>From Mark:
... Bockris states: > "If I understand clearly what you say, you agree that some of > the work that has been going on may involve nuclear reactions," > Bockris wrote, "but that it's not fusion. Is that what you said? > If it is, then I agree with it. Most of the condensed matter > nuclear reactions do not involve fusion." I hope Bockris can be more forthcoming in explaining the distinctions. Or perhaps you can explain it, Mark. What is the difference between terminology stated to be a "nuclear reaction" versus terminology stated to be a "fusion" or "cold fusion" reaction, particularly if both terms imply that a nuclear particle (or particles) somehow manage to enter the nucleus of the atom and subsequently cause the nucleus to transmute into different isotope or element. I tried asking Mr. Krivit that question when I was still a NET BoD member. I never got a satisfactory answer from Mr. Krivit, other than Steve telling me that my question was a "... very good question." Meanwhile, the layman certainly isn't going to give a hoot about such distinctions. I realize there are those that seem to be making a concerted effort to state that if a neutron enters a nucleus of an atom it shouldn't be called a "fusion" reaction, but rather a "nuclear" reaction. I fail to see why calling it a "nuclear" reaction versus a "fusion" reaction is considered such a revelation. What bugs me is that on-going attempts to skewer the "F" word strike me primarily as a semantics game, where an on-going product placement war is in progress. It's almost as if the W-L camp is attempting to trademark the term "nuclear reaction" as belonging exclusively to their theory, and to their theory alone. Accept no imitations. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
