20120816 22:15 Abd Ul, appreciate Your elegant, determined response.
Re CE it is my -and others- impression, that with LENR we have an overabundace of theories, to explain the somewhat scant evidences. Now the problem is, that the solutions do not match the evidences available. Both parties -the theoretical as well as the experimental- have some homework to do. Not just demonstrate an effect from the experimental side, but also take care of the minute details, eg. with all those observations of transmutations. Eg., if DGTG hypothesizes some three-stage process, loosely related to temperatures 100-200 -- 400-600 -- >>600 where Peter Gluck is the most trustable reporter to date, (and I have a lot of trust in his sincerity,) then DGTG should separate the phases and study them. Which they won't do in depth, because they are a commercial entity. Similar with Rossi. Celani, with his scientific background, is not afraid to bake small bread, so to say. Demonstrating some reliable 20 Watt and COP 1.5, and not 10kW with COP 20. This is honesty. Appreciate that, and this sparrow in the hand makes me happier than the dove at the roof. The rest is rumor or unfounded optimism. -------------- Now to the theoretical side. No wonder that with scarce experimental evidence theories abound. Just look at UFO phenomena, where the situation is put to the extreme. We have no lack of beautiful theories, who just lack some core evidence. String theory, or the theory of everything of Burkhart Heim, which I find extremely interesting, but on a personal level. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim . (Not much of his works is translated to English. He might very well be sort of an ueber-Heisenberg of the 21st century.) Because he is dead since 10years he cannot be accused of ego-boosting. Being dead has its -ahem- positive side. But who am I to know? It is clear that CE has to be convinced of his theory, like others, who emphasize the Rydberg aspect, and others, like Mills Hydrino. This more often than not resembles a 'beauty contest', which is an ill-conceived criterion, if matters get ugly. (DGTG three-stage) This is all in the pool of options in an over/(under?) determined situation. As said: Both sides should be humble and put forth their demands, to deliver what is requested --sound experimental evidence including the fineprint-- adequate theory, open to scrutiny and falsification. We are not quite there, right? The 'consumer' side --someone who just wants to buy a 10kW reactor at the cheapest price to support his hedonism, is what interests me the least. Guenter ________________________________ Von: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> An: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:36 Donnerstag, 16.August 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus At 02:06 AM 8/16/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > I had unsubscribed and never intending to repost here again but I just can't > stand the pretentious verbal diarrhea of this self-appointed so called LENR > Expert. Sorry, honey, I'm late for dinner, but Someone is Wrong on the Internet. I tend to write in response to issues, questions, comments. Occasionally I write something original. I also research my topics, it can take a long time to write, but I also comment on what I've found as if the reader might be interested. I'm only writing for interested readers, not necessarily for everyone.
