----- Original Message ----
> From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 10:52:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
>
> At 02:15 PM 6/14/2011, Alan Fletcher wrote:
> > He sure is a hard-liner on the term "Cold Fusion".
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy:
> >
><http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/>http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/
>
>
> He's nuts on this. There is some ambiguity in the term "fusion," a confusion
>between process and result. If I have a black box and you put deuterium in,
>and
>get helium and energy out, is it a "fusion box"? Or does fusion refer only to
>a
>specific process, say two deuterons being slammed together at high velocity,
>or
>coaxed together with some catalyst, such as muons?
Abd,
You hit the nail on the head.
Does the term 'fusion' identify a special process or does it refer to the end
result(s) of a unspecified process?
It seems to me that without an adjective in front of the word 'fusion', the
nature of the process remains unspecified. However, because the plasma/hot
fusion physicists have dominated the field of fusion research for the last 60
years, the fusion process known as plasma fusion or hot fusion, has
become indistinquishable from the term 'fusion' in the mind of many physicists.
Harry
