Swartz is credible! However, such a small effect is not a credible
support for investment in a working devoice. I did not make this
clear. I hope it is clear now. If Swartz supplies devices that
survive testing, this would be useful to basic research but not to a
development study. My point is that we need emphasis placed on basic
research.
Ed Storms
On Feb 10, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
'Braze, you accept this claim based on a lecture by someone else and
on only 4 mW of excess power?? This is not a credible claim by any
standard. '
OK, Thank you. You do not think Swartz is credible. Gotcha. Your
input is useful, truly. It undermines my faith in him as well.
But then there is the small matter of the association with the MIT
professor who obviously thinks he is credible.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Braze, you accept this claim based on a lecture by someone else and
on only 4 mW of excess power?? This is not a credible claim by any
standard.
Ed Storms
On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
Watch at 2:38:00
He's reporting 27x gain and 4mW
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com
> wrote:
'
Swartz has optimized his nanor device to produce consistent, high
lenr+ cop
That is news to me. What is the COP and what conditions is the
value based on?
'
Have you watched this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al7NMQLvATo
