One can only applaud the parts of Steve's post below which were written by the Dr Jekyll in him, such as this excerpt:
"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." Some of the Hyde parts, while obviously not always factual (Abd --I gather he prefers to be called by this name, which is why Mr Hyde called him Dennis-- is obviously not on a crusade against the WL theory) are interesting and informative though. Worse than infighting, my feeling is that what would reflect badly on the field would be to depict it as rosier than is natural for any field of science. Michel 2009/10/23 Steven Krivit <stev...@newenergytimes.com>: > 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: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions - An > Energetics Revolution for ALL of NASA’s Missions and a Solution to Climate > Change and the Economic Meltdown > > - 2008 Johns Hopkins Report ( pages 25 and 37) > > - Dennis M. Bushnell Presentation, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research > Center: " Now, a Viable Theory" (page 37) > > - Dave Nagel, Chairman of ICCF-14: “ …may prove to be a viable mechanism” > > - Dave Rees, Particle Physicist - Navy SPAWAR: “ …as far as I can tell > correct” > > - Richard Garwin, Nuclear Physicist key participant in the Manhattan Project > and designer of the first hydrogen bomb : “ …I didn’t say it was wrong” > > - Physics Nobel laureate Brian Josephson: “highly significant, since the > physics may well be sound.” > > - Stanislaw Szpak, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss and Frank E. Gordon, SPAWAR: "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. > NEW ENERGY TIMES > Original reporting on leading-edge energy research and technologies > 369-B Third Street, Suite 556 > San Rafael, California, USA 94901 > www.newenergytimes.com > Office Phone: (310) 470-8189 > > >
