Dear Dennis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax,
For a few years - you have been a great fan of New Energy Times. You have
been militant and aggressive on Wikipedia in your support of New Energy
Times and you were instrumental in getting New Energy Times removed from
the Wikipedia blacklist. You did this, I note, even when I made it clear to
you that I did not care about Wikipedia and had no desire for you to embark
on your crusade to get it delisted.
But I did not want to participate with you in your crusade in Wikipedia. I
thank you, and a I hope back then that I did thank you, for your care,
desire and effectiveness to support New Energy Times. This was the
situation as of April this year. I do recall you seemed to be a bit bristly
to me though when I did not want to join you in your crusade; you lectured
me and argued with me against my disinterest in your Wikipedia crusade.
Sometime after all this, you seem to have completed your focus on
Wikipedia, you advised me of your interest to develop a "cold fusion" kit.
You contacted me because of my experience with the Galileo Project, a
replication effort of the SPAWAR SSNTD and Co-dep expt. Again, I think - as
I recall - I had limited interest in your project, though I believe I did
direct you to the laboratory protocol.
You wrote to me in April the following:
"Meanwhile, your work is appreciated; please be careful to not get caught
up in squabbles, pass them by, just do your job and do it well. It's sad to
watch the infighting among those who support lenr research, and it,
unfortunately, reflects badly on the field and makes it more difficult for
the awakening to come."
In spirit, I agree with your thoughts - and I would completely love to
focus my entire attention on scientific work. Alas, I have found that
science does not occur in vacuo; for some strange reason, there always seem
to be human beings involved.
So in a span of a few months, you have become a staunch advocate of New
Energy Times and now you are spewing language filled with hatred,
hostility, and derision and you appear intent to cause destruction.
I'm curious how you explain your 180 degree shift. I'm curious about
exactly what bothers you. Were you expecting that New Energy Times should
be more of a PR organization and be soft on snake oil salesmen within the
field? Were you expecting that we would or could discuss the science, the
business and the politics of the field without discussing human behavior?
Or were you so offended that I repeated things that 60 Minutes said about
someone's health conditions? Or have the facts I've recently published
caused you angst and disillusionment about your "cold fusion" heroes?
What is it about my recent reporting that bothers you so much? You have
conveyed a lot of drama and emotion, but you are sparse when it comes to
identifying any real problems, aside from your judgment about editorial
perspectives and decisions. If you don't like the editorial decision-making
of New Energy Times, you don't have read it. So what's the problem?
I really do appreciate your enthusiasm for this field. I know you truly
care about the end result - a better world and a better choice for energy
solutions. I'm not going to be able to explain all of the details to your
satisfaction in an e-mail, or even in a slew of e-mails, but you appear to
be are under a mistaken belief that individuals who are principal
researchers in the field are homogenous and unified in their approach and
philosophy of LENR. This is a myth as great as the myth that Caltech and
MIT "disproved" excess heat.
Following from the myth of "all for one and one for all" of "cold fusion"
researchers against the "evil empire" of mainstream science, you appear to
assume that observers and proponents of LENR should, in turn, all be
unified in their approaches and philosophy. This may or may not be true, I
don't wish to argue the point with you, but I will say the obvious - I
don't agree. There is the very great danger of groupthink. As is the
danger with observers such as you and I.
To whatever extent you can see beyond your hateful, mean-spirited messages
that you have posted here recently, I strongly encourage you to look at the
"minority" viewpoint of the field which you are so passionately supportive.
I began to hear strong shifts in people's perspectives once I began to
openly question the reality of "cold fusion" and rather, consider the very
strong reality of the empirical research independent of a "cold fusion"
process. It is true, I experienced a change of philosophy a few years ago.
I began to discuss this openly at the August 2008 ACS meeting.
I quoted former APS spokesperson Robert Park:
"If something you have been attributing to [D-D] fusion is observed with
ordinary water, it means you've been fooling yourself.
I quoted LENR Theorist John Fisher:
In my opinion [LENR] has been crippled by wide acceptance of the belief
that deuterium fusion of some sort is responsible for energy generation,
and also by rejection of alternative [proposed] mechanisms. Progress is
stunted when we reject a mechanism, because we then fail to undertake the
experiments it suggests.
The response I have had from some people "among those who support lenr
research" has been nothing but astonishing. Its' almost as if I have gored
a sacred cow, as if I have shunned a religious philosophy. People have
suggested that my mind has been taken over, that I have suddenly
compromised my integrity and accepted bribes - it's rather fascinating to
see the intensity of the response to my release of the belief in
single-step D+D > 4He as the dominant underlying explanatory process of
LENR. Really emotional, hostile responses.
Prior to me becoming a "disbeliever" in the hypothesis of "cold fusion" I
was loved and adored by the supposedly honorable and objective researchers
in the LENR field. Maybe that's what bothers you about my recent
reporting. I have reported what has happened, but it doesn't support the
view that some of these people are necessarily honorable.
My inclusion of the personalities of science is nothing new, just open most
any page in my book "The Rebirth of Cold Fusion," to see. The only thing
that's different now is that I've gotten past the smoke and mirrors of the
"cold fusion" believers and I can see that not everything they were telling
me has been the truth or at least the whole truth. I'm sure it hurts some
of the "cold fusion" believers to see that the author of "The Rebirth of
Cold Fusion," while he very much believes in the experimental work, no
longer believes in the theoretical explanation of it as "cold fusion."
You have spent much time and effort to attack this messenger. You ended a
recent post with the following hostile and mean-spirited statement:
"Those who support his work should pay close attention, if he can't be
guided through this, it's going down the tubes. The tide is turning, CF is
becoming respectable, and nothing is likely to stop that, but some
organizations will survive and some not."
I return to your quote from a few months ago:
"It's sad to watch the infighting among those who support lenr research."
In light of your hostile comment as noted above, I can only presume that
your concern about infighting is skin-deep; disingenuous. It makes me
suspect that your agenda is driven by a dogma.
I'm not saying that weak-interaction theories are entirely correct and
fully-explain LENR. I'm saying they could, they are important, and should
be considered with respect.
The irony is that the weak-interaction idea could actually bring respect
and recognition to the field - and recognition by mainstream science. Or
perhaps all of this noise I'm hearing from you, Rothwell and Storms is
about envy and jealousy as a result of the recognition of the WL idea.
You see, I've never seen any independent third-party endorsement,
recommendation in any way for any of the "cold fusion" theories. But I have
for the WL weak-interaction theory. Is it possible that all this noise from
you is, at its root, really about the scientific "infighting" that is
occurring in the field right now? I speculate this is the case.
Here is why I give respect and attention to the WL theory:
****************************
- J. M. Zawodny - August 12, 2009:
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/2009-NASA-LENR-8-12-09.pdf>Low Energy
Nuclear Reactions - An Energetics Revolution for ALL of NASAs Missions and
a Solution to Climate Change and the Economic Meltdown
- 2008 Johns Hopkins Report
(<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/2008JohnsHopkinsReport.pdf>pages 25
and 37)
- Dennis M. Bushnell Presentation, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research
Center:
"<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/2008BushnellEnergyPresentation.pdf>Now,
a Viable Theory" (page 37)
- Dave Nagel, Chairman of ICCF-14:
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/NagelWidomLarsenThread.pdf>
may prove
to be a viable mechanism
- Dave Rees, Particle Physicist - Navy SPAWAR:
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheoryNavyCritique.shtml>
as far as
I can tell correct
- Richard Garwin, Nuclear Physicist key participant in the Manhattan
Project and designer of the first hydrogen bomb :
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/GarwinWidomLarsenThread.pdf>
I didnt
say it was wrong
- Physics Nobel laureate Brian Josephson:
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2005/NET13.shtml#boat2>highly
significant, since the physics may well be sound.
- Stanislaw Szpak, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss and Frank E. Gordon, SPAWAR:
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/../../library/2007/2007SzpakS-FurtherEvidence-Naturwissenschaften-Erratum.pdf>"We
find that Widom and Larsen have done a thorough mathematical treatment that
describes one mechanism to create...low-energy neutrons."
****************************
I note, with some amusement, that I have also heard through the grapevine,
that people are mocking Nagel for being "enamored" with the WL theory.
Uh-huh. Sure.
Since you appear intent on attacking New Energy Times, I provide, for the
benefit of observers of this public discourse, the following page:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/pressroom/pressroom.shtml
Particularly these sub-sections:
New Energy Times, LENR and "Cold Fusion" in the Media
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/pressroom/pressroom.shtml#media
Comments about New Energy Times, LENR and "Cold Fusion"
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/pressroom/pressroom.shtml#comments
I applaud your quest for truth, progress and improvement in our energy
options and I thank you for your care and interest along these lines. I do
hope that you and I can eventually find greater harmony in how we are both
attempting to achieve the same goal.
I know you are a persistent debater and you seem to have ample time on your
hands to do so. I do not. Please forgive me if I do not respond to more of
your messages on this thread, I do have other tasks at hand.
Thank you.
Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
Executive Director, New Energy Institute Inc.
<http://www.newenergytimes.com/>NEW<http://www.newenergytimes.com/> ENERGY
TIMES
Original reporting on leading-edge energy research and technologies
369-B Third Street, Suite 556
San Rafael, California, USA 94901
<http://www.newenergytimes.com/>www.newenergytimes.com
Office Phone: (310) 470-8189
