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
