Dec. 17, 2011
Dear Mr. Krivit,
Please forgive me if I use some incorrect scientific terminology or if I link terms to the wrong concepts. I have no background in physics or chemistry. I am reading from your site and other sites to get a basic understanding of the field as quickly as possible, so that I may have a better understanding in the two different philosophies regarding LENR research.
I have become fascinated with you and the information on your Web site, particularly with regard to your claims about the "cold fusion" researchers and their actions to stifle any competing interest regarding weak interactions and transmutations.
From what I've seen from the "cold fusion" researchers' side of the argument, they ignore weak interactions and transmutations as much as possible. They seem to ignore your opinion that cold fusion has been disproved. They seem to include weak interactions as one of the new, unproven theories that have only a few followers. They only defend their research when directly attacked by your writings, but they don't counterattack to specifically show how the Widom-Larsen weak-interaction theory is wrong.
From your side, it seems completely different. From everything I've seen and read so far, it seems like your Web site and your writings depict a huge fracture in theory (weak interactions versus cold fusion). You depict deliberate and specific attempts to stifle information about weak interactions: behind closed-door meetings to discredit Widom and Larsen; delaying visas for Russian scientists; deliberately altering their own results; etc.
From what little researching I've done, you see it as an active, deliberate effort to suppress this area of research by them, and they portray it as a few mad men (and women) that are making up all these motivations and actions.
They depict themselves as trying to get along with you but you have become set in your ways and have drawn a hard line in the sand. I'm sure I don't have a good handle on all of this because I've only just starting studying it, so please provide information or links to help me in my focus to learn more about the fracture in the science that you claim has taken place but the cold fusion folks seem not to acknowledge.
My interest began after reading an article about Mazda offering a future diesel-powered car in the U.S. market. In the posted comments at the bottom, someone mentioned the Energy Catalyzer and Andrea Rossi. A few days later, I was listening to a conservative talk radio show when a caller mentioned how the world would soon change due to the invention by Rossi. This sparked my interest. I Googled the E-Cat. After reading the articles and the comments below, it soon became apparent that those people supporting the Rossi claim were mostly fired up on emotion of the possibilities and those people questioning the invention were asking reasonable, intellectually driven questions about his demonstrations.
I soon found an article that revealed Rossi's past and another article that dispelled the physical impossibility of producing copper from a hydrogen-nickel reaction without any catalyst; and I was easily convinced that this is a scam without having hardly any scientific knowledge in the field. But this last point is what has left me fascinated with this whole scenario. Why would any serious, well-respected research scientist provide any credence to the Rossi claim to the press or the scientific community?
My drive to figure this out has led me to you and your site. The more I read your articles, the more fascinated I become: not with the science itself but with the politics within the science and why, as it seems, there are very highly respected researchers who lead research teams working in the field that seem to be honoring theories and claims that are destined for failure.
Concurrently, these same people seem to be driving attention away from the weak interaction theories, most-notably that proposed by Widom and Larsen. Of course, in the area of other people's motivations, it is purely speculative, but still, if I could uncover the motivations, I think it would make for one heck of a story for a writer or movie producer.
I am absolutely fascinated with the fact that these guys seem to be pretending that Widom-Larsen theory is just one of many areas of study that show little promise. Or perhaps they are not pretending, but they truly believe what they are saying regarding Widom-Larsen. If the latter is true, then all the actions, behaviors, and communications you have discussed are lies.
I am starting to look at all of this from their side, but I'm not learning much. For instance, I viewed a series of YouTube videos of Mike McKubre of SRI International from Oct. 11, 2011 at Café Scientifique in Silicon Valley. Although I am still very sketchy at my understanding of the science, I was watching mainly to see if he included information about Widom-Larsen theory in his presentation. I wanted to see, firsthand, if I could detect that he was behaving in a way depicted by you with regard to preventing any focus on weak interactions.
As best as I could tell, he purposely avoided this aspect of the research, only off-handedly mentioning it as one of many areas of research that his team had not worked with when he was asked specifically by an audience member. He also downplayed the significance of transmutations, and when he was asked about the production of neutrons, which I think might have hinted toward Widom-Larsen, he acted as though that was risky research. Because I am still very ignorant about the physics and chemistry, I'm not sure of my assertions, but it seems as though McKubre has divided the field into three areas of study that I'm putting into my own words: (1) the traditional "cold fusion" field (creating the effect the same way it was done in 1989, except trying different and more controls to achieve it); (2) the nickel-hydrogen work (first proposed in Italy); (3) everything else, which McKubre says includes about 500 theories.
I'm assuming, if I'm reading him right, that you and your proponents belong in this third category. If he is being honest, then he truly believes the Widom-Larsen theory represents only one of many, many unproven, remote areas of study (one of these 500 or so). Or, if he is being disingenuous, then he is still trying to pretend that this is the case when it is not. What I'm still trying to get my head around is the scope of this whole area of science. If I knew just what percentage of folks were moving in the direction of Widom-Larsen versus the "cold fusion" people, and how many other subcategories there are, then I could better ascertain whether researchers such as McKubre could be truthful when they see the Widom-Larsen arena as just another area of possibility, as they claim.
Please feel free to critique me, but be easy on me. I know I'm probably oversimplifying and maybe getting some terms and associations wrong and going over my head, but sometimes it helps to get perspective from the outside, and from the outside looking in, this thing plays like a science fiction movie that's real life!
Sincerely,
Greg
[Dear Sir: I have no critique for you, not one word. Your questions and observations are astonishingly insightful. I suggest that you expand your excellent inquiry and comprehension by reading my work: Go back to Jan.11, 2008, and read everything in the news section chronologically to the present. I would be surprised if you didn't find answers to nearly every uncertainty you might have. I am also sending you my complete LENR reading list, which includes copies of some of my published and copyrighted work that I cannot place on my Web site. But read the New Energy Times issues first and the technical articles in the Reading List second, because your interest is primarily in the sociological aspects. The Reading List is primarily hard science. You may want to look at my publicly available slide presentations also, again starting in 2008. -- SBK]
|
