Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote:
> The new terms each have distinct meanings, but still fall under the > umbrella of the general field of cold fusion. Cold fusion is the fusion of > atomic nuclei without the kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier, > and without the high energy signatures or branching ratios of similar > reactions in high kinetic energy environments. The fathers of the field are > Fleischmann and Pons. Everything in the field of cold fusion followed from > their seminal experimental work. > Amen. > The journalists instantly lumped Rossi's experiments and patent > applications under that umbrella, despite his statements that it was not > cold fusion. > Did he say that? I missed it. What does he think it is? Focardi sure thinks it is cold fusion. The other thing I cannot understand is Krivit's assertion that it is not fusion based on the W-L theory. It is fusion because even with W-L you start with deuterium and end up with helium, at least with the Pd-D system. Atom fuse together to form new elements and release energy. That's fusion. Other nuclear reactions also occur, since there are transmutations with heavier elements. To say it is "not fusion" reminds of the old joke that Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare but by another man of the same name. Incidentally, some people claim that Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays. I have read lots of both S. and B., the latter mainly in translation from Latin but also some of his documents originally written in English. It would be hard to find two authors with styles, outlooks and philosophies more diametrically opposed. S. is a great poet whose imagination takes flight and who expresses mundane thoughts with spine-chilling beauty. B. was history's first great dour fact-obsessed scientist. He said nothing and probably imagined nothing not backed up by evidence and logic. He could not more write Shakespeare's plays than I could climb Mt. Everest. I'll bet he didn't even like them. - Jed
