>From Rich, > Hamiltonian, PL Hagelstein, IU Chaudhary 2012.01.20: Rich Murray > 2012.02.09 > > Including nuclear degrees of freedom in a lattice Hamiltonian, PL > Hagelstein, IU Chaudhary 2012.01.20: Rich Murray 2012.02.09 > > [ Rich Murray: the end of the beginning for cold fusion -- rapid > transition to normal science? ]
Rich, Please define "cold fusion". Can you, or anyone for that matter in all true conscience, define what the popular term "cold fusion" represents? I know I sure can't. The best that I can come up with is the fact that "cold fusion" represents an amalgamation of "nuclear related" phenomenon and associated theories. It is a phenomenon that is still trying to be adequately understood by numerous competent scientists and researchers. As best as I can tell "Cold Fusion" is really nothing more than place holder terminology which had been spontaneously created by the popular culture back around 1989 when Pons and Fleishman broke onto the scene. Much to their chagrin the term, "cold fusion", stuck. It certainly wasn't a definition P&F would have chosen to describe what they were trying to do. But who was asking them. How can you predict the early demise of what is nothing more than a place holder word? Who told you the "F" word is dying? Surely it wasn't Krivit, nor all those folks residing in the Widom Larsen camp. Cry "wolf" too many times... Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
