I meant cf has jumped to be successful science, finally... On Feb 10, 2012 6:07 AM, "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > >
