I already conceded defeat Franks. *it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20+ years, your ecstasy and joy...*
Yes. Exactly. Eloquent stuff. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM, John Franks <jf27...@gmail.com> wrote: > NO! > > I know you embarrassment is palpable now - it's like the your love of your > life, the the past 20+ years, your ecstasy and joy, has a STI and the nurse > at the clinic just shouted it out to the whole waiting room. > > Use protection when doing science or you'll be ill-conceived, unplanned or > oozing pus. > > Oh dear! (Shakes head, buries head in hands) > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> *SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!! * >> >> Can you stop yelling? >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:43 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!!! >>> >> >> >
