On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: > > A dislike for the possibility that some "knowledge" might be wrong. (Mostly > illusory. To use cold fusion to test existing theory, one must have a > proposed mechanism. Exiting theory does rule out some mechanisms, perhaps, > but can't rule out "unknown nuclear reaction," which, it has been so easily > forgotton, was what Pons and Fleischmann actually claimed, not "cold > fusion." The NY Times Fleischmann obituary got this directly wrong. Pons and > Fleischmann did not invent the term "cold fusion" and did not claim that > what they found -- the major anomalous heat -- was the result of fusion. > They asked the question, that's all.)
They did more than pose a question. They attempted to answer their own question by doing some experiments. Even if they did not officially "claim" their experiments demonstrated fusion, I am sure they were motivated by the speculation that fusion might occur in a lattice frequently enough to produce measureble heat. In other words they were exploring the question of "cold fusion", even if they did not call it that. Harry
