<mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> >As I
> >said, that total is always more than the energy added to the plasma, up to
> >the iron limit.
> [snip]
> Actually, iron is not the limit. It depends on which nuclei you are trying
> to
> fuse. A lone proton has zero net binding energy, so would fuse with any
> element
> in the periodic table, if you could get it close enough to the nucleus.
> The "iron limit" applies only to elements fusing with themselves, i.e. one
> iron
> nucleus fusing with another iron nucleus.

Again with the scientific accuracy! Such nitpicking, just because that's
how the laws of physics work!

Krivit would say I am engaged in "active fraud to the public" because I
simplified the explanation and left out an important exception.

Whoever wrote the ITER public relations blurb did nothing wrong, any more
than I did in that message. Or in the first chapter of my book, which
Mallove and I wrote. It is an oversimplified introduction to cold fusion.
It is for non-scientists who know nothing about cold fusion. It is not
intended for an expert audience. Any expert can poke holes in it. Heck, *I*
can poke holes in it.

When you write about a complicated machine for the general public you must
leave out thousands of vital technical details and important distinctions.
You present a grossly oversimplified picture. Because people do not have
weeks to devote to learning about ITER. You end up using terms like "net
energy" which have no strict technical definition, and which invite
confusion and disputes. The paragraph about "net energy" is sorta right in
some ways, and it gives the reader a sense of what is going on and why ITER
advances the state of the art. Close enough for government work! Ship it.

It is like writing a manual for a complicated program, which I have done.
That ain't easy. The customer has no idea how the thing works, and doesn't
want to know, yet there are certain things he or she must grasp, or the
product will not work. Whaddya going to do, anyway? Not tell the customer?
Look at the way the *New York Times* describes self driving cars or neural
net artificial intelligence. They are forced to be inaccurate for lack of
space and because the reader has no idea how these things work. Would it be
better not to describe them? Should ITER not even try to inform the public
what they are up to?

If you want the real details I expect ITER has published a ton of technical
documents. I doubt they include vague assertions about "net energy." If you
want to know about neural nets Google has published marvelous papers, in
*Nature*, no less. Such as:


- Jed

Reply via email to