Please don't unsubscribe Mr. Franks. Your tact is unparalleled and would surely be missed.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Franks <jf27...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What is "wrong with the data" Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat >> data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the >> peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the >> test of time. >> > > Wow! Was it you claiming one group had 100% repeatability or another > 70-80%. If that is the case, why are you arguing with me? > > Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the effect. >> Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about excess >> heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat >> measurements are wrong. >> > > Silly rabbit. They had something working. (see my first response above). > > >> I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which you >> quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the "Big 3" objections >> (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted >> for and answered between 1989 and 1994. >> > > If you are quoting stuff from that long ago, where is the monograph. > Where are the graduate level courses at top institutions teaching this as > you seem to regard it as common knowledge. > > > You people are not scientists, or even engineers. You are journalists, > activists, the awkward squad who mistake shouting, posturing, getting > "liked" on facebook or youtube as the process of doing science. > > All I have to report, as ever, is that Cold Fusion is a dead subject full > of wannabes, the mentally ill and geriatrics, since no self-respecting > young person would waste time learning useless "knowledge" in this subject. >
