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 <jf27...@gmail.com> 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 > 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 > deuterons of their kinetic energy. > > From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into > a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules > which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that > are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb > repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone > into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. > > So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who > cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it > right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE > IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!! >
