Once again, I suggest Swartz send copies of his papers or links to his site rather than complaining.
Regards,
Ed
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 12:47 PM 8/21/2004, Ed Storms wrote:
> I have no idea how Mitchell thinks. I and Jed on numerous occasions have
asked him for copies of his work. On the few occasions when he responded,
the files were not in the right format to upload. He was told of this
problem, but he never sent proper formats. The LENR-CANR site wants his work
if he will provide it.
Not sure what Dr. Ed Storms, means. However, his comment
and the truth both require a detailed response and do herald awareness
into how HE thinks.
Ed is a nice talented scientist and fellow who seeks sway in a situation
where thereafter there has appeared censorship. He then switches to side
matter and protests that other things were posted. However, after HIS
second comment, in fact, it appears that they were posted erroneously (vide infra).In this case, Ed Storms' inaccurate precipitating post is
at variance with the fact that Ed and Jed received SEVERAL copies of several
works. The copies were in SEVERAL formats, received several
ways. They dynamic duo had no trouble with the upload because
there were subsequent e-mails discussing receipt, and personal conversations.
I am posting this because I wasted considerable time on them about this
and will NOT do it again.So instead of what is claimed now by Ed, in this case Ed Storms and
Jed Rothwell DID get SEVERAL copies of the abstracts
and then all three ICCF-10 papers. Each time it was
in several formats. They most importantly got them in pdf like they do put up.
In addition, they also got them in hard-copy by snail mail AND by hand.
They got them by email, so reasonable people might reasonably expect
that at least the titles would have gotten up to the purported ICCF-10 website.
Maybe even one or two of the three papers? Nope.Not in over one year did even one of the three (3) papers titles even show up
at their site (which they have purported is the Official ICCF-10 site).
This absence was in the prism of light involving that fact that both
Storms and Rothwell perhaps have had a dozen copies of the abstracts
and papers between them, over time. Unfortunately, to them,
the deliver and received information was for THEM,
and not the general cold fusion community, as intended.Q.E.D.
Chapter 2 -
Unfortunately, after examining Ed claim up close, it appears to
be corrupted information. Conclusion: Ed controls what appears to be an inaccurate website.
For example, consider the 25 actual publications listed attributed to me (or us)
which albeit is a moderate sample [perhaps someone will compare
the following to some of Dr. Storms' own papers ;-)XThere were the following irregularities, which must be consider given that
the text were in hand to them both by CV and each paper, too,
and also at the JET website at http://world.std.com/~mica/jetrefs.html .
Simply put, the preliminary analysis of accuracy at the LENR-CANR site (as of 8/22/04)
by category, is not good. On the gripping hand, not as bad as a broken clock,
but in at least one category (see below), some could get wealthy putting their money on
a pecking chicken, which would have a considerable chance to do better.8% of the LENR-CANR references supposedly to articles by us are inaccurate about the date
or had the date removed AFTER Dr. Storms and Jed Rothwell received the information.8% of the LENR-CANR references supposedly to articles by us are inaccurate about the journal
and had the journal name removed (including the late Dr. Mallove's Infinite Energy)
even AFTER Dr. Storms and Jed Rothwell received the information.28% of the LENR-CANR references supposedly to articles by us are inaccurate about the journal volume
and had the journal volume removed AFTER Dr. Storms and Jed Rothwell received the information.24% of the LENR-CANR references supposedly to articles by us are inaccurate about the page number,
and had the journal volume changed or removed AFTER Dr. Storms and Jed Rothwell received the information.68% of the LENR-CANR references supposedly to articles by us are inaccurate about
whether the article was theoretical or experimental. Any pet salamander could do better than this.40% of the LENR-CANR references supposedly to articles by us are inaccurate about the keyword error.
Some are so serious that I am electing to show the entire preliminary analysis, which is listed below.8% of the LENR-CANR references supposedly to articles by us are inaccurate and have left out the
second reference or had some other significant error using the system which appears to be used
at LENR-CANR website.One of the LENR-CANR references supposedly to articles by us had its TITLE changed.
On the other hand, the LENR-CANR web in this limited analysis (driven by
Dr. Storms' comments) was accurate about ~10.7% to 12% of the time,
so there is considerable opportunity for improvement there.Dr. Mitchell Swartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
