You seem to be illustrating my point quite well my friend. How do you know the LeClair reaction was cold fusion?, and not Hot fusion as Ed claims? Is it because of the lack of long term radioactive isotopes? First of all, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the LeClair reaction never reproduced. Hence, we only have that one account to draw from. LeClair never tried to measure radioactive isotopes, did he? Hence, it seems that it can not be categorically established that there were none. And didn't LeClair get sick with radiation, hence there may have been some radioactive nasties, which would put Ed's explanation right on.
Is it possible that Ed never put much credence to LeClair's account? Which would explain why he never thought it was worth explaining in a theory. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL Ed Storms and all the rest do not address what stabilizes the reaction products of fusion to helium. I am convince that this is at the heart of LENR. When Ed was evaluating the ash results that LeClair gave him. He saw now radioactive isotopes. But he said that what LeClair produces was hot fusion. This does not make sense. the LeClair reaction is cold fusion that produces no long term radioactive isotopes. This failure of analysis on Eds' part causes me to question his method of analysis. On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: This will be my last response on this subject lest I get too hyped up and bring the quick judgement of the mob here again. But let me just point out a few things. 1. Exactly what cheek are you giving? I never insulted you, you insulted me first. How can you turn the other cheek when no one insulted you to begin with? 2. Jesus never said he was a carpenter. Nor did any of the gospel writers claim that he was a carpenter. His earthly father was a carpenter, that is where the assumption came from that he was a carpenter also. Many times that is the case, but may not be the case here. We simply don't know. 3. Jesus was God incarnate, hence he was omnicient. That is how he knew more than the priests. Last I checked, Axil never claimed to be God incarnate. 4. I've read Jesus' teachings, reread it, studied and analyzed it. I've read Axil speculations, reread it, studied and analyzed it. Let me tell you one thing. Axil is no Jesus. 5. I don't understand Axil's audacity to challenge Ed and come away claiming that he is more right than Ed. I'll take Ed's worst speculation over Axil's best everytime. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL I will give you the other cheek and I pray for you, if you are my enemy. Remember, Jesus told me he is a carpenter but he knew more that the priests. That's the same with Axil. 2014-08-15 12:06 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart <[email protected]>: My friend, why do you have to begin a new round of insults with this comment? Why do you feel the need to mock the God I love, with rhetoric that are sure to elicit a strong response from me? Can I mock your wife whom you love and not expect a strong reaction from you? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
