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
