Recently, Steven Krivit of New Energy Times was
interviewed by a representative of IARPA, a U.S.
government agency, reported by Krivit at
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-IARPA.shtml
In that interview, Krivit refers to his prior study of SRI experiment M4:
10. Cold Fusion Proponents Pitch Department of Energy
In 2004, McKubre, Hagelstein, David J. Nagel,
Talbot Chubb, Randy Hekman, Graham Hubler and
Michael Melich proposed that the Department of
Energy fund "cold fusion" research. The proposal
referenced the M4 data and stated that "this
value remains the most accurately determined in
this field." There is no evidence that any of
the co-authors was aware at the time that the
data for M4 had been manipulated and fabricated.
Krivit treats his allegations regarding M4 as
fact, incorporating them in a sentence which
assumes that the data was "manipulated and
fabricated." Since the researcher involved,
Michael McKubre, is responsible for much of the
strongest evidence for low energy nuclear
reacitons, the claim that the dtata had been
"manipulated and fabricated" is seriously
damaging. I had thought that I'd responded to
Krivit's M4 allegations, probably in a post to
this list. Reviewing my email refreshed my
memory. The data behind the M4 issue is quite
complex; what I'd actually done was to print out
the original EPRI report, and to study it, and
Krivit's criticisms, but I'd then become
distracted by other issues. I did respond in general, later, with:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg42358.html
This does provide some background, but it is
inadequate as an examination of the M4 issue. I
did have some correspondence with McKubre on
this, and what he told me was consistent with his recent response to Krivit:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/10/mckubre-responds-to-krivit-interview-for-iarpa/
McKubre is correct about Krivit's ignorance of
the sciences involved, and it comes out in what
he writes, when he's reporting on his own
opinions and understandings, and it comes out in
his evaluations of others. Krivit makes himself
into his own source, and treats his own
conclusions as if they were established fact, and
that's what he did in his comments to IARPA.
In any case, here is the section from the report
presented to the DoE in 2004, containing the statement Krivit references.
3.2. Reaction Q Value
As the loss of deuterium in association with
excess heat is not presently observable, and since there are no
commensurate energetic reaction products, the
argument in support of reaction mechanisms consistent
with D+D . 4He is indirect. One can measure
energy production, and assay for 4He in the gas stream
or the solid, with uncertainties introduced in
the reaction energy Q because all of the helium produced
may not be accounted for in the measurement.
Experiments are prefered in which a total inventory of
the helium is made in order to improve the
accuracy of the reaction Q value measurement. To this end,
we discuss briefly an experiment in which helium
was measured in the gas stream, and an additional
effort was made to drive the helium out of the metal.
The experiment under consideration was performed
at SRI, and the excess heat measured is illustrated
in Figure 5. The experiment was performed in a
helium leak-tight, all-metal and metal gasketed
calorimeter. Samples were transferred in metal
gas sample flasks to be analyzed for 4He by the U.S.
Bureau of Mines at Amarillo, Texas.70 The
initial value of 4He was 0.34±0.007 ppmV/V in the D2 gas
used to charge the cell.
Figure 7 traces the history of the cell, M4,
from four helium samples taken after excess power was
observed. The upper solid line is the
expectation for helium concentration presuming: (i) an initial
value of 0.34 ppmV/V, and (ii) that 4He is
produced in a reaction which delivers 23.8 MeV of thermal
energy to the calorimeter. The first gas sample
taken shortly following the second heat burst of Figure 5
yielded a value of 1.556± 0.007 ppmV/V 4He,
which is about 62% of its expected value, and consistent
with the earlier observations by Miles, Bush and
collaborators,55 and also Gozzi and collaborators.71 A
second sample taken about six days after the
first showed a measurable increase in 4He content instead
of the decrease that would be expected since, to
maintain positive cell pressure, the gas taken for the
first sample had been replaced with cylinder D2
containing a lower level of 4He (0.34 ppmV/V). These
findings support earlier observations that
helium is released slowly from the palladium after an initial
delay.
After making these measurements, an attempt was
made to dislodge near surface 4He either thermally
or by D atom motion by subjecting the cathode to
a period of compositional cycling, while still sealed in
the calorimeter. Square and sine wave
modulations of varying period and amplitude were imposed on the
DC (negative) potential at the Pd electrode in
an attempt to flux deuterium atoms through the interface
and thus act to dislodge near-surface ad- or
absorbed 4He atoms. At the end of this period, the potential
was reversed to withdraw all deuterium atoms
from the Pd bulk. No excess heat was observed during
the periods of oscillation although calorimetric
uncertainties were large due to the strong departures
from the steady state that accompanied the pulsing.
Gas samples were taken before this procedure,
again after purging the cell and refilling with D2 from
the gas bottle with 0.34 ppmV 4He, and once more
after cycling. The latter sample exhibited the highest
concentration of 4He measured in this cell,
specifically 2.077±0.01 ppmV/V. By making a proper mass
balance of the helium lost through sampling and
purging, and that gained through make-up from the
gas bottle, it is possible to assess with
defined uncertainty the results of deuterium fluxing in freeing
lightly trapped 4He. The final integral mass
balance yielded a value of 104± 10% of the expected value
if the excess power in Figure 5 is due to a
reaction of the sort D+D . 4He + ~ 23.8 MeV (heat).
This value remains the most accurately
determined in this field (in the sense that contributions from
both the gas stream and the metal are included),
but it suffers from the criticisms that the numbers
of samples were few, and the largest value of
4He measured was less than 50% of that in air. We note
that 4He has been produced numerous times in
excess heat experiments at levels above that of the
concentration in air. One example is shown in
Figure 6. This plot illustrates the real-time correlation
between excess heat and the growth of 4He
concentration in a metal-sealed, helium leak-tight vessel.
The Q value of 31 ± 13 and 32 ± 13 MeV per 4He
atom measured is also consistent with the reaction
D+D . 4He + ~ 23.8 MeV (heat). Because of the
importance of this result, it is discussed further in
Appendix B.
The full paper is at http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf
Krivit has responded, again, with
However, I will proceed here by looking back at
Krivit's editorial and report from New Energy
Times, issue 35, July 30, 2010. This will be a
detailed critique, and it begins with the editorial from that issue:
1. Editorial: The War For and Against Cold Fusion
By Steven B. Krivit
New Energy Times has always focused on
low-energy nuclear reactions. Our primary task
is to seek the facts and report them. Our
secondary task is to provide well-reasoned
analyses supported by those facts. We report on
the most newsworthy examples of relevant topics.
The main deficiency of New Energy Times is that
the reporting of facts has come to be that of
facts selected to support the analyses provided.
That's the danger of mixing reporting of fact
with analysis. Most reporters do not report their
own analyses, and they are, professionally, quite
cautious about that. Reporters, instead, will
seek analysis by experts and report on them, and
will take steps to insure that such presentation
is as unbiased as possible. This is where Krivit falls down.
This issue of New Energy Times includes a
special report: "Cold Fusion is Neither." We do
not casually discard the concept, however.
We'll look at this in detail.
Although many LENR researchers have remained
enamored of "cold fusion" or their rebranded
Fleischmann-Pons Experiment, New Energy Times
has become enamored of weak interactions and
their role in creating nuclear-scale energy and nuclear effects in LENR.
This is a remarkable admission. Krivit does not
understand what "fusion" is, mistaking examples
for the basic concept. In some definitions of
"fusion," examples are given. The most notable
example that might relate to cold fusion work is
what Krivit believes "fusion" means. McKubre
refers to this, in the McKubre response cited
above, as Krivit's "sustained semantic confusion
about fusion." A reporter must avoid becoming
"enamored" of some position within the topic the
reporter is covering, or, at least, must be able
to set this aside to report as objectively as
possible. Disclosing bias is good, but Krivit is
not merely disclosing a bias here, he's really
promoting Widon-Larsen theory, not realizing that
this is merely an alternate fusion explanation or
mechanism. Krivit becomes confused by the fact
that neutron absorption, by itself, isn't
commonly called "fusion." However, the overall
process that Widom and Larsen suggest is
responsible for the Fleischmann-Pons results
*accomplishes* fusion, if it takes deuterium and
turns it into helium (among other things), what
what Widom and Larsen suggest is that surface
conditions in an FP experiment facilitate
electron capture by deuterium nuclei, resulting
in dineutrons that will then readily fuse with
other present nuclei, leading to chains of
reactions, some of which will ultimately release
helium. This matches the best definitions of
fusion, and, yes, I checked; the conversion of a
low-Z element (deuterium, in this case), to a
higher-Z one (helium). That conversion has a
characteristic energy that it releases. The
measurement of that energy is what the M4 flap is
about. Krivit has a dog in the race. Because W-L
theory suggests the formation of slow neutrons,
it can be expected to produce many nuclear
reactions, not just those which result in helium,
and the existence of other reaction products
would increase the released energy, without
increasing the helium; therefore the total heat
per helium nucleus formed will be greater, unless
the heat from these other reactions can be identified and subtracted out.
Any lost helium, helium released but not
measured, will also increase the apparent Q value (heat/helium ratio).
Krivit does not show in his discussions, anywhere
that I can see, that if the reaction is only one
which produces helium from deuterium, it will
have the 23.8 MeV/He-4 ratio, regardless of
mechanism. No other reaction product has been
found in quantities correlated with the heat.
Other products have been found at far lower
levels, such as tritium; those findings are
supporting evidence for the existence of nuclear
reactions, but cannot be a major part of the
predominant reaction. Helium is the only
candidate, so far, that's been confirmed.
Specifically, we are very interested in the
proposed ultra-low-momentum neutron and its
possible role in LENR, initially developed by
Lewis Larsen, later with Allan Widom. We do not
know whether the Widom-Larsen theory is correct.
We think that it has the highest probability of success.
Krivit has not reported, at all, on criticism of
W-L theory, which is common and the norm in the
field. He seems to think that this criticism is
only resistance due to attachment to what he
calls "d-d fusion," but most current thinking in
the field is not of simple deuterium-deuterium
fusion, i.e., two deuterons being mashed together
somehow, but rather the trend is strongly toward
some kind of cluster fusion, fusion involving
more than two deuterium nuclei, or even molecules
(i.e., with the electrons, which then may, under
some conditions, function to lower the effect of
the Coulomb barrier). Krivit's coverage of the
actual state of cold fusion theory has become abominable.
If Krivit were doing his job, he'd be seeking out
such criticism, inviting experts to comment, then
soliciting responses from Widom and Larsen, etc.,
and reporting all this. Instead he promotes W-L
theory continually, and attacks "cold fusion,"
without showing any awareness of the severe problems involved.
The Widom-Larsen theory may end up being
completely wrong, and if that comes to pass, we
hope to be the first to report it. In the
meantime, it offers a fresh perspective on a two-decade-long science mystery.
The basic mystery was solved and published by
about 1993, the identity of the primary ash.
Huizenga noticed that in the last edition of his
book, "Cold fusion: scientific fiasco of the
century," around 1994. Huizenga merely believed
that the work of Miles, who did the original
definitive work, would not be confirmed. It was
confirmed, and among the confirmations is
McKubre's work, several studies. Mysteries still remain, to be sure.
As Storms has pointed out, we don't need more
cold fusion theories, we already have too many.
We need more experimental work to explore the
implications of theories, or just to elucidate
the basic characteristics of these reactions. We
need more theoretical work, to be sure, but work
that makes specific predictions that can be
verified. W-L theory has not been so applied by
its proponents, as far as I can tell. It seems to
predict phenomena that would have been noticed,
but which are apparently absent. It relies upon
proposing a mechanism that has not been confirmed
anywhere, and which has some theoretical problems
itself, so it solves one set of mysteries by
creating another set. I don't see it as a fresh
approach, though I also cannot rule out that the
true mechanism might involve neutron generation
and capture, but it seems highly unlikely. This
would be one messy reaction, unless the proposed
gamma shielding is real, plus certain other
expected phenomena turn out to be somehow
suppressed. It's not where I'd invest my own research dollars, if I had any.
And for the record, New Energy Times, New Energy
Institute, and I have no financial interest in
Larsen's company, Lattice Energy LLC.
... [etc.]
I believe him, I have no reason to doubt this.
However, Krivit himself has imagined motives for
others, and then has stated them as if they were
fact, or as if they were the default hypothesis,
to be believed unless contrary evidence is shown.
The Widom-Larsen theory has little to do with
intellectual property or proprietary technology.
The knowledge that the theory may or may not
reveal belongs to and is available to us all.
Theories are not knowledge, though there is such
a thing as knowledge of theory. Knowledge, more
properly and deeply, is in what has been
observed. W-L theory isn't founded on
observation, it's founded on speculation, and
this is the basic problem with most cold fusion
theory. W-L theory does *not* predict helium as
the primary reaction product, as far as I can
tell. "Ultra low momentum" neutrons would be
promiscuous, all slow neutrons are, they will
fuse with almost anything, as I understand the
matter. There would be a host of reaction
products, and the proposals for multiple
reactions in series, necessary to end with
helium, run into a huge problem: the levels of
ULM neutrons present must be very low (or else
we'd be seeing massive reactions, very
dangerous). So only a tiny, perhaps unmeasurable,
portion of neutrons would be absorbed by reaction
products from earlier absorptions. There would
not be enough neutrons to cause reaction
sequences, we'd only see the primary reaction
products, from the absorption of neutrons by the
available nuclei. We'd see radioactive products
and we'd see gamma rays from the reactions. Widom
and Larsen wave their magic wand, claiming that
the same conditions that produce ULM neutrons
also will shield the gammas, absorbing them with
high efficiency. But the reaction products
themselves, some of which would be easily
detectable, have not been found in adequate
quantities to explain the observed heat. Only helium has been so found.
This "gamma shielding" would be a huge advance
all on its own. When Krivit says that the theory
has little do with intellectual property or
proprietary technology, he's forgotten something
that he reported years ago: when asked about this
alleged gamma shielding by Richard Garwin, as to
the experimental basis for this claim, Larsen
declined to answer, citing "proprietary technology" issues.
Krivit used to report things like this....
This is to be continued, as I find time, looking
at the rest of Krivit's report from last year.
