[Vo]:starting to discuss about motivation in LENR land...

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-26-2016-lenr-about-motivation-i.html

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

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 :

> 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  
> 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
>
>
>