We are here to speculate and this forum is the place that you come to speculate.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: > With all due respect my friend, DGT and John H are no where near the > caliber of Ed Storms. This is precisely the kind of skewed science by > popularity that I am bemoaning. What we have is a kid (a rather dishonest > bunch kids at that.) arguing with a cancer specialist. What is John H's > qualifications to even begin to be the authority in this field? What does > DGT have? A "pre-industrial H6" machine? LOL.... > > When two highly qualified people, first Stremmenos, then Gamberale, speak > against their self-interest, we need to take heed. (We also have Jed's > first hand testimony of his experience with DGT) DGT is a fraud as far as > I am concerned and yet we hold the work of such dubious entities against > the work and knowledge of a long-time researcher with a proven and > distinguished track record. Does that really make sense to you? > > Heck, you can do better just arguing with Ed yourself without invoking the > authority of DGT. Invoking DGT and the mythical hyperion will only serve > to damage your credibility. > > > Jojo > > > PS. When someone begins to speak against "Old Guard" LENR theories, it > makes sense for them to have a robust theory first. Not an ad-hoc > patchwork of speculation and misrepresented experimental data creating > miracle explanations and then more miracles trying to hold on to the first > miracle. > > Come on guys, we need to temper this distraction and try to focus. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> > *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:44 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter > > Ed Storms last post: > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my > papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea > what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. > The process has no relationship to cold fusion. > > > > I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I > consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting > and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in > continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but > to speculate. That is not my goal. > > > > Ed Storms > > > > --------------------------- > > > > To set the record straight, Ed was under heavy speculative pressure from > many here on vortex and I was not the most effective because of my > excessive good nature and respect for the opinions of others. IMHO, as > usually happens, Jones was the most biting. You give be too much credit in > the Storms confrontations. > > > > To give some background on the special contempt that Ed holds for SPP > theory, Ed's SPP theory disregard is tied to DGT as perfected in the > private and unknown discussions held in CMMS between Ed and John H. > > > > If DGT succeeds in securing its intellectual property rights, the SPP > theory might well be supported by much experimental evidence. As it is now, > DGT has released much supporting evidence for BEC and SPP theory. > > > > If DGT fails, this true theory will be lost for another 100 years. But > like LENR, SPP theory will eventually be accepted because it is the true > way the Ni/H reactor works. > > > > If Rossi reads vortex, he will also see the truth in the SPP theory upon > reflection of the inner workings of his cat and mouse. > > > > You might see something SPP like from Rossi but he is not interested in > truth telling. > > > > I am just a weak reflection of the battles between DGT, Dr. Kim and George > Miley and Ed Storms. Dr. Kim is the original purveyor of the BEC theory. > > > > From reading the latest posts of Peter, he is about to speak against the > old LENR theories. And Peter will become another outcast imposed by telling > the truth among the old guard LENR workers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Peter, My objections are not so much rooted in the "new" ideas >> themselves, but in ideas that have no basis in reality pretending to be >> heirs to the throne. These ideas are a distraction. We need to get rid of >> these "fluffs". People with no training or qualifications in this area >> have the audacity to start arguing with Ed Storms, a proven, long-time >> researcher in the field. Understanding this field requires a deep >> knowledge in many scientific disciplines only a few people like Ed >> have. Ed is uniquely qualified to even begin discussing this field, yet >> his theories are rejected in favor of the latest, but definitely not the >> greatest, theories proposing structures and substances we clearly know can >> not exist. >> >> My challenge is open to anyone who can satisfactorily answer my initial >> contention. How can the nickel nanostructures, such as nanowires, nano >> antennas, etc continue to exist to catalyze these "LENR" reactions at >> temperatures enough to sinter, then melt then even evaporate or sublimate >> nickel nanoparticles. Proposing a novel structure (BEC soltions, etc) that >> possesses novel abilities (metaphasic shielding) is utterly ridiculous. >> And this coming from an anonymous source who has not even began to >> establish his qualifications to even begin to discuss in this field. Am I >> the only one that see this as a problem? >> >> Would you accept cancer treatment advise from an ordinary doctor, and not >> a cancer specialist. Or better still, would you from a non-doctor. Or >> even still, from a kid with clearly no medical training and >> qualifications. And even better still, from an anonymous kid with clearly >> no medical traininig and qualifications. Would you hold this kid's opinion >> in higher regard than the specialist's opinion? >> >> Our cancer specialist has several decades of proven field experience with >> a library bigger than what anyone has. Our cancer specialist has studied >> extensively this field probably even before our kid was born. Yet the >> kid proposes to excise our cancer with his "light saber", which supposedly >> has unique "nano metaphasic shielding" abilities, and we are all awed by >> the supposed miraculous abilities of this light saber that we forget to >> even realize that this light saber does not and can not exist. >> >> So, those who are most prolific in proposing ideas win? >> >> Is this how science is supposed to work? This is worse than the >> 2000-climatologists committee-based, consensus-based, >> computer-simulation-based "science" of climate scaremongers. >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Peter Gluck <[email protected]> >> *To:* VORTEX <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Saturday, August 09, 2014 10:53 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter >> >> Dear Jojo, >> >> I want to answer you in part, prior to Axil. >> We have to take great care with naming ideas willy nilly,,nanoplasmonics, >> nanomagnetism, BEC are not so have a growing literature - see Google >> Scholar please and do a lighting fast search. >> What sacrosnct rules they contradict how when this has to be shown for >> any case in detail. Thermodynamics is first candidate and it is much >> invoked- >> great care! >> I think that the field is in such a deep trouble- not understood, desired >> process not controlled, no possibilities of intensification and scale-up >> visible- that really new ideas, principles, theories are needed. The old >> ones >> have no connection to the experimental reality- Ed Storms is right in not >> liking theories; he still has to demonstrate that his new theory has >> problem solving power. >> >> I would advise to welcome ideas that are new here- but have domains of >> validity outside LENR. You also can come with new ideas, the old ones have >> not been productive at all, right?. >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Axil, I feel it is counterproductive to the advancement of science for >>> people to be proposing ideas willy nilly - ideas that have no bearing in >>> reality and cleary violates known physical principles. Attempts at theory >>> of these kinds are not helpful and adds a significant amount of noise that >>> needs to be sifted thru and vetted. I think this is what Ed storms is >>> lamenting from ideas coming in this forum. >>> >>> Take your ideas of exotic substances (BEC soltions) shielding >>> nanostructures from melting in high temps. Such "metaphasic shielding" >>> ideas are counterproductive. Instead of cleary admitting that your ideas >>> has a big hole - a clear violation of a known physical property; you >>> propose this even more preposterous idea of metaphasic shielding for high >>> temps to try to explain another created miracle. Each miracle requires a >>> dozen more miracles to explain it. This is getting ridiculous. >>> >>> Tell me my friend; would you be so bold in proposing such >>> ludricous ideas if people knew who you really are? Being anonymous affords >>> you the opportunity to be as outrageous and senseless as you like without >>> consequence. I am trying to say this without any attempt at a personal >>> attack, but people has got to admit - this is part of the problem, and IMO, >>> part of why Ed left this forum. >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>> *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 07, 2014 3:44 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter >>> >>> *The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in >>> my opinion. It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted >>> by a wide group of scientists.* >>> >>> Whenever there is a mystery in science, many theories are proposed to >>> explain that mystery. Take for an example dark matter, there are hundreds >>> of theories that have been put forth to explain that mystery. There is even >>> a dozen categories in which these theories can be grouped. >>> >>> The debate that weighs each new piece of evidence against all those >>> theories is very healthy. Over time, and with many iterations, one of the >>> many will pull away in the theory sweepstakes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> >> >
