On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with
enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with
enough variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these
people that their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding
variables
Jones, I know it is fun to speculate and play mental games in science,
but why waste time when the game has no value. This paper you find
interesting is a mathematical game having no relationship to reality.
If anything, this exercise shows just how flawed the theory being used
really is.
theory not you own.
And which knee are you jerking? :-)
Ed
Jones
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, I know it is fun to speculate and play mental games in science,
but why waste time when the game has no value. This paper you find
interesting is a mathematical game having
This paper by Oganov is full of exaggerations. High pressure has been
used for years to create new materials and explore compounds that
cannot form under normal pressure. The authors of this paper give the
impression they discovered something new in violation of chemical
laws. Thus is not
This description is popular with physicists, but conflicts with what
is experienced in chemistry. Such energetic electrons, if they were
present and could influence a nuclear reaction, they would also affect
chemical reactions. No such effect has been observed.
Once again, the obsession
On Dec 20, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
* This description is popular with physicists, but conflicts with what
is experienced in chemistry.
... that's a semantic distinction which bears the legacy of two
decades of
professional
On Dec 20, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Foks0904 . wrote:
Nice effort listing all the theories side by side Jones. Indeed it
is quite a smorgasbord, and the final theory will likely being some
unpredicted synthesis of two, three, or more. And that's only the
main reaction pathway, which we can then
to discover.
Cheers.
Ed
Regards,
John
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Foks0904 . wrote:
Nice effort listing all the theories side by side Jones. Indeed it
is quite a smorgasbord, and the final theory will likely being
and not have to fight skeptics.
Cheers,
Ed
Regards,
John
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 2013, at 7:42 PM, Foks0904 . wrote:
John, the other theories are in direct logical conflict with each
other and are also in conflict with many
You might also consider that this stimulus would also produce
cracks, which I claim is the essential condition.
Ed Storms
On Dec 18, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Foks0904 . wrote:
I think this statement is obvious to anyone who has investigated the
phenomenon thoroughly, but I'm glad they brought it
John, each of these conditions have an independent role. A High flux
makes D more rapidly available to the NAE. B. High loading makes D
more available as well. C. The concentration of NAE determines the
number of little generators. D. No kick starting is necessary. This is
a conventional
, etc.)
formation might be amplified given the right stimulus and could
accelerate whatever mechanism is at play in the NAE.
Regards,
John
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
John, each of these conditions have an independent role. A High flux
Kevin, this presentation itself is based on questionable ethics. Many
of the statements are lies that are well known to be false. Go to
LENR.org and read a students guide to cold fusion by Storms.
Ed Storms
On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
I could use some help from some
On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Foks0904 . wrote:
Obviously major mistakes were made by PF. The press conference was
a mistake.
That is obvious only after the fact. If F-P had not made a public
announcement, Jones would have. In fact, the claim would have gotten
attention without the
. In addition,
the physics community made the assumption that the claimed effect was
caused by hot fusion. This assumption was wrong. It turns out F-P
were right and the physics community was wrong. Unfortunately, this
error is hard for them to admit.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Edmund
What actions?? Rob takes another job. Big deal. Everything else is
pure speculation and paranoia.
Ed
On Nov 21, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
Fair enough, I retract it.
However - he's a fairly famous person (60 minutes) in a position of
very significant power in academia. I
I have the same impression of the human condition, Alain. I think the
internet makes more obvious what was always the case, i.e. most people
are uninformed, irrational, and stubborn in their opinions. In the
past, this was only noticed in conversations at the local level. In
addition,
Alain, here are a few comments that might be useful.
On Nov 20, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
I've got an answer with claim of artifact... probably an old story.
I imagine that to fool Ed you need more tha recombination ...
can you comment, and check I did not answer stupidly
pandering orthogonal to empirical application.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/06/dinner-with/
They lacked discipline and protocols.
2013/11/20 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Alain, here are a few comments that might be useful.
On Nov 20
Jed, such opinions depend on the time scale you wish to use. If you
are concerned about what will happen to your children, your optimism
should be low. if you are talking about your great-grand children, you
should be a bit more optimistic. If you are talking about what happens
1000 years
- Edmund Storms
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/902/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00114-013-1101-y.pdf?auth66=1383244906_ce460811141ee85e9276ab59ebe800f1ext=.pdf
Deciding why CF was rejected is difficult because so many variables
apply and each person only experienced part of the process. To start
the evaluation, the basic reasons need to be acknowledged. Once the
reasons are available, their importance needs to be determined. The
importance of
Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Initially, the idea was not rejected by many people who later found
reasons to reject.
Some of them were standing by, nursing a grudge, waiting to speak
out in public. Especially the MIT plasma fusion group. That's what
Gene
/exclusives/111212_creativity.htm
I think that sucess of failure of acceptance of something like LENR,
is partially determined, but hugely chaotic... few details could
have make LENR a success.
2013/10/17 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Initially
You should know that efforts to provide a review article using more up
to date information have failed when submitted to major journals. The
mainstream journals still do not accept review papers about LENR.
Increasingly, rejection is based on ignorance, not on logic or
scientific
Actually Jed, the mass change can be measured. Of course this is not
done using a laboratory scales. However, if the mass and energy of the
individual particles resulting from the nuclear reaction are measured,
the numbers add up correctly.
Ed
On Sep 30, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Jed Rothwell
This makes sense if we assume the regulators cannot read or are
idiots. Anyone who can read and understands the claims, knows that a
nuclear reaction is being claimed that is very likely fusion. If I
were a regulator I would question the integrity of Defkalion based on
an obvious effort to
Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of
this issue.
Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much
imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self-
centered, and without imagination. Growing old simply gives a person
who
Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the
energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the
Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people in
charge in the
EU is under that tent...
why not the italians ? (maybe because they have a good palladium
provider!)
interesting question... selfish interest of a minority ? of
stupidity of the majority?
2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology
of our own bodies that include incredibly
sophisticated systems such as immune response.
If we could somehow get a better conceptual handle on the structure
of these mechanisms it might become practical to disrupt them so
that progress can proceed.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Edmund
I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's
benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and
apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess.
The West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure
and many parts
want to clear wikipedia, the holy territory, or
science from pseudoscience.
with planet consequence.
2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase
everyone's benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future
while I
The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim
even plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an
insane mind. Of course the government lies, of course it does bad
things, of course it cannot be trusted. But the government does
operate in predictable
On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:43 PM, John Berry wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
That is a good point, but the some of the same could have been
argued about the disruption of taking the WTC down and flying
Does anyone else see that the explanation given by Godes is pure word
salad having no relationship to reality. The description is in direct
and basic conflict with what is known and accepted in science. I'm
flabbergasted that money is being spent and discussion is taking place
based on
Thanks Bob. Finally someone understands and is using my theory.
Ed
On Aug 23, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
Recently, Peter published in his blog his reasons for hoping that
the NAE aren’t cracks. After considering it, I believe he misses the
uniqueness, durability, and beauty of the
On Aug 23, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Bob,
Thank you for the idea of cracks' aesthetics! I know it well, I think
you have remarked the second Motto by Leonard Cohen based
on this idea..
It happens that very early in my professional career I learned about
the
beauty and
need and want
and not care so much if she is whining a bit for that.
Peter
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Aug 23, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Bob,
Thank you for the idea of cracks' aesthetics! I know it well, I think
you have
Dennis, can you tell us what difference existed between the two balls?
What was in the active ball compared to the control? Why is one hotter
than the other one? Where did you have the balls constructed?
Ed
On Aug 23, 2013, at 1:59 PM, James Bowery wrote:
You had written:
I have some
approach to the
reaction has many orders of magnitude numerical superiority over the
crack regime.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Peter, I'm simply telling you what your comments mean to me. I'm not
thinking in your place. If I have gotten
, not phonons.
Bob
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Paul, I propose the craters result where the concentration of NAE is
so great that local heat cannot escape fast enough. Consequently,
runnaway occurs, i.e. positive feedback takes place through
Thank you in advance in the name of my readers,
Peter
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Peter, why do you write about subjects that you know nothing about?
You obviously have not read or understood what I propose. You have
not asked questions
Terry, the problem is psychological, not scientific. Understanding CF
requires a change in perspective, which is hard for many people to do.
You need to look at the system in which the nuclear reaction occurs
from the perspective of the assembly of atoms, i.e. like a chemist
does. The
reaction is a fluid process of continual
destruction
and renewal that any solid structure cannot duplicate.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Terry, the problem is psychological, not scientific. Understanding CF
requires a change in perspective
Peter, why do you write about subjects that you know nothing about?
You obviously have not read or understood what I propose. You have not
asked questions or discussed this with me. You make statements that
have no relationship to what I have proposed or even to general
knowledge about
to CMNS and more will be provided in my ICCF-18 paper. I suggest you
study these papers before jumping to any conclusions. In addition, If
you need more clarification, please ask.
Ed
Thank you in advance in the name of my readers,
Peter
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Edmund Storms
stor
, cracks have no future
and NAE has to be a smart concept, complex.
Best wishes,
Peter
-
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Aug 19, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Ed,
Thank you for criticizing my paper as I have asked the readers.
I am
On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
If there is no neutrons, there will be no tritium. Pure protium
will poduce no tritium.
Yes, this is obviously true, Axil. The question is, How is the neutron
formed? It can not be formed outside of the nucleus as a free neutron
because
LENR does NOT contradict current theory. LENR is a different
phenomenon from hot fusion. Consequently the theory applied to hot
fusion cannot be applied too cold fusion. We can only say that a piece
of the puzzle is missing - nothing more.
Ed
On Aug 12, 2013, at 11:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley
Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the well
was poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal to accept
ANY patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one sided
conclusion, both of which created a legal situation that doomed any
serious study of
like LENR the game is entirely different.
All it takes is one protected jurisdiction anywhere in the world to
realize enormous profits.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the
well
Teslaalset, you asked a simple and reasonable question and you deserve
an understandable answer.
The reaction being claimed is Ni + p = Cu with a proton being added to
a Nickel isotope that results in the isotope of copper having the same
number of neutrons. Ni + p has greater mass than
:19 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger
problem. Since patent protection for the basic process is not
possible, a patent for the best application is the only protection.
This is similar to the situation in mature
motivate the major players to get off their
butts. Everything would follow from that.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Let me see if I can be clearer. I believe the LENR situation is not
like any other. First of all, the basic explanation
On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
production.
It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not
real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will
you say then? How much
behavior coming out of his reactor. Two
like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the
real thing to me.
If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR,
the also research Rossi's EMF claims.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms
stor
to
interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that,
unless you just don't want to believe it, that is.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with
1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation
of creative inventions. People get easily excited.
However, it is still good to get some confirmation from Rossi’s team
and provide us significant information with evidence.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil
Peter, a magnetic field has not been discovered. A claim has been made
without any evidence or even a logical explanation. The claimed high
intensity of a magnetic field is impossible under the circumstance.
Therefore the reading on the gauss meter was misinterpreted. Until
this issue is
this is a random complaint, don't expect them to them to
listen to you any time soon. There is no time out and no delay in
business.
2013/8/12 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and
corrected.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
The time out refers to discussion by people on Vortex who have no
knowledge about the issue. Do you have inside knowledge that you
will kindly provide?
Ed
On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
The only fact it is that you do not accept
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Richard P. Feynman
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Why do you discuss any thing on vortex? Why do you even comment
since we are all engaging in random curiosity about everything?
You
Jed, a better method is to use a constant rate pump. These are
available and are very reliable and accurate. The rate is not affected
by back pressure, within reason and can be adjusted to achieve the
required delta T.
Ed
On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
DJ Cravens
stupid.
Ed
On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Peter, a magnetic field has not been discovered. A claim has been
made without any evidence or even a logical explanation. The
claimed high intensity
I see no relationship to LENR. This is obviously hot fusion. Neutrons can be
made at 35kv, as described on the article, but at a low rate. This was not
understood at the time. Now if is. We do not have to be taught y such early
experience
Ed
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 28, 2013, at 5:07 PM,
Mark, you are correct about many theories being proposed but you are
wrong about there being no theory that explains the effect. I have
described such a theory in print and will give a major talk about the
model at ICCF-18. This model can explain all the observed behavior as
well as how
Why not call cold fusion: This is no threat to hot fusion (TINTTHF)
and count on every one being as easily fooled as this discussion
assumes?
Ed
On Jul 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:
Hi,
On 15-7-2013 16:11, Jones Beene wrote:
3) PCRPF or polariton catalyzed reversible
I make the distinction between the Fleischmann-Pons Effect, The Arata
Effect, and the Stringham Effect. All are cold fusion, but the names
identify different methods and give credit. As for the name, everyone
knows about cold fusion. Changing the name only invites a charge of
trying to
You need to realize this paper does NOT describe LENR. This is a
variation of hot fusion. This is another way to produce the typical
hot fusion process. The involvement of the muon ONLY increases the
rate of hot fusion. Nothing about the reaction is changed except its
rate. While the
LENR is EASY to demonstrate to any educated person. The problem is not
that a plausible demonstration is impossible because skepticism is too
strong. The problem is simply ignorance of two kinds. Ignorance of one
kind has been identified by Jed and many other people. This kind of
ignorance
On Jul 10, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This, I disagree with. Heat is the only thing that matters. Heat is
worth money. Money is what investors want. They don't care whether
it is nuclear or angel farts.
The source determines the engineering behavior, the life-time, and the
to overcome the ENGINEERING problems. Once LENR is
acknowledged as a nuclear reaction, it also will get similar support.
So far, the financial system does not acknowledge this fact.
Ed
On Jul 10, 2013, at 9:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Edmund Storms
stor
Eric, if you attend ICCF-18, I will answer this question during my talk.
Ed
On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
wrote:
What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in
the ECAT?
This gets
Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references
in my library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion
bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion,
depending on the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors cold
fusion if the NAE
Yes, I also would like to know when we can consider cold fusion to be
accepted. Three kinds of events seem to be relevant.
1. Reviewers allow papers to be published in Science, Nature and
Scientific American.
2. Large amounts of investment money becomes available so that finding
enough
within the particle. Unless
the NAE is produced within the particle, the particle is inert no
matter what size it has.
Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references
in my
on cold
fusion / LENR.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Yes, I also would like to know when we can consider cold fusion to
be accepted. Three kinds of events seem to be relevant.
1. Reviewers allow papers to be published in Science, Nature
micro and nano cavities as the bodies both pack together and their
protrusions interlace to form smaller and smaller pockets between
the particles. Perhaps a marriage made in heaven if the IR energy
feeding plasmons theory has any weight.
Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com
touch and arrogate together. The
irregular spaces around the point of particle contact is what we are
discussing as the NAE.
When nanoparticles touch at a contract point, this topology is the
strongest generator of electromagnetic resonance.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Edmund Storms
with open voids.. I do recognize the loss of mechanical
stress you are citing but I do leave the door open because of
Casimir and other forces that these geometries both share. Not
asking you to change your preference only to allow for the
possibility.
Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor
.
-Mark Iverson
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting paper from nature about successful
cold fusion experiment
Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant
This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold-fusion.
These are two separate and independent phenomenon. They are not
related except both are nuclear reactions involving fusion. However,
the conditions required for initiation and the nuclear products are
entirely different.
Proton-21 is considered a cold fusion or more properly termed
a LENR experiment, so to this referenced experiment should be termed
a LENR experiment.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
This paper makes the common mistake of mixing hot- and cold
a LENR reaction no matter
what LeClair thinks is causing it.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means or which
phenomenon it describes, I see no hope in arriving at any common
understanding. Please
the LeClair experiment as some
other type of hot fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter
what LeClair thinks is causing it.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
If we cannot even agree about what the term LENR means
as
demonstrated here when you described the LeClair experiment as some
other type of hot fusion.
The LeClair experiment is demonstrating a LENR reaction no matter
what LeClair thinks is causing it.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
If we cannot even
understanding of it.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies
to a plasma and to a reaction that results in the hot fusion
products, i.e. neutrons, tritium, etc. Cold fusion does not occur
in plasma
wrote:
The paper says that the experimenters are claiming cold fusion.
There is no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to
my understanding of it.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson
are claiming cold fusion.
There is no mixing of fusion definitions involved in this paper to
my understanding of it.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
That is not a useful criteria because the Lawson criteria applies
to a plasma and to a reaction
don't really know the mechanism yet (hence the need for a
macroscopic definition). But at least it begins by limiting the
scope of hot fusion.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
What are we talking about?
(cold fusion [CF], LENR, CANR, LANR, CMNS
Perhaps by you. But this difference is clear to people who study the
two mechanisms. I suggest you consider this view is correct and not
waste time looking for a transition zone. :-)
Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:14 PM, H Veeder wrote:
Whether the realms of cold fusion and hot fusion are
/
a1601db449ca9f86c01f5dc5f80185b1.png
On 7/7/13, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Perhaps by you. But this difference is clear to people who study the
two mechanisms. I suggest you consider this view is correct and not
waste time looking for a transition zone. :-)
Ed
On Jul 7, 2013, at 1:14 PM, H Veeder
Veeder wrote:
I am not looking, but perhaps one should remain open to the
possibility.
Harry
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Perhaps by you. But this difference is clear to people who study the
two mechanisms. I suggest you consider this view
Alain, theory is not the trap. Arrogance is the trap. Theory has
always been with us because that is how all observation is related to
all other observations. Even Faraday believed a theory about what he
observed. However, he was not as arrogant as are modern physicist.
Modern physicists
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Date: June 29, 2013 8:30:35 AM MDT
To: Eric ehonsow...@ix.netcom.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Could Rossi add DC Power to AC Lines?
Thanks Eric! Another voice of reality and reason is heard. I
, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an
energy consequence. Here are the consequences for the three
reactions proposed to occur. Notice that to make one watt of power,
the rate must be between 10^11
, these are very good questions. At the risk of reiterating
points made in older threads, I'll attempt to address each question
as I am able.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
In your theory, how is the energy released as kinetic energy without
On Jun 23, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary
ideas without any connection to what is known that even starting a
critique is difficult
201 - 300 of 1275 matches
Mail list logo
