On Aug 19, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Ed,
Thank you for criticizing my paper as I have asked the readers.
I am reading everything you are publishing; then perhaps the
problem is my limited or absent understanding.
I hope you are perfectly understanding what you write and will
be able to show at the target where and what I am telling that is
not correct, scientific, is misleading.
I have written first about CF happening in active sites starting
in 1991.
Anyway please make your critic constructive by telling us if the
NAE are cracks or not, if not, then what is their structure and
function.
Dear Peter,
The NAE in my theory are cracks of a especially small gap size that
are generated by stress relief in the material. They permit formation
of a structure that is able to lower the Coulomb barrier and dissipate
the energy by emission of low energy photons from the nucleus. The
theory shows how helium, tritium and deuterium are made by the fusion
process, what conditions are required for the process to work, and
identifies engineering variables that are needed to control the
process. Many details are descried in the papers I have already sent
to CMNS and more will be provided in my ICCF-18 paper. I suggest you
study these papers before jumping to any conclusions. In addition, If
you need more clarification, please ask.
Ed
Thank you in advance in the name of my readers,
Peter
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Peter, why do you write about subjects that you know nothing about?
You obviously have not read or understood what I propose. You have
not asked questions or discussed this with me. You make statements
that have no relationship to what I have proposed or even to general
knowledge about the subject. Please, if you want to be a spokesman
for the field, at least learn something about the subject you are
discussing.
Indeed, I find your approach to be very common in this field. People
reach conclusions about cold fusion without any knowledge of what is
known about the subject or even what is accepted in conventional
science. I can understand why conventional scientists think the
people who believe CF is real are deluded. If I had not studied what
is known and seen the effect myself, I would be one of them.
Several people have remarked to me just how low the standards are in
this field. We need to do better.
Ed
On Aug 19, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Friends,
Please read, criticize, and improve the ideas published here:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/some-reasons-why-lenr-nae-cannot-be.html
Believe me, I am sincere and serious here, and it is not a case of
crackophobia.
Peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "CMNS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
