At 07:34 PM 7/10/2013, you wrote:
DJ Cravens <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
I just did a search on LENR CANR and find 122
hits. I have papers, and people know them and
reference them. My guess is you will scrub them
now like Mitch S. But you keep saying these things.
Rothwell: Mitch S. sent me two letters saying he
would sue me if I uploaded his papers or quoted
from them. If you send me letters like that, yes, I will scrub your papers.
You don't even have to threaten a lawsuit. You
tell me to remove them and they will be gone the next day.
Several authors asked me to remove papers,
usually just one paper, leaving the others. I
have not removed any other papers for any other reason.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell is untruthful, always trying to twist the facts to make
himself look innocent. The only threats have been from him
and his associates.
==> The science papers we have written improving calorimetry
and describing how to achieve CF/LANR have been censored by Jed Rothwell.
I, and we, have always given permission to
have these papers listed and shared.
They were provided for the ICCF Proceedings on time for the publication.
We have always expected the ICCF14 papers to be in the Proceedings.
Proof for the non-informed?
I am so tired of Rothwell's false statements that
it is time to let some light on the matter.
Dave Nagel, and I, BOTH told Rothwell NOT to remove our seven (7) papers from
the Proc. ICCF14. A partial copy, with the
relevant parts, of Dave Nagel's letter
to me affirming that he also told Rothwell that, is attached.
============= beginning of email ====================
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:32:33 -0500
To: Mitchell Swartz <[email protected]>
From: "David J. Nagel" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re:
Mitchell,
I can say two things in response to your notes.
First, the entire proceedings are on
the web at the ISCMNS site, as you already know.
Jed sent the intact copy of the
proceedings to Bill Collis, and Bill put them on his site.
That much was done correctly.
Second, I wrote Jed emphatically that
I did not want a second and incomplete version
of the ICCF-14 proceedings in
circulation. But, I do not control what Jed posts on his site.
Dave
=============== end of email =======================
This copy of that email demonstrates that Dennis is correct
and Rothwell light years south of disingenuous.
Further supporting this tendency of Rothwell, despite his disingenuous,
mutating comments, attention is directed to the
fact that it was HE who removed,
[in addition to our three papers from ICCF10 (which showed how to do
CF/LANR and reported the open five day demonstration)] papers by
others such as Dr. Bass, and --so relevant this month--
the late Ken Shoulder's papers.
Point of fact, Jed Rothwell is sometimes so
unbalanced and malevolent that he was caught,
and stopped by Larry Forsley and Dave Nagel, from impetuously taking down
one of my posters at ICCF14 in Washington, DC.
As yet a further corollary of his bad
behavior, it is a fact that Jed nearly always
mischaracterizes our work. For example, I just noticed he misstated again on
Vortex about the wires leading into the PHUSORS and NANORS, when in fact
they are 1 mm diameter.
That is mentioned in detail in the censored papers such as
Swartz, M., "Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate
the Optimal Operating Point?", Condensed Matter Nuclear Science,
Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb,
World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006).
Swartz, M., "Excess Power Gain using High Impedance and Codepositional
LANR Devices Monitored by Calorimetry, Heat Flow,
and Paired Stirling Engines",
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-14),
10-15 August 2008, Washington, D.C. Ed: D J. Nagel and M Melich,
ISBN: 978-0-578-06694-3, 123, (2010)).
Swartz, M., G. Verner, "Excess Heat from Low
Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water
Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices", Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. PHagelstein, S Chubb,
World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006).
Mitchell Swartz
"A written fact is considered innately more true
than spoken gossip or hearsay, but physical documents
have no greater claim to accuracy than an anecdote
from an actual eyewitness."
Gilbertus Albans, Mentat Discourses on History
