I'll agree. Mallove was talking about the FPHE, which *is* cold fusion (remaining arguments are semantic/pedantic. If deuterium is being converted to helium, and it is, no matter what the mechanism, it is fusion as to result.)
But we don't know the mechanism for NiH. We don't really even know if the results are LENR. We just aren't there yet, as to what has been sufficiently confirmed. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:13 PM, "Jones Beene" <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > With all deference to Dr. Mallove, this is simply not a smart rationale. It > smacks of some kind of psychological payback. > > Science "aspires" to be more than vindictive (even when it is not above that > sin, most of the time)... and if anything, if LENR proponents take the high > road, they are not giving up very much. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig > >> You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold >> fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this >> is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion" >> should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is >> arguable evidence of fusion. There is none. > > Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological > skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear > them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have > been shown to be correct? > > Craig > > <winmail.dat>
