Ed Storms last post:
------------------------------- Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The process has no relationship to cold fusion. I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. Ed Storms --------------------------- To set the record straight, Ed was under heavy speculative pressure from many here on vortex and I was not the most effective because of my excessive good nature and respect for the opinions of others. IMHO, as usually happens, Jones was the most biting. You give be too much credit in the Storms confrontations. To give some background on the special contempt that Ed holds for SPP theory, Ed's SPP theory disregard is tied to DGT as perfected in the private and unknown discussions held in CMMS between Ed and John H. If DGT succeeds in securing its intellectual property rights, the SPP theory might well be supported by much experimental evidence. As it is now, DGT has released much supporting evidence for BEC and SPP theory. If DGT fails, this true theory will be lost for another 100 years. But like LENR, SPP theory will eventually be accepted because it is the true way the Ni/H reactor works. If Rossi reads vortex, he will also see the truth in the SPP theory upon reflection of the inner workings of his cat and mouse. You might see something SPP like from Rossi but he is not interested in truth telling. I am just a weak reflection of the battles between DGT, Dr. Kim and George Miley and Ed Storms. Dr. Kim is the original purveyor of the BEC theory. >From reading the latest posts of Peter, he is about to speak against the old LENR theories. And Peter will become another outcast imposed by telling the truth among the old guard LENR workers. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <peter.gl...@gmail.com> > *To:* VORTEX <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *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 <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. >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > >
