You can tell that WL theory does not fit experiments since it does not predict the formation of He4 within a few hours of experiment. Thus, the constant attacks of Krivit on MacKubre's M4 experiment. That experiment rules out, completely, WL theory. Thus, Krivit makes himself a stooge by saying things like this:
" My conclusions are that, starting in 2000, McKubre began retroactively to manipulate and fabricate data that was associated with M4. He did so without presenting scientific support and without disclosing his changes to the public or to his sponsor, the Electric Power Research Institute " http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/21/mckubre-experiment-m4-index-page-created/ Also, there would be a myriad of radioactive waste given that some of the beta decays of the reaction takes more than a few hours. This also rules out WL theory. Theories related to Hegelstein's need to explain where does the collective energy comes to make fusion from very small grains like those used by Ahern. 2012/2/19 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, I personally do not see WL theory as something that would require >> much more than an undergraduate level . . . > > > Well, I took undergraduate level physics, albeit in 1975. A mid-level > course at Cornell. I got A's. But we never touched on anything as esoteric > as this. > > Maybe you mean an undergraduate degree in science or engineering. Krivit > does not have that, and it is not something you pick up casually in > mid-life, like a degree in literature perhaps. > > I am not saying that Krivit could not possibly have any idea what the > theory is about. What I mean is that he could not write a paper comparing > and contrasting it to other major theories such as Hagelstein's, at a level > that would persuade an expert that Krivit is right that this theory is > probably the best one around. I have read most of Krivit's serious work. It > is pretty good. But nothing remotely as technical as this. It couldn't be, > because I understand it easily. > > Krivit has pointed out some reasons why the theory might be good. These > advantages are obvious to me, or to anyone who reads the W-L abstracts. > That does not mean the theory is right. It just means W-L know enough about > cold fusion experimental evidence that they know what needs to be > explained. They know it does not produce many neutrons, for example. > > > >> I believe Mizuno said he cannot understand simply because the theories >> presented so far really do not make sense. > > > Perhaps that is the case. I cannot tell if the theories make sense or not. > I do not think he can either. It is clear to me that most theories make no > useful predictions and are not guides to fruitful research. People have not > made progress by depending on theories. They might in the future. That will > be a good sign the theory is valid. It will be proof of that. Sometimes a > theory can be a good guide even though it is flawed. > > > >> But he is being polite and not saying they do not making sense... > > > I think he meant only that he could not understand. > > Based on previous breakthroughs such as fission reactors, transistors and > DNA, I have a hunch that that a valid theory to explain cold fusion will > seem simpler and more obvious than the ones we have now. I expect it will > have broad implications that explain other phenomena now thought to be > unrelated. As I said, that was Watson said about his own discovery of DNA. > I could be wrong. The answer might be convoluted and beyond the > understanding of most people -- including me. > > - Jed > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
