I assert that the reactions seen by Nanospire and LeClair is LENR. It is the kind of LENR that can produces high levels of gammas and neutrons. The reason behind this strange type of LENR behavior is that the energy that produce the cavitation bubbles comes from a pump. The water pump does not produce nanoparticles like a spark does and nano particles are the carriers of the BEC that shield radiation.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil, I feel it is counterproductive to the advancement of science for > people to be proposing ideas willy nilly - ideas that have no bearing in > reality and cleary violates known physical principles. Attempts at theory > of these kinds are not helpful and adds a significant amount of noise that > needs to be sifted thru and vetted. I think this is what Ed storms is > lamenting from ideas coming in this forum. > > Take your ideas of exotic substances (BEC soltions) shielding > nanostructures from melting in high temps. Such "metaphasic shielding" > ideas are counterproductive. Instead of cleary admitting that your ideas > has a big hole - a clear violation of a known physical property; you > propose this even more preposterous idea of metaphasic shielding for high > temps to try to explain another created miracle. Each miracle requires a > dozen more miracles to explain it. This is getting ridiculous. > > Tell me my friend; would you be so bold in proposing such ludricous ideas > if people knew who you really are? Being anonymous affords you the > opportunity to be as outrageous and senseless as you like without > consequence. I am trying to say this without any attempt at a personal > attack, but people has got to admit - this is part of the problem, and IMO, > part of why Ed left this forum. > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 07, 2014 3:44 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter > > *The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my > opinion. It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by > a wide group of scientists.* > > Whenever there is a mystery in science, many theories are proposed to > explain that mystery. Take for an example dark matter, there are hundreds > of theories that have been put forth to explain that mystery. There is even > a dozen categories in which these theories can be grouped. > > The debate that weighs each new piece of evidence against all those > theories is very healthy. Over time, and with many iterations, one of the > many will pull away in the theory sweepstakes. > > > > >
