Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: What I really mean is that he ends up adding confusion to the mess. If not > even WL, the authors, can answer Abd's objections, what's to say about > Krivit?
Absolutely right. Quoting one of Krivit's papers: "Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen propose that, in condensed matter, local breakdown of the Born–Oppenheimer approximation occurs in homogeneous, many-body, collectively oscillating patches of protons, deuterons, or tritons found on surfaces of fully loaded metallic hydrides . . ." If I were to write something like that, here is how my worst nightmare would play out. I imagine myself sitting in panel discussion like the one on Commercialization at ICCF17. Someone in the audience with a PhD who knows what a Born–Oppenheimer approximation is asks me to elaborate on that statement. Umm . . . Errr, ahhh . . ., after a quick surreptitious look at Wikipedia using a iPad on my lap), I respond: "Well, you got your computation of the energy and the wavefunction of an average-size molecule is a formidable task, which is alleviated by that sucker, the Born–Oppenheimer approximation . . ." I'm pretty sure Krivit would not know a Born–Oppenheimer approximation if it bit him on the butt. I know I wouldn't! I felt fine on the Commercialization Panel because hey, that's all blue-sky speculation anyway, and besides it's the last hour of the the last day and most people have already left the conference. Who's going to know? Here is what I said on the panel. It is such stuff as dreams are made of: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf - Jed
