Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Found another Larsen radio interview 4/17/2010 <http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sandy-andrew/2010/04/17/widom-larsen-theory--energy-revolution-with-lewis->http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sandy-andrew/2010/04/17/widom-larsen-theory--energy-revolution-with-lewis- I think his point regarding "nuclear" vs "fusion" In the first interview may be the electron absorption transmutes a single nuclei vs the "fusion" of 2 nuclei.
Ah. I guess that is negative beta decay. Well, that is the first plausible reason I have heard to quibble with the term "fusion" in this context. It is splitting hairs in a sense, and it does not justify Krivit's assertion that people who claim the process is fusion are deceiving the public. But I do think it is reasonable to say this is a non-fusion hypothesis. Nuclear, but not fusion.
The Mills theory is a non-fusion, non-nuclear hypothesis. There may be a few other non-fusion theories. I have never heard McKubre or anyone else attack Mills, or try to mislead the public about it. They ignore it, just as they ignore the Windom-Larsen theory. There are dozens of theories. Most people ignore all but one. Other people, such as me, ignore all of all -- which amounts to the same thing. As the atheist said to the minister: "mankind has come up with thousands of gods; you believe in only one, and I believe in one less than you do."
- Jed
