Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

Sorry my friend, I find your writing style tedious and long-winded and very
difficult to understand.
***Gee, wouldn't that qualify as one of those insults that you so
grievingly take fault from me?  What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander.


On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Sorry my friend, I find your writing style tedious and long-winded and
> very difficult to understand.  After reading, then rereading and then
> rereading it again, I still have difficulty trying to understand your
> point.  Please write in short, to the point sentences.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Peter Gluck 
> *To:* VORTEX 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 6:07 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
>
> 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 
> 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 fie

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

I tell ya what, Lennart.  Because I am so magnanimous in spirit and to
demonstrate that I have "grown out of the sandbox", I will give you the
last word.  Have at it.


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Kevin I hope you will grow out of the sandbox one day.
> On Aug 11, 2014 11:57 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Lennart Thornros 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I do not know that I intended to provoke.
>>>
>> ***Weasel words from a weasel.  You know your own intention, but here you
>> say "you do not know".  It is your OWN intention, of COURSE you know.  But
>> someone from a "strategic leadership" background and thin skin and a record
>> right here on this thread is compelled to write like you do.  Weasel.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I do have a technical question about howmany states there are
>>> (unanswered).
>>>
>> ***What a bunch of horse manure, in light of your previous response.
>> Geez, why don't you just give it up?
>>
>>
>>
>>>  How you mix that with the name of my business I cannot understand.
>>>
>> ***Yup.  I know you don't understand.  And I know you cannot understand.
>> That's why you write in such a ridiculous manner.  Perhaps some day you
>> will make some positive contribution to Vortex, one can only hope.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Even more do I think your unqualified, wrongful and mean evaluation of
>>> my person is insulting and uncalled for.
>>>
>> ***Like I said before, if you don't want the alligator to snap at you,
>> quit throwing rocks at him.  Preschoolers know the wisdom of this.
>> Evidently, you are not smarter than a preschooler.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have told you to contact me privately if you have a grudge to settle
>>>
>> ***I have no grudge to settle.  Perhaps some day you will learn to be a
>> "strategic leader".  But I doubt it.
>>
>>
>>
>>> . I do not think that being the case you just enjoy being judgemental.
>>>
>> ***You're so full of bowlsheeite.  You've engaged in judgementalism since
>> your first post on this thread, and throughout.  You just like to hide
>> behind weasel terms so that no one will call you out.  Once they do, we all
>> see what an incredible weasel punk you are.  Why did you start your
>> interactions with invective if you didn't want invective to ensue?  Because
>> you are a weasel, that's why.
>>
>>
>>> I.suggest you stick to the issues instead of dabble in evalutions you
>>> have neither qualifications nor informations to do.
>>>
>> ***And I suggest you go back to "strategic followership"... oops, that's
>> supposed to be strategic leadership, but with your approach there is no
>> discernible difference.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2014 7:56 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>>
 Lennart:

 Why don't you just leave me alone?  You started out on this thread
 intending to provoke, so you've achieved provocation.  Now that you don't
 like the result you wanna backtrack.  I get it.  So then back track.  Get
 lost.  Go and teach someone about your supposed "strategic leadership"
 which is neither strategic nor leadership.


 On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Lennart Thornros >>> > wrote:

> Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other.
> I cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself
> holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any
> hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure 
> you
> that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep
> whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally
> think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in
> the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about
> your problems whatever they are.
>  On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>> I know enough about your life that you need to get one.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros <
>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice
>>> is the sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an
>>> analtyical engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded
>>> arguments. If that is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I 
>>> will
>>> give you the ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have
>>> not figured out how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated 
>>> or
>>> educated by your floskel.
>>>  On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Get a life, Lennart


 On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros <
 lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:

> I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox
> logics. I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . 
>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Lennart Thornros]

Kevin I hope you will grow out of the sandbox one day.
On Aug 11, 2014 11:57 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> I do not know that I intended to provoke.
>>
> ***Weasel words from a weasel.  You know your own intention, but here you
> say "you do not know".  It is your OWN intention, of COURSE you know.  But
> someone from a "strategic leadership" background and thin skin and a record
> right here on this thread is compelled to write like you do.  Weasel.
>
>
>
>
>> I do have a technical question about howmany states there are
>> (unanswered).
>>
> ***What a bunch of horse manure, in light of your previous response.
> Geez, why don't you just give it up?
>
>
>
>>  How you mix that with the name of my business I cannot understand.
>>
> ***Yup.  I know you don't understand.  And I know you cannot understand.
> That's why you write in such a ridiculous manner.  Perhaps some day you
> will make some positive contribution to Vortex, one can only hope.
>
>
>
>> Even more do I think your unqualified, wrongful and mean evaluation of my
>> person is insulting and uncalled for.
>>
> ***Like I said before, if you don't want the alligator to snap at you,
> quit throwing rocks at him.  Preschoolers know the wisdom of this.
> Evidently, you are not smarter than a preschooler.
>
>
>
>> I have told you to contact me privately if you have a grudge to settle
>>
> ***I have no grudge to settle.  Perhaps some day you will learn to be a
> "strategic leader".  But I doubt it.
>
>
>
>> . I do not think that being the case you just enjoy being judgemental.
>>
> ***You're so full of bowlsheeite.  You've engaged in judgementalism since
> your first post on this thread, and throughout.  You just like to hide
> behind weasel terms so that no one will call you out.  Once they do, we all
> see what an incredible weasel punk you are.  Why did you start your
> interactions with invective if you didn't want invective to ensue?  Because
> you are a weasel, that's why.
>
>
>> I.suggest you stick to the issues instead of dabble in evalutions you
>> have neither qualifications nor informations to do.
>>
> ***And I suggest you go back to "strategic followership"... oops, that's
> supposed to be strategic leadership, but with your approach there is no
> discernible difference.
>
>
>
>> On Aug 10, 2014 7:56 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>
>>> Lennart:
>>>
>>> Why don't you just leave me alone?  You started out on this thread
>>> intending to provoke, so you've achieved provocation.  Now that you don't
>>> like the result you wanna backtrack.  I get it.  So then back track.  Get
>>> lost.  Go and teach someone about your supposed "strategic leadership"
>>> which is neither strategic nor leadership.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other.
 I cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself
 holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any
 hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure you
 that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep
 whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally
 think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in
 the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about
 your problems whatever they are.
  On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

> I know enough about your life that you need to get one.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros  > wrote:
>
>> Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is
>> the sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an 
>> analtyical
>> engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that
>> is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the
>> ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured 
>> out
>> how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by 
>> your
>> floskel.
>>  On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Get a life, Lennart
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros <
>>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>>>
 I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox
 logics. I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .".
  On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
 wrote:

> Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop
> throwing rocks at him.  Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros <
> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>> Kevin,

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> I do not know that I intended to provoke.
>
***Weasel words from a weasel.  You know your own intention, but here you
say "you do not know".  It is your OWN intention, of COURSE you know.  But
someone from a "strategic leadership" background and thin skin and a record
right here on this thread is compelled to write like you do.  Weasel.




> I do have a technical question about howmany states there are (unanswered).
>
***What a bunch of horse manure, in light of your previous response.  Geez,
why don't you just give it up?



> How you mix that with the name of my business I cannot understand.
>
***Yup.  I know you don't understand.  And I know you cannot understand.
That's why you write in such a ridiculous manner.  Perhaps some day you
will make some positive contribution to Vortex, one can only hope.



> Even more do I think your unqualified, wrongful and mean evaluation of my
> person is insulting and uncalled for.
>
***Like I said before, if you don't want the alligator to snap at you, quit
throwing rocks at him.  Preschoolers know the wisdom of this.  Evidently,
you are not smarter than a preschooler.



> I have told you to contact me privately if you have a grudge to settle
>
***I have no grudge to settle.  Perhaps some day you will learn to be a
"strategic leader".  But I doubt it.



> . I do not think that being the case you just enjoy being judgemental.
>
***You're so full of bowlsheeite.  You've engaged in judgementalism since
your first post on this thread, and throughout.  You just like to hide
behind weasel terms so that no one will call you out.  Once they do, we all
see what an incredible weasel punk you are.  Why did you start your
interactions with invective if you didn't want invective to ensue?  Because
you are a weasel, that's why.


> I.suggest you stick to the issues instead of dabble in evalutions you have
> neither qualifications nor informations to do.
>
***And I suggest you go back to "strategic followership"... oops, that's
supposed to be strategic leadership, but with your approach there is no
discernible difference.



> On Aug 10, 2014 7:56 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>> Lennart:
>>
>> Why don't you just leave me alone?  You started out on this thread
>> intending to provoke, so you've achieved provocation.  Now that you don't
>> like the result you wanna backtrack.  I get it.  So then back track.  Get
>> lost.  Go and teach someone about your supposed "strategic leadership"
>> which is neither strategic nor leadership.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other. I
>>> cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself
>>> holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any
>>> hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure you
>>> that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep
>>> whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally
>>> think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in
>>> the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about
>>> your problems whatever they are.
>>>  On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>>
 I know enough about your life that you need to get one.


 On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros 
 wrote:

> Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is
> the sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an 
> analtyical
> engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that
> is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the
> ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured 
> out
> how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by 
> your
> floskel.
>  On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>> Get a life, Lennart
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros <
>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox
>>> logics. I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .".
>>>  On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop
 throwing rocks at him.  Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this.


 On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros <
 lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:

> Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave
> not asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think 
> you can
> make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal 
> vendetta. I
> admit m

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Lennart Thornros]

I do not know that I intended to provoke. I do have a technical question
about howmany states there are (unanswered). How you mix that with the name
of my business I cannot understand. Even more do I think your unqualified,
wrongful and mean evaluation of my person is insulting and uncalled for. I
have told you to contact me privately if you have a grudge to settle. I do
not think that being the case you just enjoy being judgemental.
I.suggest you stick to the issues instead of dabble in evalutions you have
neither qualifications nor informations to do.
On Aug 10, 2014 7:56 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

> Lennart:
>
> Why don't you just leave me alone?  You started out on this thread
> intending to provoke, so you've achieved provocation.  Now that you don't
> like the result you wanna backtrack.  I get it.  So then back track.  Get
> lost.  Go and teach someone about your supposed "strategic leadership"
> which is neither strategic nor leadership.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other. I
>> cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself
>> holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any
>> hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure you
>> that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep
>> whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally
>> think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in
>> the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about
>> your problems whatever they are.
>>  On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>
>>> I know enough about your life that you need to get one.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is
 the sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an analtyical
 engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that
 is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the
 ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured out
 how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by your
 floskel.
  On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

> Get a life, Lennart
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros  > wrote:
>
>> I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox
>> logics. I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .".
>>  On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop
>>> throwing rocks at him.  Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros <
>>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>>>
 Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave
 not asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think 
 you can
 make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal 
 vendetta. I
 admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an
 engineer as well.
  On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
 wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros <
> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
>> management/leadership.
>>
> ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either.
>
>
>
>> We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did not go very
>> well.
>>
> ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid
> argument together and are basically a follower not a leader.
>
>
>
>>  I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I
>> try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that 
>> state
>> of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an 
>> infinite
>> number of states.
>>
> ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style:  You follow
> a crowd.  Not only that but you did not understand the original
> contention.  So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be
> barking in the first place.
>
>
>
>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new
>> states.
>>
> ***Your friends are not correct.  You THINK we are looking for new
> states, but in reality we are sim

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

I agree.

Much of the time I do not agree with you.  Much of the time I do not
understand your speculations.  But your speculations are usually about as
good as anyone else's, and sometimes your speculations are brilliant.

Ed left this forum because there was too much speculatin' goin' on.  Now we
have Jojo conjuring Ed's Vortical Internet ghost saying that, in
particular, your speculations are worth less than others and there should
be a minimum threshold that shuts you out.  I think such a thing would be
unhealthy and would cut out 90% of current Vorticians.  Let the
anti-speculators go wherever Ed went, onto those "serious" elitist
scientific forums.

I can't identify any speculations from Jojo that would compete with yours.
So in essence he's saying, "yours aint good enough and I don't have to put
up anything in competition, I just expect better".  Much like an art critic
who can't generate art, or a movie critic who has never worked in the movie
industry (other than to criticize).





On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> 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 
> 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 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>> *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 no

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

Lennart:

Why don't you just leave me alone?  You started out on this thread
intending to provoke, so you've achieved provocation.  Now that you don't
like the result you wanna backtrack.  I get it.  So then back track.  Get
lost.  Go and teach someone about your supposed "strategic leadership"
which is neither strategic nor leadership.


On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other. I
> cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself
> holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any
> hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure you
> that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep
> whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally
> think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in
> the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about
> your problems whatever they are.
> On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>> I know enough about your life that you need to get one.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is
>>> the sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an analtyical
>>> engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that
>>> is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the
>>> ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured out
>>> how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by your
>>> floskel.
>>>  On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>>
 Get a life, Lennart


 On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros 
 wrote:

> I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox
> logics. I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .".
>  On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
> wrote:
>
>> Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop
>> throwing rocks at him.  Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros <
>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave
>>> not asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you 
>>> can
>>> make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal 
>>> vendetta. I
>>> admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an
>>> engineer as well.
>>>  On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
>>> wrote:
>>>



 On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros <
 lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:

> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
> management/leadership.
>
 ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either.



> We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did not go very
> well.
>
 ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid
 argument together and are basically a follower not a leader.



>  I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I
> try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that 
> state
> of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an 
> infinite
> number of states.
>
 ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style:  You follow
 a crowd.  Not only that but you did not understand the original
 contention.  So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be
 barking in the first place.



> First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new
> states.
>
 ***Your friends are not correct.  You THINK we are looking for new
 states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been
 agreed in science.



> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for
> reasons beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an 
> understanding of
> more hard to describe/understand states is required.
>
 ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning.  Recall
 my prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects 
 on
 your "leadership".



>  The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament
> in my opinion.
>
 ***You do not know what you are talking about, so 

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Jojo Iznart]

Terry, do not ascribe to any other reason what can clearly be seen as an 
ineffective wriring style.  Peter may have some ideas, yet he communicates it 
poorly.  His sentences are disjointed, tangential, sloppy and liberally 
interspersed with irrelevant highfalutin words intended to project an air of 
superior knowledge which he clearly lacks.  .

Sorry, I can not communicate with Peter, I find reading his writing tedious and 
boring.  It's a chore trying to understand his point and I neither have the 
time, patience nor the inclination to try to decipher his "coded" messages.  

Many people here in Vortex will agree with me.  This is also why his blog has 
very few readership.


Jojo


PS.  No insult intended, just stating a fact.  If Peter can't accept some 
constructive criticism, he will perpertually have little influence since people 
won't read his essays.  I hope he takes what I say in stride instead of 
treating it as an attempt at insult.




  - Original Message - 
  From: Terry Blanton 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 11:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter


  Culture clash?  Or the difference of ages?

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Peter Gluck]

Terry you can decide alone  -based on our parallel monologs
peter


On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Culture clash?  Or the difference of ages?
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Terry Blanton]

Culture clash?  Or the difference of ages?

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Peter Gluck]

Sorry, mea culpa- we cannot communicate.
Peter


On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Sorry my friend, I find your writing style tedious and long-winded and
> very difficult to understand.  After reading, then rereading and then
> rereading it again, I still have difficulty trying to understand your
> point.  Please write in short, to the point sentences.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Peter Gluck 
> *To:* VORTEX 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 6:07 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
>
> 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 
> 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

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Jojo Iznart]

Sorry my friend, I find your writing style tedious and long-winded and very 
difficult to understand.  After reading, then rereading and then rereading it 
again, I still have difficulty trying to understand your point.  Please write 
in short, to the point sentences.


Jojo

  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: VORTEX 
  Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 6:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter


  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  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 be

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Peter Gluck]

th 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 
> *To:* VORTEX 
> *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 
> 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 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>> *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

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Axil Axil]

Rossi's reactor melts down all the time if he is not very careful. His main
problem is to keep the nickel from melting. He needs to keep the dynamic
NAE under control, in other words subcritical.

Its analogous to neutron production in a fission reactor. You don't want to
go supercritical in neutron production and you don't want to go
supercritical in dynamic NAE production,


On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I tried to make the article as simple to understand as I possible could,
> but it looks like I did not do it in your case. All I can tell you is read
> it again.
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  So, I read your link, but all I see is a lot of jargon and over 2 dozen
>> miracles.
>>
>> So, your claim is that the reaction consist of 2 stages, a static NAE
>> environment which starts the LENR process which then quickly get melted; at
>> which point, the Dynamic NAE takes over and continue the LENR process.  Am
>> I correct then, in my understanding of your theory,  that without the
>> existence of Static NAEs, the LENR will never bootstrap itself?
>>
>> If this is your claim, then I have a question that should be "easy" to
>> answer.  If Static NAEs nanowires are destroyed (melted) at the first pass
>> of the reaction.  How come the reactor can be stopped and restarted?  The
>> reactor should only be capable of being started once.  The first start
>> destroys all the Static NAEs making impossible to restart the LENR process
>> after it is shut down the first time.  Quite obviously that is not the case
>> with the hotcat.  Please enlighten us with another miracle to explain the
>> hotcat's ability to be restarted multiple times.
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Axil Axil 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 10:35 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
>>
>>  My friend, I have offered a challenge to you.  Please explain how the
>> nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high
>> temps.
>>
>> Please read
>>
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/08/lenr-and-nanoplasmonics.html
>>
>> They do not continue to exist.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  That is true my friend, and I personally enjoy the speculation.  But
>>> it seems to me that if your speculation is challenged and you can not give
>>> a satisfactory answer, it seems prudent to step back and reevaluate your
>>> assumptions.
>>>
>>> There is a difference between just speculating vs. clinging stubbornly
>>> to your speculation even when faced with insurmountable objections to your
>>> speculation.  The former is helpful, the latter is distraction and counter
>>> productive.
>>>
>>> My friend, I have offered a challenge to you.  Please explain how the
>>> nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high
>>> temps.  This challenge is valid and if it stands, it will totally discredit
>>> your speculation.  To me the right thing to do is to seriously consider
>>> this objection and maybe make adjustments to your speculations, instead of
>>> continuing to harp your speculations despite the strong case against it.
>>> This is what I find counter productive.
>>>
>>> We keep repeating our favorite mantra here in Vortex: "Experiment trumps
>>> theory".  Well your theory can not stand up to what we know about these
>>> LENR systems - especially what we know about Nickel physical properties.
>>> This is a big and valid objection,  It needs to be addressed and answered
>>> properly.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Axil Axil 
>>> *To:* vortex-l 
>>>  *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:19 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
>>>
>>> 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 
>>> 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 wit

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Axil Axil]

I tried to make the article as simple to understand as I possible could,
but it looks like I did not do it in your case. All I can tell you is read
it again.


On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  So, I read your link, but all I see is a lot of jargon and over 2 dozen
> miracles.
>
> So, your claim is that the reaction consist of 2 stages, a static NAE
> environment which starts the LENR process which then quickly get melted; at
> which point, the Dynamic NAE takes over and continue the LENR process.  Am
> I correct then, in my understanding of your theory,  that without the
> existence of Static NAEs, the LENR will never bootstrap itself?
>
> If this is your claim, then I have a question that should be "easy" to
> answer.  If Static NAEs nanowires are destroyed (melted) at the first pass
> of the reaction.  How come the reactor can be stopped and restarted?  The
> reactor should only be capable of being started once.  The first start
> destroys all the Static NAEs making impossible to restart the LENR process
> after it is shut down the first time.  Quite obviously that is not the case
> with the hotcat.  Please enlighten us with another miracle to explain the
> hotcat's ability to be restarted multiple times.
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 10:35 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
>
>  My friend, I have offered a challenge to you.  Please explain how the
> nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high
> temps.
>
> Please read
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/08/lenr-and-nanoplasmonics.html
>
> They do not continue to exist.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  That is true my friend, and I personally enjoy the speculation.  But it
>> seems to me that if your speculation is challenged and you can not give a
>> satisfactory answer, it seems prudent to step back and reevaluate your
>> assumptions.
>>
>> There is a difference between just speculating vs. clinging stubbornly to
>> your speculation even when faced with insurmountable objections to your
>> speculation.  The former is helpful, the latter is distraction and counter
>> productive.
>>
>> My friend, I have offered a challenge to you.  Please explain how the
>> nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high
>> temps.  This challenge is valid and if it stands, it will totally discredit
>> your speculation.  To me the right thing to do is to seriously consider
>> this objection and maybe make adjustments to your speculations, instead of
>> continuing to harp your speculations despite the strong case against it.
>> This is what I find counter productive.
>>
>> We keep repeating our favorite mantra here in Vortex: "Experiment trumps
>> theory".  Well your theory can not stand up to what we know about these
>> LENR systems - especially what we know about Nickel physical properties.
>> This is a big and valid objection,  It needs to be addressed and answered
>> properly.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* Axil Axil 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>>  *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:19 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
>>
>> 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 
>> 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
>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Jojo Iznart]

So, I read your link, but all I see is a lot of jargon and over 2 dozen 
miracles.

So, your claim is that the reaction consist of 2 stages, a static NAE 
environment which starts the LENR process which then quickly get melted; at 
which point, the Dynamic NAE takes over and continue the LENR process.  Am I 
correct then, in my understanding of your theory,  that without the existence 
of Static NAEs, the LENR will never bootstrap itself?

If this is your claim, then I have a question that should be "easy" to answer.  
If Static NAEs nanowires are destroyed (melted) at the first pass of the 
reaction.  How come the reactor can be stopped and restarted?  The reactor 
should only be capable of being started once.  The first start destroys all the 
Static NAEs making impossible to restart the LENR process after it is shut down 
the first time.  Quite obviously that is not the case with the hotcat.  Please 
enlighten us with another miracle to explain the hotcat's ability to be 
restarted multiple times.

Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 10:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter


  My friend, I have offered a challenge to you.  Please explain how the nickel 
nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high temps.  


  Please read


  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/08/lenr-and-nanoplasmonics.html


  They do not continue to exist.





  On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

That is true my friend, and I personally enjoy the speculation.  But it 
seems to me that if your speculation is challenged and you can not give a 
satisfactory answer, it seems prudent to step back and reevaluate your 
assumptions.

There is a difference between just speculating vs. clinging stubbornly to 
your speculation even when faced with insurmountable objections to your 
speculation.  The former is helpful, the latter is distraction and counter 
productive.

My friend, I have offered a challenge to you.  Please explain how the 
nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high 
temps.  This challenge is valid and if it stands, it will totally discredit 
your speculation.  To me the right thing to do is to seriously consider this 
objection and maybe make adjustments to your speculations, instead of 
continuing to harp your speculations despite the strong case against it.  This 
is what I find counter productive.

We keep repeating our favorite mantra here in Vortex: "Experiment trumps 
theory".  Well your theory can not stand up to what we know about these LENR 
systems - especially what we know about Nickel physical properties.  This is a 
big and valid objection,  It needs to be addressed and answered properly.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:19 AM
      Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter


  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  
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 
  To: vortex-l 
  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

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Axil Axil]

My friend, I have offered a challenge to you.  Please explain how the
nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high
temps.

Please read

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/08/lenr-and-nanoplasmonics.html

They do not continue to exist.



On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  That is true my friend, and I personally enjoy the speculation.  But it
> seems to me that if your speculation is challenged and you can not give a
> satisfactory answer, it seems prudent to step back and reevaluate your
> assumptions.
>
> There is a difference between just speculating vs. clinging stubbornly to
> your speculation even when faced with insurmountable objections to your
> speculation.  The former is helpful, the latter is distraction and counter
> productive.
>
> My friend, I have offered a challenge to you.  Please explain how the
> nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high
> temps.  This challenge is valid and if it stands, it will totally discredit
> your speculation.  To me the right thing to do is to seriously consider
> this objection and maybe make adjustments to your speculations, instead of
> continuing to harp your speculations despite the strong case against it.
> This is what I find counter productive.
>
> We keep repeating our favorite mantra here in Vortex: "Experiment trumps
> theory".  Well your theory can not stand up to what we know about these
> LENR systems - especially what we know about Nickel physical properties.
> This is a big and valid objection,  It needs to be addressed and answered
> properly.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:19 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
>
> 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 
> 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 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>>  *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 

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Jojo Iznart]

That is true my friend, and I personally enjoy the speculation.  But it seems 
to me that if your speculation is challenged and you can not give a 
satisfactory answer, it seems prudent to step back and reevaluate your 
assumptions.

There is a difference between just speculating vs. clinging stubbornly to your 
speculation even when faced with insurmountable objections to your speculation. 
 The former is helpful, the latter is distraction and counter productive.

My friend, I have offered a challenge to you.  Please explain how the nickel 
nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high temps.  
This challenge is valid and if it stands, it will totally discredit your 
speculation.  To me the right thing to do is to seriously consider this 
objection and maybe make adjustments to your speculations, instead of 
continuing to harp your speculations despite the strong case against it.  This 
is what I find counter productive.

We keep repeating our favorite mantra here in Vortex: "Experiment trumps 
theory".  Well your theory can not stand up to what we know about these LENR 
systems - especially what we know about Nickel physical properties.  This is a 
big and valid objection,  It needs to be addressed and answered properly.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:19 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter


  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  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 
  To: vortex-l 
  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

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Axil Axil]

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  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 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *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 
> 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 arg

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Jojo Iznart]

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 
  To: vortex-l 
  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  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 nan

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Axil Axil]

sed "science" of climate scaremongers.
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Peter Gluck 
> *To:* VORTEX 
> *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 
> 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 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>> *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
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Jojo Iznart]

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 
  To: VORTEX 
  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  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

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Lennart Thornros]

Kevin, l googled you and I can see we life rather close to each other. I
cannot remember ever doing any busines with you. If you find yourself
holding rudges , vortex is hardly the place to sttlethat. If you have any
hard feeloings , please address me via email and or telephone. I ensure you
that we can find a satisfactory answer or solution. If you rather keep
whatever feelings you have please keep them out of vortex. I personally
think one need to clear the airand not go around holdinggrudges, which in
the long runhurts nobody but yourself. I am as I said fine talking about
your problems whatever they are.
On Aug 8, 2014 9:55 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

> I know enough about your life that you need to get one.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is the
>> sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an analtyical
>> engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that
>> is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the
>> ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured out
>> how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by your
>> floskel.
>>  On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>
>>> Get a life, Lennart
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox
 logics. I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .".
  On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

> Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop
> throwing rocks at him.  Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros <
> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>> Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave
>> not asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you 
>> can
>> make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal 
>> vendetta. I
>> admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an
>> engineer as well.
>>  On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros <
>>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>>>
 OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
 management/leadership.

>>> ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did not go very
 well.

>>> ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid
>>> argument together and are basically a follower not a leader.
>>>
>>>
>>>
  I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I
 try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that 
 state
 of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite
 number of states.

>>> ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style:  You follow a
>>> crowd.  Not only that but you did not understand the original 
>>> contention.
>>> So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the
>>> first place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
 If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new
 states.

>>> ***Your friends are not correct.  You THINK we are looking for new
>>> states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been
>>> agreed in science.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for
 reasons beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding 
 of
 more hard to describe/understand states is required.

>>> ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning.  Recall
>>> my prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on
>>> your "leadership".
>>>
>>>
>>>
  The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament
 in my opinion.

>>> ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't
>>> worth much.
>>>
>>>
 It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a
 wide group of scientists.

>>> ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is
>>> not accepted by a wide group of scientists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories
 would propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the 
 attempt
 to disqualify othe theories whi

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Axil Axil]

I assert that the reactions seen by Nanospire and LeClair is LENR. It is
the kind of LENR that can produces high levels of gammas and neutrons. The
reason behind this strange type of LENR behavior is that the energy that
produce the cavitation bubbles comes from a pump. The water pump does not
produce nanoparticles like a spark does and nano particles are the carriers
of the BEC that shield radiation.


On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jojo Iznart  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 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *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.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Peter Gluck]

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  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 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *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

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Jojo Iznart]

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 
  To: vortex-l 
  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.

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

I know enough about your life that you need to get one.


On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is the
> sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an analtyical
> engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that
> is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the
> ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured out
> how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by your
> floskel.
> On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>> Get a life, Lennart
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox
>>> logics. I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .".
>>>  On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>>
 Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop
 throwing rocks at him.  Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this.


 On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros >>> > wrote:

> Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave not
> asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you can
> make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal vendetta. 
> I
> admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an
> engineer as well.
>  On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros <
>> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
>>> management/leadership.
>>>
>> ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either.
>>
>>
>>
>>> We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did not go very
>>> well.
>>>
>> ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid
>> argument together and are basically a follower not a leader.
>>
>>
>>
>>>  I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I
>>> try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that 
>>> state
>>> of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite
>>> number of states.
>>>
>> ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style:  You follow a
>> crowd.  Not only that but you did not understand the original contention.
>> So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the
>> first place.
>>
>>
>>
>>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
>>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new
>>> states.
>>>
>> ***Your friends are not correct.  You THINK we are looking for new
>> states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been
>> agreed in science.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for
>>> reasons beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding 
>>> of
>>> more hard to describe/understand states is required.
>>>
>> ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning.  Recall
>> my prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on
>> your "leadership".
>>
>>
>>
>>>  The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in
>>> my opinion.
>>>
>> ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't
>> worth much.
>>
>>
>>> It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a
>>> wide group of scientists.
>>>
>> ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is
>> not accepted by a wide group of scientists.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories
>>> would propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the 
>>> attempt
>>> to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up to theology 
>>> level..
>>>
>> ***I didn't say that AT ALL.  I don't see how you get that from what
>> I wrote.
>>
>>
>>
>>>  What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR.
>>>
>> ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR
>> observations.
>>
>>
>>
>>> They might be depending on which state of matter they are working
>>> in.
>>>
>> ***POTO.  (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are
>> saying something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention but
>> acting as if you're arguing against it.
>>
>>
>>> So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil,
>>> Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason
>>> one is b

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Lennart Thornros]

Kevin, you know nothing about my life. Even if you did your advice is the
sand box argument. It is totally withour references so as an analtyical
engineer you should stay away from such poorly founded arguments. If that
is not enough to motivate your way of behaving, I will give you the
ultimate reason to keep your opinion to yourself: if I have not figured out
how to have life at my age I will unlikely be motivated or educated by your
floskel.
On Aug 7, 2014 9:30 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

> Get a life, Lennart
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox logics.
>> I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .".
>>  On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>
>>> Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop
>>> throwing rocks at him.  Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave not
 asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you can
 make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal vendetta. I
 admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an
 engineer as well.
  On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros <
> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
>> management/leadership.
>>
> ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either.
>
>
>
>> We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did not go very well.
>>
> ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid
> argument together and are basically a follower not a leader.
>
>
>
>>  I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I try
>> is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that state of
>> matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite 
>> number
>> of states.
>>
> ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style:  You follow a
> crowd.  Not only that but you did not understand the original contention.
> So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the
> first place.
>
>
>
>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new
>> states.
>>
> ***Your friends are not correct.  You THINK we are looking for new
> states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been
> agreed in science.
>
>
>
>> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons
>> beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more 
>> hard
>> to describe/understand states is required.
>>
> ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning.  Recall my
> prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on your
> "leadership".
>
>
>
>>  The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in
>> my opinion.
>>
> ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't
> worth much.
>
>
>> It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a
>> wide group of scientists.
>>
> ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is
> not accepted by a wide group of scientists.
>
>
>
>> I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories
>> would propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the 
>> attempt
>> to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up to theology level..
>>
> ***I didn't say that AT ALL.  I don't see how you get that from what I
> wrote.
>
>
>
>>  What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR.
>>
> ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR
> observations.
>
>
>
>> They might be depending on which state of matter they are working in.
>>
> ***POTO.  (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are
> saying something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention but
> acting as if you're arguing against it.
>
>
>> So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil,
>> Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason
>> one is better?
>>
> ***Sounds good to me.  But how you got to the point that you somehow
> thought I was saying something different than this is utterly baffling.
>
>
>>  On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the lower r

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

Get a life, Lennart


On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox logics.
> I call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .".
>  On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>> Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop
>> throwing rocks at him.  Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave not
>>> asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you can
>>> make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal vendetta. I
>>> admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an
>>> engineer as well.
>>>  On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>>



 On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros >>> > wrote:

> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
> management/leadership.
>
 ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either.



> We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did not go very well.
>
 ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid
 argument together and are basically a follower not a leader.



>  I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I try
> is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that state of
> matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite 
> number
> of states.
>
 ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style:  You follow a
 crowd.  Not only that but you did not understand the original contention.
 So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the
 first place.



> First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new
> states.
>
 ***Your friends are not correct.  You THINK we are looking for new
 states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been
 agreed in science.



> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons
> beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more 
> hard
> to describe/understand states is required.
>
 ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning.  Recall my
 prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on your
 "leadership".



>  The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in
> my opinion.
>
 ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't
 worth much.


> It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a
> wide group of scientists.
>
 ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is
 not accepted by a wide group of scientists.



> I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories
> would propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the 
> attempt
> to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up to theology level..
>
 ***I didn't say that AT ALL.  I don't see how you get that from what I
 wrote.



>  What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR.
>
 ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR
 observations.



> They might be depending on which state of matter they are working in.
>
 ***POTO.  (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are saying
 something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention but acting as
 if you're arguing against it.


> So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil,
> Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason
> one is better?
>
 ***Sounds good to me.  But how you got to the point that you somehow
 thought I was saying something different than this is utterly baffling.


>  On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
> wrote:
>
>> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are
>> only 4 sates of matter (traditionally):  solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.
>> Trying to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven
>> fruitless, although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not
>> understand.
>>
>> Is an arc a plasma?  My readings tell me:  sometimes.
>>
>> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from
>> one of these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them).
>>
>> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet
>> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time.
>>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Lennart Thornros]

I know Kevin your reasoning is picked froom preschoolers. Sandbox logics. I
call it and it goes like:"My dad is bigger than yours . . .".
 On Aug 6, 2014 10:33 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

> Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop throwing
> rocks at him.  Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave not
>> asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you can
>> make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal vendetta. I
>> admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an
>> engineer as well.
>>  On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
 management/leadership.

>>> ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did not go very well.

>>> ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid
>>> argument together and are basically a follower not a leader.
>>>
>>>
>>>
  I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I try
 is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that state of
 matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite number
 of states.

>>> ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style:  You follow a
>>> crowd.  Not only that but you did not understand the original contention.
>>> So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the
>>> first place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
 If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new
 states.

>>> ***Your friends are not correct.  You THINK we are looking for new
>>> states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been
>>> agreed in science.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons
 beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more hard
 to describe/understand states is required.

>>> ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning.  Recall my
>>> prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on your
>>> "leadership".
>>>
>>>
>>>
  The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my
 opinion.

>>> ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't
>>> worth much.
>>>
>>>
 It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a
 wide group of scientists.

>>> ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is not
>>> accepted by a wide group of scientists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories
 would propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the attempt
 to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up to theology level..

>>> ***I didn't say that AT ALL.  I don't see how you get that from what I
>>> wrote.
>>>
>>>
>>>
  What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR.

>>> ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR
>>> observations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 They might be depending on which state of matter they are working in.

>>> ***POTO.  (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are saying
>>> something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention but acting as
>>> if you're arguing against it.
>>>
>>>
 So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil,
 Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason
 one is better?

>>> ***Sounds good to me.  But how you got to the point that you somehow
>>> thought I was saying something different than this is utterly baffling.
>>>
>>>
  On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are
> only 4 sates of matter (traditionally):  solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.
> Trying to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven
> fruitless, although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not
> understand.
>
> Is an arc a plasma?  My readings tell me:  sometimes.
>
> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one
> of these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them).
>
> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet
> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene 
> wrote:
>
>>  *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>>
>>
>>
>> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:
>>
>> Solid
>> Liquid
>>
>> Gas
>>
>>>

RE: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Jones Beene]

From: Kevin O'Malley 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luttinger_liquid
What do you think?  


For application to LENR, a 1D state of fermions (presumably found inside
CNT) would need to apply to protons at elevated temperature. As is the case
with the BEC, we can get around the cryogenic restriction by viewing the
state as transitory at higher temperatures. It probably would help to have a
magnetic field, and to have the CNT arranged parallel to the field lines in
order to limit freedom of movement (in the same way as cryogenics limits
freedom of movement).

The best proof would be something like a variant of Cravens experiment,
where “activated carbon” is replaced with CNT. I would love to see this
done. If I had the funds, it would be near the top of the list.
<>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

Jones:

Interesting comment on Luttinger Liquid.

Note that the Wikipedia entry for Luttinger Liquid


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luttinger_liquid
*
 shows the current "known" states of matter as:

States of matter 
Solid * ·*Liquid
* ·*Gas
* ·*Plasma
* ·*Bose–Einstein
condensate 
* ·*Bose gas * ·*Fermionic condensate
* ·*Fermi gas
* ·*Fermi liquid
* ·*Supersolid
* ·*Superfluidity
* ·**Luttinger liquid*

Among the hallmark features of a Luttinger liquid are the following:

   - The response of the charge
    (or particle
   ) density to some
   external perturbation are waves ("plasmons
   " - or charge density waves)
   propagating at a velocity that is determined by the strength of the
   interaction and the average density. For a non-interacting system, this
   wave velocity is equal to the Fermi velocity
   , while it is higher
   (lower) for repulsive (attractive) interactions among the fermions.


   - Likewise, there are spin density waves (whose velocity, to lowest
   approximation, is equal to the unperturbed Fermi velocity). These propagate
   independently from the charge density waves. This fact is known as
*spin-charge
   separation *.


   - Charge  and spin
    waves are the
   elementary excitations of the Luttinger liquid, unlike the quasiparticles
    of the Fermi liquid (which
   carry both spin and charge). The mathematical description becomes very
   simple in terms of these waves (solving the one-dimensional wave equation
   ), and most of the work
   consists in transforming back to obtain the properties of the particles
   themselves (or treating impurities and other situations where '
   backscattering ' is
   important). See bosonization 
   for one technique used.


   - Even at zero temperature, the particles' momentum distribution
   function does not display a sharp jump, in contrast to the Fermi liquid
   (where this jump indicates the Fermi surface).


   - There is no 'quasiparticle peak' in the momentum-dependent spectral
   function (i.e. no peak whose width becomes much smaller than the excitation
   energy above the Fermi level, as is the case for the Fermi liquid).
   Instead, there is a power-law singularity, with a 'non-universal' exponent
   that depends on the interaction strength.


   - Around impurities, there are the usual Friedel oscillations
    in the charge
   density, at a wavevector 
of [image:
   2 k_\text{F}]. However, in contrast to the Fermi liquid, their decay at
   large distances is governed by yet another interaction-dependent exponent.


   - At small temperatures, the scattering off these Friedel oscillations
   becomes so efficient that the effective strength of the impurity is
   renormalized to infinity, 'pinching off' the quantum wire. More precisely,
   the conductance becomes zero as temperature and transport voltage go to
   zero (and rises like a power law in voltage and temperature, with an
   interaction-dependent exponent).


   - Likewise, the tunneling rate into a Luttinger liquid is suppressed to
   zero at low voltages and temperatures, as a power law
   .

And recently I ran across this paper that discovered a NEGATIVE 1d Coulomb
drag in a LL, strongly hinting at how the Coulomb Barrier is overcome in
1DLL's.


What do you think?


recent obser-
vation of an unpredicted low-density negative one-dimensional Coulomb drag
http://gervaislab.mcgill.ca/Laroche_PhD_Thesis.pdf






On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> BTW – in looking at LENR specifically relative to novel states, even the
> long Wiki list overlooks an important state of matter – the Cooper pair.
>
> The list composer will probably say that this is not really a new state of
> matter, but it could be. Same with Luttinger liquid. Also, they did not
> list
> “dense hy

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

Lennart, if you don't want an alligator to snap at you, then stop throwing
rocks at him.  Even preschoolers know the wisdom of this.


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave not
> asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you can
> make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal vendetta. I
> admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an
> engineer as well.
> On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
>>> management/leadership.
>>>
>> ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either.
>>
>>
>>
>>> We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did not go very well.
>>>
>> ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid argument
>> together and are basically a follower not a leader.
>>
>>
>>
>>>  I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I try is
>>> because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that state of
>>> matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite number
>>> of states.
>>>
>> ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style:  You follow a
>> crowd.  Not only that but you did not understand the original contention.
>> So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the
>> first place.
>>
>>
>>
>>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
>>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new states.
>>>
>> ***Your friends are not correct.  You THINK we are looking for new
>> states, but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been
>> agreed in science.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons
>>> beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more hard
>>> to describe/understand states is required.
>>>
>> ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning.  Recall my
>> prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on your
>> "leadership".
>>
>>
>>
>>>  The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my
>>> opinion.
>>>
>> ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't
>> worth much.
>>
>>
>>> It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a wide
>>> group of scientists.
>>>
>> ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is not
>> accepted by a wide group of scientists.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories
>>> would propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the attempt
>>> to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up to theology level..
>>>
>> ***I didn't say that AT ALL.  I don't see how you get that from what I
>> wrote.
>>
>>
>>
>>>  What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR.
>>>
>> ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR observations.
>>
>>
>>
>>> They might be depending on which state of matter they are working in.
>>>
>> ***POTO.  (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are saying
>> something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention but acting as
>> if you're arguing against it.
>>
>>
>>> So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil,
>>> Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason
>>> one is better?
>>>
>> ***Sounds good to me.  But how you got to the point that you somehow
>> thought I was saying something different than this is utterly baffling.
>>
>>
>>>  On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>>
 If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are
 only 4 sates of matter (traditionally):  solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.
 Trying to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven
 fruitless, although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not
 understand.

 Is an arc a plasma?  My readings tell me:  sometimes.

 I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one
 of these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them).

 Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet
 mind-numbingly complex all at the same time.


 On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene 
 wrote:

>  *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>
>
>
> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:
>
> Solid
> Liquid
>
> Gas
>
> Plasma
>
> Bose-Einstein Condensate
>
>  It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would
> occur as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially
> when plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special
> case of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other s

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Lennart Thornros]

Kevin, it is not worth a comment. You are just judgemental. Inhave not
asked you to have an opinion about my capacity, still you think you can
make judgements. Sorry, keep to the subject not to any personal vendetta. I
admit my shortcomings in science although I am from the beginning an
engineer as well.
On Aug 6, 2014 9:04 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
>> management/leadership.
>>
> ***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either.
>
>
>
>> We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did not go very well.
>>
> ***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid argument
> together and are basically a follower not a leader.
>
>
>
>>  I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I try is
>> because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that state of
>> matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite number
>> of states.
>>
> ***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style:  You follow a
> crowd.  Not only that but you did not understand the original contention.
> So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the
> first place.
>
>
>
>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new states.
>>
> ***Your friends are not correct.  You THINK we are looking for new states,
> but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been agreed in
> science.
>
>
>
>> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons
>> beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more hard
>> to describe/understand states is required.
>>
> ***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning.  Recall my
> prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on your
> "leadership".
>
>
>
>>  The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my
>> opinion.
>>
> ***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't worth
> much.
>
>
>> It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a wide
>> group of scientists.
>>
> ***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is not
> accepted by a wide group of scientists.
>
>
>
>> I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories would
>> propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the attempt to
>> disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up to theology level..
>>
> ***I didn't say that AT ALL.  I don't see how you get that from what I
> wrote.
>
>
>
>>  What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR.
>>
> ***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR observations.
>
>
>
>> They might be depending on which state of matter they are working in.
>>
> ***POTO.  (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are saying
> something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention but acting as
> if you're arguing against it.
>
>
>> So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil, Jones,
>> etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason one is
>> better?
>>
> ***Sounds good to me.  But how you got to the point that you somehow
> thought I was saying something different than this is utterly baffling.
>
>
>>  On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are only
>>> 4 sates of matter (traditionally):  solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.  Trying
>>> to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven fruitless,
>>> although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not understand.
>>>
>>> Is an arc a plasma?  My readings tell me:  sometimes.
>>>
>>> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one
>>> of these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them).
>>>
>>> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet
>>> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>>
  *From:* Kevin O'Malley



 Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:

 Solid
 Liquid

 Gas

 Plasma

 Bose-Einstein Condensate

  It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would
 occur as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially
 when plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special
 case of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of
 matter being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero Point
 Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in
 mainstream physics.

 Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly or
 wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that electrons
 exi

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
> management/leadership.
>
***Oh Lennart, you obviously know little about either.



> We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did not go very well.
>
***Yes, because you are a poor manager/leader, can't put a solid argument
together and are basically a follower not a leader.



> I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. Reason I try is
> because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me that state of
> matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an infinite number
> of states.
>
***Once again you demonstrate your "leadership" style:  You follow a
crowd.  Not only that but you did not understand the original contention.
So you're barking up the wrong tree and you shouldn't be barking in the
first place.



> First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new states.
>
***Your friends are not correct.  You THINK we are looking for new states,
but in reality we are simply trying to nail down what has been agreed in
science.



> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons
> beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more hard
> to describe/understand states is required.
>
***Umm... yeah, but your statement has very little meaning.  Recall my
prior criticisms of you on this subject and how poorly it reflects on your
"leadership".



> The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my
> opinion.
>
***You do not know what you are talking about, so your opinion isn't worth
much.


> It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by a wide
> group of scientists.
>
***What you don't seem to realize is that the whole field of LENR is not
accepted by a wide group of scientists.



> I think a more humble aproach where taking pieces from all theories would
> propel the search for a solution forward much faster than the attempt to
> disqualify othe theories while lifting ones own up to theology level..
>
***I didn't say that AT ALL.  I don't see how you get that from what I
wrote.



> What I say is that there might be many forms of LENR.
>
***Okay, nothing controversial here in terms of current LENR observations.



> They might be depending on which state of matter they are working in.
>
***POTO.  (Pointing Out The Obvious). But not only that, you are saying
something DIRECTLY in agreement with my original contention but acting as
if you're arguing against it.


> So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil, Jones,
> etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason one is
> better?
>
***Sounds good to me.  But how you got to the point that you somehow
thought I was saying something different than this is utterly baffling.


> On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are only
>> 4 sates of matter (traditionally):  solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.  Trying
>> to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven fruitless,
>> although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not understand.
>>
>> Is an arc a plasma?  My readings tell me:  sometimes.
>>
>> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one of
>> these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them).
>>
>> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet
>> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>>  *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:
>>>
>>> Solid
>>> Liquid
>>>
>>> Gas
>>>
>>> Plasma
>>>
>>> Bose-Einstein Condensate
>>>
>>>  It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would occur
>>> as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially when
>>> plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special case
>>> of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of matter
>>> being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero Point
>>> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in
>>> mainstream physics.
>>>
>>> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly or
>>> wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that electrons
>>> exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to macro
>>> reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a few
>>> more.
>>>
>>> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether
>>>
>>> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars
>>>
>>> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely
>>> already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Axil Axil]

I believe that the P&F effect is caused by arc discharge and cavitation.
The PdD fusion theories are all totally and uniformly wrong. Such an
revolutionary idea cannot even be considered as serious because of all the
investments in ego that these current invalid PdD theories involve. This
rejection of current P&F theory is a bridge too far. Progress in this area
must wait until NiH is better understood and can serve as theoretical
support for a valid PdD theory.


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> I understand that and I agree with you Axil. Although I think it would
> benefit to bring forward the similarities rather than what is impossible as
> it does not comply with what I myself think. If one already have all the
> answers, then it is meaningless to argue about what is wrong in others
> ideas. If there is doubt I think acceptance of other ideas is good and then
> find out if perhaps their is something wrong with why those two theories
> cannot coexist. If you solve the reaon why they may not coexist it is my
> believe that you either find out one IS wrong or the reason why they cannot
> coexist is wrong.
> Many ideas is just fine with me. I might have expressed myself poorly so
> thanks for letting me explain.
> On Aug 6, 2014 12:44 PM, "Axil Axil"  wrote:
>
>> *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.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
>>> management/leadership. We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did
>>> not go very well. I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared.
>>> Reason I try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me
>>> that state of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an
>>> infinite number of states.
>>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
>>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new
>>> states. Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for
>>> reasons beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of
>>> more hard to describe/understand states is required.
>>> 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. I think a more humble aproach where taking
>>> pieces from all theories would propel the search for a solution forward
>>> much faster than the attempt to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones
>>> own up to theology level.. What I say is that there might be many forms of
>>> LENR. They might be depending on which state of matter they are working
>>> in.  So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil,
>>> Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason
>>> one is better?
>>>  On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>>
 If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are
 only 4 sates of matter (traditionally):  solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.
 Trying to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven
 fruitless, although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not
 understand.

 Is an arc a plasma?  My readings tell me:  sometimes.

 I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one
 of these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them).

 Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet
 mind-numbingly complex all at the same time.


 On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene 
 wrote:

>  *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>
>
>
> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:
>
> Solid
> Liquid
>
> Gas
>
> Plasma
>
> Bose-Einstein Condensate
>
>  It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would
> occur as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially
> when plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special
> case of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of
> matter being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero Point
> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in
> mainstream physics.
>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Lennart Thornros]

I understand that and I agree with you Axil. Although I think it would
benefit to bring forward the similarities rather than what is impossible as
it does not comply with what I myself think. If one already have all the
answers, then it is meaningless to argue about what is wrong in others
ideas. If there is doubt I think acceptance of other ideas is good and then
find out if perhaps their is something wrong with why those two theories
cannot coexist. If you solve the reaon why they may not coexist it is my
believe that you either find out one IS wrong or the reason why they cannot
coexist is wrong.
Many ideas is just fine with me. I might have expressed myself poorly so
thanks for letting me explain.
On Aug 6, 2014 12:44 PM, "Axil Axil"  wrote:

> *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.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
>> management/leadership. We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did
>> not go very well. I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared.
>> Reason I try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me
>> that state of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an
>> infinite number of states.
>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new states.
>> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons
>> beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more hard
>> to describe/understand states is required.
>> 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. I think a more humble aproach where taking
>> pieces from all theories would propel the search for a solution forward
>> much faster than the attempt to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones
>> own up to theology level.. What I say is that there might be many forms of
>> LENR. They might be depending on which state of matter they are working
>> in.  So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil,
>> Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason
>> one is better?
>>  On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are only
>>> 4 sates of matter (traditionally):  solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.  Trying
>>> to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven fruitless,
>>> although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not understand.
>>>
>>> Is an arc a plasma?  My readings tell me:  sometimes.
>>>
>>> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one
>>> of these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them).
>>>
>>> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet
>>> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>>
  *From:* Kevin O'Malley



 Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:

 Solid
 Liquid

 Gas

 Plasma

 Bose-Einstein Condensate

  It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would
 occur as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially
 when plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special
 case of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of
 matter being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero Point
 Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in
 mainstream physics.

 Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly or
 wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that electrons
 exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to macro
 reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a few
 more.

 Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether

 Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars

 PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely
 already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
>>>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Axil Axil]

*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.



On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
> management/leadership. We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did
> not go very well. I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared.
> Reason I try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me
> that state of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an
> infinite number of states.
> First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new states.
> Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons
> beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more hard
> to describe/understand states is required.
> 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. I think a more humble aproach where taking
> pieces from all theories would propel the search for a solution forward
> much faster than the attempt to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones
> own up to theology level.. What I say is that there might be many forms of
> LENR. They might be depending on which state of matter they are working
> in.  So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil,
> Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason
> one is better?
> On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are only
>> 4 sates of matter (traditionally):  solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.  Trying
>> to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven fruitless,
>> although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not understand.
>>
>> Is an arc a plasma?  My readings tell me:  sometimes.
>>
>> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one of
>> these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them).
>>
>> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet
>> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>>  *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:
>>>
>>> Solid
>>> Liquid
>>>
>>> Gas
>>>
>>> Plasma
>>>
>>> Bose-Einstein Condensate
>>>
>>>  It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would occur
>>> as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially when
>>> plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special case
>>> of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of matter
>>> being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero Point
>>> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in
>>> mainstream physics.
>>>
>>> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly or
>>> wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that electrons
>>> exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to macro
>>> reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a few
>>> more.
>>>
>>> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether
>>>
>>> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars
>>>
>>> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely
>>> already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Lennart Thornros]

OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about
management/leadership. We had a talk about my subject not long ago.  It did
not go very well. I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared.
Reason I try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me
that state of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an
infinite number of states.
First of all help me understand what is more accurate.
If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new states.
Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for reasons
beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of more hard
to describe/understand states is required.
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. I think a more humble aproach where taking
pieces from all theories would propel the search for a solution forward
much faster than the attempt to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones
own up to theology level.. What I say is that there might be many forms of
LENR. They might be depending on which state of matter they are working
in.  So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil,
Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason
one is better?
On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are only 4
> sates of matter (traditionally):  solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.  Trying
> to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven fruitless,
> although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not understand.
>
> Is an arc a plasma?  My readings tell me:  sometimes.
>
> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one of
> these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them).
>
> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet
> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>>
>>
>>
>> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:
>>
>> Solid
>> Liquid
>>
>> Gas
>>
>> Plasma
>>
>> Bose-Einstein Condensate
>>
>>  It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would occur
>> as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially when plasma
>> might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special case of
>> Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of matter
>> being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero Point
>> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in
>> mainstream physics.
>>
>> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly or
>> wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that electrons
>> exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to macro
>> reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a few
>> more.
>>
>> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether
>>
>> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars
>>
>> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely
>> already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are only 4
sates of matter (traditionally):  solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.  Trying
to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven fruitless,
although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not understand.

Is an arc a plasma?  My readings tell me:  sometimes.

I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one of
these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them).

Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet
mind-numbingly complex all at the same time.


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>
>
>
> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:
>
> Solid
> Liquid
>
> Gas
>
> Plasma
>
> Bose-Einstein Condensate
>
>  It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would occur
> as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially when plasma
> might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special case of
> Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of matter
> being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero Point
> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in
> mainstream physics.
>
> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly or
> wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that electrons
> exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to macro
> reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a few
> more.
>
> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether
>
> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars
>
> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely
> already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

And also whatsa matter


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> You forgot doesn't matter
>
>
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>>
>>
>>
>> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:
>>
>> Solid
>> Liquid
>>
>> Gas
>>
>> Plasma
>>
>> Bose-Einstein Condensate
>>
>>  It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would occur
>> as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially when plasma
>> might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special case of
>> Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of matter
>> being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero Point
>> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in
>> mainstream physics.
>>
>> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly or
>> wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that electrons
>> exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to macro
>> reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a few
>> more.
>>
>> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether
>>
>> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars
>>
>> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely
>> already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

Good wiki list.  So... how many states of matter exist now?  And how many
of those are peculiar to metal hydrides?


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>
>
>
> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:
>
> Solid
> Liquid
>
> Gas
>
> Plasma
>
> Bose-Einstein Condensate
>
>  It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would occur
> as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially when plasma
> might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special case of
> Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of matter
> being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero Point
> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in
> mainstream physics.
>
> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly or
> wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that electrons
> exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to macro
> reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a few
> more.
>
> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether
>
> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars
>
> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely
> already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

 In fact, the Cooper pair
could include dense hydrogen, which
***Well? Don't leave us hanging in suspense...


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> BTW – in looking at LENR specifically relative to novel states, even the
> long Wiki list overlooks an important state of matter – the Cooper pair.
>
> The list composer will probably say that this is not really a new state of
> matter, but it could be. Same with Luttinger liquid. Also, they did not
> list
> “dense hydrogen” or Rydberg matter, which we have used to describe several
> species- including f/H (fraction hydrogen or hydrino)… IRH (inverted
> Rydberg
> hydrogen)… and the DDL or Deep Dirac Level of hydrogen aka – virtual
> neutron.
>
> The definition of Cooper pair is broadening beyond electrons. In a nickel
> cavity, a cooper pair of protons could be possible. In fact, the Cooper
> pair
> could include dense hydrogen, which
>
>
> From: Jones Beene
>
> From: Kevin O'Malley
>
> Currently we only have 5 known states of
> matter:
> Solid
> Liquid
> Gas
> Plasma
> Bose-Einstein Condensate
> It would make sense that something as
> unfathomable as LENR would occur as the newest & least understood state of
> matter….Especially when plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs
> in a very special case of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there
> other states of matter being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero
> Point Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight
> in mainstream physics.
> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can
> be partly or wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence
> that electrons exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the
> candidates
> to macro reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are
> a few more.
> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE,
> Aether
> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars
> PS… after starting this list, it occurred
> to
> me that Wiki most likely already has such a list, and indeed it can be
> found
> here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Jones Beene]

BTW – in looking at LENR specifically relative to novel states, even the
long Wiki list overlooks an important state of matter – the Cooper pair. 

The list composer will probably say that this is not really a new state of
matter, but it could be. Same with Luttinger liquid. Also, they did not list
“dense hydrogen” or Rydberg matter, which we have used to describe several
species- including f/H (fraction hydrogen or hydrino)… IRH (inverted Rydberg
hydrogen)… and the DDL or Deep Dirac Level of hydrogen aka – virtual
neutron.

The definition of Cooper pair is broadening beyond electrons. In a nickel
cavity, a cooper pair of protons could be possible. In fact, the Cooper pair
could include dense hydrogen, which


From: Jones Beene 

From: Kevin O'Malley 

Currently we only have 5 known states of
matter:
Solid
Liquid
Gas
Plasma
Bose-Einstein Condensate
It would make sense that something as
unfathomable as LENR would occur as the newest & least understood state of
matter….Especially when plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs
in a very special case of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there
other states of matter being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero
Point Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight
in mainstream physics.  
Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can
be partly or wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence
that electrons exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates
to macro reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are
a few more.
Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE,
Aether
Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars
PS… after starting this list, it occurred to
me that Wiki most likely already has such a list, and indeed it can be found
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter

 

<>

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[ChemE Stewart]

You forgot doesn't matter

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>
>
>
> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:
>
> Solid
> Liquid
>
> Gas
>
> Plasma
>
> Bose-Einstein Condensate
>
>  It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would occur
> as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially when plasma
> might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special case of
> Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of matter
> being postulated at this point?  Some of the Zero Point
> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in
> mainstream physics.
>
> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly or
> wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that electrons
> exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to macro
> reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a few
> more.
>
> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether
>
> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars
>
> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely
> already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Jones Beene]

From: Kevin O'Malley 

 

Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:

Solid
Liquid

Gas

Plasma

Bose-Einstein Condensate



It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would occur as the 
newest & least understood state of matter….Especially when plasma might be 
involved, and the situation occurs in a very special case of Condensed Matter 
Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of matter being postulated at this 
point?  Some of the Zero Point Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it 
does not hold weight in mainstream physics.  

Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly or wholly 
in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that electrons exist 
partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to macro reality (no 
subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a few more.

Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether

Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars

PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely already 
has such a list, and indeed it can be found here 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter

 

 

 

[Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

Currently we only have 5 known states of matter:
Solid
Liquid
Gas
Plasma
Bose-Einstein Condensate


It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would occur as
the newest & least understood state of matter.

Especially when plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a
very special case of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics.

Are there other states of matter being postulated at this point?  Some of
the Zero Point Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not
hold weight in mainstream physics.

It strikes me that a combination of plasma physics and BECs (i.e., the
formation of sparks and a linear Luttinger Liquid formation of a BEC inside
a plasma) might seal this mystery.