Hi Steven, Many moons ago I did have a lengthy phone conversation with SteveK on that very issue. I summarized it in this vortex posting:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg60298.html I'll copy it below to save people time looking up the article. =============== SVJ wrote: "As far as I'm concerned the war against the "fusion" word is nothing more than a petty self-serving theoretical product placement war. WTF cares." I wholeheartedly agree Steven, but it's not you and I that needed convincing these past 20+ years; it's the physics establishment. I asked a close friend (PhD physicist) and he said the same thing as Krivit; that fusion has a *very* specific meaning *to a physicist*, and neutron capture is not 'fusion' as far as they're concerned. Now, if I was a physicist, I would hope that I'd be more concerned about whether the LENR/CF data was rigorous enough and not be concerned about what it was being called, but then, my job and my field of expertise is not likely to be ridiculed for delaying the dawn of a new era for 20+ years. Humans are interesting indeed. Fortunately, there are so many non-physicists now who are aware of LENR, that the physics establishment's influence is severely undermined. Those non-technical, influential people being advised by the physicists are now going to want to get a piece of the action in the next revolutionary technology, and will be getting second and third opinions from non-physicists. ================== And I'll add the following comments: The main reason LENR has not been able to shake off the 'junk' science label for 20 years is because the physics community has a major problem with that term, (nuclear) fusion, being applied to LENR. The fact that you and I could care less about what it's called, has no influence whatsoever on getting the physics community to take it seriously; and the field NEEDS the physics community to bring it out of the 'junk' category. The field needed to win over the physicists, because without their willingness to just give it a chance, LENR was doomed to the fringes, and that's where its remained for 20 years. That is changing, fortunately. and yes, to those of us that see these semantic games and bickering going on, it all seems most ridiculous, frustrating and unnecessarily delaying important research on a perhaps the most important technology in our lifetime. -Mark From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 7:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:From NET: Bockris is still in the game!! >From Mark: ... Bockris states: > "If I understand clearly what you say, you agree that some of > the work that has been going on may involve nuclear reactions," > Bockris wrote, "but that it's not fusion. Is that what you said? > If it is, then I agree with it. Most of the condensed matter > nuclear reactions do not involve fusion." I hope Bockris can be more forthcoming in explaining the distinctions. Or perhaps you can explain it, Mark. What is the difference between terminology stated to be a "nuclear reaction" versus terminology stated to be a "fusion" or "cold fusion" reaction, particularly if both terms imply that a nuclear particle (or particles) somehow manage to enter the nucleus of the atom and subsequently cause the nucleus to transmute into different isotope or element. I tried asking Mr. Krivit that question when I was still a NET BoD member. I never got a satisfactory answer from Mr. Krivit, other than Steve telling me that my question was a "... very good question." Meanwhile, the layman certainly isn't going to give a hoot about such distinctions. I realize there are those that seem to be making a concerted effort to state that if a neutron enters a nucleus of an atom it shouldn't be called a "fusion" reaction, but rather a "nuclear" reaction. I fail to see why calling it a "nuclear" reaction versus a "fusion" reaction is considered such a revelation. What bugs me is that on-going attempts to skewer the "F" word strike me primarily as a semantics game, where an on-going product placement war is in progress. It's almost as if the W-L camp is attempting to trademark the term "nuclear reaction" as belonging exclusively to their theory, and to their theory alone. Accept no imitations. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
