Abd, who never learns, is making waves at Wikipedia again. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion
I predict they will throw him out again within 2 weeks. It will be
permanent this time.
I took a quick look at the Wikipedia article. It is even worse than I
recall. There is a new statement I find hilarious:
"Cold fusion research sometimes is referred to as low energy nuclear
reaction (LENR) studies or condensed matter nuclear science, in order
to avoid negative connotations. [14][15]
The part about "negative connotations" is sourced to:
14. The BBC (2009) in an article which does not say anything
remotely like that:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7959183.stm
15. Bart Simon, the proverbial man who has only a hammer and sees all
problems as a nail. (His hammer is sociology, which seldom drives
nails straight in my experience but it can be thought provoking.)
In the introduction to the upcoming ICCF-14 Proceedings, Nagel and
Melich have a Table with 11 "names given to the study of 'cold
fusion' since 1989." They discuss at some of the reasons these names
have been introduced:
". . . In the minds of some workers in the field, they suffer from
various shortcomings. For example, 'cold' and 'low' are relative
terms without precise meanings. The variety, and indeed confusion,
over terminology is also promoted by the lack of a clear
understanding of the basic mechanism (or mechanisms) active in this
field. . . . In 2002, a new and broader name was introduced, namely
"Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" (CMNS). 'Condensed matter' is a
term that has been employed by the American Physical Society for a
few decades to embrace both solids and liquids. . . ."
Nowhere in this discussion do they mention "negative connotations"
as a reason to replace the term "cold fusion." I am pretty sure they
know as well as I do it would not work, in any case.
I suppose some people hope that a new name for cold fusion will act
as a euphemism, but anyone who knows about language knows that
euphemisms never work for long, you have to continually replace them
with new ones.
By the way, the ICCF-14 proceedings are actually being printed,
finally. Thank goodness.
- Jed
