Ludwik, no fight is being prolonged. Steve made a response and I
answered it. I plan no other response to him. Are you suggesting that
differences of opinion be hidden? We must discuss theory and such
discussions naturally create an emotional response. The only issue is
that this be done using facts.
Ed
On Mar 21, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
Dear Steve and Ed,
I suggest you just forget past mistakes and start all over.
Prolonging the fight does not help anyone.
Please, please, please.
Ludwik Kowalski
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
=======================================================
On Mar 21, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
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>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "CMNS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "CMNS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
