Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Mr. Rothwell:
You are an absolute untruthful person. Witnesses watched me hand you
the papers
and the CD-ROM containing them at Gene's funeral
Yes. As I said -- about a dozen times -- I could not read that CD-ROM. Please
upload the papers to your own web page
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Thereafter, you also received copies of then entire three papers by
email and we discussed them,
No, I never did. I doubt the papers can be e-mailed, because you told me they
are large, and e-mail can only handle a few megabytes.
so your credibility is ZERO with us
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
We publish all papers that can be understood and are of value to the
field. As anyone can see, our standards are rather low, but not absent.
Ahem! I would prefer to say our standards are rather broad minded or
perhaps forgiving.
Our standards are low,
Gnorts!
One of the misconceptions regarding the research done by private industry is
that private industry would publish their work, or even let it be known that
work was being done in a particular field by that industry in the first place.
Private industry only reports on what it does if
Knuke said it better than me. Back in 1965 our
company paid $1000 bucks for a Friden " colonel Boggy" mechanical
calculator,the big boy with a thousand gears, an absolute work of
art in mechanical computing for flow equations.
Within a year or two, we bought a Sharp electronic
calculator
Dr. Swartz, if you have a problem with what Jed or I have done with your
papers, take it up with us personally. Do not waste the time of
everyone on Vortex. They can not solve your problem. God knows, Jed has
tried and failed.
Ed Storms
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 09:52 AM 1/26/2005, Jed
At 11:44 AM 1/27/2005, Edmund Storms wrote:
Dr. Swartz, if you have a problem with what Jed or I have done with your
papers, take it up with us personally. Do not waste the time of everyone
on Vortex. They can not solve your problem.
Ed:
First, Rothwell brought this up. He wasted
Edmund Storms wrote:
We publish all papers that can
be understood and are of value to the field. As anyone can see, our
standards are rather low, but not absent.
Ahem! I would prefer to say our standards are rather broad
minded or perhaps forgiving.
Okay, it means the same thing, but the
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Second, some of the very papers which contain controls and
time-integration are not present
at the censored (and misnamed) LENR-CANR.org site.
Well, in that case, whoever wrote these very papers should upload them
somewhere else -- or submit them to LENR-CANR.org. The site
RC Macaulay wrote:
The USA programs are unpublished
because they are under NSA guidelines. The Japanese are working at warp
speed on the same within their Universities as well as their industrial
labs.
I doubt that. No Japanese researcher I know has heard a word about such
programs. If there are
RC,
I, like Jed, question your assertions. While I agree with you that the
Japanese are taking this more seriously than the U.S., your claims seem
greatly exaggerated. Do you have any evidence to back them up or to
demonstrate how you might know this?
At 10:13 AM 1/26/2005 -0500, you wrote:
RC
Steve, I may pose the question.. do you have any
evidence they are NOT ?
The industrial world is busy, ask Siemems, Toshiba or
Boeing/GE
Richard
Blank Bkgrd.gif
No, I don't.
I guess I approach things differently.
I don't make statements about the cold fusion field unless I have
evidence to back them up.
At 07:35 PM 1/26/2005 -0600, you wrote:
Steve, I may
pose the question.. do you have any evidence they are NOT ?
The industrial world is busy, ask
Physics Today appears to have come down heavy, and somewhat inaccurately,
on the DOE report.
Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years
ago.
That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at advances in
extracting energy from low-energy nuclear
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Physics Today appears to have
come down heavy, and somewhat inaccurately, on the DOE report.
Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were
15 years ago.
That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at
advances in
extracting energy from
At 03:28 PM 1/25/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Physics Today appears to have come down heavy, and somewhat inaccurately,
on the DOE report.
Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15
years ago.
That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's
16 matches
Mail list logo
