Nick Palmer wrote:
Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any
other method that does not involve brute force smashing of the
Coulomb barrier) as not fusion to differentiate it/them from the
popular perceptions of mainstream science that Cold Fusion cannot
happen because of the Coulomb barrier and the lack of the "expected"
quantity of neutrons.
That is my impression of what he is saying. However, it seems to me
that if you start with light elements and end up with heavy ones,
that's fusion, as Abd explained. It seems to me that saying it isn't
fusion is making a distinction without a difference.
There are academic disputes about the nature of the reaction. Some of
the views listed by Krivit seem correct to me, such as the one on p.
46, about S. Chubb's claim that the Ni-H cells are producing D-D
fusion from the deuterium in ordinary water. That seems like a
stretch to me. You could test that hypothesis by adding some heavy
water to a working Ni-H cell, but as far as I know, this has not been
done. Some of the other technical objections by Krivit, such as his
discussion of helium, seem incorrect to me, as we discussed here.
However, Krivit takes there academic disputes and makes them into
imaginary suppression and political disputes. That uncalled for. He
also ridicules perfectly legitimate assertions, as in slide 54:
Chubb: Nonsensical, Novel Use of the Word "Fusion"
"Transmutations of 133Cs into 141Pr apparently are fused to a
substrate nucleus during gas loading experiments."
Cs is atomic number 55 and Pr is 59. That's heavier. So that's
fusion. If it were lighter it would be fission. It does not seem
nonsensical or novel to me, and I do not think it adds anything to
the discussion say it is.
Chubb's hypothesis about D-D reactions in light water; Iwamura's
opinion that his observations are caused by the FP effect; and
Krivit's ideas about the helium correlation are academic disputes.
Legitimate academic disputes. They are not politics, and no one is
suppressing any point of view. The use of the term cold fusion does
not "makes everyone in the field look like true believers or idiots."
(slide 55) It is not "pathological science" (slide 56). That kind of
language is uncalled for. It contributes nothing to our
understanding. It is inane. Such statements should not be allowed
during a lecture in a chemistry conference. A poster session is fine.
Alternatively, if you removed all of the political slides and left
only the technical objections (including of course, the ones that I
happen to think have no merit), then this would be okay to present.
Krivit claims that someone told him:
"Keep Your Opinions to Yourself or
We Will Get Your Funding Cut and
Remove Your Access to Sources"
- "Prominent" U.S Leaders of the LENR Field
(slide 61)
That would be a high-handed thing to say, unless the person saying it
is providing his funding, or is on the review board. In that case, it
would be part his job description. People are never under an
obligation to fund publications they disagree with.
Krivit's publication has been very good in many issues, but he should
learn his own limits. He knows no more about theory than I do, which
is to say practically nothing. He has absolutely no business
promoting the W-L theory over others, although of course it is fine
to report on it, or describe what Larsen has to say about other
theories. He does not understand the helium studies. He sees politics
and suppression where there are only honest disagreements and the
free exchanges of ideas. This degrades his publication, hurts his
credibility and hurts the reputation of the field. As Abd often says,
he should have someone with more technical knowledge review his work
before he publishes. You can be darn sure I always do this!
The people at SRI and China Lake and I think their results justify
the assertion that helium correlates with the heat at approximately
24 MeV per helium atom. Krivit disagrees. That's fine, but he should
not frame his disagreement in political terms, or pretend that
someone is suppressing his views, or use ridicule and insult and
quote people out of context (slide 38) or use loaded words
inappropriately such as "allegedly" ("Blue line allegedly represents
24 MeV" -- slide 34). This is childish. It is not how you conduct a
scientific debate. Just stick to the data and say what you have to say.
Furthermore, if the "skeptics" ridicule people in this field such as
Iwamura, because Iwamura thinks his reaction is a variation of the
Fleischmann-Pons effect and a form of fusion -- cold fusion, to be
exact -- and if these skeptics agree with Krivit that such views make
Iwamura and others "look like true believers or idiots" then I say to
hell with the skeptics, and to hell with Krivit. Iwamura, Chubb and
everyone else has a right to their opinions. They may be wrong, but
that not justify insulting them. These are legitimate, technical
opinions about a difficult area of new science. It that makes them
"true believers and idiots" then I am proud to stand with the true
believers and idiots of this world. Lots of things that look idiotic
when first discovered turn out to be true.
- Jed
