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 . <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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!!! >>> >> >> >
