Is that Oriani paper the draft that Oriani testifies the US editors of "Nature" rejected, despite it passing peer Nature's own peer review?
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > Well Mr. Franks bailed preemptively. For anyone else whose interested: > > Oriani, Excess Heat, Fusion Technology: > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAcalorimetr.pdf > > Morrison-Fleischman debate about Fleischman's published calorimetry > in Physics Letters: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Please don't unsubscribe Mr. Franks. Your tact is unparalleled and would >> surely be missed. >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Franks <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>>> What is "wrong with the data" Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat >>>> data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the >>>> peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the >>>> test of time. >>>> >>> >>> Wow! Was it you claiming one group had 100% repeatability or another >>> 70-80%. If that is the case, why are you arguing with me? >>> >>> Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the >>>> effect. Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about >>>> excess heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat >>>> measurements are wrong. >>>> >>> >>> Silly rabbit. They had something working. (see my first response above). >>> >>> >>>> I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which >>>> you quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the "Big 3" objections >>>> (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted >>>> for and answered between 1989 and 1994. >>>> >>> >>> If you are quoting stuff from that long ago, where is the monograph. >>> Where are the graduate level courses at top institutions teaching this as >>> you seem to regard it as common knowledge. >>> >>> >>> You people are not scientists, or even engineers. You are journalists, >>> activists, the awkward squad who mistake shouting, posturing, getting >>> "liked" on facebook or youtube as the process of doing science. >>> >>> All I have to report, as ever, is that Cold Fusion is a dead subject >>> full of wannabes, the mentally ill and geriatrics, since no self-respecting >>> young person would waste time learning useless "knowledge" in this subject. >>> >> >> >
