Steven B. Krivit Presentation at ANS Conference

Steven B. Krivit of the New Energy Times has published video and slides of his presentation at the American Nuclear Society meeting in San Diego. He discuses a wide variety of experiments starting in 1922 up until the present. He draws a distinction between “Cold Fusion” and LENR and states that he does not think that fusion is occurring in these experiments, and strongly believes that the Widom-Larsen theory stands apart in a class of its own in explaining the LENR phenomenon best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR-5Zw_Hds8&list=UU28a-FqpaYi23i51vPRhJqg&index=4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t2RfPfQALA&list=UU28a-FqpaYi23i51vPRhJqg&index=3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlWwpr1DAjU&list=UU28a-FqpaYi23i51vPRhJqg&index=2

At the very end of the third video, when asked about Andrea Rossi’s work he says that after having studied Rossi for a year, and having visted him in Bologna, he concludes that “his work has nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with technology.”

  • Robert

    John roehner by all accounts is not healthy from the neck up. My prediction is he will not succeed with his demo.
    And hope people stop investing in intelligently all together.

  • georgehants

    Will just point out that all the scientists who have been and are denying Cold Fusion and many other valid subjects almost certainly have qualifications in how to light a bunson burner or something.
    It shows that scientific qualifications are worthless when it comes to Evidence, Truth and Honesty.
    Mostly it simply means that a scientist qualified in one subject thinks that he is qualified to give an opinion on every subject.
    No scientists opinion on any subject is relevant, only Evidence and lack of Evidence means do the bloody Research not give opinion.

  • Dick Hertz

    I watched all 3 videos. My conclusion? Steven Krivit has no idea what he is talking about. It reminded me of the Chris Farly Show sketch from saturday night live. Or maybe a Michael Scott speech on The Office. This guy is just a rambling buffoon. The only reason that he supports the WLT is because Larson took the time to explain it to him in simple terms, allowing Krivit to believe that he understands, he doesn’t. If WLT is correct, it means Krivit got it right accidentally. The only question now, is who is doing a bigger disservice to the LENR community, Rossi or Krivit.

    I have never seen someone do such a poor job of giving a scientific presentation and I have judged elementary school science fairs.

  • barty

    Tomorrow a 2 cylinder noble gas engine will be demonstrated at the power gen conference in Orlando.
    The engine will run in self sustain mode, powered by a normal electricity generator also used in typical cars.

    I’m very curious about that.
    Could be THE alternative to a LENR car.

    • Kim G. Patterson

      yes, I also am looking forward to this demo

      If runs to specs. Then the world is going to be a different
      place

      He has a history of excuses and bad showings.

      Respect
      Kim

      • daniel maris

        This machine has allegedly been around in one form or another for 45 years. If you can’t get something to market in 45 years there’s a reason. Who knows what the reason might be here, but one theoretical possibility is that no such machine exists.

        • robiD

          We might say the same about HOT fusion.

        • Mr Credulous

          Daniel,

          The sentiment seems to be that one must give every new idea, no matter how historically improbable, the benifit of the doubt until such a time that 300 billion has been spent on it and it has been 60 years. Then it is ok to dismiss it.

          I for one heartily agree. My original deadline for Rossi was 2018 but now have extended it out to 2065, assuming he also gets the funding.

          BW

    • catbauer24
      • daniel maris

        If Sterling Allan doesn’t believe it then nobody can!

        • http://www.nickelpower.org Bruce Fast

          Truth is, people still can. Nobody should, however.

      • Peter_Roe

        I’ve left the PESN page open in the hope of updates from Orlando at some point, but the chances of anything interesting seem poor. If this pans out as Sterling Allan predicts then I don’t think anyone needs to pay any further attention to John Rohner or his claims.

        • georgehants

          Morning Peter, I don’t think Sterling always believes in everything, but gives a great service by putting up all news as one never knows.
          He is not often negative so lets hope on this occasion it is the one time he is wrong.

          • Peter_Roe

            Morning George. I’ve known him to be a little over-optimistic at times, but never ‘over-pessemistic’! As you say, let’s hope for the best (but perhaps expect …)

          • http://www.lenrforum.eu/index.php AlainCo

            He reports claims, facts, and moreover he move to get interview, see demo… He does not take a very critic position (that is an euphemism), but it is clear and you are not surprised.

            I’ve seen his video of meeting and visit with Nicolas Chauvin, and that is a faithful reporter work.

            There are reporter that travel with guerilla, somme embedded in an army, and some like Sterling Allan travel around the exotic energy community, where LENR have been hosted after being banned from the mainstream from unfair reasons…

            I mostly don’t agree with the fringe science (LENR is not Fringe), but I thanks that community for having hosted LENR.

            Being right and being nice are two uncorrelated facts. Not even anti-correlated. I learned that reading the history of science.

      • http://www.nickelpower.org Bruce Fast

        Thanks for the link, catbauer24. Its nice to see that even Stirling Allen can loose faith in a technology at some point.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    December 10th, 2012 at 3:24 PM
    Dear Giuliano Bettini:
    Oue cooperation with Universities is under NDA.
    We are manufacturing plants for industries, we ask to University Professors specific issues, also upon theoretical problems.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • John-xyz

      So who asked for the NDA? Rossi or the university? My guess: Rossi.

      • Ged

        I wouldn’t be so sure on that. But it’s irrelevant, since both parties have to agree.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    December 10th, 2012 at 3:25 PM
    Dear Neri B.:
    The tests will be finished very soon.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R

  • clovis

    hi, there,
    krivit just don’t get it,but he will, along with all the other hot fission folks,
    They panic when they think their cousy job are going down the drain,
    Come on STM, lets get this party started,we have a new world coming and need to supply energy to it., so fellow bloggers hold on to your hats, get a deep seat, and a far away look,give your head a little nod , and the gate will fly open, and an incredible ride will ensue. big smile

  • zvibenyosef

    Krivit has no academic credentials at all, he is not even qualified to discuss LENR. He obviously has a strong bias against Rossi for some reason. It appears to be either a personal animosity, or he is being paid by someone else to discredit Rossi. In any case he does not have the scientific background to make any pronouncements on LENR that are worthy of our attention.

    • Roger Bird

      zvibenyosef, it seems that we have all of those credentials that you say that Krivit does not have, NOT. At least I don’t. My only credentials are critical thinking skills and social skills. And I see Rossi’s behavior as someone who is bending over backwards to convince us all how wonderful he is and how much he is accomplishing, without actually showing us. I trust Krivit more than I trust Rossi.

      • http://www.buildecat.com LCD

        Granted but I don’t trust Krivit about Rossi.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Roger Bird……we are not giving speeches acting like he (Krivit) has the scientific background to make judgments about LENR. All he is doing is parroting other peoples work and trying to inflate his own huge ego.

        • Warthog

          “All he is doing is parroting other peoples work….”

          I have been reading a number of books on CF/LENR, starting with Ed Storms, then Charles Baudette, and finally Steve Krivit. I was sort of shocked to find that most of Krivit’s substance consisted of quotes of Beaudette and Jed Rothwell.

          Beaudette’s book is superb. He writes well enough that a layman can easily understand, but includes enough science that a well-qualified scientist will also be convinced. He starts out by concentrating strongly on the “deep science” of the excess heat phenomenon and the strongest validation efforts of that, then does the same for the other aspects (nuclear ash, neutrons, radiation emissions, and transmutation). He includes some discussion of the cultural differences between physics and chemistry and how that helped “get things off on the wrong foot”, and continues to do so.

          Storms book is also good, but he aims for a very broad coverage, and doesn’t examine particular experiments to the extent Beaudette does. As to Krivit’s book…..don’t waste your money.

        • Roger Bird

          Bernie, I saw that in Krivit.

    • GreenWin

      Possibly this will shed some light: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html

      • Peter_Roe

        The thing is that Krivit’s lies are probably enough to fool those who don’t check the original data or can’t read graphs – which could be 90% or so of his readership, who may not have any scientific/technical skills. As a disinformation agent he is probably quite successful, regardless of his reliability.

        • GreenWin

          And it appears his company seeks to co-opt Dr. Iwamura’s transmutation work. Probably to help sell their “It’s not fusion” spin. But the ANS looks rather silly with Kirvit at the podium.

          Happily there are too many people who CAN check data – who will not be bamboozled by transparent disinfo.

    • Fibber McGourlick

      I strongly doubt that anyone is paying Krivit to maintain his negative stance against Rossi. Based on his long history with LENR and his close study and generally objective reporting of it through the years, I believe Krivit is an honest man-though he’s not right about everything. In the case of Mr. Rossi, he believes he is a fake without being able to produce any solid scientific evidence for his opinion,just conjecture. By contrast, most of us here believe Rossi has succeeded with a cold fusion development that will be transform the world. However, we, like Krivit, have no solid evidence to substantiate our belief. Among other things, we are still all waiting anxiously for the Hot Cat report by the independent testing agency. (Like others, I do find it a bit frustrating that there’s invariably an NDA agreement attached to every significant report of an Ecat accomplishment or any significant progress in the development of the technology. For example: Independent test of the Hot Cat, but with an NDA attached to the identity of the tester and no results forthcoming (so far). Agreements, but can’t say who they’re with. Sales, but can’t say who they’re to, etc., etc. If the curtain fell away from some of these NDAs it would help substantiate the Ecat case and shut Krivit’s carping down. More than that, the seas would part for Mr. Rossi and the world would be hugely transformed for the better. So how long must we wait, Mr. Rossi?)

      • GreenWin

        fib, the now boilerplate response is: In 1951 the world (Earth) was promised a future with unlimited energy derived from fusion that power stars. The time estimate was 20 years. 1971 rolled around and Bussard, AEC, PPP, MIT Fusion all promised that with a few $$billion more and another 20-25 years… we’d have “unlimited energy” from fusion machines that power the stars.

        You know where this goes: ITER is 300% over budget and no where near completion. So, far every hot fusion attempt at ignition has failed dramatically. 61 years – $273B taxpayer dollars. NIF – a $$4.5B taxpayer facility failed again in September.

        The ecat tests some here anxiously await are done by third parties – probably from the same clan the hot fusionists hail from. So… “How long must we wait??” Not Mr. Rossi… Mainstream science whose tarnished reputation grows bleaker each day they keep ecat and cold fusion silent.

        • John-xyz

          Hot fusion has been proven to exist. The e-cat hasn’t.

          • Andrew Macleod

            Has over-unity hot fusion been proven?

            • Fibber McGourlick

              Hot fusion exists all right. The question is how many more decades and how many more billions would be required to make it produce energy at a reasonable price. But that question and that program is no longer appropriate, because the recent tests in Japan have shown (by the transmutation of atoms)that low temperature fusion can occur. Why work for fusion at 100 million degrees when it can be achieved at room temperature (or thereabouts)?

              • Andrew Macleod

                I’m not saying hot fusion doesn’t exist but for us to create the conditions that make hot Fusion happen requires tonnes of energy. The sun has the mass and gravity to create the pressures and temperatures to self sustain for a long time just by being big.

            • Max S

              yes, of course, just see how the stars make their energy

          • Mannstein

            When they achieve breakeven call me.

          • http://www.lenrforum.eu/index.php AlainCo

            LENr have been proven to exist. Read the data, and ignore the denialist.

            E-cat like iter is a machine.
            ITER have been proven not to be usable, and give no hope to work soon, and there are evidence it will not work until many decades. this is validated by theory and engineers.

            e-cat is advertized without direct proofs. It can work, unlike ITER which cannot. does it?

            There are clear indirect evidence that serious people (and crazy people, but I don’t care) are betting their ball on making e-cat work.

            Hyperion have been proven to work, yet the high performance have not been yet proven. High performance have not been disproven, and there are no reason to doubt more that trust.
            There are indirect evidence that serious people bet their ball that Hyperion will have a commercial success.

            that are the facts today.

            METHOD:
            please separate the claims, be precise with logic (ask socrate, don’ make reverse inference), and get access to hidden data through observed behaviors (theory of thought – great ape can use it too like most humans. pathoskeptic refuse).

            don’t mix scientific claims (LENr and hot fusion are real) and industrial claims (LENr may be useful soon, ITER cannot soon).
            don’t mix the proven impossibilities (liker ITER will never work soon) with possibilities of not working (like e-cat might not work).
            Don’t mix possibilities of not working, with possibilities of modest performance.
            Don’t mix risk of bad performance, with risk of commercial failures. Good product can fails because of bad management.

            use indirect business evidence to have indirect access to unpublished data.

            Finally accept that the world is gray and that if you trust only your own eye, you will be easily fooled, and will miss 99.99% of reality.

            • GreenWin

              I imagine general agreement with most of this. However, I am not sure I would bet my ball on either ecat or Hyperion – it seems anatomically risque.

              The point is, the deniers now have only a single leg to stand on – ad hominem attacks on Dr. Rossi. This is a tired old tactic to discredit a figurehead in hopes the entire field will collapse.

              “We won’t get fooled again.” Pete Townsend

          • robiD

            Yes, but it doesn’t mean that you can control it to get energy as you need. In facts, it seems that the state of art of engineering indeed isn’t able to build a machine that works with hot fusion.

            Keep in count that ITER is only a “little” toy. To extract energy for production it needs materials that actually have not been invented yet.

          • Redford

            Cold Fusion has been proven to exist now. While it doesn’t proove e-Cat it makes it way more plausible. Especiallay if you consider september Hot Cat report : 3rd party testing.

    • Mannstein

      That the conference organizers let Krivit with his presentation waste 45 minutes of the attendees time is unconscioable.

  • Orlando

    Any ideas where Steven K gets his funding? This might lead to the motivation for his opinions.

  • Roger Bird

    Krivit could very well be ahead of the rest of us regarding Rossi, although I am not ready to call Rossi a crook. For me, Rossi is merely unproven and looking more and more suspicious as time goes on. But I am ready and willing to be convinced. I hope that Rossi is telling the truth.

    • GreenWin

      Er, Rog, funny how short the memory gets on the signed 3rd party verification of the September Hot Cat. Or the Safety Certificate. Or the comments last year by Profs, Focardi, Stremmenos, Kullander, Essen – all directly referring to Rossi e-cats.

      More drama I guess.

  • GreenWin

    “The [LENR] science is poorly understood and is not a technology yet.” Kirvit

    Even though there are hundreds of published papers, experiments, many replications, a dozen theories and patents issued (NASA actively licensing their LENR brand.)

    “The observation of a sizeable transmutation of Deuterium into Helium proves unequivocally that a nuclear transmutation process is the cause of the so called “Cold Fusion”.”

    (CONCLUSIONS:) The fusion among deuterons occurs in a plasma within a medium and not in vacuo. Thus energy and momentum can be shared among many components of the condensed system, allowing in principle a fast cooling of the “hot” D-D compound nucleus preventing its splitting. Consequently 4He should be expected to be the final product of this newly discovered nuclear fusion.”

    EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF 4HE PRODUCTION IN A COLD FUSION EXPERIMENT – Servizio Edizioni Scientifiche – ENEA Centro Ricerche Frascati, De Ninno, Rubbia et al http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf

    This is the noted “Report 41″ – a paper refused publication by 41 “scientific journals.”

  • Chris

    Krivit’s understanding of physics and research method is even less than Rossi’s. Who cares what he thinks.

    • John-xyz

      Admin.

  • http://www.lenrproof.com Tyler

    there are many issues with the W-L theory.

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/02/short-rebuttal-to-proponents-and.html

    WL is very convenient for many in that it says LENR is not cold-Fusion.

  • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

    I’m a physicist who cannot make sense of WLT. If someone who knows it likes to explain, I listen.

    • Ged

      It’s really nonsensical, and it’s even more nonsensical to say that WTL isn’t fusion, since nucleons are being fused even in that theory. Krivit is just really out against “cold fusion”, but I can understand the psychology — just trying to avoid rejection, and has modeled his reality in a way that might be sold as acceptable to those he wishes to receive the approval of.

      Can’t blame the guy, as it is a very negative environment out there for LENR/Cold fusion.

      Of course, I am a strong supporter of Bose-Einstein condensate theories for LENR.

      • GreenWin

        Ged, fully agree. This appears to be an ingratiating pathology intent on control via “dominant theory.” There are very few scientists who support it outside the vague reference to weak nuclear force.

        Above, I posted the riveting De Ninno ENEA paper proving D-D fusion in Pd film. These scientist make no bones about the fact it IS nuclear fusion (He4 proof) at low temperatures.

        I suspect the acceptance of W-L by USPTO would grant certain patents to NASA – providing a controlling IP foundation.

        • Peter_Roe

          Agreed.

          Of all the possible reasons why a junk theory such as W-L would be accepted into the mainstream and quite widely extolled by the likes of Krivit, only two seem to make sense: (a) it distances the now proven phenomenon of LENR from P&F cold fusion, and so gives those who ridiculed, suppressed and denied CF for 20-odd years (and academia in general) a way out, and (b) it could be used to justify the granting of patents that incorporate the theory while simultaneously denying those that rely on other (more rational) theories – as you say.

          (There was more to this post but I’ve had to cut it to avoid it being auto-deleted (spam bin))

          • GreenWin

            Yes. PR Specialists in damage control know that to spin a negative to neutral or even positive, you must introduce doubt. Doubt. A scurrilous human emotion when used nefariously.

            Here, Kirvit & Co. try to distance their ilk from cold fusion denial, by claiming “It’s not fusion.” This is rather like saying, “It’s not sugar! It’s cane juice!”

            Unfortunately for these claimants, they look increasingly foolish and defensive. Those who survive will be the ones to openly, honestly admit they have been in error.

          • Job001

            The “Not Cold Fusion” mendacity seemed to rely upon the sub-classification of cold fusion as with hydrogen isotopes alone. To this extent that fudge maybe correct. Fusion with higher isotopes in it’s various forms however seems to be a cat of another color, and no longer practical to poo-poo without getting poo-pooed.
            The Toyota confirmation of Mitsubishi’s good work and the misnamed(science doesn’t do proof) LENRProof.com are fairly good science and LENR status.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Why are we listening to this person with an 8th grade science education? Please read his biography!!

  • robyn wyrick

    Steven Krivit thinks Rossi is a fraud. Fair enough, I have never met Rossi, nor seen the e-cat. So what do I know?

    What I find more interesting is the debate about WL — because that doesn’t seem supported by the Toyota announcement last week, which was reported on New Energy Times.

    If Toyota “used highly refined non-naturally occurring quantities of specific isotopes as starting material that is then transmuted to a different element but the corresponding non-naturally occurring isotopes”, that speaks to fusion, unless we have transmutation occurring by another means. (quote by Bob Greenyer)

    So I’d like to ask, does WL allow for transmutation of elements by some means other than fusion?

    • Ged

      Nope. It’s all fusion. I feel WLT is misguided, but at least trying. The empirical evidence doesn’t support it, as you point out.

    • http://www.shake-speares-bible.com psi

      The colleague to whom I previously alluded assured me (and I cannot claim to understand or summarize the details) that in fact *only* WT predicts transmutation, and that other models do not.

      • Ged

        I’m not so sure about that. Linear Two Body Bose-Einstein (LTBE) condensate theory expects transmutations at a low rate as side reactions, and the calculations for such with nickel to copper have already been made and posted by Dr. Yeong Kim, who proposed this theory.

        It may not be the right theory, of course, but Bose-Einstein condensate theories all seem to state the reaction could very well lead to transmutations by fusion.

  • http://www.shake-speares-bible.com psi

    I agree with Karl. I have no dog in the fight about causality — a good friend of mine whose judgement I trust in these matters is a vocal and well informed proponent of Widom Larson, so I have to think that Krivit may be correct about that. However, I don’t find him to be a particularly reliable science journalist in other regards.

  • Karl

    Krivit appears to be a one eyed advocate heading only for the Larsen theory and therefore not to be taken too seriously. Why is that, is it because he understands this theory?

    To my mind he a far too unfair in his judgement about the Rossi project and people that have actually been involved and have hands on in the Rossi projects. After seen his rude video interview obviously heading for discredited Guiseppe Levi some 18 month ago I have totally lost my trust in Krivit regardless the final outcome of the Larsen theory. Hera a link to part 3 of the interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Vyjlj8PLM&list=UU28a-FqpaYi23i51vPRhJqg&index=7

    • http://www.buildecat.com LCD

      I think many of us are with you on that point Karl

  • Owen

    It’s working now, thanks. I have to say though it is troubling to see Krivit bash Rossi like this. It seems much more prudent to take a wait and see approach, don’t you think?

    Oh, and please delete the first comment and this one too if you want. Up to you.

    Great blog. Keep up the excellent reporting and moderation. You have hit the sweet spot as far as I’m concerned.

  • stuey81

    “nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with technology.”

    wow, big call, this ought to set the cat amongst the pigeons

    • daniel maris

      I think he made it clear that was his view ages ago. That’s fair enough as well, since he has yet to be proved wrong.

      • Redford

        Well, when you have two independant specialist putting their names on the september hot cat report, or Levi doing the same more than a year ago, he may not be entirely proven wrong but he certainly seems isolated. He’s one in a two guys who has seen e-cat and hasn’t been convinced or at least favorably impressed, and he’s the lowest profile of all scientifically. Sure, the earlier a more formal publication by a 3rd party the better, but it will just be an updated, more complete version of something that’s already there : 3rd party verification.

        • GreenWin

          Funny how short the memory gets on the 3rd party verification of the September Hot Cat. Or the Safety Certificate. Or the comments last year by Profs, Focardi and Stremmenos – all directly referring to Rossi e-cats.

          More drama I guess.

    • Charles

      Krivit left us hanging didn’t he? Just what does it relate to if not “science or technology”? Any ideas?

      • HeS

        It is obvious magic.

      • http://www.buildecat.com LCD

        No, I have to wait for Krivit to tell me my opinion before I can have one.

        .
        Not!

  • AB

    Regarding STMicroelectronics & Celani replication.

    http://investors.st.com/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=111941&eventID=4878097
    The pdf makes no mention of LENR which isn’t surprising because Celani methodology is purely for research at this time. The webcast is just slides accompanied by comments . I didn’t listen to it but probably doesn’t contain any info about LENR either. Back to waiting.

    • Ged

      Five more days to wait, from what I understand.

      • admin

        Until what, Ged?

        • Ged

          Until the STMicroelectronics report is officially released by them. It was embargoed and supposed to be released December 15th, but Celani leaked us some or all of the report.

          • http://www.buildecat.com LCD

            where is the leaked report?

  • Captain Kirk

    It appears they still have a booth but the name was changed from inteligentry to their other company PTP licensing… I’m still highly, highly doubtful