Sorry, mea culpa- we cannot communicate. Peter
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <peter.gl...@gmail.com> > *To:* VORTEX <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *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 <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 >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
