At 10:38 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This was all a tempest in a teapot! Good thing. I sent a message to
the Wiley editor, pointing to Krivit's article, and apologizing for
the misunderstanding.
Regarding Abd's comments, several potential authors told me that
Krivit pulled this stunt of pretending you are not there. I
mentioned McKubre. I witnessed another, a few others people told me.
I did not ask Storms or Srinivasan. I don't see any point to sharing
the names. It is enough to say that Krivit made a fool of himself in
this manner, and if he had not acted like such an ass, I would have
spoken to him or written to him first, rather than write to Wiley.
Right. Krivit shoots himself in the foot. I think part of his is his
sense of "story." He likes dramatic stories. So ... he creates them!
I'm quite sure there are plenty of real stories to be investigated.
As I noted, I'd really like to know more about W-L theory. But
Krivit's reporting on it is shallow, mostly telling the story of "CF
believers reject" it, and how unfair that supposedly is.
I was not the only one to get the wrong impression from his
announcement. I circulated a draft of that letter to several people
at the conference, and they all agreed I should send it. If even one
had expressed reservations or said, "I don't think Wiley is the
publisher" I would not have sent it.
In other words, it's likely Krivit was ambiguous. He might even have
wished to create some ambiance of his own acceptance, i.e., since
he'd just done this encyclopedia thing, surely he'll have a publisher
waiting and eager. But that's speculation. I haven't seen the video
he cites, as if it would be some kind of proof. He might even have
been explicit in the video that he didn't have a publisher, but
people remember, Jed, impressions, and the people you approached
hadn't studied the video or a transcript, they might have been distracted, etc.
It will be of some mild interest what is actually in that video....
Regarding the WL theory, as I have stated before, I have no opinion
about this theory, or any theory, and I could not care less whether
it is true or not. Some experts recently advised me that if the WL
theory is correct, cold fusion would not technically be fusion, so
as I said here, "score one for Krivit." I do not know what the ratio
of helium to heat would be if this theory is correct. In any case, I
am quite sure McKubre is not committing fraud, and Krivit's
assertions about this are misunderstandings.
That opinion (about "fusion") is a particular point of view that
depends on a very narrow definition of fusion, and that is about
fusion as a specific mechanism, rather than as a result. If you start
with deuterium and you end up with helium, inside a black box, with
the expected energy, you have a "fusion" box. A box that results in
the fusion of deuterium to helium, no matter what happens inside. The
box may contain quark gremlins who can dismantle stuff, using their
Special Powerz, into component quarks, provided that they then
reassemble them to something energetically favorable, and if the
imput is deuterium and the output is helium, they are using their
Powerz for fusion. Krivit (and others) confuse two different meanings
of "fusion," one being process and the other result.
W-L theory, however, as I understand it, predicts a whole lot more
Stuff going on in the "box" than deuterium fusion to helium. (W and L
are vague about what they actually predict! but they do show a
pathway from deuterium to helium, and that pathway, if it
predominated, would then show the expected net energy, the same as
any other pathway. The laws of thermodynamics care not about
pathways.) Problem is, I'd expect a very different product mix than
what is known, from W-L theory. There are some severe rate problems.
By confining the definition of "fusion" to "d-d fusion," which is
only one of many possible pathways, Krivit can then attempt to shed
the "dirty mantle" of "cold fusion," pretending that it's something
else. ULM neutron-induced nuclear reactions. Except that if you make
the ULM neutrons from deuterium, and use them to create helium and
other heavier elements, what you have done is a fancy, complicated
form of fusion, defined as the creation of heavier elements from lighter ones.
Really, Jed, don't agree with Krivit on this one! If W-L theory is
correct -- that's highly undefined! -- the production of helium is
still fusion. Some pathways might make this vaguer. It could get
really complicated, when we start considering fission caused by
neutrons. But, Jed, 25 MeV! Read Storms (2010). There really is only
one set of candidate reactions, those that start with deuterium and
end up with helium. TSC theory is one that predicts the ratio, but
cluster fusion, if it starts with some nanomass of deuterium and ends
with helium, through a Be-8 or other pathway, may be the most likely.
And let's agree on this: we don't know what the mechanism is. When I
refer to cold fusion, I'm referring to the *product." Which includes that heat.
I know practically nothing about theory, but I am pretty sure I know
enough to see that Krivit knows even less than I know. For him to
champion one theory or another is preposterous. It would be like me
arguing about which vintage of French wine is better suited to foie
gras. I don't even know what foie gras is, and all wines taste okay
to me. (Mind you, I am very, very choosy about wine: I won't touch
anything that costs more than $10 a bottle).
"Fat goose liver." Never mind! Never mind the wine, either, Jed, I'm
Muslim. But, hey, surely we could investigate some gastronomical
delights. Theory? I'm with you. Theory is nice as a guide, but it's
experiment that reigns in science. The whole point of theory is to
predict results, when you start discarding results because the
theories don't predict them, you are in trouble, as far as science is
concerned. What are the results! What does this damn suff actually
taste like! I don't care if a dozen experts said that this recipe was
the best in the world, if it makes me sick when I eat it, what's the
theory worth?
The theory might be correct, but a rat peed in the soup. You never
know, and some experimental results will never be explained. We don't
toss the theory of gravitation because we see something that appears
to be levitating. We keep it because it usually makes good
predictions. Accurate predictions.
The theory that cold fusion was impossible is actually quite decent
theory, very useful. It's usually correct, fortunately! Otherwise
when P and F made some of that highly loaded PdD, they'd have had
bigger problems than a hole in their lab bench and the floor. Or,
perhaps, they'd have had no problems at all, because they would have
been dismantled into their component nuclei. With the rest of the U
of Utah campus and possibly more.
We didn't toss Newton's laws of motion because of the discovery of
relativistic effects, we simply came to understand them as a special
case, a special case that happens to be, by far, the most common one.
It is rather annoying to see that Krivit was photographing people,
including me, and uploading the photos without permission. I posted
two message on this article, which I expect he will delete:
As I wrote, a crank with a web site.
1. Ah. Then Wiley has not agreed to publish this textbook. That is a relief!
When I tried to ask you about this textbook at the conference, you
not only refused to talk to me, you refused to acknowledge my
presence. When I tapped you on the shoulder you walked away. An
extraordinary thing to do! If you had answered a few questions I
might have asked you about Wiley, rather than writing to them.
I hope that you can make amends with some of the researchers and
produce a good textbook. I hope that you do not intend to write a
textbook yourself, because you are not qualified.
He's not qualified. He's about as qualified as the better Wikipedia
editors. Okay, he might do a better job than them! He might be
qualified to edit articles. I don't know. I haven't read his
encyclopedia articles, the recent ones. If NET as it's been the last
year is an indication, his bias is far too strong, at best he'd
deprecate strong results in favor of whatever feeds his theories, I suspect.
2. Kindly remove my photo, if you would. I don't like having photos
of myself on the Internet.
Well, I was glad to see it! I'm kind of a cross between you and Dr.
Storms. On a good day. Good luck on the removal. You have every
right, I believe, unless you have truly become a public figure, I'm
not sure it's there yet. Maybe. On the other hand, were you
litigious, you have a cause of action for libel, I think, he said you
were lying. Careless, sloppy. And a tort. If you *are* a public
figure, then your reputation for honesty becomes an asset for you,
damaged by his claims of lying. Just what I think, I'm Not a Lawyer.
If Krivit had a responsible publisher, the publisher would be quite
concerned, I'd think, since that was all unnecessary. --~~~~
