At 02:49 PM 3/22/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Is there anyone whom he listens to who might explain to him how he
makes a major error in almost every slide?
Well, some other people agree with his technical claims, especially
Larsen. However, I think this is politicized view of cold fusion. It
is ironic that he accuses others of politicizing the issue. Also
these are strawman arguments, as Lomax notes.
Maybe Larsen would be the one. I can say this: Krivit is very much
not helping Larsen's cause, by overstating the arguments drastically.
Krivit should, instead, be functioning as he originally functioned:
as a reporter, making sure the story is told. Krivit went to the
edge, digging up "stories" of his own original research and analysis,
which is tricky when you aren't really an expert, and then promoting
them to the exclusion of what would actually be needed: reporting.
What is W-L theory? Explain it to us! What arguments are made for and
against it and when and where and by whom? You know, reporting! If
you are going to report "why," i.e., personal motivations, be careful!
But Krivit is creating his own news, frequently reporting on his own
thinking process, he said, she said, so to speak. With Martin
Flieschmann, he reported details of his conversations, making Dark
Implications out of very ordinary stuff. He's lost his function, and
I'm afraid it will collapse. With this, he has reported his own quite
defective analyses (I see that he still beating the ENEA dead horse),
distorting what was claimed by others, and probably confusing
whatever public reads his stuff.
When he pointed out that "maybe it wasn't fusion," in connection with
the 2009 ACS conference and the SPAWAR neutron announcement, I didn't
have a problem. But when he started making up bogus arguments and
attributing them to other researchers, then I started to have a
problem. He seems to be attacking the honesty of researchers, and
that is very, very worrisome.
I do not think this is an appropriate presentation for physics
conference session. It would be okay for a poster session.
Chemistry conference. Sure, poster session, it would be (should be) his right.
Is anyone here willing to defend what Krivit has said? If so, we can
look at it in detail. Please be specific. It seems that right now,
there is no text, just the video. So if you refer to the video,
please refer to the minute where the comment begins. Perhaps, Krivit,
will release the text, though, even better, he'd withdraw the whole
thing and announce he'd been stuck in some strange delusion for a
time, happens to the best of us. He would not be obligated to worship
at the altar of Cold Fusion, merely to begin to look at all this more
like ... a reporter, with journalistic standards and a sense of
neutrality and even-handedness.
