>From Randy Wuller: ...
> ... 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. Many on this list have argued this very issue. So have I. Before I was asked to resign, while I was still a BoD member on Krivit's New Energy Time's (NET) publication I asked Steve Krivit why is NET making such a big deal out of knocking the word "cold fusion" out of the ball park. I noticed that Krivt seemed strongly inclined to replace the "cold fusion" word with another word, "nuclear reaction" - as if the term "nuclear reaction" explained everything more succinctly. The only problem is: nobody really knows what's going on. ...not yet. Whether this is true or not, Krivit's attempt to destroy the "cold fusion" word helped brand him as a Widom Larsen cheer leader advocate. I think it has also left many observers with the distinct impression that certain corners of the "CF" field have a bone to pick. Much of the pickings seem to be blatant product placement. Accept no imitations other than our own brand. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
