I am simply asking ***There is nothing simple about your asking. You led with this statement: "As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding."
you how you came to arrive at your opinion. ***I would ask the same of you, but you can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. You demand explanation within LENR when everyone involved with LENR knows that the phenomena cannot be explained at this time. How did you arrive at your opinion that someone could generate such an opinion, and that they could do so to your satisfaction when you've demonstrated such obtuse reasoning? If such a request offends you ***The request does not offend me. Your original approach offends me and should offend anyone. Consider this to be me "as often as I instruct you". then forget this attempt at further communication. ***You call this communication? Your "stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding." On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > I am simply asking you how you came to arrive at your opinion. If such a > request offends you then forget this attempt at further communication. > > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Once again, you're confused. Just because someone can't "explain" a >> phenomena (like cold fusion branching) doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't >> exist. >> >> Rocks fell from the sky for centuries before the explanation was ever >> figured out. Please try to come up to speed on the process of science, >> especially before you get so touchy in your ignorance. >> >> >> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Rossi's reactor reaches a burn up temperature of 2000C before the >>> refectory outer shell of the reactor melts down. Please explain how this >>> very high white hot temperature can be reached if the heat from LENR is >>> generated from inside the nickel powder. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e >>>> mode. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Any references available? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano >>>>>> and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that >>>>>> points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP >>>>>> lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that >>>>>> it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding >>>>>> on this issue, no matter how often "I instruct you". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and >>>>>>> misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s >>>>>>> sono-fusion devices. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using >>>>>>> to support their theory. This is BS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a >>>>>>> plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H >>>>>>> because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation >>>>>>> bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of >>>>>>> metal that is adjacent to the bubble. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a >>>>>>> problem that will keep you from true understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected] >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right here, Axil: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg91559.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me >>>>>>>>> experimental results that contradict this fact. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. >>>>>>>>>> But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium >>>>>>>>>> emerges. >>>>>>>>>> The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and >>>>>>>>>> forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I >>>>>>>>>> do not >>>>>>>>>> think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> the helium remains trapped. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Jed >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
