Replies

Yup. In the meantime I'll repeat that I'm not necessarily a Rossi fan, I'm a LENR fan. And also as usual, I like what Jed Rothwell has to say about Krivit. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg63446.html Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership Jed Rothwell Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:26:09 -0800 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: When I was still one of the NET BoD directors I asked Krivit whether he was > actually pursuing the role of an advocate rather than that of an > independent investigative reporter. This was related to the fact that I > noticed he was spending a great deal of time promoting the so-called merits > of the Widom-Larsen theory out on his NET website. > Krivit has done important work, and he has done a lot of good for the field. Both Steven and I have worked with Krivit, and benefited from the experience. So I do not wish to turn this thread into a "bash Steve Krivit" extravaganza. But I would like to add one thing. >From my perspective, it is pathetic that Krivit is advocating a theory. I do not think he has the expertise to evaluate cold fusion theory. I am sure that I do not have that expertise. I am not ashamed to admit that because Mizuno and many other chemists have told me they cannot make head or tail of theory, and they skip the theory sessions at conferences. If they don't have a clue what Hagelstein is talking about, it is cinch I don't. I get the impression I have a somewhat stronger background in physics and biology than Krivit does. But I am sure that you gave me an oral exam on these theories and asked me to explain some paragraphs from the W-L theory papers, I would have slightest idea what they mean. Here's the thing: I am pretty sure that Krivit would not have the slightest idea either. He can parrot some of the claims in the papers but that is far from understanding what it means, or being able to argue the merits of the theory compared to Hagelstein's theory or some other. For example: Imagine asking Krivit to explicate this: "Generally it can be considered that all effective mass calculations about the charges (electrons and holes) in solids are based on the corresponding electron band structures ignoring the rule given in [1, 2]. However, recently some authors [3, 4] have considered the impact of interaction of external electro-magnetic field with electrons in solids on the electron effective mass, and they have found that increase of this mass can be expected." Imagine asking him: Can you explain what an "effective mass calculation of charges" is? What rule is ignored? How can a magnetic field increase the effective mass of an electron, and what does this mean? Why is this "expected"? I wouldn't have a clue! I can barely make out the claim, and I can't imagine how a magnetic field can increase mass in any sense, virtual or real. Ask him what Eq. 1 means, and what the terms "r is the radius-vector of the electron, E(q) is electron energy in the quasi-elementary cell" mean and I am sure he would be lost at sea. There is a paper by Krivit that says: "Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen propose that, in condensed matter, local breakdown of the Born–Oppenheimer approximation occurs in homogeneous, many-body, collectively oscillating patches of protons, deuterons, or tritons found on surfaces of fully loaded metallic hydrides; Born–Oppenheimer breakdown enables a degree of electromagnetic coupling of surface proton/ deuteron/triton oscillations with those of nearby surface plasmon polariton (SPP) electrons. Such coupling between collective oscillations creates local nuclear-strength electric ﬁelds in the vicinity of the patches." http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrivitSanewlookat.pdf That is impressive but I suspect it is was written by his co-author Marwan. Anyway, I could crib a similar description of many theory papers without actually knowing what I was saying. I have often edited such papers and occasionally translated them. Naturally, I warn the authors that I may mess things up since I do not understand the content in any depth. There are many secretaries in university departments who edit and rewrite papers without knowing in detail what the papers really mean. Needless to say, there are hoards of nitwits out there editing Wikipedia and making trouble elsewhere who do know the first thing about cold fusion yet who pontificate about it endlessly with great assurance. Krivit is not the only one who does this. But someone is paying him 50 grand to do it . . . Back in the 1980s I read several computer science papers written by "management consultants" that were cribbed. That is to say, the authors knew how to string together impressive sounding jargon describing what was then state-of-the-art programming techniques and the latest microcomputer hardware. It sounded good, like an article in Byte magazine. But I knew a more about computers than these people did, and I could tell they were faking it. I recall in particular a report from McKinsey & Co. in which the authors confused EPROM firmware with operating system object code and application object code. As Dirty Harry said, a man should know his limitations. - Jed

Formatting is all messed up.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg63446.html

Re: [Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
Jed Rothwell Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:26:09 -0800
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

When I was still one of the NET BoD directors I asked Krivit whether he was
> actually pursuing the role of an advocate rather than that of an
> independent investigative reporter. This was related to the fact that I
> noticed he was spending a great deal of time promoting the so-called merits
> of the Widom-Larsen theory out on his NET website.
>

Krivit has done important work, and he has done a lot of good for the
field. Both Steven and I have worked with Krivit, and benefited from the
experience. So I do not wish to turn this thread into a "bash Steve Krivit"
extravaganza. But I would like to add one thing.

>From my perspective, it is pathetic that Krivit is advocating a theory. I
do not think he has the expertise to evaluate cold fusion theory. I am sure
that I do not have that expertise. I am not ashamed to admit that
because Mizuno and many other chemists have told me they cannot make head
or tail of theory, and they skip the theory sessions at conferences. If
they don't have a clue what Hagelstein is talking about, it is cinch I
don't.

I get the impression I have a somewhat stronger background in physics and
biology than Krivit does. But I am sure that you gave me an oral exam on
these theories and asked me to explain some paragraphs from the W-L theory
papers, I would have slightest idea what they mean. Here's the thing: I am
pretty sure that Krivit would not have the slightest idea either. He can
parrot some of the claims in the papers but that is far from understanding
what it means, or being able to argue the merits of the theory compared to
Hagelstein's theory or some other. For example:

Imagine asking Krivit to explicate this:

"Generally it can be considered that all effective mass calculations about
the charges (electrons and holes) in solids are based on the
corresponding electron band structures ignoring the rule given in [1,
2]. However, recently some authors [3, 4] have considered the impact of
interaction of external electro-magnetic field with
electrons in solids on the electron effective mass, and they have found
that increase of this mass can be expected."

Imagine asking him: Can you explain what an "effective mass calculation of
charges" is? What rule is ignored? How can a magnetic field increase the
effective mass of an electron, and what does this mean? Why is this
"expected"?

I wouldn't have a clue! I can barely make out the claim, and I can't
imagine how a magnetic field can increase mass in any sense, virtual or
real.

Ask him what Eq. 1 means, and what the terms "r is the radius-vector of the
electron, E(q) is electron energy in the quasi-elementary cell" mean and I
am sure he would be lost at sea.

There is a paper by Krivit that says:

"Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen propose that, in condensed
matter, local breakdown of the Born–Oppenheimer approximation occurs in
homogeneous, many-body, collectively oscillating
patches of protons, deuterons, or tritons found on surfaces of
fully loaded metallic hydrides; Born–Oppenheimer breakdown
enables a degree of electromagnetic coupling of surface proton/
deuteron/triton oscillations with those of nearby surface plasmon
polariton (SPP) electrons. Such coupling between collective
oscillations creates local nuclear-strength electric ﬁelds in the
vicinity of the patches."

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrivitSanewlookat.pdf

That is impressive but I suspect it is was written by his co-author Marwan.
Anyway, I could crib a similar description of many theory papers without
actually knowing what I was saying. I have often edited such papers
and occasionally translated them. Naturally, I warn the authors that I may
mess things up since I do not understand the content in any depth. There
are many secretaries in university departments who edit and rewrite papers
without knowing in detail what the papers really mean.

Needless to say, there are hoards of nitwits out there editing Wikipedia
and making trouble elsewhere who do know the first thing about cold fusion
yet who pontificate about it endlessly with great assurance. Krivit is not
the only one who does this. But someone is paying him 50 grand to do it . .
.

Back in the 1980s I read several computer science papers written by
"management consultants" that were cribbed. That is to say, the authors
knew how to string together impressive sounding jargon describing what was
then state-of-the-art programming techniques and the latest microcomputer
hardware. It sounded good, like an article in Byte magazine. But I knew a
more about computers than these people did, and I could tell they were
faking it. I recall in particular a report from McKinsey & Co. in which the
authors confused EPROM firmware with operating system object code and
application object code.

As Dirty Harry said, a man should know his limitations.

- Jed