In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:42:50 -0500:
><> 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.

Perhaps so, but I didn't. Actually I agree with most of what you wrote here
below. In this case, you could have easily have left out the clause "up to the
iron limit".

>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

Robin van Spaandonk

Reply via email to