Jed, On one hand you want to be technical and on the other hand you do not. Which is It?
Actually I think you call it cold fusion to promote your book else you will need to change the name... On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Chemical Engineer <[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');>> wrote: > > >> He did say " ...there are various reactions that output more energy than >> is put in..." which is good enough for me. >> > > Not good enough! > > 1. Many reactions output more energy than is put in, including chemical > reactions. That is too vague. He should have said "there are various > reactions that produce thousands of times more energy than any chemical > reaction, and they are accompanied by the production of helium nuclear ash." > > 2. He should have put a period after that, and then asked the next > question about commercialization. There is no punctuation at all. That is > sloppy writing. You should ask a question, then answer it. Then ask > another. Do not cram two unrelated thoughts into one sentence. Punctuate! > > > >> What i think is more curious is that everyone, including you want to call >> it "cold fusion". >> > > Because that is what it generally called in 2012. Whether it is actually > fusion or some other nuclear reaction is not relevant. Many things are > called by technically inaccurate or obsolete names, such as "folders" in > computers. Nothing is folded in a folder. > > > >> Even Martin F. regretted calling it that according to what i read. >> > > He did not call it that. Other people did. He regretted that it become > known by that name. > > That is technical nitpicking. It would have been attacked by any name. > > - Jed > >
