⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents — Next Article ⇒
New Energy Times home page

18. Corrections to New Energy Times Special Report "Cold Fusion Is Neither" (July 30, 2010)

By Steven B. Krivit

Iwamura Transmutation Correction

On page 38 of the PDF of "Cold Fusion is Neither," we wrote:

137Ba ⇒ 149Sm (addition of 4 deuterons) 

The corrected text should read:

137Ba ⇒ 149Sm (addition of 6 deuterons) 

The typographical error is ours, not Iwamura's. We thank Richard Garwin for bringing this to our attention.

Mizuno Graph Correction

On page 79 of the PDF of "Cold Fusion Is Neither," we displayed a graph from LENR researcher Tadahiko Mizuno titled "Intensity Spectrum of SIMS Count for Pd Sample." The y-axis was labeled "Intensity/Counts."

After reviewing with Mizuno, we have confirmed that the correct y-axis label should read "Intensity (Arbitrary Units)."

We thank Richard Garwin for bringing this to our attention.

Mizuno Graph With Corrected Y-Axis Label

Widom-Larsen Correction

On page 134 of the PDF of "Cold Fusion Is Neither," we wrote:

The Widom-Larsen theory broke new ground for the field. It was sufficiently convincing to independent third parties that some of them called it a "viable" theory to explain LENR; other longstanding critics were silent. These third parties included Richard Garwin of IBM; Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA Langley Research Center; David Rees, particle physicist with SPAWAR Pacific; and Gregory Greenman, nuclear physicist with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

The corrected text should read:

The Widom-Larsen theory broke new ground for the field. It was sufficiently convincing to independent third parties that some of them called it a "viable" theory to explain LENR. These third parties included Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, and David Rees, particle physicist with SPAWAR Pacific. Other longstanding critics were silent. These people included Richard Garwin of IBM and Gregory Greenman, nuclear physicist with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

We thank Richard Garwin for bringing this to our attention.

SRI - McKubre Experiment M4 Correction

On page 41 of the slides that accompanied the article "When Nuclear Is Not Enough: A Tangled Tale of Two Experiments," we wrote:

But how was McKubre able, in 2000, to calculate a predicted value of 104 +/- 10% MeV for this fourth point, when he hadn’t been able to do so in 1998?

The corrected text should read:

But how was McKubre able, in 2000, to calculate a predicted value of 104 +/- 10% for this fourth point, when he hadn’t been able to do so in 1998?

We thank Richard Garwin for bringing this to our attention.

⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents — Next Article ⇒