At 10:53 AM 9/17/2005, Ed Storms wrote:
I have found it impossible to have a discussion with Dr. Swartz because no
matter what is said, he will not change his mind.
Edmund's projections again
Ed refused to observe the Optimal operating points which I pointed out to
him.
His own data demonstrated that precisely. Of course, Ed still refuses to
acknowledge them because there follows engineering.
Proof (especially **,***):
1. Swartz, M.R. Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel Light
Water Experiments.
in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver,
Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT.
2. ** Swartz, M.R., Generality of Optimal Operating Point Behavior in Low
Energy Nuclear Systems. J. New Energy, 1999. 4(2): p. 218-228.
3. Swartz, M.R., et al. Importance of nondimensional numbers in cold
fusion. in Symposium on New Energy. 1999. Salt Lake City, UT.
4. *** Swartz. M., G. Verner, "Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity
Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt
and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices", ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of
ICCF-10, (2003).
==============================================
Nevertheless, for those people who read Vortex, Jed and I have no
business relationship.
More rewriting of history, Ed? The word was 'company'.
definition: Company; "1. an association with another"
"2. a group of persons or
things" after Websters.
Presumably, at least in his better moments, Dr. Storms is 'another"
and/or a 'person'.
"The answer is a mirror of the question" - Cogitor Kwyna
===============================================
The website is a mutual effort for the benefit of the scientific
community. It is not a company.
See above.
definition: Company; "1. an association with another"
"2. a group of persons or
things" after Websters.
===============================================
Saying that the website is misnamed is just as pointless as for me to
say that Dr. Swartz is misnamed.
Thank you for the ad hominems, Edmund.
And to think it was because I merely pointed out that the cold fusion
nuclear reactions are NOT 'low energy".
It is true. They are high energy. More than 20 Million electron volts for
the heavy water --> helium reactions.
Proof:
Swartz, M.R., Phusons in nuclear reactions in solids. Fusion Technol.,
1997. 31: p. 228.
Ed, you always throw these ad hominems when you have no science to
support yourself.
[Perhaps if I promised to vote Ed's anti-Bush politics, his appreciation
of science
and facts would improve? ]
===============================================
Also, the charge of censorship, which Swartz is obsessed with, is getting
very old. Both Jed and I have told Swartz that anything he submits to the
website will be placed on the website. We have no reason to censor his
work. In addition, if he knows of any paper that is not on the site, which
he thinks should be, he only needs to send a copy to Jed.
Ed
The issue was censorship by Ed Storms which has been proven -- even
corroborated by the
late Dr. Eugene Mallove, by Prof. Peter Hagelstein, by several of those
censored who contacted
me by email, and even by Jed Rothwell who corroborated such in private
email to me.
We previously sent copies of our papers to Jed [in hand, by CD-ROM, by
email, etc.]
who admitted that Edmund Storms censored EVEN their titles.
Incredibly, thereafter, Mr. Rothwell demanded to be able to EDIT them.
Jed was given PDF files which he could not edit, and to this day, he has
insisted that they be
in ASCII so that he may edit them.
That is, and was, not acceptable. His computer programming background is
irrelevant.
Over the years, Jed has made serious errors in his reports and
translations, at least
twice confusing 'anode' and 'cathode' and more.
And finally, the issues of LENR's previous censorship and past demands
for editing are OLD ISSUES.
It is time to move forward.
"Learn from the past - don't wear it like a yoke around your neck" -
Cogitor Reticulus
Nor is this 'plausible deniability' apparently isolated. Rather, it
appears to be their SOP.
Similarly, Ed Storms also has a history of claiming he 'works alone'
even when others have given him money, support and equipment.
For example, confer:
"Dr. Storms is not currently engaged in research in this field as a
"solitary endeavor" nor is he a "lone garage scientist"
nor is he a "lone scientist" working on his own. ...."
http://www.makezine.com/03/interview/
Q.E.D.
"Overly organized research is confining, and guaranteed to
produce nothing new" - Tio Holtzman
