----- Original Message ----
> From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Wed, March 31, 2010 12:17:48 AM
> Subject: [Vo]:Krivit's new claim, transcript of ACS Krivit Pop Quiz
>
>
> >http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=138
This is going to take some
> work. Krivit is claiming contradiction.
Headline: « <
> href="http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=138"; target=_blank
> >http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=138>McKubre Recalibrates Cold
> Fusion Data
<
> target=_blank >http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=139>EPRI, Passell
> Contradict McKubre
> Michael McKubre, of SRI International, told
> people attending a press conference March 21 that, in 2000, his group had
> “recalibrated” one of the helium values in his “cold fusion” research. The
> original research was carried out in 1994. [...]
> href="http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=139"; target=_blank
> >http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=139
> Electrochemist Michael
> McKubre never reported corrections to his LENR experiment M4, according to a
> representative of the organization that sponsored the research.
>
>
> Brian Schimmoller, marketing communications lead with the Electric Power
> Research Institute’s nuclear division, told New Energy Times today that no
> correction to McKubre’s experiment M4, described in EPRI report TR-107843-V1,
> exists.
>
> This contradicts a statement McKubre made to New Energy
> Times in a <
> target=_blank >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkb9btuKlzs>videotaped
> press conference on March 21 at the American Chemical Society meeting in San
> Francisco
Do the statements contradict each other? No. McKubre says that
> he provided a correction. An EPRI representative says that "no correction
> exists." These two statements are not in contradiction. Krivit states that
> McKubre "never reported corrections, according to" the EPRI rep. If the EPRI
> rep
> says that, I'd wonder how he knows. McKubre did not say when and how he
> reported
> it to EPRI, but he is explicit about reporting it at ICCF 8. There are lots
> of
> possibilities. If it was reported late enough, those files weren't active and
> EPRI really wasn't concerned any more. A letter could have been lost.
> Etc.
It sure looks contradictory.
Make of what you will.
<snip>
> He is trying to impeach the researchers and the helium/heat data,
> which is the most convincing of all the evidence that we have showing a
> nuclear
> process.
> It is the answer to Huizenga's challenge (Where is the ash, the
> "nuclear product"?) Heat/Helium of 24 MeV is of great interest, but still
> 24-48
> MeV or so would be "consistent with" D-D fusion, but other forms of fusion or
> other nuclear reactions might do the same, and the critical information and
> result, which Hagelstein covers in his response, is that energy and helium
> are
> correlated. A more exact value may or may not give us information about the
> exact reaction involved, and no single experiment or research group should be
> considered to provide us with conclusive data on the exact value. Storms
> gives
> 25 +/- 5 MeV/He4, but I don't think anyone is insisting that this has been
> conclusively measured.
I believe Ed Storms takes the value seriously since he has cited it as evidence
against the theoretical approach of W-L.
Harry
__________________________________________________________________
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo!
Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
