Re: [Vo]:Krivit's screed has been noticed

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:36 PM 3/23/2010, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
 wrote:

> Notice how Krivit's presentation is being read. The negativity is being
> picked up, the positive aspects, Krivit's assertions that LENR is real, are
> not being seen.

Maybe it's the Oilies?


Don't know, but it's pretty obvious that Krivit wasn't understood.

Yet he's happy about the report.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=137

Sanderson 
cited 
an important distinction made by New Energy Times between "cold 
fusion" and low-energy nuclear reactions.


No, she didn't. Here is what she said:


[...]
people continue to present work where they claim that nuclear 
reactions produce excess heat. Is it cold fusion, though? Part of me 
wishes it were, so that the world's energy crisis could be solved in 
one fell swoop. But I'm still not convinced.


The discussion about excess heat in these reactions could be one of 
semantics, says Michael McKubre, of SRI International in Menlo Park, 
California. Presumably by this he is alluding to the controversial 
nature of the phrase cold fusion. He asserts that LNER is no longer 
an oddity. Others don't agree. One person who was once a huge 
devotee of cold fusion, Steve Krivit, a journalist from the magazine 
New Energy Times has changed his mind. Krivit didn't give a talk 
this year but he prepared some thoughts about the session at the ACS 
this year. You can read about Krivit's change of heart 
here.


At the press conference, McKubre dodged a question about when 
commercial applications of cold fusion might be realised. I think 
avoiding that question was a sensible decision.


She thinks that Krivit is disagreeing with McKubre over "LNER," her 
mangling of LENR. Once a "huge devotee," Krivit has "changed his 
mind." About what? From the report, about LENR. Krivit is so wrapped 
up in the fact that he was noticed, that he doesn't seem to see that 
she says the opposite of what he's trying to say.


What is, in fact, he trying to say? Part of it was that "McKUBRE IS 
WRONG," and that could be what Sanderson picked up on. "IT'S NOT 
FUSION," is the major thrust of his paper, with a subtext of "it's 
low energy nuclear reactions, but not fusion." Problem is, this is 
utterly confusing. Anyone who knows about nuclear reactions will know 
that they are of two basic kinds: fusion, fission, and you can 
categorize nuclear decay as fission. If the fuel is deuterium, and 
Krivit acknowledges that, and if the product is helium, and Krivit 
acknowledges helium as a major product, at least, then it's fusion. 
Period. Just not *thermonuclear fusion.* What kind of fusion is it?


*Cold fusion.* Fusion, i.e., the production of higher weight nuclei 
from lower weight ones, at low temperatures instead of at the high 
ones thought necessary. Non-thermonuclear fusion. Neutron-catalyzed? 
Okay, maybe. But what does that have to do with whether it's fusion or not?

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's screed has been noticed

[Jed Rothwell]

This Nature blog is pretty good. It is better than anything else I 
recall seeing from Nature in the last 21 years. RIP Maddox.


As Abd noted this is marred by Steve Krivit making a spectacle of 
himself. But not by much.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's screed has been noticed

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
 wrote:

> Notice how Krivit's presentation is being read. The negativity is being
> picked up, the positive aspects, Krivit's assertions that LENR is real, are
> not being seen.

Maybe it's the Oilies?

T