At 05:36 PM 3/23/2010, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> Notice how Krivit's presentation is being read. The negativity is being
> picked up, the positive aspects, Krivit's assertions that LENR is real, are
> not being seen.
Maybe it's the Oilies?
Don't know, but it's pretty obvious that Krivit wasn't understood.
Yet he's happy about the report.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=137
Sanderson
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/RealityOfLENRMythologyColdFusion.shtml>cited
an important distinction made by New Energy Times between "cold
fusion" and low-energy nuclear reactions.
No, she didn't. Here is what she said:
[...]
people continue to present work where they claim that nuclear
reactions produce excess heat. Is it cold fusion, though? Part of me
wishes it were, so that the world's energy crisis could be solved in
one fell swoop. But I'm still not convinced.
The discussion about excess heat in these reactions could be one of
semantics, says Michael McKubre, of SRI International in Menlo Park,
California. Presumably by this he is alluding to the controversial
nature of the phrase cold fusion. He asserts that LNER is no longer
an oddity. Others don't agree. One person who was once a huge
devotee of cold fusion, Steve Krivit, a journalist from the magazine
New Energy Times has changed his mind. Krivit didn't give a talk
this year but he prepared some thoughts about the session at the ACS
this year. You can read about Krivit's change of heart
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/RealityOfLENRMythologyColdFusion.shtml>here.
At the press conference, McKubre dodged a question about when
commercial applications of cold fusion might be realised. I think
avoiding that question was a sensible decision.
She thinks that Krivit is disagreeing with McKubre over "LNER," her
mangling of LENR. Once a "huge devotee," Krivit has "changed his
mind." About what? From the report, about LENR. Krivit is so wrapped
up in the fact that he was noticed, that he doesn't seem to see that
she says the opposite of what he's trying to say.
What is, in fact, he trying to say? Part of it was that "McKUBRE IS
WRONG," and that could be what Sanderson picked up on. "IT'S NOT
FUSION," is the major thrust of his paper, with a subtext of "it's
low energy nuclear reactions, but not fusion." Problem is, this is
utterly confusing. Anyone who knows about nuclear reactions will know
that they are of two basic kinds: fusion, fission, and you can
categorize nuclear decay as fission. If the fuel is deuterium, and
Krivit acknowledges that, and if the product is helium, and Krivit
acknowledges helium as a major product, at least, then it's fusion.
Period. Just not *thermonuclear fusion.* What kind of fusion is it?
*Cold fusion.* Fusion, i.e., the production of higher weight nuclei
from lower weight ones, at low temperatures instead of at the high
ones thought necessary. Non-thermonuclear fusion. Neutron-catalyzed?
Okay, maybe. But what does that have to do with whether it's fusion or not?
