On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Randy Wuller <rwul...@freeark.com> wrote: > Members of the Vortex: > > I joined last night to address an issue raised by Maryyugo. Being a lawyer I > really have no special expertise in the sciences and thus have little to > offer on technical issue. Thus, not wanting to burden all of you I will > likely either stay a member and be quiet or exit the membership in the near > term. I do read your website and have enjoyed all the debates and wonderful > information many of your members have to offer.
Welcome. Nobody's perfect. We have at least one other juris doktor in the audience, Mr. Beene. > The above being said, I have a very strong opinion about this latest posting > by Lattice Energy. I think it is utter nonsense to draw a distinction > between the term "Cold Fusion" and LENR. In my opinion they are both > moniker's for the same physical anomaly, ie anomalous heat described by Pons > and Fleischmann in 1989 and many others thereafter. I don't think a > definitive theory has been accepted, indeed plenty of mainstream scientists > seem not to accept it at all under either moniker. While I appreciate that > theories for the anomalous heat differ, I could care less which turns out to pardon my interruption; but, you really mean "I could *not* care less . . ." (sorry a pet peeve [prepare for chastising from SVJ]) > be correct and talking for the general public (only because I like them am > not a scientist) I doubt they do either. I also don't care if the name > given to the process is particularly accurate from a scientific standpoint, > you guys can call it whatever you want once you figure it out. Personally, > I think the term Cold Fusion is cool and would prefer to keep it as the > moniker of choice. Adobe likes "Cold Fusion" too. > What troubles me about this letter from Lattice Energy and Krivit's apparent > obsession with the distinction is the notion that somehow the people who > have used the term Cold Fusion to describe what they have been doing are > talking about a different physical anomaly. It also suggests these people > who from what I understand simply have a different theory to explain the > anomaly have been doing bad science. > This in my opinion is outlandish and the scientific community (ie YOU guys) > shouldn't stand for it. > > If LENR, Cold Fusion CANR (call it what you wish) becomes a commercial > energy source for the world, everyone who has worked on it regardless of > their theory should be applauded and recognized for keeping the torch > burning for mankind while many of your brethren scoffed at the subject. In all honesty, there are probably several different reactions happening which we tend to group under one term. As we are better educated, we will find more descriptive names for these reactions. > Just a lawyer's two cents. And you bill at, what, $300/hr. > Ransom Indeed! Welcome! T
