On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> * > * > > What it means, of course, is that getting clean cost effective energy from > non-combustion, non fission sources is extremely difficult, and requires > proper funding levels. > That's obviously true of hot fusion. You can't contain a plasma at 100M C for chicken feed. But the reason cold fusion is so attractive is that it's *not* like hot fusion. As it has been described it's not extremely difficult, and should require a minuscule fraction of the funding to demonstrate proof-of-principle. After all, P&F claimed they had demonstrated proof-of-principle in 1989 on their own dime. Now after another 200M for desktop electrolysis experiments, the evidence has not improved at all. > ** > > Conventional science has not only failed society badly in this regard, > many of the recipients of public largess have actively conspired to keep > funding away from alternative solutions. > Well, that's the way the conspiracy theory goes, anyway. > **** > > ** ** > > We cannot really expect the ‘killer paper’ from LENR without a fair > proportion of that $20 billion… > Yes, you can. If it's real. The temperature is 100,000 times lower, so it should be possible with 100,000 time less money, or about 200k. OK, that's a joke, but the scale of the experiment is orders of magnitude smaller. At least 1000 times. And it's gotten more than it's 20 million. The scale of cold fusion is like superconductivity (actually smaller), or graphene, or transistors, or penicillin, or x-rays, or electron diffraction, etc etc. and none of those needed a fair proportion of 20B to arrive at proof-of-principle.
