Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
> does. Ask him! He is not shy about speculating or accusing people.
I did ask him.
Have you personally asked him that question?
I haven't asked him anything lately. He told me he has added my
e-mail address to his kill file, and unsubscribed to Vortex, so I
have no convenient way to communicate with him.
Please point me to any published article where Krivit has made such
an official accusation.
<http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/ColdFusionClaimsQuestioned.shtml>http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/ColdFusionClaimsQuestioned.shtml
QUOTES:
"We published Issue 34 of New Energy Times on Jan. 31. In it, we
reveal how scientists at SRI International and MIT, claiming evidence
for the theory of "cold fusion," have misled the public, their peers,
the Department of Energy and the reviewers of the 2004 DoE LENR review. . . .
Contrary to what the public has heard and believed, the purported
best evidence for the theory of low-energy nuclear reactions as a
"cold fusion" reaction, specifically the highly promoted claim of
~24 MeV/4He, does not exist. . . .
The subgroup misled the public into believing that excess heat and
non-energetic helium-4 were the only confirmed evidence for LENR. . .
." [By the way, this is preposterous. Heat and tritium are confirmed
evidence for LENR.]
Definition of "mislead": "To lead into error of thought or action,
especially by intentionally deceiving. See synonyms at deceive."
(American Heritage dictionary)
Definition of "purported": "1. To have or present the often false
appearance of being or intending; profess: selfish behavior that
purports to be altruistic. 2. To have the intention of doing;
purpose." (American Heritage dictionary -- I am sure Krivit meant
definition #1.)
As I said, changing numbers by a factor of ten or not informing EPRI
that you have re-evaluated your data would not be mistakes or
experimental errors. Those are deliberate acts.
Look, Krivit is not being indirect or shy about making accusations.
You do him a disservice by not taking his words at face value. He
sincerely believes that McKubre and others are conspiring to deceive
the public and make people think that helium is a product of cold
fusion when it is not, and also to suppress the Windom-Larsen theory.
That's what Krivit says, and that is what he means. He has a right to
hold that opinion and post it on his website. It's a free country.
Heck, if I agreed with his analysis, I might write a paper with the
same accusations and upload it to LENR-CANR. I uploaded a paper
pointing out what I consider weaknesses in Arata's work. That upset
Arata to no end! I did not hesitate to upload Mallove's accusations
that the MIT work is fraudulent. Anyone can see that is what I
pointed out in the graphs published by Miles
(<http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf>http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf
p. 23).
There is nothing wrong with criticizing people or accusing them of
fraud if you sincerely believe what you say. I am sure Krivit
believes what he says. I told him I think he is wrong. I gave him
detailed reasons why I think so. Evidently he did not agree with me.
That's all there is to it. No big deal, really. Krivit is one of
thousands of people who attack cold fusion for nonsensical reasons.
Several cold fusion researchers such as Arata attack one another for
equally nonsensical reasons.
As a group people attacking cold fusion do a lot of damage, but each
individual does little harm. Even the most powerful members of the
peanut gallery, such as Robert Park or the anonymous nitwits at
Wikipedia have little influence over society. If Robert Park were to
stop attacking cold fusion today, it would have little influence over
events. It might have a large impact if he were to publicly admit he
was wrong, and publish that in the Washington Post. But there is no
chance he would ever do that. He is a political animal with a large
ego invested in his opinions. He is far out on a limb, and he knows
it. Such people sometimes shut up and go away, but they never admit
they are wrong.
(If one of the Wikipedia nitwits were to read papers or change his
mind it would have no influence because the others would quickly
throw him out.)
- Jed
