Wait just a second, Dr. Cranks doesn't hold a candle to Dr. NATHAN LEWIS (Cal Tech) in his devastating conclusion to the fiasco of the century: "This experiment hasn’t been reproduced by any national laboratory or any university yet without a good football team." I'm afraid Dr. Cranks is _not_ "the best" hence now is not a good time to admit defeat and save face. If one wanted to save face one would have admitted being defeated by Dr. Nathan Lewis's argument when he made it. Its too late for us now. We must labor on supporting the untenable belief in the possibility that something interesting happened in F&P's electrolytic cells lo these many years ago. We are, as Dr. Cranks stated, going to die defending our delusions. Its tragic. I really feel for us.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I suppose being beaten by *the best* isn't too much of an > embarrassment is it? Now's a good time to admit defeat and save face, for > sure. > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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!!! >>>> >>> >>> >> >
