Peter, My objections are not so much rooted in the "new" ideas themselves, but in ideas that have no basis in reality pretending to be heirs to the throne. These ideas are a distraction. We need to get rid of these "fluffs". People with no training or qualifications in this area have the audacity to start arguing with Ed Storms, a proven, long-time researcher in the field. Understanding this field requires a deep knowledge in many scientific disciplines only a few people like Ed have. Ed is uniquely qualified to even begin discussing this field, yet his theories are rejected in favor of the latest, but definitely not the greatest, theories proposing structures and substances we clearly know can not exist.
My challenge is open to anyone who can satisfactorily answer my initial contention. How can the nickel nanostructures, such as nanowires, nano antennas, etc continue to exist to catalyze these "LENR" reactions at temperatures enough to sinter, then melt then even evaporate or sublimate nickel nanoparticles. Proposing a novel structure (BEC soltions, etc) that possesses novel abilities (metaphasic shielding) is utterly ridiculous. And this coming from an anonymous source who has not even began to establish his qualifications to even begin to discuss in this field. Am I the only one that see this as a problem? Would you accept cancer treatment advise from an ordinary doctor, and not a cancer specialist. Or better still, would you from a non-doctor. Or even still, from a kid with clearly no medical training and qualifications. And even better still, from an anonymous kid with clearly no medical traininig and qualifications. Would you hold this kid's opinion in higher regard than the specialist's opinion? Our cancer specialist has several decades of proven field experience with a library bigger than what anyone has. Our cancer specialist has studied extensively this field probably even before our kid was born. Yet the kid proposes to excise our cancer with his "light saber", which supposedly has unique "nano metaphasic shielding" abilities, and we are all awed by the supposed miraculous abilities of this light saber that we forget to even realize that this light saber does not and can not exist. So, those who are most prolific in proposing ideas win? Is this how science is supposed to work? This is worse than the 2000-climatologists committee-based, consensus-based, computer-simulation-based "science" of climate scaremongers. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gluck To: VORTEX Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2014 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter Dear Jojo, I want to answer you in part, prior to Axil. We have to take great care with naming ideas willy nilly,,nanoplasmonics, nanomagnetism, BEC are not so have a growing literature - see Google Scholar please and do a lighting fast search. What sacrosnct rules they contradict how when this has to be shown for any case in detail. Thermodynamics is first candidate and it is much invoked- great care! I think that the field is in such a deep trouble- not understood, desired process not controlled, no possibilities of intensification and scale-up visible- that really new ideas, principles, theories are needed. The old ones have no connection to the experimental reality- Ed Storms is right in not liking theories; he still has to demonstrate that his new theory has problem solving power. I would advise to welcome ideas that are new here- but have domains of validity outside LENR. You also can come with new ideas, the old ones have not been productive at all, right?. Peter On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 5:01 PM, 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 To: vortex-l 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. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com