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 R&D, 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 R&D 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]>
