 |
There are currently, 123 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
C&En News Fails to Address Errors in Reporter’s “Cold Fusion" article
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2016 @ 15:12:45 UTC by vlad
|
|
 By Steven B. Krivit (New Energy Times): On Nov. 7, 2016, Chemical & Engineering News, the magazine of the American Chemical Society, published a deeply flawed cover story by Stephen Ritter about low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). The article contained four major errors.
The same day, I sent a letter to Bibiana Campos-Seijo, the editor-in-chief of C&EN.
The magazine’s word-count limitation policy on letters to the editor
permitted me to address only one error. Campos-Seijo published my letter on Nov. 28.
I have known Stephen Ritter for a decade. He has repeatedly failed to
distinguish between “cold fusion,” the erroneous idea that deuterium
nuclei can overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temperature, and LENRs,
which do not make such a presumption. I explained the terminology problem to Ritter in 2012.
In August 2016, I sent him an advance copy of my book Hacking the Atom.
In September, soon after I told him that it was on sale, Ritter told me
that he was writing a new article on LENR. Given what he wrote in C&EN, Ritter apparently read nothing in the book and missed its most important points.
Four days after his Nov. 7 article published, I began asking Ritter
questions about his sources and his data. In the course of 10 e-mails
between us, I explained to Ritter that his facts seemed very wrong, and I
told him I would provide him with corrections. On Nov. 15, on New Energy Times, I published “Correcting the LENR Record (Chemical & Engineering News),” addressing the other three errors:... Full article: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2016/12/02/chemical-engineering-news-fails-to-address-errors-in-reporters-cold-fusion-article/
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
| "C&En News Fails to Address Errors in Reporter’s “Cold Fusion" article" | Login/Create an Account | 2 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: C&En News Fails to Address Errors in Reporter’s “Cold Fusion" article (Score: 1)
by vlad on Saturday, December 03, 2016 @ 22:47:12 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | From Dr. Peter Gluck EgoOut blog [egooutpeters.blogspot.ca]: A HEARTFUL MESSAGE FROM RUSS GEORGE
I was delighted to read the new paper in the Journal Nature about ‘fusion’ in the core of the Earth. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37740 [www.nature.com]
What a delight to see this new paper. So the Journal Nature has now come around from its flagrant condemnation and ridicule of all things cold fusion to publishing about it being the source of heat in the inner Earth (and other planets of course). I can testify that I engaged in a discussion of this very mechanism with Martin Fleischmann at the very first meeting on cold fusion while he and Giuliani Preparata and I shared a bottle of wine to cool our tempers if not our passion. Here’s a link to my blog post about my late friends,
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2015/09/04/guilliano-martin-john-now-richard/ [atom-ecology.russgeorge.net] .
The dastardly pundits at Nature deserve a special place in hell for their avaricious dogmatic approach to discovery of the mysteries of Nature. I am quite sure Maddox is occupying a well-deserved spit there now. The great tragedy of science is that most of the community behave like gentlemen but of course being the real substance of the stew of knowledge they are not what floats to the top, what floats is the scum and there is no greater repository of the scum and shysters of Science than the editors and publishers and owners of the Journal Nature.
Within the microcosm of the ecology of atoms the Earthly core conditions described in this paper are not at all uncommon. That is why cold fusion is and always has and will be a principal part of behavior of hydrogen in nature.
---------------------
Also check: Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy - Accountability [www.brettholverstott.com]
|
|
|
It's Not Cold Fusion... But It's Something (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, December 07, 2016 @ 16:53:22 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | By Steven B. Krivit, Michael J. Ravnitzky published in the Scintific American, 7 December 2016
An experiment that earned Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann widespread ridicule in 1989 wasn't necessarily bogus
A surprising opportunity to explore something new in chemistry and
physics has emerged. In March 1989, electrochemists Martin Fleischmann
and Stanley Pons, at the University of Utah, announced that they had
"established a sustained nuclear fusion reaction" at room temperature.
By nearly all accounts, the event was a fiasco. The fundamental reason
was that the products of their experiments looked nothing like
deuterium-deuterium (D+D) fusion.
In the following weeks, Caltech chemist Nathan Lewis sharply
criticized Fleischmann and Pons in a symposium, a press release, a
one-man press conference at the American Physical Society meeting in
Baltimore, Maryland, and during his oral presentation at the APS
meeting. Despite Lewis' prominence in the media spotlight, he never
published a peer-reviewed critique of the peer-reviewed Fleischmann-Pons
papers, and for good reason. Lewis' critique of the Fleischmann-Pons
experiment was based on wrong guesses and assumptions.
Richard Petrasso, a physicist at MIT, took Fleischmann and Pons to
task for their claimed gamma-ray peak. Petrasso and the MIT team, after
accusing Fleischmann and Pons of fraud in the Boston Herald, later published a sound and well-deserved peer-reviewed critique of what had become multiple versions of the claimed peak.
From this dubious beginning, to the surprise of many people, a new
field of nuclear research has emerged: It offers unexplored
opportunities for the scientific community. Data show that changes to
atomic nuclei, including observed shifts in the abundance of isotopes,
can occur without high-energy accelerators or nuclear reactors. For a
century, this has been considered impossible. In hindsight, glimpses of
the new phenomena were visible 27 years ago... Full article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/its-not-cold-fusion-but-its-something/
|
|
|
|
|
