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]>
