James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we?
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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!!! >> > >
