Krivit has written another smug, self-satisfied, sneery, sarcastic piece about the Widom Larsen theory. I posted a reply in the comments, but of course it won't pass moderation, so I'll post it here as well:
Although I think you are sincere, and your motives are true, as is quite clear in your handling of the Rossi case, I believe you are completely deluded about cold fusion, lenr, and the WL theory. I don't believe advocates of LENR reject WL (to the extent that they even do) because it is not fusion. I am quite sure they would all rejoice and dance in the streets if solid evidence for lenr were to emerge (by which I mean solid enough to convince the mainstream and the DOE), whether or not it fit better with WL or any theory of fusion. Because either way, they get their clean energy, and they get to wave the results in the faces of the likes of Bob Park, Nathan Lewis, and Steven Koonin. They reject WL (to the extent that they do) because it has serious problems. I'm sure you've seen my objections before. It is simply far less plausible that an electron can get 780 keV in a room temperature lattice (miracle 1) than for a deuteron to get 100 keV (also implausible). And all those reactions proposed by WL would produce gamma rays, which are not detected. Sure, they claim heavy electrons would absorb *all* the gamma rays (miracle 2), but that would be the very simplest claim to test, and in 5 years, there is no evidence of such a thing. Then in the chain of events proposed by WL there is the absorption of a cold neutron by He-4, which also requires some 700+ keV (miracle 3). There are just too many miracles required. A unicorn really is more likely. Krivit> For unknown reasons, many of the people who have been fighting the “War Against Cold Fusion” appear to be locked into a siege mentality and have been unable to shift their thinking as better facts and understanding of the field have emerged. This is a smug comment coming from someone without scientific background. >From the outside, it appears the facts and understanding have not improved at all. They are, as they have always been, vague, uncertain, irreproducible, and marginal. Krivit> But much like Columbus when he headed east from Spain and then thought he found a new way to India, Pons, Fleischmann and their followers were mistaken, but only partially. It's really too early to talk as if you are in possession of some sort of received wisdom. Most scientists are skeptical of nuclear reactions at all. Why exactly you think your view should be taken above theirs is puzzling. Krivit> But there was a subtle but significant difference with the underlying physical mechanism: It was based primarily on weak interactions and neutron-capture processes, not fusion. > Despite the growing body of experimental evidence that revealed this distinction, and despite all the attempts that Pons and Fleischmann’s followers made to try to make LENR look like fusion, no amount of varnish could change the fact: “Cold fusion” too, was a myth. But LENR, which does not presume or assert a fusion mechanism, is real. Even among those who accept nuclear processes, this kind of smug certainty should be considered repugnant. The evidence is simply not strong for WL. It's not even suggestive. Legitimate scientists who accept that there is evidence for heat from nuclear reactions could not claim any level of certainty about the WL theory without at least some direct evidence for it. In truth, I don't think Widom and Larsen believe the WL theory. I think they're scamming just like Rossi, and looking for investors for Lattice Energy. And you and Bushnell are their stooges, being blown away by the sophisticated math, and not having enough background to see the obvious holes in it. If the theory were valid, it would be ground-breaking, nobel prize worthy, but other scientists don't even cite the work.
