Chemical Engineer <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He did say " ...there are various reactions that output more energy than > is put in..." which is good enough for me. > Not good enough! 1. Many reactions output more energy than is put in, including chemical reactions. That is too vague. He should have said "there are various reactions that produce thousands of times more energy than any chemical reaction, and they are accompanied by the production of helium nuclear ash." 2. He should have put a period after that, and then asked the next question about commercialization. There is no punctuation at all. That is sloppy writing. You should ask a question, then answer it. Then ask another. Do not cram two unrelated thoughts into one sentence. Punctuate! > What i think is more curious is that everyone, including you want to call > it "cold fusion". > Because that is what it generally called in 2012. Whether it is actually fusion or some other nuclear reaction is not relevant. Many things are called by technically inaccurate or obsolete names, such as "folders" in computers. Nothing is folded in a folder. > Even Martin F. regretted calling it that according to what i read. > He did not call it that. Other people did. He regretted that it become known by that name. That is technical nitpicking. It would have been attacked by any name. - Jed
