And those of you on both sides of this, including Dr. Schwartz, failed to
see/acknowledge that the 'claims' that Krivit was reporting were QUOTES from
OTHER LENR researchers (W&L???). 

 

For example:

[researcher#1]

"New Energy Times had received a tip from a LENR researcher that the gain
was 18 milliwatts."

 

[Krivit, restating researcher#2]

"Today, another LENR researcher provided us with Swartz's data. The first
researcher was off, but not by much. It was 80 milliwatts, not 18."

 

[#1 or #2???, not Krivit]

"In 23 years, he has yet to sustain anything more than 1 watt. There is
little in Swartz's work to get excited about."

 

[Krivit]

The second researcher, who provided Swartz's slides today, wrote this
comment to me in an e-mail:

[researcher#2]

"When you look at the data, you can see, barely, a 1 degree C temperature
rise for about three minutes, using about 12 mW of input power to produce
less than 100 milliwatts of heat. This is not a breakthrough."

 

So it seems that all of the specific statements that were WRONG, were Krivit
reporting what *others* had told him, HOWEVER, that does not excuse his lack
of careful review to determine whether those statements were accurate or
not.

 

-Mark

 

From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit

 

Mitchel is correct. Krivit is making a fool of himself and is unable to
evaluate anything or anyone that does not support WL theory.  He is a
pathetic and idiot sold out.

2012/2/5 Ron Kita <chiralex.k...@gmail.com>

Greetings Vortex-L

 

I saw this posted on Dr Mitchell Schwartz s website on Krivit:

http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html 

 

I am merely a messager.  I am sure that there will be interesting comments.

 

Ron Kita, Chiralex





 

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com

 

Reply via email to