Actually, the article was good and the statement about cold fusion was
accurate. Cold fusion is not yet a source of energy of any value. Cold
fusion is, however, a demonstrated phenomenon, which might have a value
in the future, a possibility the article leaves open.
Ed
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mitchell Swartz writes:
How good could the article be with such inaccuracy about cold fusion?
The Real Deal, The verdict so far: Cold fusion is achievable by hard effort.
I agree that this National Geographic comment is awful, and I think Ed agrees.
But as they say in show business, any publicity is good publicity. Even an
attack on cold fusion helps draw attention to it. It motivates people to look
at on-line publications such as Swartz's and LENR-CANR. That is always a plus.
I have noticed an upsurge in interest for the past few weeks, mainly from
Germany and Italy, from the links I listed here. It is nothing dramatic, but on
the other hand traffic is usually very low this time of year because colleges
are not in session, except for summer school. Our traffic usually tracks the
academic calendar. During final exam weeks, it drops to nothing! That is one of
the reasons I think most of our readers are students and professors. In my
opinion, we cannot ask for a better audience.
- Jed
