Jojo, take in consideration that I want a friendly discussion with you not a nervous and aggressive "you are wrong,I am right" one. You have right to your opinions and I also can think what I can based on my knowledge, prejudices and experience.I want to avoid scandal, it is counterproductive. We need new GOOD ideas. Please appreciate my sincerity in the following.
You wrote: *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.* to this: a) it is difficult to decide who has training or qualifications to contribute to LENR- physicists only, chemists in what extent; or if I think that LENR will be solved by combining the scientific method with the technologicl method and engineering is the key- then technology illiterates are disqualified. Lennart here- like me thinks that solid knowledge in management including leadership will also be necessary- then the are of knowledge is even greater b) about Ed Storms- I know him, I consider him a friend, I know he has encyclopedic knowledge in LENR, is a guru He also had performed first class experimental work. I have sent his former book to The Europen Commission and who knows it can be as a seed there, sometime. However remember Robert Frost's idea about "knowledge lost in information and wisdom lost in knowledge"? To write a wonderful book is one thing to make a synthesis of many data, info, etc some contradictory, some false, some redundant, much still missing is an other kind of task. C) if you read my most recent paper, you will see that i strongly disliked Ed's theory from its embryonic stage- and this has probably helped him to improve it. I am rejecting it for its own characteristics not because I favored nanoplasmonics or other "exotic" idea. Just to mention that hydroton is a structure whose existent has to be demonstrated and if deuterium is building it, protium will probably not. A theory has to be evaluated based on its predictive capacity and problem solving power- please rethink Ed's theory; it is possible you see what I cannot. NOW re Ni nanostructures I think the good ones are destroyed but also generated in the proper conditions- dynamic active sites. Re cancer treatments- if you get some forms of it is not so relevant who tries to make your life a bit longer. My son had ganglionar cancer, 3 surgeries then a tumor has sectioned his carotide and he died, smiling to me.. Conclusion (not to cancer) the existing ideas do NOT help to understand LENR and to convert it in an energy source- we need other ones. By thw way, in the negation stage Ed shows that all he existing CF/LENR theories are not realistic, based on imagination and of no use for the experimental work Peter On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:20 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 > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
