My response will be embedded in the email with 3 asterisks *** as the flag.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Swartz is credible! However, such a small effect is not a credible support > for investment > ***Investment is different than research. Surely you agree with that? > in a working devoice. > ***A far, far different standard. > 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. > ***Good to know. Hagelstein meets that standard. So does my proposal of a LENR Open-Source MFMP recipe replication X-Prize. > > 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 >>> >>> >>>> >> >> > >
