James, Yes it is. It was then published in Fusion Technology, which I believe George Miley was editing at the time.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is that Oriani paper the draft that Oriani testifies the US editors of > "Nature" rejected, despite it passing peer Nature's own peer review? > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well Mr. Franks bailed preemptively. For anyone else whose interested: >> >> Oriani, Excess Heat, Fusion Technology: >> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAcalorimetr.pdf >> >> Morrison-Fleischman debate about Fleischman's published calorimetry >> in Physics Letters: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
