Here is the response by Krivit, which he asked be posted on the
discussion groups.
Ed
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]>
Date: March 21, 2013 4:17:54 PM MDT
To: Steven Krivit <[email protected]>
Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other
theories
Steve, you fail to understand the need for scientific discussion.
Many people do not believe the W-L theory is correct for the reasons
I and other people have stated. You are free to believe these
reasons or not. Nevertheless, I and other people have a duty to
express our beliefs just as you have a duty to express yours. Unlike
some other people, I have not attacked you or Lewis personally. I
have simply stated the facts as I see them. There is no shame in
this process. Your failure to understand this fact is the shame. You
seem to think your statements supporting W-L are ok but any argument
against the theory is a shame. I find this approach very
hypocritical. It is a shame you do not agree.
Ed
On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Steven Krivit wrote:
Dr. Storms,
Your letter is pleasant, noble and dignified. Thank you for
including me in the distribution.
However, I find your message hypocritical considering your
pernicious attacks on another theory and your own lack of a perfect
LENR theory.
Starting in 2007, you began an aggressive attempt to convince me to
refrain from reporting any and all news about the Widom-Larsen
theory.
This began on Feb. 19, 2007, after I told you that Richard Garwin,
one of the most prominent physicists in the world, and one of the
most critical mainstream scientists, told me that he had found
nothing wrong with the Widom-Larsen theory. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml
.
But instead of appreciating this progress, you admonished me to
ignore the theory. You attempted to use your authority in the field
to convince me not to report on it.
If Widom-Larsen correctly explains LENR, as I think it probably
does, we'll know someday. Meanwhile, I've given ample opportunity
for many of the other theorists, including you (as you claim to be)
to have their work represented on New Energy Times. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/LENR-and-Cold-Fusion-Theory-Index.shtml
If the Widom-Larsen theory is wrong we'll find that out and I will
be the first to admit that I was wrong. However, my theory index
makes it quite clear how far ahead WLT is from any other theory.
But right now, the shame is on you for your attempts at suppression
and your incessant efforts to go out of your way to attack another
theory. (I enclose one such recent example http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/.)
I have studied too much of the conflicts in the history of cold
fusion not to recognize that you are exhibiting behavior that is
little different from that of the pathological skeptics who had
attacked the work, as well as character, of Fleischmann and Pons.
Same behavior, different names. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même
chose.
You, however, have been careful to keep the nastiest of your
comments - the ones I heard from Mike Carrell and Bev Barnhart -
out of the public spotlight. But you have sent a few of such
comments to me directly and I could not and will not publish them,
however dramatic they may be, because they are slanderous.
In last six years, you have used multiple opportunities to attempt
to discredit the Widom-Larsen theory as well as to make personal
attacks against Larsen's character as well as mine.
Dr. Storms, I welcome your new dignified and diplomatic approach.
But it doesn't change history.
Steven B. Krivit
Publisher and Senior Editor, New Energy Times
Editor-in-Chief, 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia
P.S. Dr. Storms copied his letter to CMNS and to Vortex. If a
member of those lists would be so kind as to also copy my response
to those same lists I would appreciate it.
At 09:47 AM 3/21/2013, Edmund Storms wrote:
Peter has raised an important subject, but one so filled with
emotion and complex arguments, knowing where to start is the
problem. The discussion of theory we are witnessing is an
indication of a deeper problem.
Yes, CF is difficult to explain, but how we go about this
discussion is important. The CMNS discussion group was designed
to allow a select group of people to compare ideas in a safe and
respectful way. On many occasions, this goal has not been
achieved. On too many occasions, the discussion has been
distracted by arrogance and hubris. These emotional reactions are
expected because in many cases, we are competing for the same
prize - the prize of explaining and applying the most important
discovery of this century. But we are handicapped by a limited
understanding of the phenomenon and generally by very little
suitable training in the required general science. If we were
discussing an accepted phenomenon, the arguments we would be
allowed to make would be restrained by known laws. In the case of
LENR, people feel free to ignore even the most basic laws of
nature. Naturally, this approach generates outrage. Just how far
from known behavior and accepted understanding a theory is
permitted to deviate is an important question, but one that needs
to be discussed with civility. Even so, the problem goes deeper.
LENR is rejected by the people who determine when and how new
ideas are developed. Why is this the case? I suggest this
rejection occurs because the phenomenon involves a mixture of
chemical and nuclear behavior. Both kinds of understanding are
required to explain and apply the phenomenon. Most chemists have
no training in nuclear physics and most physicists have no
training in chemistry. Unfortunately, many physicists believe
they understand all aspects of Nature. Because physicists
generally control technological development of LENR, their
collective opinions are important. I suggest the general
rejection of LENR is the result of this combination of ignorance
and arrogance, not because objective proof is lacking and not
because it is called "nuclear". Consequently, I see no solution
to the general rejection until a device having a demonstrated
level of commercial power has been achieved. Only then will the
claim be accepted even by people who insist the phenomenon
violates accepted theory. But, how can this goal be reached?
At the present time, success in making LENR work results from luck
because no method can be reproduced by everyone who makes the
effort. In fact, even people who can make heat most of the time,
still cannot control the process well enough for commercial
application. Achieving this control is prevented by ignorance of
the controlling variables. In other words, until the conditions
required for the nuclear process to occur are identified and
controlled, reliable success will not be possible. Understanding
the nuclear process is not as important as knowing the required
conditions because once the required conditions are created, the
nuclear process occurs without further help. This important and
essential insight is generally ignored when a theoretical
understanding is attempted. Too many attempts either propose
impossible conditions to precede the nuclear process or ignore the
initiating conditions completely. I believe this failure to
properly identify the unique and required conditions is the major
flaw in the present theories. This understanding requires a
knowledge of chemistry, not nuclear physics. And so, my essay
circles back to the basic conflict that exists between how
chemists and physicists understand Nature. The LENR phenomenon
has revealed this conflict and the resulting limitations it
imposes. Our job is to find ways to avoid the conflict.
Ed Storms
On Mar 21, 2013, at 3:56 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Friends,
The concept of COOPETITION is created for solving the
problems of LENR too. Internal hostility and fight is damaging
for the future of LENR. Impressed by some recent discussions
on forums that I have found as counterproductive, I wrote:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/03/why-so-much-hostility-against-widom.html
Peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
<ANS-Blog-Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reactions.pdf>
