My impression is that NASA has done significant work with surface plasmon effects and is absolutely convinced that they are such a breakthrough (in other fields) that they are willing to overlook the problems as they pertain to electrolysis LENR.
Separately, they believe LENR to be valid as a general proposition and do not see the problems of a hybrid. Therefore IMHO - they have effectively reversed the old witticism of two wrongs not making and right, and converted that into two rights making a partial wrong. SPPs could be a good fit with some kind of plasma reactor, if that is what DGT really has, but most of the validation of LENR comes from electrolysis and that is a poor fit. Perhaps they have seen something wrt cold neutrons which is not in the public record. The rest of us are hampered by what is, or is lacking, in the public record. Jones From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene presented a long list of objections to the W-L theory: Miracle 1 - SPPs couple with photons of light to become activated. There is little or no light in electrolysis LENR experiments - but some light exists in plasma glow or Mills reactions. If W-L want to cover electrolysis, then they should demonstrate the reality of light photons, which are absent. Blackbody radiation is not sufficient. Miracle 2 - "Nuclear strength" is MeV. There is no evidence of MeV fields or even keV fields. These would be easy to document if they were present. Nuclear-strength electric fields produce x-ray radiation which is largely absent. Et cetera. I wonder about the people at NASA who endorse this theory. Have they addressed this kind of critique? Have Jones Beene and others contacted them directly? They should, I think. I know that critics have discussed this with Widom and Larsen directly. I don't follow the discussion, but I have seen scraps of it. I doubt that it would be fruitful to discuss these objections with Krivit. He probably would not respond. More to the point, I doubt he understands the technical issues any better than I do, and I am not capable of addressing them in useful detail. That is why I find his enthusiastic support for this theory puzzling. It is as if he had strong opinions about the etymology disputes over the Japanese words "arigato" (thank you) and "kappa" (raincoat). Some people think these are borrow-words from Portuguese in the 15th century. Others, including me, think they have older Japanese roots. I can have opinions about because I know something about the subject. If you do not know any Japanese it would be pretty stupid to weigh in on it. Hey, I had a semester in classical 17th century Japanese. I can sort of follow the dialog in these NHK year-long dramas written in pseudo-old fashioned Japanese. Such as this one now showing about a hot babe, Niijima Yae (1845-1932), who was a famous 19th century gunsmith. Sort of like Anne Oakley except she shot a bunch of people during the Meiji restoration Boshin war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ryanr2CeRE She was a real person. Very important. Her husband founded a university. But she did not look like that. She looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamamoto_Yaeko But, I digress. - Jed
