[Vo]:Google Project 10^100
Jed Rothwell wrote on 25 Sep 2008: Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly $300 million to $600 million, which is what it cost to develop similar surface effect, solid-state devices such as the Aegis radar. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: If my device works, it could be thousands of times more effective than the current CF reactors, and could be developed for less than 2 million dollars (and that's a very high estimate). With 2 or 3 dedicated people willing to work for free in their spare time and the availability of a good machine shop, a prototype could be built for a few thousand dollars. --- One advantage that CF does have over my design, is that it is essentially radiation free, while my design would most likely result in ordinary fusion reactions. However I think that considering the state the World is currently in, that many would be prepared to accept ordinary fusion as a stop gap measure until a radiation free form could be developed. --- I have chosen a different approach. Make a guess at the mechanism, and assume it is correct. Then optimize a design based upon the guess. Build the design. If the guess was correct, it will pay off. If not, then little is lost. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Hi Robin, I want to send you $1000 US for your project, no strings. Please post instructions. Thanks, Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Quoting Ed Storms: It is not necessary for the breakthrough to lead directly to a practical device. I agree with Ed about this, but it should be noted that other people such as Mike Melich feel that theory is somewhat overrated and that it is possible to make practical devices without a theory. He is the one who pointed to the Aegis radar example. According to him, the materials problems were worked out by Edisonian techniques and even today the theory is somewhat inadequate to explain performance. (I expect it is better than cold fusion theory.) Aegis is a phased-array radar system. The antenna is a large flat plate with over a thousand individual radiating elements whose phase can be individually changed by a computer. The result is a well formed, electronically steered, beam which can flick across the sky, tracking multiple targets at the same time. The Aegis system has in mutiple trials intercepted incoming missiles. The phase shifting means is proprietary. Melich could be correct that its formulation was empirical, but it was well withing established knowledge. However, the situation in LENR is a bit different. Nobody has built even a 1 kW reactor and run it for weeks. We don't know what the consumables are in the long term. All we have are interesting effects. We don't need a comprehensive theory, only a means to get X kilowatt-months. And don't forget that that the kilowatts must be in excess of the power necessary to run the aparatus. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
Mike Carrell wrote: The phase shifting means is proprietary. Melich could be correct that its formulation was empirical, but it was well withing established knowledge. He was discussing the materials used to make the components, not the electronics. The materials were tested and improved with Edisonian techniques. I suppose the electronics design was by first principles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:05:23 -0600: Hi Ed, [snip] Evidence is growing for several mechanisms to be operating. We know that tritium can be produced on occasion without neutrons. Perhaps, the same mechanism makes neutrons without tritium. [snip] I find this somewhat confusing. The two common DD reactions are: D + D - T + p + 4 MeV (no neutrons) I and D + D - He3 + n + 3.3 MeV (one neutron).II Therefore, if only the first reaction takes place, then it is to be expected that T would be found with no neutrons. The second reaction would make neutrons, but would concurrently produce He3, not Tritium. Granted, in hot fusion, both reactions happen with about equal frequency, hence the concurrent production of both T and neutrons, however I see no reason why there couldn't be a shift in the ratio of the two reactions under the conditions of CF. (This may particularly be true if rather larger Deuterinos are involved, where the internuclear distance severely limits the reaction rate, thus perhaps enhancing any probability difference between the two reactions.) In that case I would expect it to be skewed toward the reaction with the largest energy release, and that is of course the first reaction. IOW I would expect to occasionally see T and protons, but rarely He3 plus neutrons. (It's easier for a neutron from one nucleus to tunnel across the gap to the other nucleus than for a proton to do so, because the neutron doesn't experience the Coulomb barrier - at least that's my simplistic explanation). I agree with much of your reasoning. However, we now know the tritium branch can be stimulated. Now we have a little evidence that the neutron branch might also be stimulated. Although the two branches are equal in hot fusion, the probably of stimulating each branch might depend on the environment in cold fusion. Stimulation of the He4 branch certainly depends on the environment, why not the other branches as well? You can also think of this in Mills' terms: On average in a Deuterino molecule, the nuclei will try to orient themselves such that the two protons are as far apart as possible (even at distance, before tunneling), which puts the two neutrons in the middle when tunneling does occur, preferentially resulting in the formation of T). If the distance between the nuclei gets very small OTOH, then it makes less and less difference, because the short range nuclear force will act without fear or favour, which is what we see with ordinary hot fusion, or with muon catalyzed fusion. Furthermore, in hot fusion the temperatures are so high that the rotational energy of the ions must of necessity also be high. That means that any preference the protons might have for staying as far apart as possible gets largely washed out. I suggest it is too early to suggest a mechanism. We are not yet sure the proposed neutrons are real. Regards, Ed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Taylor J. Smith's message of Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:41:57 +: Hi Jack, [snip] I have chosen a different approach. Make a guess at the mechanism, and assume it is correct. Then optimize a design based upon the guess. Build the design. If the guess was correct, it will pay off. If not, then little is lost. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Hi Robin, I want to send you $1000 US for your project, no strings. Please post instructions. Thanks, Jack Smith That's very generous of you, but I'm afraid it wouldn't make any difference, and besides, I'm not looking for handouts. What I am looking for is a genuine partnership, where all involved benefit from the resultant work. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Vo]:Google Project 10^100
See: http://www.project10tothe100.com/index.html I submitted an application to this project. Not expecting a response, but anyway, I have covered this. In the application form field #11, Describe your idea in more depth. (maximum 300 words) I wrote the following: Cold fusion (the Fleischmann-Pons effect) is a nuclear effect that was replicated by Los Alamos, BARC and hundreds of other major laboratories worldwide. These replications were published in hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers. Cold fusion has produced temperatures and power density equivalent to a fission reactor core. It has produced hundreds of watts of heat from a device the same of a coin, and 10,000 times more energy than any possible chemical fuel. It has to potential to produce energy thousands of times cheaper than fossil fuel, with no carbon dioxide emissions, virtually no pollution, and unlimited supplies of fuel. Unfortunately, the research cannot be funded in the U.S. because of academic politics, opposition by funding agencies, and ridicule by a few major magazines and newspapers. Department of Energy (DoE) advisory panels have twice recommended that a modicum of research be funded, but the DoE has ignored this advice. It is time for the public to demand that scientists who wish to investigate this phenomenon be funded and allowed to do so. We advocate budgeting a few million dollars per year in basic research at National Laboratories and universities. If promising devices emerge, budgets should be increased to allow rapid development. Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly $300 million to $600 million, which is what it cost to develop similar surface effect, solid-state devices such as the Aegis radar. Our web site features a bibliography of 3,500 research papers on cold fusion (including more than 1,000 peer-reviewed ones) and the full text from 500 papers. Our purpose is to provide accurate, original source information to the scientific community, and to educate the public about the vital need for this research. See lenr-canr.org
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
Hope this works Jed, or at least makes people aware. Ed On Sep 25, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://www.project10tothe100.com/index.html I submitted an application to this project. Not expecting a response, but anyway, I have covered this. In the application form field #11, Describe your idea in more depth. (maximum 300 words) I wrote the following: Cold fusion (the Fleischmann-Pons effect) is a nuclear effect that was replicated by Los Alamos, BARC and hundreds of other major laboratories worldwide. These replications were published in hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers. Cold fusion has produced temperatures and power density equivalent to a fission reactor core. It has produced hundreds of watts of heat from a device the same SIZE of a coin, and 10,000 times more energy than any possible chemical fuel. It has to potential to produce energy thousands of times cheaper than fossil fuel, with no carbon dioxide emissions, virtually no pollution, and unlimited supplies of fuel. Unfortunately, the research cannot be funded in the U.S. because of academic politics, opposition by funding agencies, and ridicule by a few major magazines and newspapers. Department of Energy (DoE) advisory panels have twice recommended that a modicum of research be funded, but the DoE has ignored this advice. It is time for the public to demand that scientists who wish to investigate this phenomenon be funded and allowed to do so. We advocate budgeting a few million dollars per year in basic research at National Laboratories and universities. If promising devices emerge, budgets should be increased to allow rapid development. Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly $300 million to $600 million, which is what it cost to develop similar surface effect, solid-state devices such as the Aegis radar. Our web site features a bibliography of 3,500 research papers on cold fusion (including more than 1,000 peer-reviewed ones) and the full text from 500 papers. Our purpose is to provide accurate, original source information to the scientific community, and to educate the public about the vital need for this research. See lenr- canr.org
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
People should vote for me next year. I will remind everyone -- if I remember. Quote from: http://www.project10tothe100.com/how_it_works.html How it works Project 10^100 (pronounced Project 10 to the 100th) is a call for ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible. Here's how to join in. 1. Send us your idea by October 20th. Simply fill out the submission form giving us the gist of your idea. You can supplement your proposal with a 30-second video. 2. Voting on ideas begins on January 27th. We'll post a selection of one hundred ideas and ask you, the public, to choose twenty semi-finalists. Then an advisory board will select up to five final ideas. Send me a reminder to vote. 3. We'll help bring these ideas to life. We're committing $10 million to implement these projects, and our goal is to help as many people as possible. So remember, money may provide a jumpstart, but the idea is the thing.
RE: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
Hi Jed, Very well put and thanks for submitting it. I hope they get the message. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] See: http://www.project10tothe100.com/index.html I submitted an application to this project. Not expecting a response, but anyway, I have covered this...
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:00:51 -0400: Hi, [snip] Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly $300 million to $600 million, which is what it cost to develop similar surface effect, solid-state devices such as the Aegis radar. [snip] If my device works, it could be thousands of times more effective than the current CF reactors, and could be developed for less than 2 million dollars (and that's a very high estimate). With 2 or 3 dedicated people willing to work for free in their spare time and the availability of a good machine shop, a prototype could be built for a few thousand dollars. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly $300 million to $600 million . . . [snip] If my device works, it could be thousands of times more effective than the current CF reactors, and could be developed for less than 2 million dollars (and that's a very high estimate). Well, it would still cost hundreds of millions to make it into a practical device. At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, we are one breakthrough away from a practical device. I think Celani may also be in that position, but let us wait to see if he is replicated. Arata also has promising approach but who knows what to make of his calorimetry. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
Looks like a new energy bubble forming... This time those in the field must maintain transparency. 'scalled peer review.
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly $300 million to $600 million . . . [snip] If my device works, it could be thousands of times more effective than the current CF reactors, and could be developed for less than 2 million dollars (and that's a very high estimate). Well, it would still cost hundreds of millions to make it into a practical device. At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, we are one breakthrough away from a practical device. I think Celani may also be in that position, but let us wait to see if he is replicated. Arata also has promising approach but who knows what to make of his calorimetry. No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is understood. Simply replicating a process that works is only the first step. This only makes possible a search for the mechanism, a process that will take much money and time. Even after the mechanism is understood, many more millions will be needed to show that the device is safe and will last long enough to be practical. Meanwhile, most investment money will go into solar and wind where the advantages are obvious and where a return on the dollar can be calculated. Cold fusion will get pennies until it can discover the mechanism though lucky chance. Meanwhile, we all can beat on the system to make it more receptive when the mechanism is discovered. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
Edmund Storms wrote: At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, we are one breakthrough away from a practical device. . . . No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is understood. Well, I think the gist of the NRL guy's comment was that Pam Boss's neutrons or something like that may break ground for theory. That is, a breakthrough may illuminate the mechanism. I can imagine they are one breakthrough away from that (but of course it is impossible to know they are). It is not necessary for the breakthrough to lead directly to a practical device. I agree with Ed about this, but it should be noted that other people such as Mike Melich feel that theory is somewhat overrated and that it is possible to make practical devices without a theory. He is the one who pointed to the Aegis radar example. According to him, the materials problems were worked out by Edisonian techniques and even today the theory is somewhat inadequate to explain performance. (I expect it is better than cold fusion theory.) Simply replicating a process that works is only the first step. This only makes possible a search for the mechanism, a process that will take much money and time. Even after the mechanism is understood, many more millions will be needed to show that the device is safe and will last long enough to be practical. Right. Plus you have to design practical products and set up production lines and so on. I am sure in the end it will cost billions. But the costs are trivial compared to the benefits. The first essential steps -- the physics breakthrough -- may well be doable with a few million dollars, as Robin van Spaandonk claims. Frankly, even $100 million cannot guarantee clear thinking or a breakthrough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:20:27 -0400: Hi, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly $300 million to $600 million . . . [snip] If my device works, it could be thousands of times more effective than the current CF reactors, and could be developed for less than 2 million dollars (and that's a very high estimate). Well, it would still cost hundreds of millions to make it into a practical device. No, that's precisely the difference. CF as it stands rarely yields an excess of more than a few percent (and when it does, no one understands why). It is this primitive state of affairs which would make it expensive to develop. My device (if it worked at all), would more likely yield an excess on the order of 1000 fold (by design). That means that even the prototype would be immediately commercially feasible, and also easily scaled up. The entire expensive and painstaking improvement by baby steps process is eliminated. This is a consequence of the huge energy multiplication factor inherent in the process, combined with the elimination of the process randomness inherent in current CF designs. One advantage that CF does have over my design, is that it is essentially radiation free, while my design would most likely result in ordinary fusion reactions. However I think that considering the state the World is currently in, that many would be prepared to accept ordinary fusion as a stop gap measure until a radiation free form could be developed. At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, we are one breakthrough away from a practical device. I think Celani may also be in that position, but let us wait to see if he is replicated. Arata also has promising approach but who knows what to make of his calorimetry. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:33:40 -0600: Hi, [snip] No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is understood. Simply replicating a process that works is only the first step. This only makes possible a search for the mechanism, a process that will take much money and time. Even after the mechanism is understood, many more millions will be needed to show that the device is safe and will last long enough to be practical. Meanwhile, most investment money will go into solar and wind where the advantages are obvious and where a return on the dollar can be calculated. Cold fusion will get pennies until it can discover the mechanism though lucky chance. Meanwhile, we all can beat on the system to make it more receptive when the mechanism is discovered. Ed [snip] I have chosen a different approach. Make a guess at the mechanism, and assume it is correct. Then optimize a design based upon the guess. Build the design. If the guess was correct, it will pay off. If not, then little is lost. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
I've seen a repeated posting with fantastical ideas about aether and parallel universes. Now really, come on! Whether it is private or public money you need to have projects with clear objectives backed up with some testable theory or suppositions. The way they work these things is bit by bit they give you the funding on reaching clear milestones. I once watched and warned an investor about a perpetual motion machine which was flawed. The guy was passing himself off as a professor even though he'd left the institution that awarded it. He did no work, never attended meetings and produced no workings or very, very poor quality material. The investor was very patient and in reality, philanthropic. We've got to separate the wheat from the chaff unless another bubble will occur in new energy.
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:48:07 -0400: Hi, [snip] Frankly, even $100 million cannot guarantee clear thinking or a breakthrough. [snip] There is no such thing as a perfect guarantee. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Well, it would still cost hundreds of millions to make it into a practical device. No, that's precisely the difference. CF as it stands rarely yields an excess of more than a few percent (and when it does, no one understands why). That's incorrect on two counts: 1. In recent years devices at Energetics Technology and elsewhere produce much more than a few percent. 2. They know exactly why this is so. That is to say, control factors and necessary conditions have been identified. See the section I appended here the other day: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cold_fusion It is this primitive state of affairs which would make it expensive to develop. Obviously these primitive conditions must be overcome before anything can be developed. Overcoming them may cost only of $2 million. For that matter it might cost nothing and be made from some old stuff lying around in Ed's basement, or Mizuno's soon-to-be-closed lab-in-a-broom-closet. But you are missing the main point. Even if you come up with a device that produces power 100% of the time with perfect control, someone still has to spend billions of dollars dealing with practical issues such as redesigning automobiles and other products; ensuring consumer safety; and setting up production lines. These are minor cost compared to the benefit. I am sure that if you could demonstrate a potentially practical device the money to do this sort of Qhing would quickly be forthcoming. But that money will be needed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, we are one breakthrough away from a practical device. . . . No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is understood. Well, I think the gist of the NRL guy's comment was that Pam Boss's neutrons or something like that may break ground for theory. That is, a breakthrough may illuminate the mechanism. I can imagine they are one breakthrough away from that (but of course it is impossible to know they are). It is not necessary for the breakthrough to lead directly to a practical device. I wish the Boss work were a breakthrough. Unfortunately, the process that makes apparent neutron emission during co-deposition cannot be operating in a heat-producing cell. Otherwise, the neutrons would have been easily detected. Evidence is growing for several mechanisms to be operating. We know that tritium can be produced on occasion without neutrons. Perhaps, the same mechanism makes neutrons without tritium. In any case, this process does not make helium, the source of the heat, and transmutation. Even tis observation opens all kinds of possible process that so far have not been demonstrated to be consistent with other expectations and with normal science. I agree with Ed about this, but it should be noted that other people such as Mike Melich feel that theory is somewhat overrated and that it is possible to make practical devices without a theory. He is the one who pointed to the Aegis radar example. According to him, the materials problems were worked out by Edisonian techniques and even today the theory is somewhat inadequate to explain performance. (I expect it is better than cold fusion theory.) Radar was not a nuclear reaction that might be put in homes. No one will permit a device that might blow up unexpectedly to be put into use. We all know this doesn't happen, but this must be proven beyond any doubt to the regulators. Only a complete understanding of the process will be believed. Simply replicating a process that works is only the first step. This only makes possible a search for the mechanism, a process that will take much money and time. Even after the mechanism is understood, many more millions will be needed to show that the device is safe and will last long enough to be practical. Right. Plus you have to design practical products and set up production lines and so on. I am sure in the end it will cost billions. But the costs are trivial compared to the benefits. The first essential steps -- the physics breakthrough -- may well be doable with a few million dollars, as Robin van Spaandonk claims. Frankly, even $100 million cannot guarantee clear thinking or a breakthrough. Everyone has their hopes and dreams. Next, a person needs to get other people to follow their lead, which is not easy to do even under the best of circumstances. This process will take years. Meanwhile enjoy the process but don't quit your day job. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:05:23 -0600: Hi, [snip] Everyone has their hopes and dreams. Next, a person needs to get other people to follow their lead, which is not easy to do even under the best of circumstances. This process will take years. Meanwhile enjoy the process but don't quit your day job. Ed [snip] Truer words were n'er spake! :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
Edmund Storms wrote: I wish the Boss work were a breakthrough. Unfortunately, the process that makes apparent neutron emission during co-deposition cannot be operating in a heat-producing cell. Well, that means it is not practical breakthrough but it still might illuminate the mechanism as I put it. History is full of examples of laboratory breakthroughs that had no direct practical application yet which pointed the way to practical improvements in other, related technology. Otherwise, the neutrons would have been easily detected. My point is that once you detect the neutrons in any cold fusion cell perhaps they will reveal the essential information that leads to a theory. Radar was not a nuclear reaction that might be put in homes. No one will permit a device that might blow up unexpectedly to be put into use. We all know this doesn't happen, but this must be proven beyond any doubt to the regulators. Only a complete understanding of the process will be believed. I think this is somewhat overstated. At some levels we do not have complete understanding of anything, even combustion. We certainly do not have complete control over combustion. Fires from heat engines and heating equipment killed thousands of people every year. If cold fusion devices are developed for specialized niche applications, and then they are run for millions of hours without incident, I think people would be willing to put them into homes. People are willing to accept a high degree of risk, after all. They drive automobiles at high speeds even though this causes roughly 40,000 deaths per year. Because of a psychological quirk, people are more willing to accept risk in long-established technology than in brand new technology. This is Hamlet's principle: novelty and the unknown puzzle the will and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of. But there are limits to this quirk. If the situation becomes desperate, or if cold fusion costs thousands of times less than conventional energy, people will overcome their fear of it. If it can be shown that whatever the hypothetical hidden risks may be, cold fusion automobiles are apparently far safer than gasoline powered ones, people will use them. After all, US society has not always been so fearful of new ideas and novelty. In the 1950s and 1960s we built nuclear power plants with abandon. Perhaps we were too willing to try out new technology without careful testing! But in any case, cultures and norms change constantly and we may return to that older way of thinking, and older willingness to take changes. We may have no choice. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
Of course the project name is not innocent, 10^100 is also known as 1 googol, whose misspelling as google is claimed to be the origin of the name of the company :) Michel
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:01:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Well, it would still cost hundreds of millions to make it into a practical device. No, that's precisely the difference. CF as it stands rarely yields an excess of more than a few percent (and when it does, no one understands why). That's incorrect on two counts: 1. In recent years devices at Energetics Technology and elsewhere produce much more than a few percent. I said rarely, not never. Yet even a 25 fold output:input ratio pales by comparison to the 1000:1 or better ratio that I expect/hope for. The reason for this ratio BTW is because Hydrinos can achieve the geometric mean between nuclear and chemical energies (I.e. sqrt(1 eV x 1E6 eV) = 1E3 eV), and thus act as a stepping stone to fusion. 2. They know exactly why this is so. That is to say, control factors and necessary conditions have been identified. That is not necessarily the same thing as being certain that the theory is correct. See the section I appended here the other day: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cold_fusion It is this primitive state of affairs which would make it expensive to develop. Obviously these primitive conditions must be overcome before anything can be developed. Overcoming them may cost only of $2 million. For that matter it might cost nothing and be made from some old stuff lying around in Ed's basement, or Mizuno's soon-to-be-closed lab-in-a-broom-closet. There is a more fundamental problem. The NAE in these systems is scarce, because it relies primarily on being created by accident. I intend to mass manufacture it. But you are missing the main point. Even if you come up with a device that produces power 100% of the time with perfect control, someone still has to spend billions of dollars dealing with practical issues such as redesigning automobiles and other products; ensuring consumer safety; and setting up production lines. No. The initial market would be retrofitted large power plants. This would result in cheap electricity, and abundant cheap clean water, essentially anywhere on Earth. With cheap electricity also comes cheap recycling of everything, and with electric cars, (cheap?) clean transportation. In time a cleaner form of fusion directly amenable to personal transportation may follow, but even if it didn't, a golden age would still ensue. These are minor cost compared to the benefit. I am sure that if you could demonstrate a potentially practical device the money to do this sort of Qhing would quickly be forthcoming. But that money will be needed. There is a difference between money for RD, and money for deployment. The latter is always needed, irrespective of the technology. The difference between my design and all the rest is that my RD costs would be trivial by comparison, because I'm not wandering around in the dark trying to guess which part of the elephant I'm holding on to. IOW it will probably either work well (if the theory is correct), or not at all, if it's wrong. Furthermore, the validity of the theory can be discussed beforehand, with no investment at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:05:23 -0600: Hi Ed, [snip] Evidence is growing for several mechanisms to be operating. We know that tritium can be produced on occasion without neutrons. Perhaps, the same mechanism makes neutrons without tritium. [snip] I find this somewhat confusing. The two common DD reactions are: D + D - T + p + 4 MeV (no neutrons) I and D + D - He3 + n + 3.3 MeV (one neutron).II Therefore, if only the first reaction takes place, then it is to be expected that T would be found with no neutrons. The second reaction would make neutrons, but would concurrently produce He3, not Tritium. Granted, in hot fusion, both reactions happen with about equal frequency, hence the concurrent production of both T and neutrons, however I see no reason why there couldn't be a shift in the ratio of the two reactions under the conditions of CF. (This may particularly be true if rather larger Deuterinos are involved, where the internuclear distance severely limits the reaction rate, thus perhaps enhancing any probability difference between the two reactions.) In that case I would expect it to be skewed toward the reaction with the largest energy release, and that is of course the first reaction. IOW I would expect to occasionally see T and protons, but rarely He3 plus neutrons. (It's easier for a neutron from one nucleus to tunnel across the gap to the other nucleus than for a proton to do so, because the neutron doesn't experience the Coulomb barrier - at least that's my simplistic explanation). You can also think of this in Mills' terms: On average in a Deuterino molecule, the nuclei will try to orient themselves such that the two protons are as far apart as possible (even at distance, before tunneling), which puts the two neutrons in the middle when tunneling does occur, preferentially resulting in the formation of T). If the distance between the nuclei gets very small OTOH, then it makes less and less difference, because the short range nuclear force will act without fear or favour, which is what we see with ordinary hot fusion, or with muon catalyzed fusion. Furthermore, in hot fusion the temperatures are so high that the rotational energy of the ions must of necessity also be high. That means that any preference the protons might have for staying as far apart as possible gets largely washed out. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
