On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Steven Krivit wrote:
Dear Horace,
Even if you concur with Storms that the WL theory "suffers from so
many basic problems," you have every right to discuss the merits or
lack thereof of any theory (WL, Storms/Scanlan, or your own)
without being subject to intimidation to suppress discussion.
Is Storms intimidating you? In my opinion, yes. Did you feel the
need to defend yourself to him? Apparently so.
I have enormous respect for Ed Storms, even if we might disagree on
fundamental points regarding cold fusion and our theories in
particular. Our disagreements are technical in nature, and I don't
see them as either personalized or intimidating. I am grateful for
Ed Storm's criticism and questions because these things have pointed
out to me questions that should be answered by my paper, or which I
thought were already well answered but which needed clarification,
references, or examples, and expect to recognize him by name in my
acknowledgements.
Any scientist should be consoled that nature is the ultimate
arbitrator of scientific truth, even if not in his lifetime, and
intimidated by the fact his theory might not reflect reality.
I expect there is a level of frustration that I can not see clearly
his point of view is correct, and vice versa. This problem is
pervasive in the field. I think a conflict of views is useful
though, and the more views the better until things get solved.
As far as I know, only open science and open discussion is the to
sort these things out, not suppression.
Agreed! However, there certainly has been plenty of discussion!!
8^) Perhaps too much for me at the moment because I have to get busy
on the Holidays and taxes. I think I'm headed for lurk mode soon.
Spending so much time on all this has me in bad stead at home! I
actually had to recently put Ed Storms off on discussing things due
to being overwhelmed.
Dear Ed,
I bring the theoretical ideas of Lewis Larsen (later developed with
the help of Allan Widom and Yogendra Srivastava) because it is the
first theory that I see that has - in my opinion - a high
probability of explaining most of the LENR experimental phenomena.
Of course, I could be wrong and I'm completely willing to be wrong.
You and I have disagreed on this matter for several years now and,
as you know, I have been intransigent in my view, despite your
numerous attempts to discourage me and New Energy Times from paying
attention to it.
But if WL is as bad as you allege, it will die on its own accord
and nobody will pay any attention to it. It needs no help from you
to discourage me, Horace, or the CMNS field from talking about it.
Steve
CMNS: Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Date: 12/12/2009 9:23:25
From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
Reply-to: c...@googlegroups.com
To: c...@googlegroups.com
CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
[STORMS] As for W&L, this theory suffers from so many basic
problems, in addition to the one you noted, I'm at a loss as to why
it is even discussed.
[HEFFNER] I didn't bring it up. I merely responded to other posters
on vortex-l, especially Steve Krivit...I looked back at the thread
and see it was begun with a question directed at me by Steve
Krivit. The thread can be viewed from the beginning here: http://
www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg36350.html
[STORMS] "Yes I know. I should have said I'm at a loss as to why
Krivit brings this up.
The CMNS list still leaks like a sieve I see, promptly and voluminously!
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
