The links are here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TheoryIndex.shtml
Krivit wrote: I continue to receive mixed responses about the media attention I give to > the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs. Regardless, my confidence in that theory > has not changed. > In my opinion, Krivit is not qualified to have a strong opinion about cold fusion theory. I am not qualified either, so it is difficult for me to judge, but he does not appear to know enough about physics to evaluate theory. I know several experimentalists such as Mizuno and Ohmori who told me they are not qualified to judge this. Mizuno told me he has no idea which theory, if any, might explain cold fusion. Mizuno knows far more about chemistry and physics than I do, or than Krivit does. If he cannot make head or tail of these theories, I would be very surprised if Krivit can. The arguments in favor of the W-L theory that Krivit makes merely parrot what Larsen says. What I am saying is that if you were to force Krivit to take an undergraduate written test with questions about modern nuclear theory, I expect he would fail it. He is in way over his head. I say that based on what I have heard him say on his own. Anyone can parrot what Larsen says, or Takahashi says. I have edited enough theory papers that I could probably write a convincing-sounding summary of some theories, and it might give you the mistaken impression I know what I am talking about. I know I would fail such a test. My knowledge of nuclear physics ended with undergraduate physics and books such as Teller and Latter, "Our Nuclear Future" (1958) which I recommend, and Asimov, "The Atom" (1991). See: http://www.amazon.com/Atom-Journey-Across-Subatomic-Cosmos/dp/0452268346 Click on "Look inside" and "table of contents" and you will see how much I know about nuclear physics. I have read comments here and elsewhere by people who do not know this much. I advise them to read this book or something similar. A person should know his own limitations. - Jed
