Here is an email on cold fusion with my response;
================
Hi Michael!
You quoted this from one of my posts;
> I DIDN'T say it was impossible...just that published
> info to date indicates it won't succeed because of
> the degradation of heat production over time due to
> contamination by transmutation....a 'heat' battery
> that kills itself.
Where you wrote;
>> Jerry seems to imply that energy produced via
>> transmutation must quickly contaminate its source
>> to the point of inoperability. The actual time
>> scale can be long. Consider a counter example,
>> nuclear fission, which produces energy by
>> transmutation (fission) of uranium into two smaller
>> nuclei and a few neutrons.
>> ...Michael J. Schaffer
Now, now, let's not drag radioactivity into this...I'm
not an expert on the subject of that or cold fusion but
to my view, despite both being nuclear, they are
definitely apples and oranges....
You see, what has me frustrated with the cold fusion
church..<g>..is basically three things.
1) The first is the continual mixing of the production
of heat AND the completely separate issue of
transmutation. The term cold fusion seems to be
used interchangeably when describing either process
this adds to the mystique and resists clarification
- a signpost of coverup that I have seen over and
over in claims of free energy inventors who can't
or won't prove their claims. I'm not screaming
fraud, geez, from what I've seen posted and read
in IE, everyone seems to be quite sincere and just
wanting to figure it out, but WHEN free energy is
finally discovered, why have conferences about
it when it will inevitably become ubiquitous and
the cause taken up by major companies and
governments, so no room for the small groups and
disciples who pushed so hard to make it so. So
the more mysterious and confusing it is, the longer
it will remain a mystery, almost like alchemy with
the coded words and phrases...<g>....
If you guys would come up with ONE TERM for excess
heat production and ANOTHER TERM for transmutation,
it would greatly minimize this confusion.
2) The second issue I have with cold fusion is this
very decay and contamination process that you are
comparing to nuclear fission which does the same
thing but with quite different and more hazardous
byproducts and emissions. When Patterson hit the
news, one story mentioned an 'igloo' in your
backyard that would produce all the electricity you
needed for your home, with only a periodic
replacement of the beads. It never came to market
or any kind of unit anywhere near like the stories
promoted. Pattersons grandson came to a couple of
our meetings and talked for about 20 minutes to
our group about Patterson and what was to come...
it never did..and I think this premature prediction
hurt the entire field but that was Pattersons
promotions, not the cold fusion community..yet
with
all that research by so many individuals, cold
fusion just lurches along, supposedly having
hardware that works but if that is so, why not have
it verified long term and then get some publicity
in hopes of serious funding...but I see incessant
emails about what I consider artefacts and minutia
with no practical benefits. I quite realize that
free energy is much worse than cold fusion, but
some of us are cleaning up our own act and doing
frequent reality checks, so that is what I would
like to see happen in all alternative science
including cold fusion....again, I have no problem
with the claims of transmutation, no matter how
miniscule...but I do have problems with claims of
devices which do or will power your house when I
see no evidence publicly posted of long term heat
production at useful temperatures. Even Storms
says 'there are devices working in labs', but I
really don't want to be dragged into all the
semantics which flood vortex on some subjects,
particularly cold fusion...if it produces useful
heat long term, then do a spread in IE, otherwise,
IMO, it is wishful thinking or a lab queen which
will never see production as a heat production
device.
3) My third issue with the cold fusion crowd is the
constant slamming of their critics...from what I
can see, it appears they just want a working
proof...but it still gets tangled up in the generic
term of 'cold fusion' which is still used
interchangeably with heat production as quite
different from transmutation. It seems those
who are most confident respond the least, while
those riding on the edge of reality or truth will
scream bloody murder from the smallest negative
comment or expression of doubt....this is puzzling
if the proof of sustained heat production is
SO...meaning TRUE and PROVEN.
So, ideally, I think the best thing you guys could do
is to either create a NEW term, perhaps letting COLD
FUSION apply SPECIFICALLY and justly to LOW ENERGY
TRANSMUTATION....whereas another term would apply
SPECIFICALLY to anomalous heat production....
Yet another option is leaving COLD FUSION as a dual
term with two additional terms, one meaning
transmutation, the other meaning anomalous heat
production.
That way, the confusion would at least stop from COLD
FUSION being used to mean two things......
Well, I do hope something positive comes out of all
this effort you guys have made in that field, but for
the life of me, I can't see any practical benefit when
there are so many other developed technologies that
achieve the same thing and much cheaper...of course I
am referring to heat production for electrical power or
home heating ONLY...not transmutation...none of them
free energy nor would the cold fusion cell have to be
free energy, just that it works before making any
public statements or claims of it working.
Again, I'm not out to get anyone or tick you guys
off...I admire both the tenaciousness and detailed
knowledge of cold fusion researchers, but I just can't
see all that time and effort spent for something that
won't be free energy (as pointed out, CONSUMING
MATERIAL to produce the heat), nor will it last long
enough to produce the heat energy that will repay its
initial purchase and repair from the inevitable
contamination...
Thanks for the cordial post...I love it when people can
get their points across and discuss any errors or
misconceptions without resorting to attacks -
especially in a public forum such as a discussion
list...
===
=================================
Please respond to jdecker@keelynet.com
as I am writing from my work email of
jwdatwork@yahoo.com.........thanks!
=================================
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com