The real weasel at CalTech is Goodstein<http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html> -- basically realizing that CalTech had committed a crime against humanity and trying to write a historic placeholder they can point to to say "See! We didn't really deny it! It wasn't our fault!"
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lewis is an embarrassment in a number of ways: > > A) Lewis' claim about improper stirring was a joke and created a huge > smokescreen because he announced it flippantly and matter of factly at APS. > > B) I think it was a few months later, Fleischmann and Lewis were both at > the same ACS (pretty sure) meeting, where F presented excess heat in the > majority of his cells. Lewis didn't raise a peep, not about stirring, not > about anything, whereas prior he was one of the noisiest and most sarcastic > deniers, spouting off whenever given the opportunity. > > C) This surprised me when I read about it. He actually visited McKubre at > SRI (along with Richard Garwin no less), found nothing wrong with the > process, and still remained completely silent. Never retracting a single > prior damaging statement. > > Now Caltech, and their "heroes" Lewis and Koonin, can continue their > charade of defending the world from the "pathological science" boogeyman. > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:26 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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!!! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
