Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

As the Little River Band said, "Don't let the screen door hit you on your way out!" And perhaps in a few years we'll see if it was your theory dreamboat that ran onto the sand, or hundreds of respectible scientists simply looking into an anomaly, which is what science is supposed to be about.

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

- Original Message - From: "John Franks" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:05:25 PM Subject: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper That "great" paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is all done and settled (barred getting anythi

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > > Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but >> just avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. >> > > I rather like Goodstein's piece. The qu

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Eric, You're right about critiques of theory generally speaking. Those within the field who are most able (i.e. academic theoreticians) to critique theory are often silent about others work. Storms is not a physicist-theoretician by profession, but his comprehensive reviews and critiques (and his

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but just > avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. > I rather like Goodstein's piece. The question facing him (whether he perceived it or not) was: do I wa

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

I really enjoyed Garwin's response during the 60-minutes piece when told that the Department of Defense study "left no doubt that excess heat was produced". About 10 minutes in Garwin (looking very uncomfortable): "...Well...that's a statement...I'm living proof that there is doubt...they can say

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >I think Lewis, Garwin, etc. also came out of SRI convinced but had to save face no matter what. So, Garwin had his tea but choked on it. Lovely!

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but just avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. All these psuedoskeptics do is avoid the excess heat claim. Lets bash P-F neutron detection. Lets bash theory. Lets just assume the calorimetry was wrong, even th

RE: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Well, the aptly-named one :-) certainly knows how to get a rise out of his patients, so to speak . From: Foks0904 James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we?

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

The real weasel at CalTech is Goodstein -- basically realizing that CalTech had committed a crime against humanity and trying to write a historic placeholder they can point to to say "See! We didn't really deny it! It wasn't our fault!" On Tue, De

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Lewis is an embarrassment in a number of ways: A) Lewis' claim about improper stirring was a joke and created a huge smokescreen because he announced it flippantly and matter of factly at APS. B) I think it was a few months later, Fleischmann and Lewis were both at the same ACS (pretty sure) meet

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Wait just a second, Dr. Cranks doesn't hold a candle to Dr. NATHAN LEWIS (Cal Tech) in his devastating conclusion to the fiasco of the century: "This experiment hasn’t been reproduced by any national laboratory or any university yet without a good football team." I'm afraid Dr. Cranks is _not_ "th

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Well, I suppose being beaten by *the best* isn't too much of an embarrassment is it? Now's a good time to admit defeat and save face, for sure. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > James, > > Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we? > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, James Bowery wrote: > Did Dr. Cranks ever get around to describing why it is we are to ignore > IBM's *empirical* result of room-temperature BECs when, as anyone with a > preschool education knows

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:05 PM, John Franks wrote: > That "great" paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is > all done and settled (barred getting anything that works), take a look > where it was published and the readership. Hardly a critical audience, it's > all BIOLOGY!!! >

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Did Dr. Cranks ever get around to describing why it is we are to ignore IBM's *empirical* result of room-temperature BECs when, as anyone with a preschool education knows that, room-temperature BECs are impossible? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, John Franks wrote: > Quickly scanning it (I'm r

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

John Franks wrote: I'll get my coat. Nothing to see here. Nothing has happened in the past 20 > years. > > UNSUBSCRIBING. > No, you are not unsubscribing. You may think you are headed out the front door, but you keep putting on your coat and then walking into hallway closet and slamming the door

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

OK. See you Mr. Franks. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:23 PM, John Franks wrote: > I'll get my coat. Nothing to see here. Nothing has happened in the past 20 > years. > > UNSUBSCRIBING. > > In another 20, you'll all be dead or (more) gaga. > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

I'll get my coat. Nothing to see here. Nothing has happened in the past 20 years. UNSUBSCRIBING. In another 20, you'll all be dead or (more) gaga. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I already conceded defeat Franks. > > *it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

I already conceded defeat Franks. *it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20+ years, your ecstasy and joy...* Yes. Exactly. Eloquent stuff. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM, John Franks wrote: > NO! > > I know you embarrassment is palpable now - it's like the your love of your > li

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

NO! I know you embarrassment is palpable now - it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20+ years, your ecstasy and joy, has a STI and the nurse at the clinic just shouted it out to the whole waiting room. Use protection when doing science or you'll be ill-conceived, unplanned or oozing

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

*SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!! * Can you stop yelling? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM, John Franks wrote: > Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the > premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not > h

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the d

[Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

That "great" paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is all done and settled (barred getting anything that works), take a look where it was published and the readership. Hardly a critical audience, it's all BIOLOGY!!! Volume 96, Issue 7, July 2009 ISSN: 0028-1042 (Print) 1432-19

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

You've cracked the case Franks. Well done. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM, John Franks wrote: > That "great" paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is > all done and settled (barred getting anything that works), take a look > where it was published and the readership. Hardly