SVJ wrote: "As far as I'm concerned the war against the "fusion" word is nothing more than a petty self-serving theoretical product placement war. WTF cares."
I wholeheartedly agree Steven, but it's not you and I that needed convincing these past 20+ years; it's the physics establishment. I asked a close friend (PhD physicist) and he said the same thing as Krivit; that fusion has a *very* specific meaning *to a physicist*, and neutron capture is not 'fusion' as far as they're concerned. Now, if I was a physicist, I would hope that I'd be more concerned about whether the LENR/CF data was rigorous enough and not be concerned about what it was being called. but then, my job and my field of expertise is not likely to be ridiculed for delaying the dawn of a new era for 20+ years. Humans are interesting indeed. Fortunately, there are so many non-physicists now who are aware of LENR, that the physics establishment's influence is severely undermined. Those non-technical, influential people being advised by the physicists are now going to want to get a piece of the action in the next revolutionary technology, and will be getting second and third opinions from non-physicists. -Mark From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 5:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics >From Jed: ... > The researcher quoted here has it right: > > http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/29/lenr-researcher-refuses-to-abandon -fusion-term/ > "I feel it would be much better to allow people to use the terms > they are comfortable with. Let people use dozens of terms if they like. > Let history decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so. > It is better to view terms and other people as how their statements > can be true instead of trying to force others to use your terms and > then assume others wrong. Nature does not care what we call these > events." When I was still a New Energy Times BoD member I recall at one time emailing Krivit and the rest of the BoD members asking Krivit why he was spending so much of his editorial skills going after the "cold fusion" word. What was the point of trying to prove to the world that the "fusion" word was such a terribly inaccurate description of what was alleged to be happening on the nuclear level? IMO, I never got a straight answer from Krivit. Alas, none of the other BoD members seemed inclined to question Krivit the same matter either, so obviously my concerns were never addressed. I was left with the impression that either the other BoD members agreed with Mr. Krivit's philosophy - or perhaps they just didn't care. I suspect it was the latter. I have no bone to pick with the W-L theory itself. I'm not knowledgeable enough to pass judgment for or against it. Privately, however, I have received an earful from certain individuals who I realize are far more knowledgeable than I on prevailing theories pertaining to nuclear reactions. What these critics have had to say would suggest to me that the W-L theory appears to have certain fundamental problems that in their view have not been adequately addressed. Whatever... If it eventually turns out that the W-L theory accurately depicts the way of nuclear reactions. particularly when it comes to LENR (or "cold fusion"), then that is the way of things and the W-L camp can have their cake and eat it too. However, I detest attempts originating from the W-L camp and Krivit to cast researchers and other prevailing theories in a bad light, especially since at present it seems to me that nobody really knows for sure which theory is probably the most accurate one. As for my involvement with Krivit and NET, everything came to a head when I privately complained (in a confrontational email) to Krivit about his criticism of McKubre, after Krivit had indirectly inferred on a radio program that McKubre had lied about some of his experimental data. I think at that point Krivit had had had enough of me. Krivit forwarded my confrontational email, which as a courtesy had been intended for Krivit's eyes only, to all the other BoD members - presumably, I would speculate, to show everyone what an asshole I was being towards him. Quite frankly, I didn't give a damn what Krivit had done with my private email. I really had nothing to hide. I sent the email to Krivit privately was a matter of professional courtesy. What he did with it was his business. What Krivit did with it was tack on a message of his own. an ultimatum telling me in front of all the other BoD members that I ought to resign if I couldn't behave in a more civil manner towards him. I was more than happy to resign. It was, in fact, a tremendous relief to resign. Incidentally, several former NET BoD members have also experienced similar fates. What I encountered is by no means unique. Years ago my brother drove a delivery truck supplying beer and wine coolers to various grocery stores in the Bend, Oregon area. He constantly complained about how other delivery personnel, when they came through, would shove or hide his product brands to the back of the shelves. There was a constant product placement war going on amongst all the delivery men as they maneuvered to get their merchandise optimally placed. As far as I'm concerned the war against the "fusion" word is nothing more than a petty self-serving theoretical product placement war. WTF cares. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks