Re: [Vo]:A debate: What to call "Cold Fusion"

2011-06-11 Thread mixent
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:10:12 -0700: Hi, [snip] >However, the real point of this post is that "mass" assigned to an element >is an average, and the deviation for average is unknown. The range of mass >in any element could be small, which is the mainstream viewpoint

Re: [Vo]:A debate: What to call "Cold Fusion"

2011-06-11 Thread mixent
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:10:12 -0700: Hi, [snip] >"Isomer energy" itself is a newer field that was born out of top secret >military devices like the hafnium or tantalum (gamma) lasers. "What" the >nature of the loss mass involved consists of - is nebulous: Gluons? P

RE: [Vo]:A debate: What to call "Cold Fusion"

2011-06-11 Thread Jones Beene
Well, Steven - since we are back to "name calling" - CANR is a good name, but it may miss the PR-boat (public relations) - particularly if this "field" aspires to have an identity that encompasses most of the hydrogen energy anomalies. Nuclear decay, fission or fusion do not violate CoE for the si

RE: [Vo]:A debate: What to call "Cold Fusion"

2011-06-11 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
The following is from Edmund Storms who gave me permission to post his thoughts pertaining to this subject thread. *** > I gave a lot of thought to what was basic to the process when I > proposed Chemically Assisted Nuclear R

Re: [Vo]:A debate: What to call "Cold Fusion"

2011-06-09 Thread Alan J Fletcher
At 03:30 PM 6/9/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: There has been a lot of debate pertaining to what might turn out to be a more accurate descriptive term for "Cold Fusion". Should the phenomenon be called CANR - Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions? Or should it be called LENR - Low Ene

Re: [Vo]:A debate: What to call "Cold Fusion"

2011-06-09 Thread Terry Blanton
North Carolina will love it. T