I think people in the CF field know and appreciate that two separate
issues are important to the field. The first addresses whether the CF
effect is real or not, and the second addresses whether commercially
useful energy can be produced. It is clear that the effect is real, but
it is not yet clear whether useful energy can be made. A few watts in a
laboratory does not count when addressing the second issue, which is the
thrust of the NG article. Most laboratory devices can not be scaled up
in their present form. Until the effect can be produced near the
kilowatt level on demand, the phenomenon can not be considered useful.
Of course, this fact does not justify rejection of the claims as is
common these days. I might add that the same criteria should be applied
to hot fusion. In this case, the method is not useful unless excess
power is in above megawatts because the size of the device is so large.
Ed
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 06:34 PM 7/23/2005, Ed Storms wrote:
Actually, the article was good and the statement about cold fusion was
accurate. Cold fusion is not yet a source of energy of any value.
Cold fusion is, however, a demonstrated phenomenon, which might have a
value in the future, a possibility the article leaves open.
Ed
Flip flop. Actually, Ed Storms previously wrote just the opposite:
Proof:
"The National Geographic in the August issue has a good article on the
energy problem. They even mention cold fusion - "A few scientists have
claimed that cold fusion, which promises energy from a simple jar
instead of a high-tech crucible, might work. The verdict so far: No such
luck." The article goes on to point out the most serious problems with
hot fusion. Not bad, we are now at the "verdict so far" stage. However,
something better work soon because the situation is getting serious.
Ed"
[Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:28:12 -0700 , Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
First, the statement, "A few scientists have claimed that cold fusion,
which promises energy from a simple jar instead of a high-tech crucible,
might work. The verdict so far: No such luck."
is simply not accurate. As one example, we have made cold fusion phusor
systems capable of producing excess energy of hundreds of thousands of
joules per day.
Lower power systems demonstrated
http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html Other positive reports
at: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
So in summary, the verdict is: CF works. The conclusion: The article
was not accurate do the degree that Ed Storms quoted it correctly.
Second, the statement, "... we are now at the "verdict so far" stage.
However, something better work soon because the situation is getting
serious." is also inaccurate.
Cold fusion works, and has for many years. Thus, Ed appears to herald
that some, at the inaccurately named and censored LENR site,
are apparently less aware of the success of others in the field.
[Perhaps that uncertainty, lack of knowledge, is a reflection of their
censorship (about which Gene Mallove complained before his murder).]
So the verdict stage is over. CF works and MANY are working to develop
and integrate it. Serious work indeed.
Dr. Mitchell Swartz
==========================================================
Update of Cold Fusion Times
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
also http://world.std.com/~mica/cftrev12-2.html
