Re: [Vo]:answer to Ethan Siegel, LENR is a scientific Pechvogel

[Alain Sepeda]

Ethan Siegel persevere

"Errare Humanum est Perseverare Diabolicum"


http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2016/09/25/comments-of-the-week-128-from-elementary-particle-to-cold-fusion-fraud/


anyway only the one who never sinned can throw the first stone...


on point worry me, is the MFMP enthusiastic claims that they have a perfect
and definitive demo that could resist not only to skeptics, but also to
pigeon chessmasters.

Siegel, Pomp are happily preparing to bash the community for a
"non-delivery-of-promis-as-we-are-used".




2016-09-26 0:00 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>:

> Peter, I posted this as a comment on the Forbe's piece.  You could also
> comment there.
> AA
>
> Ethan Siegel, you are in error in several of your statements and as I
> found several years when I contacted you over your quote used in Wikipedia,
> you keep your eyes firmly closed and refused to look at evidence that
> proves you wrong.  Last time I recall you said you were too busy.
> .
> Bill Katakis answered your answer well and as far as I can see in Forbes
> strange comment format you failed to reply to it. You wrote:
> "they would have contacted me and offered to show me their research over
> the past five years..."  What arrogance!  Why on earth would they bother?
> Do you really consider yourself that important?
>
>  You were wrong about hot fusion being the answer too.  With their track
> record and ITER costing $25 billion for 8 minutes of operation if it works
> in the 2030s and a commercial reactor in the 2050s, it looks like it would
> be uneconomic even if it did work.  Good lifetime employment for the troops
> though.
>
> You claim "...willing to provide you with a verifiable, working device
> that you can investigate independently, nor with an experiment you can
> repeat yourself. Any contention to the contrary is philosophically
> indefensible."  You are wrong again. Apparently you think if you had seen
> the Wright Brothers fly.that would not be proof of flight.
> The problem with LENR not being more open is that since the bungled
> failures of MIT & CalTech to replicate Pons & Fleischmann the US Patent
> Offuce has refused to grant patents in the area.  As many now know the hot
> fusion phyicists failed to load the Palladium with sufficient Deuterium for
> the process to start.
>
> I could add pages of proved experiments to what Katakis wrote but there is
> no point when you won't look at it.
>
>
>
>
>  Forwarded Message 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:answer to Ethan Siegel, LENR is a scientific Pechvogel
> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 14:34:31 -0400
> From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> Peter,
> Don't waste your time on Ethan.  From a distant email exchange I had with
> him about his quotations that were in error, being used in Wikipedia, he is
> simply not interested in looking at any evidence contrary to his previously
> stated opinion.
> AA
>
>
> On 9/25/2016 1:41 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-25-2016-dear-
> ethan-lenr-is.html
>
> if somebody knows Ethan can send this to him...thanks
>
> peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:answer to Ethan Siegel, LENR is a scientific Pechvogel

[a.ashfield]

Peter, I posted this as a comment on the Forbe's piece.  You could also 
comment there.

AA

Ethan Siegel, you are in error in several of your statements and as I 
found several years when I contacted you over your quote used in 
Wikipedia, you keep your eyes firmly closed and refused to look at 
evidence that proves you wrong.  Last time I recall you said you were 
too busy.

.
Bill Katakis answered your answer well and as far as I can see in Forbes 
strange comment format you failed to reply to it. You wrote:
"they would have contacted me and offered to show me their research over 
the past five years..."  What arrogance!  Why on earth would they 
bother?  Do you really consider yourself that important?


 You were wrong about hot fusion being the answer too.  With their 
track record and ITER costing $25 billion for 8 minutes of operation if 
it works in the 2030s and a commercial reactor in the 2050s, it looks 
like it would be uneconomic even if it did work.  Good lifetime 
employment for the troops though.


You claim "...willing to provide you with a verifiable, working device 
that you can investigate independently, nor with an experiment you can 
repeat yourself. Any contention to the contrary is philosophically 
indefensible."  You are wrong again. Apparently you think if you had 
seen the Wright Brothers fly.that would not be proof of flight.
The problem with LENR not being more open is that since the bungled 
failures of MIT & CalTech to replicate Pons & Fleischmann the US Patent 
Offuce has refused to grant patents in the area.  As many now know the 
hot fusion phyicists failed to load the Palladium with sufficient 
Deuterium for the process to start.


I could add pages of proved experiments to what Katakis wrote but there 
is no point when you won't look at it.




 Forwarded Message --------
Subject:    Re: [Vo]:answer to Ethan Siegel, LENR is a scientific Pechvogel
Date:   Sun, 25 Sep 2016 14:34:31 -0400
From:   a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com



Peter,
Don't waste your time on Ethan.  From a distant email exchange I had 
with him about his quotations that were in error, being used in 
Wikipedia, he is simply not interested in looking at any evidence 
contrary to his previously stated opinion.

AA


On 9/25/2016 1:41 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-25-2016-dear-ethan-lenr-is.html 



if somebody knows Ethan can send this to him...thanks

peter

--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:answer to Ethan Siegel, LENR is a scientific Pechvogel

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Adrian

I wanted make him happy with compliments as half assed paper.
Repeated strick with the Turk, lousy work, literary speaking
As you see if you read my answer, I know him.

The rest is my opinion about LENR.

peter

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:34 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Peter,
> Don't waste your time on Ethan.  From a distant email exchange I had with
> him about his quotations that were in error, being used in Wikipedia, he is
> simply not interested in looking at any evidence contrary to his previously
> stated opinion.
> AA
>
>
> On 9/25/2016 1:41 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-25-2016-dear-
> ethan-lenr-is.html
>
> if somebody knows Ethan can send this to him...thanks
>
> peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:answer to Ethan Siegel, LENR is a scientific Pechvogel

[a.ashfield]

Peter,
Don't waste your time on Ethan.  From a distant email exchange I had 
with him about his quotations that were in error, being used in 
Wikipedia, he is simply not interested in looking at any evidence 
contrary to his previously stated opinion.

AA


On 9/25/2016 1:41 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-25-2016-dear-ethan-lenr-is.html 



if somebody knows Ethan can send this to him...thanks

peter

--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com