Here is a comment posted to the vort list which necessitated a response
about the lack of reality in cold fusion. The same applies to free
energy, lots of claims, but nothing that works, or that has been
produced and tested independently...same song, different venue...<g>.;
===========================
Hi Thomas et al!
Thomas Malloy had written;
> NPR's Market Place program had an interview on Wednesday with cold
> fusion debunker Gary Taube. He ascerted that there was no evidence
> to believe that cold fusion was possible and compaired a belief in
> the possibility of CF producing any energy to a belief in God. For
> almost no effort, there was an infinite payoff.
>
> This really put my nose out of joint. I wrote them a nasty Email. I
> mentioned Taube's appearance on NPR's Science Friday during which a
> scientist called him a flack, some thing that is there to confuse
> the issue.
>
> I pointed out to them that there are rare isotopes in the electrodes
> that weren't there before. I also mentioned the upcomming conference
> that the Dept. of State is sponsoring, and Anthony Sutton's book.
> Does anyone know of any other evidence for energy production by CF?
> I know about CETI's operation of the Patterson Cell, the LENT reactor
> and Paul Brown's work.
Interesting that the confusion still persists about what cold fusion
actually means and why there still isn't a self-sustaining unit...it is
exactly like the quest for free energy, where no self-sustaining working
unit that everyone can test, duplicate or buy outright has been
produced.
Is the goal of cold fusion experimenters that of transmutation without
the use of high energy cyclotron bombardment OR is the goal that of
anomalous heat production?
I understand and appreciate all the time and effort that has been
devoted to the study of cold fusion (which parallels the quest for free
energy in many ways) but still, I cannot see cold fusion (for years now)
as anything more than a chemical battery which eventually requires that
the materials be replaced, yet not having produced sufficient useful
power during its lifespan (of heat production) to repay the construction
or replacement costs.
At one of his low level energy conferences a few years ago, John Bockris
told me that he found the transmutations far more intriguing than the
heat production and that if he could, he would prefer to devote the
remainder of his life to studying just that effect.
Also at one of those conferences, the 2nd one I believe, Ken Shoulders
showed how the production of electron charge clusters in his experiments
produces almost identical elemental 'dirt' as that reported in the many
cold fusion tests.
At the time, I was surprised at the almost complete lack of interest and
response to this sweeping discovery among the participants and said so
to Ken. It struck me that he was considered an 'outsider' (as was I
though invited personally by Dr. Bockris for reasons he and I both know)
and so Ken's views were not worthy of consideration, therefore they
should not respond or show interest publicly.
This is a typical view I have experienced on occasion with academics in
packs, though when alone, they do not hesitate to corner you requesting
additional information, just don't let the others know..<g>...some of
them are even decent folk, giving you a business card and asking you to
keep in touch, PRIVATELY....a total shame they must take such views for
fear of condemnation by association with unorthodox views which over
time DO become absorbed into orthodox thinking.
....From what Ken had presented, it pointed to the realization that
charge clusters (bundled electrons) were the CAUSE of the anomlous heat
production in cold fusion experiments.
I see this 'want to believe' syndrome everywhere in the free energy
community...I experience it myself but not to a degree that no proof is
ever required when a claim of a working unit is made. Concepts,
theories, ideas are fine, but a claim of successful operation demands
proof, if they can't or won't provide such proof, then go away.
In most of the reports I have read, there is low level trasmutation
going on which produces heat as a side effect. The idea as I understand
it, is to tap into that heat and use it for practical purposes.
However, as Gene Mallove pointed out to me, the reaction cannot
self-sustain for long periods because the pure elements initially used
become contaminated due to the transmutations.
Because of that, the reaction cannot continue on its own and the heat
production quenches once the contamination sufficiently corrodes the
original pure materials.
That is exactly what happens in a battery, the charge capacity
(analogous to heat production) diminishes as the plates become corroded
or overcome with sulfates (analogous to transmutation contamination).
So, the bottomline is that like the quest for free energy which hasn't
produced a working self-running device that will sustain an outside
load, so too has cold fusion failed in that respect.
The outside world, consumers, businesses, and investors, looks only for
what works, RELIABLY, not in unending reports of minutia interesting
only to purists and those so close to the work as to not see the forest
for the trees, wanting to believe so badly that any questions regarding
the validity of cold fusion as offering a new source of reliable energy
is treated as blasphemy and requires attack.
There are many interesting anomalies but as I see it, without the
transmutation effect, you don't get the anomalous heat.
With the transmutation effect, the elemental pollution eventually kills
the effect.
So, its a no win situation unless you can learn to transmute elements on
a scale large enough to pay for the process and gain a profit OR learn
to transmute into elements which see-saw back and forth with other
elements that do NOT completely quench the heat production.
Possibly producing a stepped reduction of heat as the units age and the
contamination goes through levels of senescence, such a design would
simply degrade in power over time, much like what happens now...<g>..
My favorite critic is Don Lancaster, who often lambastes KeelyNet in his
column though he still doesn't get it that we are simply looking for
working devices, not claims. In that process, we look for theories,
anomalies, new concepts or ideas and discussions which could lead to
correlations that in turn will lead to a working hypothesis and
experiment.
That is all that people are wanting and asking for. Show us a working
device that economically does work and that we can buy and test. One
that proves the claim, without all the reports of minutia in countless
experiments, yet none of which has resulted in a device that others can
buy and use.
Am I in error on this? IS there a self-sustaining cold fusion device
that does useful work available? And that produces sufficient energy to
compensate for the purchase price of the unit?
If not, then what is the argument? IMO, it is delusional to continue
claiming results which are not proveable with working hardware that can
be demonstrated publicly.
I would LOVE to see a cold fusion cell, that once assembled and
initialized, would produce steam or heat which could be converted
thermo-electrically for one year or MORE. But that is not the case and
every experiment I have seen shows no hope of this.
Consider the logic of WHY they won't work (barring some great
discovery);
1) Heat is produced ONLY when then pure elements inside transmute
2) Once the pure elements are contaminated, the heat stops
3) you cannot have heat without transmutation
therefore, it won't work in a practical sense.
It's quite simple, cold fusion researchers and proponents, MUST, like
those in the quest for free energy, produce a working self-sustained,
economically viable device.
At this time and since the original Pons/Fleischman release, cold fusion
remains all theory based on reports of minutia until a self-sustaining
working device is developed, tested, then independently tested and shown
to do useful work, economically and in a way superior to other chemical
methods such as batteries and hopefully soon to be available hydrogen
fuel cells.
Sorry, but I see no way out of this.
The quest for excess heat through cold fusion is a self-defeating
process so the best bet is to admit it and redirect efforts to what John
Bockris suggested in the first place, focus on practical, large scale
transmutation or go to experiments which offer more promise.
At the very least, stop making such grandiose claims based on
experiments which my late friend Arthur Coleman called 'lab queens'.
They work fine under the IDEAL CONDITIONS of a lab, but fail miserably
in the real world.
-- Jerry Wayne Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187