Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

ot > willing to give the supporting data serious consideration. > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: John Franks > To: vortex-l > Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 7:32 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion > publish

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 7:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing ... like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

To get back on topic, I think the primary function of guys like John Cranks has to do with a profound human tragedy: The evolution of human eusociality. Let me explain: It is obvious to those with anything approaching critical thinking, that guys like John Cranks (with which the history of CF is

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

*Oh yeah? Peer reviewed? Cited by whom?* What are you talking about? Theory? Kim's BEC paper was published in Naturwissenschaften, a peer reviewed journal *gasp*: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-009-0537-6#page-1 And yes I did answer your question in your orphaned thread. FE has n

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Mr. Franks, BEC has to do with Yeong Kim and Akito Takahashi's theoretical claims for condensate clusters in hydride lattices. I answered your question on Faraday efficiency. You don't read carefully. Regards. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:24 AM, John Franks wrote: > Deliberately misquoting or

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Oh yeah? Peer reviewed? Cited by whom? And, no you didn't. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Mr. Franks, > > BEC has to do with Yeong Kim and Akito Takahashi's theoretical claims for > condensate clusters in hydride lattices. > > I answered your question on Faraday efficienc

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Deliberately misquoting or passing off material as what someone said has got to be against forum rules. I ask again, what does the IBM BEC work regarding low dimensional structures, leptons and low energy have to do with CF and hadrons? Can anybody answer these questions, like my others (What is F

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Hi, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:00 AM, John Franks wrote: It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's > inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% > repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper > conferences, attended

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Axil, Dr. Franks is merely pointing out the obvious: IBM has succumbed to "Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions." Always your fellow "true believer", -- Jim On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > *In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

>>>Axil Axil: IBM has just demonstrated Bose-Einstein condensation at room temperature. So what has that got to do with cold fusion? http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/42710.wss >>> Foks0904 : Personal

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

*In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branc

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

the good news is that it is not specific to the question whether Science/Nature have stated more or less officially that they will not publish anything around cold fusion. 2013/12/17 Foks0904 . > Personally I don't mind Mr. Franks making a fool of himself, but I agree > that it is in violation

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Personally I don't mind Mr. Franks making a fool of himself, but I agree that it is in violation of good ethics as it pertains to the forum rules and should be addressed by a moderator. If he raised genuine questions/concerns and was less blindly antagonistic it would be less of an issue. On Tue,

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:00 AM, John Franks wrote: > It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's > inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% > repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper > conferences, attended by

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

> > > ... like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid > In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neu

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

;-) maybe that is trolling? or is it sincere and full delusion? I don't take video as evidence. Neither Nature or Science editor as evidence. Nor opinion from people who did not look at the subject, which include all critics except a handful of people like Huizenga and Cudes. I take a network of

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Mr. Franks. You retreated from the last thread you started where you stated similar nonsense. You didn't even understand the trivial issues surrounding recombination. Please stop making us expose your ignorance and pseudoscientific critique, its a waste of everyone's time. Regards. On Tue, Dec 1

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper conferences, attended by professionals (for and against) with questions from the floor

[Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Hi all, and especially Jed, In the past (Foks noticed it) I quickly denounced the "official" policy of Science/Nature not to publish on Cold Fusion. There is no serious doubt it is an internal policy (given Oriani's story, Report 41 De Ninno and recently as reported by Pamela Mosier Boss). Howev