The error remains in the 2002 edition.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, I got double-whammied:
>
> 1) It was Beaudette that said "100,000 watts per cm^3" (that string is
> outside of the quotation marks meant to designated Preparata's words.
>
> 2) Lynn said "gram" rather than "cm^3" so his correction on comma vs
> period didn't register with me.
>
> Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Perhaps Beaudette corrected that in his 2002 edition. I was reading from
> the 2000 edition.
>
> In any event, the high *reproducibility* of Preparata's work has not yet
> been equaled has it?
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ([1E9 * ounce_troy] * [{12.02 * gramm} / {(centi*meter)^3}]^-1) * ([100 *
>>> {kilo watt}] / [{centi*meter}^3]) ? watt
>>>
>>> = 2.5876415E14 W
>>>
>>> over 200 terawatts.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, I think Preparata meant "100" not 100,000. The comma is a
>> decimal point. I do not understand why he added 3 digits of precision to a
>> rough approximation. Anyway, that comes to 0.2 TW, which is about 1/100 of
>> world energy production. Fleischmann once estimated that Pd can supply
>> about 1/3 of total energy. I confirmed it is in that ballpark, ~30% to ~50%.
>>
>> Here is my estimation.
>>
>> I assume that power density and temperature with palladium can be
>> increased to the limits of the material. That is to say up to the highest
>> temperatures in which thin-film palladium can survive. Or nanoparticles in
>> aerogel, or what-have-you. The limiting factor is how thinly you can spread
>> the palladium and have it remain on the substrate and in contact with the
>> medium, which will probably be D2 gas.
>>
>> About half of palladium nowadays is used in catalytic converters. Hot gas
>> from internal combustion engines flows over the palladium surface and is
>> catalyzed. I assume this technology is pushed to the limit. They use the
>> smallest amount palladium they can, spreading it as thinly as they can with
>> maximum exposure to the moving gas. A palladium based cold fusion cell
>> would have palladium spread roughly as thin as this, producing temperatures
>> roughly as high as this. If they could make in any thinner, they would.
>> This technology has been around for a while and it is probably mature.
>>
>> Nearly all of the energy from an automobile is wasted as hot gas. In
>> other words, the hot gas that passes over the palladium surface is roughly
>> equal to the total amount of energy produced by gasoline in the
>> transportation sector. To put it another way, if the heat was being
>> produced by the palladium inside the catalytic converter, instead of coming
>> from the engine to the converter, you would get nearly as much energy as
>> you get from gasoline now.
>>
>> To simplify a great deal, assuming that cold fusion can achieve the same
>> temperatures as palladium experiences in a catalytic converter, half of our
>> palladium could produce roughly as much energy as the entire automotive
>> transportation sector does now: 27 out of 99 quads. All of our palladium
>> could therefore produce roughly 50 out of 99 quads.
>>
>> Actually the number is higher for various reasons:
>>
>> * The palladium is not used up as quickly in a cold fusion device as it
>> is in a catalytic converter.
>>
>> * The palladium is more easily and completely recovered from a used cold
>> fusion cell, assuming it is not transmuted.
>>
>> * Palladium production will be increased as demand increases.
>>
>> This is a crude estimate but I believe it does show that there is not
>> enough palladium to produce all the energy we need. If it turns out
>> palladium is the only suitable metal, we would have large centralized
>> generators producing most of our energy, supplying it as electricity for
>> use in electric cars and so on. We would not actually put the palladium in
>> automobiles, and probably not in houses either.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
