Mr. Franks, you exhibit one of the most closed minds that I have encountered in quite a long time. You should realize that physics is always being changed as answers to difficult problems reveal holes in the theories. It is quite humorous to read your posts that suggest that all the answers to the cold fusion debate can be so simply disregarded when many experiments suggest otherwise.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is obvious that you are not willing to give the supporting data serious consideration. Dave -----Original Message----- From: John Franks <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 7:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing ... 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?
