It's a problem of definition. Let's it be Cold Fusion, the essential fact is that it works reproducibly, in a controlled way and it can be scaled up snd used commercially. Peter
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>wrote: > > > On 01/22/2011 02:41 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > > True, Robin, but Cold Fusion was D + D fusion, this one cannot be > Peter > > > Stuff and nonsense. That's like saying 'thermonuclear fusion is D + T so > when Li fuses, later in the chain, it's not thermonuclear fusion." > > > > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:05 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > >> In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:40:13 +0200: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >The DN paper is an exercise in logical fallacies. And it shows how facts >> can >> >be ignored. Only the press says that what happened is cold fusion >> >i.e. fusion at cold, due to its (the press') inherent sensationalism. The >> >world is infinitely interesting, the press wants to describe it as even >> more >> >interesting. But Rossi has told that what takes place in his device is >> NOT >> >cold fusion. >> >> Any reaction that joins atomic nuclei together is fusion. >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html >> >> >
