James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: What is your diagnosis of Krivit? >
I don't know what to make of him. I have not been paying attention to him for some time now. I do not know what to make of this article because it is behind a paywall. I do not know what paper at SRI he refers to. If I had the whole article I would look up the SRI paper and see how it compares to Krivit's description. Sometimes he gets it right, but sometimes he gets it wrong. He needs an editor. The part about Pons is silly, as I said. It is common knowledge that they got heat from H2O. Krivit is presenting it as some sort of revelation. Anyone who has been following the literature since 1989 will have seen this many times. I will grant, it does not fit some of the models. Maybe Hagelstein's is among them? My feeling is that you will never find a model or a theory that fits all of the data, because some of the data is mistaken. Some of the claims have only rarely been seen, at small s/n ratios. They may be mistakes. Perhaps F&P were wrong about this. No one knows. You would need a magic touchstone to know. Until the claim is widely replicated there is no way to know. Other data may not be mistaken, but it may be misinterpreted. For example, there is no doubt that cold fusion is sometimes accompanied by neutrons, but Storms believes these are from fractofusion, a prosaic effect. He thinks they have nothing to do with the cold fusion nuclear reaction. If he is right then trying to shoehorn the neutrons into a nuclear theory is a mistake. They are caused by a well-known physical effect that happens to occur at the same time because this is a highly loaded, stressed metal lattice. The neutrons are coincidental with a common cause to cold fusion, but no deep significance. - Jed
