I tried to make the article as simple to understand as I possible could, but it looks like I did not do it in your case. All I can tell you is read it again.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > So, I read your link, but all I see is a lot of jargon and over 2 dozen > miracles. > > So, your claim is that the reaction consist of 2 stages, a static NAE > environment which starts the LENR process which then quickly get melted; at > which point, the Dynamic NAE takes over and continue the LENR process. Am > I correct then, in my understanding of your theory, that without the > existence of Static NAEs, the LENR will never bootstrap itself? > > If this is your claim, then I have a question that should be "easy" to > answer. If Static NAEs nanowires are destroyed (melted) at the first pass > of the reaction. How come the reactor can be stopped and restarted? The > reactor should only be capable of being started once. The first start > destroys all the Static NAEs making impossible to restart the LENR process > after it is shut down the first time. Quite obviously that is not the case > with the hotcat. Please enlighten us with another miracle to explain the > hotcat's ability to be restarted multiple times. > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 10:35 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter > > 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
