>From Abd:
... > I didn't need to do a lot of higher math to notice that Krivit > bashing the ENEA researcher over supposedly changing his claim for > helium measurement from 10 x 10^n to 1 x 10^(n+1), excoriating him > for not issuing a retraction in the years since, was beyond the pale. Does your comment as stated above have anything to do with the following text as stated out in NET Issue #34. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/343inexplicableclaims.shtml Specifically near the end of this link is the following text by Mr. Krivit: ********************************************************************** ... This writer requested the values a third time: "How much new helium was measured in Laser-2, 3 and 4. I do not want to know what is in the plot. I do not want to know how much you expected." Violante responded, "In terms of new atoms the result is an amount of He[lium] ranging from 1E+15 up to 5e+15 atoms. This is obviously a preliminary result that needs additional research work." This writer responded to Violante, reminding him that he had, since 2004, represented the measurements of helium-4 atoms from this series of experiments in the range of E+16 and that now he was stating to this reporter that his group had measured helium-4 atoms only in the range of E+15 atoms. This sudden change - an entire order of magnitude smaller - is inexplicable, given that the authors have not announced any errors or retractions about this graph in the last six years. New Energy Times asked Violante one additional question: "Is there any comment you would like to make, not about the preliminary nature of the research but about your published representations of this experiment to the scientific community?" As we went to press, New Energy Times had received no response from Violante. Comment on this article. (Correction published in comments) ********************************************************************** Please note the correction statement. It refers to: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog//?p=113#comments <http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=113#comments> Scroll down, to fifth received eMail: ********************************************************************** Received via e-mail: In "Inexplicable D-D "Cold Fusion" Claims From Italy" you wrote that Violante restated his claims "an entire order of magnitude smaller." This is incorrect. 1E+15 is the same as 0.1E+16." Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Northampton, Mass. http://lomaxdesign.com/coldfusion (Archive copy "Cold Fusion Kit") [Ed: New Energy Times thanks Lomax for this correction. We made three attempts to get a clear answer from Vittorio Violante to our question about the specific values of helium measured by his group. In his second response, Violante gave us values expressed in E+16. In his third response, Violante gave us values expressed in E+15. On receipt of this third response, we failed to notice that he had moved the decimal point, and we were thus led to believe there was an order of magnitude difference in what he was stating. However, our mathematical error has no bearing on the significant misrepresentation by Violante's group (see our Fig. 2 in the article.)] Comment by sbkrivit - February 1, 2010 @ 1:01 am ********************************************************************** ...or are you referring to a different incident? In so far as this particular incident is concerned, it is indeed unfortunate that both parties were unable to communicate effectively with each other. I can well imagine it resulted in a lot of hardened feelings. I does, however, bare pointing out that Mr. Krivit quickly admitted his mathematical error in confusing magnitude values when you brought the mistake to his attention. Please note, I am referring only to the error in magnitude placement, not the discussion pertaining to ".significant misrepresentations." Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
