Jed, You were nit picking Mark, we all new what he meant.
I will await the next edition of your book, "Anomalous Heat and the Future" On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Chemical Engineer <[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');>> wrote > >> >> On one hand you want to be technical and on the other hand you do not. >> Which is It? >> > > There is no confusion. A discussion as to whether cold fusion produces > heat and helium is technical. > > A discussion about the name -- cold fusion -- is semantic nitpicking. > There are countless words in English, Japanese and all other languages > which are technically inaccurate, obsolete, confusing, obscure or in some > other way not a good one-for-one logical description. Language is not a > good description of reality. Words are arbitrary symbols. The word is not > itself the thing it represents. The word taken literally may well be > absurd. "Folder" meaning for a collection of computer files is a good > example. It is not even a little like a manila folder. For that matter, > manila folders have little to do with the Philippines. Word definitions > wander around and are forever in flux. > > "Cold fusion" or "LENR" or the "F-P effect" all refer to the same thing. > They refer to the phenomenon characterized by heat without a chemical > reaction that far exceeds the limits of chemical reaction; helium; sporadic > tritium, and so on. The experimental results define what the phenomenon is. > The name is merely a tag or placeholder used to indicate the phenomenon. A > person who would argue which of these various designations is best, based > on the word root (the literal meaning), does not understand how language > works. > > - Jed > >
