Someone explain this to me. Here are the two virtually identical titles from two supposedly different journals.
Scientific American "Flame-Taming Electric Fields Could Make Power Plants Cleaner"
MIT Technology Review "Flame-Shaping Electric Fields Could Make Power Plants Cleaner"
"Much of the air pollution produced by today’s fossil-fuel power plants is the result of imperfect combustion. Hot spots in a flame increase the reactions between fuel and air molecules and lead to formation of common air pollutants like nitrogen oxides (or NOx, a precursor to smog), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter."
MIT Technology Review:
"Much of the pollution from a power plant is the result of problems with combustion. If parts of a flame get too hot, it can lead to the formation of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog. Similarly, incomplete burning, which can result from the poor mixing of fuel and air, can form soot."
It is unclear to me whether or not Scientific American borrowed from the earlier MIT Technology Review, or whether both borrowed from some other text (like a company press release, presentation, or a rote telephone pitch). It is highly improbable however that both reporters independently researched the company and independently came up with the same title and much of the same message.
On the other hand, it is highly probable that the reporters were just saving time by working with management-prepared material. The “articles” read like promotional material designed by and for Clearsign, and not at all like independent research focused on the underlying technology and the original innovators.
"An open letter to Scientific American and MIT Technology Review"
Matt - 3 foot crowbar
Virtually identical titles ... Syntax and word choice too close for individual thinking. Most likely very little, if any, research was done here. This reads like promotional language from Clearsign itself.