At 12:16 PM 7/19/01, Andy wrote:
>On 19 Jul 2001, at 9:23, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > > >If you are talking about muon catalyst, then it is theoretically
> > possible,
> > > >but devilishly tricky.
> > > >
> > > >Dan M.
> > >
> > >
> > > Except that no one has figured out how get more energy from the
> > > fusion reactions that muon can catalyze during its lifetime of a
> > > couple of
> > hundred
> > > nanoseconds or so than it takes to create the muon in the first
> > > place . .
> >
> > Right. On paper it can be done. The other can't even be done on
> > paper. I'm not holding my breath for it, I rate it as a low
> > probability, but still orders of magnitude above cold fusion in a jar.
>
>I still think plasma reactors are the best bet if we;re talking about
>theortical power sources. Last I heard, they were about breaking
>even with them in terms of energy, but still couldn't manage to
>stabilise them for long periods of time.
Yes, we agree that those are the most likely source of fusion power.
The reason we are discussing "cold fusion" is that someone brought it up,
and Dan and I were pointing out why it doesn't work.
-- Ronn! :)
