Commendations From Readers, Scientists and Journalists
Commendations From Readers
Thanks for performing the important function of keeping the spotlight on the research and players in this often shady, and seemingly, sometimes even dangerous field of research.
– Michael Schweitz, South Korea
Steven Krivit is the person who really changed my mind on LENR – he has made me understand that although the world of free energy claimants consists mostly of self-deceived and con-men, there are many real scientists who are sincerely investigating LENR who aren’t looking for publicity and investment money – yet still fearful of ridicule. They are open with their data and do real experiments and seek out possible sources of error they may have overlooked.
– Eric Krieg, past president of the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking
I characterize Steven Krivit as a dedicated, smart, honest, enterprising and energetic journalist. … His New Energy Times Investigative Report #4 concerning Andrea Rossi and his protracted go-around with NASA during 2011 can be found online. The results of Mr. Krivit’s latest in-depth investigation of the Rossi/E-Cat are quite revealing.
– Richard Garwin (IBM)
I am not a journalist, but it seems to me that many mainstream journalists traded their souls as to not lose the cherished access to their sources. In the end they are nothing more than glorified stenographers. Seems to me that Steven reports it how he sees it.
-Henning Dekant
I just read your “Open Letter to Rossi’s Academic E-Cat Promoters.” I think that eventually you are going to be killed by the mafia. 🙂 You are very courageous my friend. Very few people would risk their life for this. So you have my honest deepest admiration and respect for being a true hero!
– A reader in Germany
I believe your Index of LENR Experimental Methodologies will evolve into a very useful reference that surely will accelerate the advance of LENR research and even advance the likelihood of funding.
– Bryan Lewis Ford
Not since the 1950s and 1960s (my youth) have I seen such thorough muckraking as you do, exposing fraud. It is very welcome. I have long thought that the psychopaths among us represent mankind’s greatest existential threat, and exposure of said psychopathy is just about the only defense we have. Good on “ya” for real journalism. Thank you for your efforts at keeping the public informed and keeping it a clean game.
– Don Hardiman
I just wanted to comment on what a smash-up job you do. You da bomb! as the kids say these days. Every time I read the articles you write, produce and publish, I get so excited. I really feel engaged and informed. Thank you so much. And please, please keep at it. You, my friend, are doing important and meaningful work!
– Hampton McRae
I have been aware of your work for the past two years. I have followed LENR since 1989. I am glad to be a subscriber and hope my little bit helps. I wanted to say I appreciate the fact that you have kept NET as a scientific site: no new-age philosophies or intermingling of sociology and myth.
– Owen Abrey
Thank you for your dedicated work. If LENR is ever commercialized, some of the credit is because of your work, no matter who actually does the commercialization.
– Jim Andrakin
It is important to pursue scientific research in new forms of energy for the benefit of mankind. It is most important that the truth of the results of that research be submitted to a candid world.
The Internet, with all its flaws, has performed well to serve as a source of information on those results. Suppression, distortion and sometimes outright fakery, either deliberate or from ignorance, may skew that information.
We are witnessing a sea change in the method of preparing and documentation of scientific papers resulting from the scrutiny afforded by the Internet. Not only are the papers and the reporting now being viewed by that candid world, that reporting becomes a matter of record. We have laws for banking practice called “truth in lending.” Steven B. Krivit has recognized and practiced the importance of “truth in reporting.”
– Richard Macaulay
I want to thank New Energy Times for its courage and efforts to provide the public with rational news about new-energy research and the people who are spending their lives trying to find a solution to the nation’s energy shortages.
– Professor Glen L. Schmidt, New Mexico Engineering Research Institute, University of New Mexico
New Energy Times is fulfilling a vital role in communicating the facts about LENR by squaring up to the towering walls that career-conscious scientists have erected against new ideas. Particularly important is Editor Steven B. Krivit’s series of lectures and presentations to key organizations. He is a hero in the making.
– Nick Palmer, coordinator and energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth, Jersey, United Kingdom (1991-1998)
Commendations From Scientists
Today, LENR is a ’laboratory curiosity,’ as was the fission of atoms in the 1930s, which now delivers 7 percent of the world’s energy. That is why this ‘laboratory curiosity’ deserves our attention. There is no doubt that Krivit’s high-quality work is the foundation for communicating this new scientific discovery, and there is no doubt that this will be fully recognized in the future.
– Dr. H. Bottollier-Curtet, Atomic Energy Commission, France, CEA-Cadarache
The world is looking for the energy options which will sustain this civilization. There is no energy that is as costly as the lack of energy. A dictum enunciated long ago – that we have to learn from nature how to produce copious amounts of energy – is now coming true. LENR is a phenomenon which can be understood from physical laws. However, commercializing this phenomenon into an energy source is a difficult step; this is the challenge. The world’s scientists should work toward that. I support the efforts of New Energy Times.
– Dr. P. K. Iyengar, chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, India (ret.)
Krivit is able to see the big picture better than most of us in the trenches. His reporting is a valuable contribution to the field.
– Dennis Letts, LENR researcher, Austin, Texas
I want to express my appreciation for the work of New Energy Times. I applaud your rigorous commitment to scientific integrity. Your work demonstrates insight far beyond that of the conventional science media, yet you maintain a focus that is firmly rooted in empirical science.
– Professor Herman Branover, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel, head of the Joint Israeli-Russian Laboratory for Energy Research
New Energy Times fills an important void in science journalism with an unbiased, clear view of the new field of condensed-matter nuclear science. I commend you for your courage and efforts. It is my opinion that, in the long run, New Energy Times will be a source of information for both scientists and science historians.
– Professor Jean-Paul Biberian, Département de Physique Faculté des Sciences de Luminy, Université d’Aix-Marseille, France
During the ICENES 2005 conference in Brussels (August 21-26, 2005), dedicated to emerging nuclear energy systems, Steven B. Krivit, editor of New Energy Times, contributed a very comprehensive review paper.
He presented a rational analysis of the origins of the early negative evaluations made by well-known nuclear labs and professionals. He also reviewed the present-day research programmes in the field, showing that this research topic, even if not in the spotlight, remains nevertheless a serious topic of research.
– Dr. Hamid Aït Abderrahim, head of Reactor Physics & MYRRHA Dept., Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie, Centre d’étude de l’Energie Nucléaire, Mol, Belgium
Krivit is our latest archivist and current voice of conscience.
– Dr. Michael McKubre, former director of the Energy Research Center, SRI International, (2005)
Note: In 2010, Krivit found that McKubre had manipulated data in one of his key experiments. After Krivit reported this, McKubre no longer praised Krivit for his “voice of conscience.”
New Energy Times is the forerunner of the next generation of reporting on low-energy nuclear effects: Up to date, electronic, unafraid to ruffle feathers. Steven Krivit has grown into his role of critical and objective reporter, not an easy task in a field with personalities forged in fire. Nonetheless, a field is strengthened more by the focus of objective criticism than by basking in hope and the illusion of knowledge. Steven Krivit and New Energy Times provide that lens. It is up to us to use it.
– Dr. Michael McKubre, former director of the Energy Research Center, SRI International (2006)
Some people say we have reached the end of science, that there are no more great discoveries that remain. In my view, nature always has more secrets to reveal. History has shown us repeatedly, for example, the foolishness of denying ‘heliocentricism,’ which resulted from individuals adhering too strongly to their own knowledge or to what was common sense in the past. New Energy Times plays an essential role in enlightening the public to visionary scientific exploration, the unveiling of new secrets of nature, which is a prerequisite to innovation. Only through such innovation will this world achieve the advances that are so crucially needed in this time.
-Yoshiaki Arata, professor emeritus, Osaka University
“Accuracy in communication is an important element of scientific integrity, and important to all of us in the ITER project. With Laban, we welcome constructive criticism from members of the public, and specifically we appreciated very much your feedback.”
– Pietro Barabaschi, ITER organization Director-General, Nov. 15, 2022
Commendations From Journalists
Clearly, ‘cold fusion’ has been assigned to the ‘crank’ category by many scientists, but I’d love for my students to hear from someone like you, who has thoughtful arguments and evidence that this label may be very wrong.
– Michael Lemonick, author of 1989 cover story on “cold fusion” for Time magazine, adjunct professor, Princeton University
I like your investigative articles on Andrea Rossi. You may be one of the last of a dying species that used to be called ‘investigative journalists.’ TV networks and newspapers no longer have them, apparently.
– Alex Smith, Radio Ecoshock
Nice job on the Russ George exposé. A great read. No matter what you think of the content of the article, it was well written, and for that I congratulate Steven. I’ve read plenty of attack pieces over the years that were clearly smears because they failed to cite where appropriate, and Steven cannot be accused of that in this article. He made criticisms of Mr. George and then followed them up with supporting information. The article is well researched and provides quotes and citations regarding the information he found to be misleading coming from D2Fusion.
– John Coviello, science writer
Congratulations on the publication of ‘Extraordinary Evidence.’ You’ve been planning and shepherding this for a very long time, and your work has produced something special in science journalism. The story is as good as it is because of your endless capacity to attend to the crucial details that make or break any science or technology story. Throughout our collaboration, I was amazed again and again by your relentlessness in ‘getting it right.’
I offer my thanks to you for your generosity in crediting me. I don’t remember whose words were whose, which is one mark of a good partnership, one that I hope we’ll continue.
Thanks for everything
– Ben Daviss, science writer, New Scientist
Responses to “A Close Look at Russ George’s D2Fusion Inc.,” May 2006
You have done the community a great service. Good job, and thank you.
– Graham Hubler, head of the Materials & Sensors Branch of the Naval Research Laboratory
I want to thank you for raising important issues. Sometimes, things have to break a little for them to get better: I was wrong to say your article should be removed. But I do think that, despite the initial harm that has taken place, in the long run your comments have indeed done a service to the community.
– Scott Chubb, LENR theorist, Naval Research Laboratory
Steven, It took me a while to realize what a service you have done. Thanks for writing the piece; I know this was difficult. Your suggestion about modifying the ISCMNS ethics code should be considered. With evolution, changes are always necessary.
– Scott Chubb, LENR theorist, Naval Research Laboratory (In response to his first comment on our Russ George investigation)
Steven, I’ve been watching the Russ George story develop over the past few weeks and wonder what lessons you have learned from the ordeal; I would never have predicted that your report on Russ would have caused such a storm.
At first, I thought that your good standing in the CMNS community might be damaged in the fallout, but it now appears that your reputation may actually be enhanced, as evidenced by Scott Chubb’s most recent letter posted in the CMNS group. We humans are indeed an odd lot!
– Dennis Letts, LENR researcher, Austin, Texas
Response to “The Emergence of an Incoherent Explanation for D-D ‘Cold Fusion,'” January 2010
I knew McKubre since Como, 1991. His physics is good. I would not think it likely that he would put forward an error. Also, McKubre is a straight shooter, i.e. HONEST.
– John Bockris, quoted by McKubre as one of the top five electrochemists in the world (2010)
What you quote from Mike McKubre[‘s e-mail about helium behavior], I think you know that I would disagree with all these things [that McKubre wrote]. I remember your contradictions of McKubre [from 2010]. It is troubling to me that this clash occurs. Mike makes these statements which, so many, I consider wrong.
– John Bockris, after seeing McKubre’s explanation about helium retention (2013)
This is VERY bad news. McKubre and Hagelstein and Violante are the pillars in the field. NET#34 has NOT been mentioned in CMNS-blog – yet.
– Albert Alberts , New Energy Times reader
I have read your article appearing in New Energy Times #34. It is a splendid work to show a scientific approach to the LENR phenomenon. I have questioned the reality of D-D fusion reactions in solids (Fleischmann’s hypothesis) for a long time, and your article confirmed that the claim has had no scientific basis, as far as we know. We will come back to scientific course in the research of the LENR phenomenon.
I am very shocked to learn of the manipulation of data by McKubre. I do not understand why they (Storms, Hagelstein, McKubre et at.) have been so enthusiastic to defend D-D fusion in LENR. But I did not have any idea at all about the manipulation they had been doing. Thank you for your effort to make the LENR a science accepted by scientists over the world.
– Hideo Kozima, LENR theorist
Responses to “Cold Fusion Is Neither,” July 2010
Your detective work strongly suggests that D-D –>4He with 24MeV is an illusion, perhaps desperately promoted. This may be true; something else is going on.
– Mike Carrell, New Energy Times reader
I am not very familiar, as you know, with the literature of LENR, but your essay and summary are clear and persuasive to me. Regardless, whether LENR represents mere chemical energy that has not been fully corralled through calorimetry, or something that justifies the nuclear reaction name, you seem to be doing a good job trying to keep your balance – and changing your step when the music changes. That is, the field has its self-deluded ones who, for whatever psychological reason, want Fleischmann and Pons’ interpretation of this as fusion to be correct. That is their touchstone. This looks like a belief system, akin to religion without the supernatural, not the scientific method.
Separating the good science from the discredited science is never easy in a new field whose old guard is committed to a narrative that has not passed the test of time.
In sum, you appear to want the field to be scientific, which is, for its new material to be allowed to refute original premises. That’s how real science works: A person becomes famous by showing Einstein or Maxwell or even Darwin to have been wrong in certain essentials. Such science leaves the fame of the founding researchers intact but follows the data and revises conclusions as it goes. You seem to be on the side of science.”
– Charles Petit, science writer, Knight Science Journalism Program at MIT
1. I have no quibbles. 2. Is amazingly technically erudite, excellent exposition.
– Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist, NASA Langley
Very interesting. There are going to be a lot of unhappy people after this information gets wider distribution. I certainly would like to see a wooden stake put through the heart of this singular focus on 24 MeV/He4 BS. There are so many likely reactions that create He4. After all, it is just an alpha particle with a couple of electrons.
– Joseph M Zawodny, physicist, NASA Langley
I read through your special report and found it well done and a nice resource. It is really helpful for someone like me to stay updated on what is going on and the historical perspective. This outline is equally useful.
– Steve Ritter, science writer, Chemical & Engineering News