And of course by LENR, I mean what most scientists think of when they hear that acronym.
***Redefinition of terms. I thought that “most scientists” don’t even acknowledge that LENR is “real”?
By the way, with regards to the instant thread, here is an interesting quote from Hanno Essen [famed verifier but not really verifier of the E-Cat]
Essén: Yes, they mention, for example a man called Randell Mills, who has been working a long time with something he tried to get funded. I do not believe in it at all. His website doesn’t convince me. And hydrino would be that the hydrogen atom would collapse and release energy whereby the electron should get closer to the nucleus. It completely contradicts the uncertainty principle. So I don’t believe in that at all.
***Where is the contradiction at this point? Essen is doubting a THEORY while verifying MEASUREMENTS. Rossi has his own pet theory, which he has yet to publish, but it will likely be close to the electron-capture theory based upon monitoring his posts. But... yet again... we wouldn’t expect FraudZarguna to be aware of it. And also, yet again, we find FZ posting yet again another logical fallacy, comparing the apples of theory to the oranges of Measured Results. By this time, Rossi has had more time on point with working reactors (assuming he aint a fraud) and so he’s had far more time to test his theories than others.
So, you may dispute that your hero Hanno Essen has a PhD as well, but, sadly he doesn’t believe in the hydrino, either...
***And a big SO WHAT to that. All these guys have their own pet theories. That doesn’t seem to stop you from posting logical fallacies right and left.
***Redefinition of terms. I thought that “most scientists” don’t even acknowledge that LENR is “real”?
Since the subtle beauty of our language escapes you, let me draw you a picture of what most scientists think of when they hear the acronym "LENR:"
Feynman seems impressed.