On 01/21/2011 11:40 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > The DN paper is an exercise in logical fallacies. And it shows how > facts can be ignored. Only the press says that what happened is cold > fusion > i.e. fusion at cold, due to its (the press') inherent sensationalism. > The world is infinitely interesting, the press wants to describe it as > even more interesting. But Rossi has told that what takes place in his > device is NOT > cold fusion.
If there's no fusion, how does the p end up fused with the Ni? And if it's not cold, where is he hiding the 30 million degrees which are needed to slam them together thermally? People play word games to try to avoid being associated with what they think of as a cursed field. > > Peter > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:40 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson > <svj.orionwo...@gmail.com <mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > From Harry, > > > Article uses Robert Park as an authority on the subject. > > > > http://news.discovery.com/tech/cold-fusion-claims-resurface.html > > As predicted by Mr. Rothwell, it would appear that the majority of > popular news organizations willing to stick their necks out and file a > brief report on the Italian event will do little more than screw up > the data. Seems nobody wants to stray far from the safety of the herd. > > Incidentally, I noticed that Dr. Park has yet to publish his next > "What's New" issue, presumably to be dated January 21. It's 8:30 PM > Friday night, Central Standard Time, and Park's latest issue is still > set at January 14. When does Park typically publish his installments? > > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com <http://www.OrionWorks.com> > www.zazzle.com/orionworks <http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks> > >
