia. I thank you, and a I hope back then that I did thank you, for your care, desire and effectiveness to support New Energy Times. This was the situation as of April this year. I do recall you seemed to be a bit bristly to me though when I did not want to join you in your crusade; you lectured me and argued with me against my disinterest in your Wikipedia crusade. Sometime after all this, you seem to have completed your focus on Wikipedia, you advised me of your interest to develop a "cold fusion" kit. You contacted me because of my experience with the Galileo Project, a replication effort of the SPAWAR SSNTD and Co-dep expt. Again, I think - as I recall - I had limited interest in your project, though I believe I did direct you to the laboratory protocol. You wrote to me in April the following: "Meanwhile, your work is appreciated; please be careful to not get caught up in squabbles, pass them by, just do your job and do it well. It's sad to watch the infighting among those who support lenr research, and it, unfortunately, reflects badly on the field and makes it more difficult for the awakening to come." In spirit, I agree with your thoughts - and I would completely love to focus my entire attention on scientific work. Alas, I have found that science does not occur in vacuo; for some strange reason, there always seem to be human beings involved. So in a span of a few months, you have become a staunch advocate of New Energy Times and now you are spewing language filled with hatred, hostility, and derision and you appear intent to cause destruction. I'm curious how you explain your 180 degree shift. I'm curious about exactly what bothers you. Were you expecting that New Energy Times should be more of a PR organization and be soft on snake oil salesmen within the field? Were you expecting that we would or could discuss the science, the business and the politics of the field without discussing human behavior? Or were you so offended that I repeated things that 60 Minutes said about someone's health conditions? Or have the facts I've recently published caused you angst and disillusionment about your "cold fusion" heroes? What is it about my recent reporting that bothers you so much? You have conveyed a lot of drama and emotion, but you are sparse when it comes to identifying any real problems, aside from your judgment about editorial perspectives and decisions. If you don't like the editorial decision-making of New Energy Times, you don't have read it. So what's the problem? I really do appreciate your enthusiasm for this field. I know you truly care about the end result - a better world and a better choice for energy solutions. I'm not going to be able to explain all of the details to your satisfaction in an e-mail, or even in a slew of e-mails, but you appear to be are under a mistaken belief that individuals who are principal researchers in the field are homogenous and unified in their approach and philosophy of LENR. This is a myth as great as the myth that Caltech and MIT "disproved" excess heat. Following from the myth of "all for one and one for all" of "cold fusion" researchers against the "evil empire" of mainstream science, you appear to assume that observers and proponents of LENR should, in turn, all be unified in their approaches and philosophy. This may or may not be true, I don't wish to argue the point with you, but I will say the obvious - I don't agree. There is the very great danger of groupthink. As is the danger with observers such as you and I. To whatever extent you can see beyond your hateful, mean-spirited messages that you have posted here recently, I strongly encourage you to look at the "minority" viewpoint of the field which you are so passionately supportive. I began to hear strong shifts in people's perspectives once I began to openly question the reality of "cold fusion" and rather, consider the very strong reality of the empirical research independent of a "cold fusion" process. It is true, I experienced a change of philosophy a few years ago. I began to discuss this openly at the August 2008 ACS meeting. I quoted former APS spokesperson Robert Park: "If something you have been attributing to [D-D] fusion is observed with ordinary water, it means you've been fooling yourself. I quoted LENR Theorist John Fisher: In my opinion [LENR] has been crippled by wide acceptance of the belief that d
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Steven Krivit wrote: Jed, For "made-up nonsense" that is "irrelevant" and "unimportant," you seem to be reacting quite strongly. You wish. Actually, I consider these reports unimportant. But it irks me that you make light of Parkinson's disease and dismiss the impositions it imposes on patients. As I said, on behalf of people suffering from that, I thought it best to describe what it is really like, to offset your fantasy version. I do not like to see you blame the patient for the disease. People often do that these days. Saying that someone with Parkinson's should respond to you on your schedule is a good example. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
At 02:02 AM 10/23/2009, Steven Krivit wrote: I have found that when I expose or report truths that people don't want exposed - or truths which some people just cannot face - if they can't disprove my facts then they react just like you have done - with invective and hostility, and attack the messenger. Mr. Krivit has been, unfortunately, the one attacking the messengers. I can't imagine what he's talking about as to a "truth which some people cannot face" or "don't want exposed." Sure, I could imagine that kind of motive for Dardik's people, perhaps, or other players in this who might have some attachment, in other words, Krivit's paranoia might make some kind of sense with respect to some, but ... He was here referring to me, not them. He was projecting the hostility, and, I'd say, he's creating it by doing so. His mails to me were gratuitously hostile, very apparently angry that anyone would dare question what he is doing, and he was holding on to that, because I'd stopped pushing the point, entirely. Were he a professional journalist exposing something significant, if that were all that was happening, he would not respond in this way, he would be courteous and respectful, and would simply continue to do his job. Because Krivit is making such a point about "fact," I intend to read back over his reports, and compare them, because his later report seemed exaggerated with respect to his first, I suspect that incidents are being magnified in his mind as his mania builds. But perhaps not. It's not "fact" that has been the problem, though some of what Krivit reports as "fact" is speculation and sometimes sketchy interpretation. And I think it may be necessary to address the errors in his blog, specifically, and in detail. This is distressing, and if anyone has sufficient rapport with Krivit to effectively warn him about unnecessarily making enemies, please do it! I gain nothing from Krivit's descent into vindictive madness. Nothing. I don't give a fig about theory, I have no axe to grind against Widom-Larsen. Dardik's Life-Wave sounds like quackery to me, but you never know what will help someone; if there is fraud involved, it should be prosecuted. But Krivit is weakening his position as one who could investigate this and expose it effectively, by losing his balance. I hope he wakes up.
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Dear Dennis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, If you can discuss something factual about my work, please do so. I'm more than happy to discuss and debate facts. If not, what you have written here amounts to nothing but a personal attack and an expression of hatred. Anybody who knows me and my work can recognize this as smoke and noise. I also suggest that this, your second unprovoked personal assault to me on this list, may be approaching the limits of what is socially acceptable behavior here. I have found that when I expose or report truths that people don't want exposed - or truths which some people just cannot face - if they can't disprove my facts then they react just like you have done - with invective and hostility, and attack the messenger. Consequently, I take your response as a complement, regardless of your unpleasantness. Steve At 08:09 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote: At 02:37 PM 10/22/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that, as a journalist, I posted my writing publicly and openly and that, as I journalist - serving the broader public - I expect to keep things public and open. Krivit's report is made-up nonsense plus some personal details that are not anyone's business. A journalist is not supposed to publish every weird notion that crosses his mind without confirmation. This is not journalism; it is a stream of consciousness blog. Rothwell is accurate, unfortunately. Something has gone very, very wrong at New Energy Times. Krivit is, I assume, accurately reporting what he recalls of what he's seen, but also what he has said and thought, he's becoming the topic of his own writing, and it is becoming more and more unbalanced in that way. He's lost journalistic objectivity, and that's very damaging. I'd stopped responding publicly about his behavior, and wrote privately to him; he'd pointed to a document on journalistic ethics, claiming that this was his guide, and I'm sure it is, regarding some of his practices, such as refusing to accept a retainer from Energetics Technologies, and I assume, fully, that those events happened. Krivit, however, with regard to criticism of his reporting on Fleischmann, and his drawing of drastic conclusions from what appears to be a few days of indisposition or illness, has become increasingly hostile and unresponsive. I pointed out to him aspects of the journalistic ethics guide that he'd mentioned that he was not fulfilling well. He did not respond to that. But today, I asked him if he had any CR-39 left over from the Galileo Project, because he'd bought quite a bit, and it's expensive his response: with friends like you, who needs enemies? take a hike The criticism I had previously offered was sincere and intended to help him avoid what could be a disaster for New Energy Times if he continues on his course; and if he was satisfied that my objections were invalid, he's the one responsible for his actions, not me, and I consider it my duty to my friends to warn them when I see them sawing off the tree limb they are sitting on. This isn't about defending Dardik or McKubre or the other figures. It's not about trying to stop any investigation of what may indeed involve some questionable activities or conflicts of interest, and it's not about Krivit reporting relevant facts. I've thought, maybe this is just his blog, he can express his opinions, right? Well, the blog is part of the NET web site. It colors NET, and the web site is the publication. Krivit was turned away in England, and he's striking back, I'm afraid, he is going to get even. It's conduct unbecoming a professional; I thought the field was benefitting from the work of a professional journalist; but I'm afraid it's being lost. Perhaps Krivit has some friends who are close enough to him and whom he trusts sufficiently that they can explain to him what he's doing. If not, I don't see much hope. I have known some real journalists in my time, including distinguished people in the mass media, and anti-establishment people similar to I. F. Stone. (I did not know him, but I knew his friends and enemies.) These people do not operate by Krivit's rules. They do not publish half-baked fluff. A responsible journalist sometimes publishes, and sometimes refrains from publishing. Publishing everything you hear without distinction or careful consideration makes you an Internet server, not a journalist. Even when you know something to be a fact, it may be personal, or irrelevant, or unimportant, or likely to be misunderstood out of context, so it should be keep confidential. There is plenty of room for disagreement about the exact boundaries with regard to what Krivit has reported. Rothwell knows Fleischmann and the family situation, probably better than Krivit. My concern, though, is the political fallout of Krivit's apparent feud, and it's a feud, all right, this is
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Jed, For "made-up nonsense" that is "irrelevant" and "unimportant," you seem to be reacting quite strongly. I presented the facts; you didn't like them -- you attacked the messenger -- with your speculations. If you can prove my facts to be wrong, then go ahead... Otherwise, I will file your diatribes as they appear: hateful, cowardly and desperate. Steve At 01:55 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at fiction. Almost failed my creative writing classes in high school. This is probably not a serious comment . . . But in any case, an inability to write fiction is no indication that you are good at writing non-fiction. On the contrary, writing is writing. A skilled writer can describe reality, speculation, and hypothetical or imaginary subjects equally well. Most technical writing, for example, describes speculative or imaginary objects, or wishful thinking, because the manuals are written before the product is finished. (That is an old joke, but it is also true and it makes writing technical manuals harder than you might think.) An unskilled writer who has difficulty writing fiction may be having problems distinguishing between his own ideas and fantasies, other people's ideas, and facts grounded in reality. That appears to be Krivit's problem. Francis Bacon first described this confusion in what he called the "idols of the mind." This is not an important report, and there is nothing particularly damaging about it. But it is nonsense. Let me relate one example of the nonsense: "Another person who was involved, but who did not wish to be quoted, later told New Energy Times that they were informed with two weeks' advance notice that the plan for Fleischmann was to arrive in Rome on Sunday evening and return home on Tuesday." I was periodically in touch with the people in Tisbury before the conference. I know they did not make final plans until the last days. Mike McKubre reiterated this in a message to me today. I checked through my e-mail and that's what they were telling me: "We hope to go but we're not sure." And that is what you would expect with Parkinson's. There is nothing odd or sinister or surprising about it. That's how it was with my mother. When she felt okay, she went as planned. We got refundable tickets. Krivit plays it up into some kind conspiracy, as if someone was trying to cover up Fleischmann's plans. That's silly. Perhaps Krivit made this up, or misunderstood, or perhaps he heard it from someone who made it up. If he had bothered to ask me or anyone else in touch with the Fleischmanns, we would have told him: "Oh no, they say won't know until the last minute. That's how it is traveling with Parkinson's." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
At 04:06 PM 10/22/2009, Steven Krivit wrote: Uhh..no, that was supposed to say "fiction" not "nonfiction." Where's Michel Julian to proof my posts when I need him? ;) Krivit needs an editor more than he needs a proofreader.
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Jed, For "made-up nonsense" that is "irrelevant" and "unimportant," you seem to be reacting quite strongly. I presented the facts; you didn't like them -- you attacked the messenger -- with your speculations. If you can prove my facts to be wrong, then go ahead... Otherwise, I will file your diatribes as they appear: hateful, cowardly and desperate. Steve At 01:55 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at fiction. Almost failed my creative writing classes in high school. This is probably not a serious comment . . . But in any case, an inability to write fiction is no indication that you are good at writing non-fiction. On the contrary, writing is writing. A skilled writer can describe reality, speculation, and hypothetical or imaginary subjects equally well. Most technical writing, for example, describes speculative or imaginary objects, or wishful thinking, because the manuals are written before the product is finished. (That is an old joke, but it is also true and it makes writing technical manuals harder than you might think.) An unskilled writer who has difficulty writing fiction may be having problems distinguishing between his own ideas and fantasies, other people's ideas, and facts grounded in reality. That appears to be Krivit's problem. Francis Bacon first described this confusion in what he called the "idols of the mind." This is not an important report, and there is nothing particularly damaging about it. But it is nonsense. Let me relate one example of the nonsense: "Another person who was involved, but who did not wish to be quoted, later told New Energy Times that they were informed with two weeks' advance notice that the plan for Fleischmann was to arrive in Rome on Sunday evening and return home on Tuesday." I was periodically in touch with the people in Tisbury before the conference. I know they did not make final plans until the last days. Mike McKubre reiterated this in a message to me today. I checked through my e-mail and that's what they were telling me: "We hope to go but we're not sure." And that is what you would expect with Parkinson's. There is nothing odd or sinister or surprising about it. That's how it was with my mother. When she felt okay, she went as planned. We got refundable tickets. Krivit plays it up into some kind conspiracy, as if someone was trying to cover up Fleischmann's plans. That's silly. Perhaps Krivit made this up, or misunderstood, or perhaps he heard it from someone who made it up. If he had bothered to ask me or anyone else in touch with the Fleischmanns, we would have told him: "Oh no, they say won't know until the last minute. That's how it is traveling with Parkinson's." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
At 02:37 PM 10/22/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that, as a journalist, I posted my writing publicly and openly and that, as I journalist - serving the broader public - I expect to keep things public and open. Krivit's report is made-up nonsense plus some personal details that are not anyone's business. A journalist is not supposed to publish every weird notion that crosses his mind without confirmation. This is not journalism; it is a stream of consciousness blog. Rothwell is accurate, unfortunately. Something has gone very, very wrong at New Energy Times. Krivit is, I assume, accurately reporting what he recalls of what he's seen, but also what he has said and thought, he's becoming the topic of his own writing, and it is becoming more and more unbalanced in that way. He's lost journalistic objectivity, and that's very damaging. I'd stopped responding publicly about his behavior, and wrote privately to him; he'd pointed to a document on journalistic ethics, claiming that this was his guide, and I'm sure it is, regarding some of his practices, such as refusing to accept a retainer from Energetics Technologies, and I assume, fully, that those events happened. Krivit, however, with regard to criticism of his reporting on Fleischmann, and his drawing of drastic conclusions from what appears to be a few days of indisposition or illness, has become increasingly hostile and unresponsive. I pointed out to him aspects of the journalistic ethics guide that he'd mentioned that he was not fulfilling well. He did not respond to that. But today, I asked him if he had any CR-39 left over from the Galileo Project, because he'd bought quite a bit, and it's expensive his response: with friends like you, who needs enemies? take a hike The criticism I had previously offered was sincere and intended to help him avoid what could be a disaster for New Energy Times if he continues on his course; and if he was satisfied that my objections were invalid, he's the one responsible for his actions, not me, and I consider it my duty to my friends to warn them when I see them sawing off the tree limb they are sitting on. This isn't about defending Dardik or McKubre or the other figures. It's not about trying to stop any investigation of what may indeed involve some questionable activities or conflicts of interest, and it's not about Krivit reporting relevant facts. I've thought, maybe this is just his blog, he can express his opinions, right? Well, the blog is part of the NET web site. It colors NET, and the web site is the publication. Krivit was turned away in England, and he's striking back, I'm afraid, he is going to get even. It's conduct unbecoming a professional; I thought the field was benefitting from the work of a professional journalist; but I'm afraid it's being lost. Perhaps Krivit has some friends who are close enough to him and whom he trusts sufficiently that they can explain to him what he's doing. If not, I don't see much hope. I have known some real journalists in my time, including distinguished people in the mass media, and anti-establishment people similar to I. F. Stone. (I did not know him, but I knew his friends and enemies.) These people do not operate by Krivit's rules. They do not publish half-baked fluff. A responsible journalist sometimes publishes, and sometimes refrains from publishing. Publishing everything you hear without distinction or careful consideration makes you an Internet server, not a journalist. Even when you know something to be a fact, it may be personal, or irrelevant, or unimportant, or likely to be misunderstood out of context, so it should be keep confidential. There is plenty of room for disagreement about the exact boundaries with regard to what Krivit has reported. Rothwell knows Fleischmann and the family situation, probably better than Krivit. My concern, though, is the political fallout of Krivit's apparent feud, and it's a feud, all right, this is not merely investigative reporting. It's polemic, and blatantly so. He's gone over the edge. Those who support his work should pay close attention, if he can't be guided through this, it's going down the tubes. The tide is turning, CF is becoming respectable, and nothing is likely to stop that, but some organizations will survive and some not.
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Steven Krivit wrote: You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at fiction. Almost failed my creative writing classes in high school. This is probably not a serious comment . . . But in any case, an inability to write fiction is no indication that you are good at writing non-fiction. On the contrary, writing is writing. A skilled writer can describe reality, speculation, and hypothetical or imaginary subjects equally well. Most technical writing, for example, describes speculative or imaginary objects, or wishful thinking, because the manuals are written before the product is finished. (That is an old joke, but it is also true and it makes writing technical manuals harder than you might think.) An unskilled writer who has difficulty writing fiction may be having problems distinguishing between his own ideas and fantasies, other people's ideas, and facts grounded in reality. That appears to be Krivit's problem. Francis Bacon first described this confusion in what he called the "idols of the mind." This is not an important report, and there is nothing particularly damaging about it. But it is nonsense. Let me relate one example of the nonsense: "Another person who was involved, but who did not wish to be quoted, later told New Energy Times that they were informed with two weeks' advance notice that the plan for Fleischmann was to arrive in Rome on Sunday evening and return home on Tuesday." I was periodically in touch with the people in Tisbury before the conference. I know they did not make final plans until the last days. Mike McKubre reiterated this in a message to me today. I checked through my e-mail and that's what they were telling me: "We hope to go but we're not sure." And that is what you would expect with Parkinson's. There is nothing odd or sinister or surprising about it. That's how it was with my mother. When she felt okay, she went as planned. We got refundable tickets. Krivit plays it up into some kind conspiracy, as if someone was trying to cover up Fleischmann's plans. That's silly. Perhaps Krivit made this up, or misunderstood, or perhaps he heard it from someone who made it up. If he had bothered to ask me or anyone else in touch with the Fleischmanns, we would have told him: "Oh no, they say won't know until the last minute. That's how it is traveling with Parkinson's." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Uhh..no, that was supposed to say "fiction" not "nonfiction." Where's Michel Julian to proof my posts when I need him? ;) Jed, You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at fiction. Almost failed my creative writing classes in high school. Have a real nice day. Steve At 10:37 AM 10/22/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that, as a journalist, I posted my writing publicly and openly and that, as I journalist - serving the broader public - I expect to keep things public and open. Krivit's report is made-up nonsense plus some personal details that are not anyone's business. A journalist is not supposed to publish every weird notion that crosses his mind without confirmation. This is not journalism; it is a stream of consciousness blog. I have known some real journalists in my time, including distinguished people in the mass media, and anti-establishment people similar to I. F. Stone. (I did not know him, but I knew his friends and enemies.) These people do not operate by Krivit's rules. They do not publish half-baked fluff. A responsible journalist sometimes publishes, and sometimes refrains from publishing. Publishing everything you hear without distinction or careful consideration makes you an Internet server, not a journalist. Even when you know something to be a fact, it may be personal, or irrelevant, or unimportant, or likely to be misunderstood out of context, so it should be keep confidential. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Jed, You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at nonfiction. Almost failed my creative writing classes in high school. Have a real nice day. Steve At 10:37 AM 10/22/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that, as a journalist, I posted my writing publicly and openly and that, as I journalist - serving the broader public - I expect to keep things public and open. Krivit's report is made-up nonsense plus some personal details that are not anyone's business. A journalist is not supposed to publish every weird notion that crosses his mind without confirmation. This is not journalism; it is a stream of consciousness blog. I have known some real journalists in my time, including distinguished people in the mass media, and anti-establishment people similar to I. F. Stone. (I did not know him, but I knew his friends and enemies.) These people do not operate by Krivit's rules. They do not publish half-baked fluff. A responsible journalist sometimes publishes, and sometimes refrains from publishing. Publishing everything you hear without distinction or careful consideration makes you an Internet server, not a journalist. Even when you know something to be a fact, it may be personal, or irrelevant, or unimportant, or likely to be misunderstood out of context, so it should be keep confidential. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
At 07:08 AM 10/22/2009, you wrote: Steven, The summary of your article provided by Michel Jullian (below) shows the impression your style creates. You are not helping yourself or the field by this approach. First of all, some of your facts are wrong. Mckubre is not on the nominating committee and was involved because he suggested, as the rules provide, giving the Medal to Dardik, which all members of the committee supported. Discussions have been underway about how to give a similar metal to Stan, but that involves the cooperation of Stan. Your evaluation of the Larsen-Widom theory reveals your complete lack of scientific understanding. The model, as I have told you in the past and discussed publicly in several places, is not consistent with any experimental fact about CF and has very little relationship to general understanding. Apparently, such facts have no meaning to you because you do not have the background to understand them. This being the case, you should avoid discussing scientific issues and do what you do best when you give interesting information about what is happening to people in the field. Ed Hi Ed, You were the first "cold fusion" scientist that was very gracious with me and generous with your time. That was in February, 2002. I sincerely thank you for helping me get introduced to the field, and in many ways, being a mentor to me. But times have changed; your mentorship with me, as I have decided, has long been over. Your termination as an active employee from Lattice (Lew Larsen's company) qualifies you as a disgruntled ex-employee and, at least in my book, precludes you from being an objective critic of his idea. I'm willing to be wrong about my assessment of the potential viability of the Widom-Larsen theory; it may be right, wrong, or somewhere in between. But I'm not going to put my head in the sand or dismiss it with prejudice like some other people are doing. I'm also willing to let time decide if, and to what extent, my instincts on either the Widom-Larsen theory or other weak-interaction theories turn out to be correct. Best regards, Steve
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Michel, Your summary is yours, I really can't and don't wish to comment on that. Thank you for alerting me to the typo. Steve At 11:58 PM 10/21/2009, you wrote: Thanks for this very interesting report Steven. Summary (correct me if I misunderstood) : - Dardik's SuperWaves are a scam, their application to CF is entirely PR stuff based on concepts stolen from the Widom Larsen theory for CF. - McKubre and Fleishmann support Dardik and SuperWaves because of personal interests (common financial interests for the former, free health treatment promising to cure his diseases for the latter). - Dardik's 2008 Preparata medal is the result of McKubre's support, Fleishmann's 2009 Preparata medal talk strongly implies support for SuperWaves. Michel P.S. Typo: "International Society for Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" for "International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science". 2009/10/22 Steven Krivit : > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/ >
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of “Cold Fusion”
Thanks for this very interesting report Steven. Summary (correct me if I misunderstood) : - Dardik's SuperWaves are a scam, their application to CF is entirely PR stuff based on concepts stolen from the Widom Larsen theory for CF. - McKubre and Fleishmann support Dardik and SuperWaves because of personal interests (common financial interests for the former, free health treatment promising to cure his diseases for the latter). - Dardik's 2008 Preparata medal is the result of McKubre's support, Fleishmann's 2009 Preparata medal talk strongly implies support for SuperWaves. Michel P.S. Typo: "International Society for Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" for "International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science". 2009/10/22 Steven Krivit : > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/ >
