That article doesn't make sense to me. You are proposing that a "name change" will make non-listeners into listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper published with the new name will immediately figure out that "it's plain old cold fusion **** again, but now they're pushing it to us with yet another name". To them it would only appear as if an attempt was made to hide the topic behind a new name. You are aware that according to mainstream literature the name "low energy nuclear reactions" is only a weak attempt to shed the negative connotation of "cold fusion". Why would you think the use of another name would change that perspective ? The only way to getting "cold fusion" more into the mainstream is to get the more of mainstream into cold fusion and that won't work by simply relabeling it. One could argue that the first adopters amongst the mainstream are already listening very well. The university of Missouri, Elforsk, even the European commission is showing interest. Or does their involvement means they now have crossed over from the mainstream into the non-mainstream ? The article should not propose a name change for "cold fusion", but a name change for "mainstream science" instead. Proposals are: "not sticking one's neck out science", "can I make a living with that science", "we don't need new science", "publish or perish science" On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ > > [mg] >
