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