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 <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > *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 > branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form > of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. * > > IBM has just demonstrated Bose-Einstein condensation at room temperature. > Franks, look up the associated vortex post dated a few days ago. This is > polariton condensation. > > Polaritons, something else the Franks must learn to moderate his technical > ignorance. > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:32 AM, John Franks <jf27...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> ... 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 >> neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the >> branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form >> of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. >> >> No lanthanide or relativistic effects will make electrons shells >> appreciably shrink below the about 0.1nm radius of the ground state to be >> getting into the territory of the known muon catalysed CF. No fancy >> cavities or electrical fields will produce bare nuclei in the lattice, the >> work function of the material would be exceeded and you'd never get bare >> nuclei. >> >> For these reasons, scholarly journals like Nature won't publish CF >> because it clearly shows lack of knowledge of the literature base (and I >> don't mean bogus literature like CF/LENR/LANR). Lack of knowledge of what >> came before shows you are incapable of making a contribution to knowledge >> and precious journal space should not be wasted ahead of the efforts of >> serious science. You do not own Nature and have no right to inflict >> yourselves on them. >> >> >>> I take a network of experimental scientific paper by many (thousands) >> scientists included reputed professional (dozens) from varied and mostly >> reputed organization (dozens), showing various connected phenomenons, and >> some correlations of phenomenons, as evidences. >> >> Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. To be >> getting the results they claim must mean they've made an error and are >> deluding themselves much as those bessler's wheel italians. *You have no >> rationale* so it must be wrong. Don't give me that blind empiricism >> carp, how can you be so naive? >> >> >
