*In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. *
IBM has just demonstrated Bose-Einstein condensation at room temperature. Franks, look up the associated vortex post dated a few days ago. This is polariton condensation. Polaritons, something else the Franks must learn to moderate his technical ignorance. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:32 AM, John Franks <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ... like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid >> > > In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even > fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions > or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that > neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the > branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form > of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. > > No lanthanide or relativistic effects will make electrons shells > appreciably shrink below the about 0.1nm radius of the ground state to be > getting into the territory of the known muon catalysed CF. No fancy > cavities or electrical fields will produce bare nuclei in the lattice, the > work function of the material would be exceeded and you'd never get bare > nuclei. > > For these reasons, scholarly journals like Nature won't publish CF because > it clearly shows lack of knowledge of the literature base (and I don't mean > bogus literature like CF/LENR/LANR). Lack of knowledge of what came before > shows you are incapable of making a contribution to knowledge and precious > journal space should not be wasted ahead of the efforts of serious science. > You do not own Nature and have no right to inflict yourselves on them. > > >>> I take a network of experimental scientific paper by many (thousands) > scientists included reputed professional (dozens) from varied and mostly > reputed organization (dozens), showing various connected phenomenons, and > some correlations of phenomenons, as evidences. > > Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. To be > getting the results they claim must mean they've made an error and are > deluding themselves much as those bessler's wheel italians. *You have no > rationale* so it must be wrong. Don't give me that blind empiricism carp, > how can you be so naive? > >
