Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but just avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. All these psuedoskeptics do is avoid the excess heat claim. Lets bash P-F neutron detection. Lets bash theory. Lets just assume the calorimetry was wrong, even though most physicists know nothing about calorimetry and are out of their element trying to critique it. None of the prominent skeptics went in the lab to try. Atleast Langmuir, who defined "pathological science", debunked his targets by actually going into the lab and doing the work. And of course those who couldn't replicate the work had to assume scientific truth could be ferreted out over the course of weeks instead of the 5 years it took P-F and others. Rob Duncan, a skeptic, put his money where his mouth was, came out convinced, and had the balls to speak up about it. I think Lewis, Garwin, etc. also came out of SRI convinced but had to save face no matter what.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:09 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
