My friend, I have offered a challenge to you. Please explain how the nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high temps.
Please read http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/08/lenr-and-nanoplasmonics.html They do not continue to exist. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > That is true my friend, and I personally enjoy the speculation. But it > seems to me that if your speculation is challenged and you can not give a > satisfactory answer, it seems prudent to step back and reevaluate your > assumptions. > > There is a difference between just speculating vs. clinging stubbornly to > your speculation even when faced with insurmountable objections to your > speculation. The former is helpful, the latter is distraction and counter > productive. > > My friend, I have offered a challenge to you. Please explain how the > nickel nanostructures you speculate can continue to exist at extremely high > temps. This challenge is valid and if it stands, it will totally discredit > your speculation. To me the right thing to do is to seriously consider > this objection and maybe make adjustments to your speculations, instead of > continuing to harp your speculations despite the strong case against it. > This is what I find counter productive. > > We keep repeating our favorite mantra here in Vortex: "Experiment trumps > theory". Well your theory can not stand up to what we know about these > LENR systems - especially what we know about Nickel physical properties. > This is a big and valid objection, It needs to be addressed and answered > properly. > > > Jojo > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:19 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter > > We are here to speculate and this forum is the place that you come to > speculate. > > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> With all due respect my friend, DGT and John H are no where near the >> caliber of Ed Storms. This is precisely the kind of skewed science by >> popularity that I am bemoaning. What we have is a kid (a rather dishonest >> bunch kids at that.) arguing with a cancer specialist. What is John H's >> qualifications to even begin to be the authority in this field? What does >> DGT have? A "pre-industrial H6" machine? LOL.... >> >> When two highly qualified people, first Stremmenos, then Gamberale, speak >> against their self-interest, we need to take heed. (We also have Jed's >> first hand testimony of his experience with DGT) DGT is a fraud as far as >> I am concerned and yet we hold the work of such dubious entities against >> the work and knowledge of a long-time researcher with a proven and >> distinguished track record. Does that really make sense to you? >> >> Heck, you can do better just arguing with Ed yourself without invoking >> the authority of DGT. Invoking DGT and the mythical hyperion will only >> serve to damage your credibility. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> PS. When someone begins to speak against "Old Guard" LENR theories, it >> makes sense for them to have a robust theory first. Not an ad-hoc >> patchwork of speculation and misrepresented experimental data creating >> miracle explanations and then more miracles trying to hold on to the first >> miracle. >> >> Come on guys, we need to temper this distraction and try to focus. >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >> *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:44 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter >> >> 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 >>> >>> >> >
