Christopher Arnold wrote:
Ed,
Some people love to distort the true intent of a post by quoting out of
context or nitpicking to cause an argument. Both tact's are
counterproductive but to be expected in any endeavor designed to
increase our understanding of Fusion science or even general science,
as some are against progress while most are indifferent to ideas beyond
their grasp.
Very true, Chris. However, the distortion is usually based more on the
personality of the responder than on the subject. Some people can not
stand the idea that someone else has a thought that is contrary to their
own.
Real progress in fusion will begin when the lead scientists admit that
magnetic confinement is an excessive waste of power - and get rid of it.
That will force them to look at Farnsworth type fusion at the expense of
the Tokamak cash cow, and reason will give way to common sense and
Tokamak will continue to be touted as the "correct" fusion method.
I would not count on rejection of hot fusion happening anytime soon. Too
much money, too many people, and too many companies are involved. For CF
to get the required attention, someone needs to produce a demonstration
like the one shown in the movie, "The Saint". Meanwhile, private money
will continue to explore the subject until such a demonstration is
possible.
Regards.
Ed
Bottom line - we must succeed in spite of the current fusion experts,
people like Pons, Fleischmann, Mizuno, Dr. Storms, Richard Hull, Jed
Rothwell and the rest of "US" - or fusion for power will continue to be
out of reach.
Chris
Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 ]
>
> 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 Stor! ms 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
>!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
