I have been “permanently banned” on lenr-forum.com, a major LENR discussion site. I have already been commenting here on some issues raised there, this is now a necessity, if I’m to comment at all. Criticism and commentary is welcome here or there. I am continuing to watch lenr-forum.com at this time.
So this first post on lenr-forum.com will cover the ban. What preceded it?
Continue reading “Commentary: Lenr-forum.com”
Krivit is a co-author of this Scientific American article, but this is mostly about Krivit’s point of view. Ravnitzky is relatively unknown, he is an editor for Krivit’s new book series. The new books are published by Pacific Oak Press. I find no books other than Krivit’s published by this publisher. All it takes is money.
It’s Not Cold Fusion,…But It’s Something
This is a review of the article.
Continue reading “Scientific American hoaxed”
Theoretical Standard Model Rates of Proton to Neutron Conversions Near Metallic Hydride Surfaces
This is a Widom-Larsen paper, published on arXiv in 2006, last version 2007. From comments by Widom and Larsen on New Energy Times, the intention was to submit this to a refereed journal. That apparently never happened.
This is the beginning of a review of that paper.
Continue reading “Critique: Widom-Larsen Theory”
Let’s just start with the Mpemba effect. This is totally cool!
Wikipedia, current article.
I came across this from a comment on E-catworld.com in a discussion of Water Behavior Surprises — Freezing at High Temperatures in Carbon Nanotubes
Continue reading “The Mpemba effect and cold fusion”
In Chemical & Engineering News, a publication of the American Chemical Society.
Original article and comments. … Krivit reaction. … And more from Krivit.
Reaction on lenr-forum … and more on lenr-forum.
My interest being community process, always, I decided to study the comments on this article as they stand today. I may update this. Italics indicate quoted material. I have quoted the comments in their entirety, because cherry-picking (even if motivated without intention to bias) could create bias.
Continue reading “Discussion on C&EN”
AlainCo wrote: If you came with 1% error, and an anomaly of 10%, a skeptic will bash you as “you have unaccounted error sources”, which is probably right, but not by 10%.
I consider it necessary in this field to stop worrying about skeptics, be skeptical oneself, and design controlled experiments for testing hypotheses, including exploring the parameter space, not for proving things to skeptics.
Continue reading “COP is a red herring – what matters is reality of an effect”
