Sorry my friend, I find your writing style tedious and long-winded and very
difficult to understand. After reading, then rereading and then rereading it
again, I still have difficulty trying to understand your point. Please write
in short, to the point sentences.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Gluck
To: VORTEX
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
Jojo, take in consideration that I want a friendly discussion with you not
a nervous and aggressive "you are wrong,I am right" one. You have right to
your opinions and I also can think what I can based on my knowledge, prejudices
and experience.I want to avoid scandal, it is counterproductive.
We need new GOOD ideas.
Please appreciate my sincerity in the following.
You wrote:
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.
to this:
a) it is difficult to decide who has training or qualifications to contribute
to LENR- physicists only, chemists in what extent; or if I think that LENR will
be solved by combining the scientific method with the technologicl method and
engineering is the key- then technology illiterates are disqualified. Lennart
here- like me thinks that solid knowledge in management including leadership
will also be necessary- then the are of knowledge is even greater
b) about Ed Storms- I know him, I consider him a friend, I know he has
encyclopedic knowledge in LENR, is a guru He also had performed first class
experimental work. I have sent his former book to The Europen Commission and
who knows it can be as a seed there, sometime.
However remember Robert Frost's idea about "knowledge lost in information and
wisdom lost in knowledge"? To write a wonderful book is one thing to make a
synthesis of many data, info, etc some contradictory, some false, some
redundant, much still missing is an other kind of task.
C) if you read my most recent paper, you will see that i strongly disliked
Ed's theory from its embryonic stage- and this has probably helped him to
improve it. I am rejecting it for its own characteristics not because I favored
nanoplasmonics or other "exotic" idea. Just to mention that hydroton is a
structure whose existent has to be demonstrated and if deuterium is building
it, protium will probably not.
A theory has to be evaluated based on its predictive capacity and problem
solving power- please rethink Ed's theory; it is possible you see what I cannot.
NOW re Ni nanostructures I think the good ones are destroyed but also
generated in the proper conditions- dynamic active sites.
Re cancer treatments- if you get some forms of it is not so relevant who
tries to make your life a bit longer. My son had ganglionar cancer, 3 surgeries
then a tumor has sectioned his carotide and he died, smiling to me..
Conclusion (not to cancer) the existing ideas do NOT help to understand LENR
and to convert it in an energy source- we need other ones.
By thw way, in the negation stage Ed shows that all he existing CF/LENR
theories are not realistic, based on imagination and of no use for the
experimental work
Peter
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:20 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
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
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
